[anti-abuse-wg] WHOIS (AS204224)

If you can tell me just how a consensus at APWG and MAAWG, say, or on various actually security focused lists, that the RIPE community needs policy changes is going to make an iota of difference to what policies get implemented by RIPE NCC

Right now, most other lists that I see this thread start up on, there are a few people who defend RIPE NCC - and a lot of people who dump on it for this kind of thing.   I haven’t seen any difference being made by any of this, and I’ve seen such threads over the past few years, on different fora.   

The exact converse applies, however, in a RIPE meeting or in the AAWG, where the defenders of RIPE are many, and people criticizing it pitifully few in number, and occasionally, like RFG, rather noisy in nature, which doesn’t quite help but which is not quite relevant to the continual problem RIPE NCC has with criminals gaming their systems while staying perfectly within whatever restrictions are in place.

—srs

> On 03-Nov-2015, at 7:19 PM, Sascha Luck [ml] <aawg at c4inet.net> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 07:13:17PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>> 
>> I would actually prefer any such proposal to come from within
>> the regular RIPE community, rather than from one of us
>> outsiders.
> 
> For once I agree completely. If this goes to an actual proposal,
> this needs to be in APWG as it would be:
> 
> a) address policy b) affecting the entire community
> 
> Any contractual changes will also need membership approval via GM
> vote anyway.
> 
> rgds,
> Sascha Luck
>