[anti-abuse-wg] WHOIS (AS204224)

Hi Sasha,

>> 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

It actually touches multiple working groups: Anti-abuse, NCC Services, Database and Address Policy. Which working group this belongs in will be decided amongst the chairs of those working groups, and it will probably depend on how the proposal was written. I.e. whether it changes the requirements for getting resources, whether it is written as a database data quality issue, as an anti-fraud thing or as a service from the NCC to the community to keep the database up to date.

But whichever working group takes the lead, we will make sure that all other relevant working groups are informed of where the discussion is taking place!

> Any contractual changes will also need membership approval via GM
> vote anyway.

I don't think any contractual changes are involved here. After all we are only talking about how to enforce things that are already in current policy, and possibly giving the RIPE NCC an extra mandate to do so.

Cheers,
Sander