[anti-abuse-wg] WHOIS (AS204224)

On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 07:25:44PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>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

APWG is the address-policy wg mailing list, the main RIPE list for
anything to do with resource policy, so yes, it is relevant. 
Any lists outside the RIPE WGs are rather not.

>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.

This is probably mostly because the vast majority in the RIPE WG
lists and certainly the meetings are the membership of the NCC.
The NCC is not some authority set over us, *we* are the NCC. We
fund its services through membership fees, we elect the board, we
try to find the best balance of policy for *all* its members as
well as the wider RIPE community. We are the network operators
and we tend to have experience with all facets of LIR operations,
rather than just security or abuse handling.
So yeah, in the opinion of this member, we are doing the best
job possible given all these factors.

rgds,
Sascha Luck