[anti-abuse-wg] 2016-01 Discussion Period Extended Until 21 June 2016 (Include Legacy Internet Resource Holders in the Abuse-c Policy)

Brian,

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 09:43:59AM +0200, Brian Nisbet wrote:

> Thanks for the contribution, but I would like to remind you and the 
> community that abuse-c is a reality, that policy reached consensus some 
> time ago!

questionable.

> Can we please frame the discussion on this policy in that context, 
> rather than referring to points outside of that scope?

We keep hearing that people "want" this policy just because they
neglect the difference between legacy and RIR space, where there is
a reason that the retroactive application of policy needs justification.
"Don't see", "don't want" or "don't understand" the difference does
not qualify as justification in my books.  So, cf my previous request
<https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/2016-March/003265.html>,
can the proponents please respond accordingly?

Thanks,
  Peter