This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net/
[anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02 New Policy Proposal (Regular abuse-c Validation)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02 New Policy Proposal (Regular abuse-c Validation)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02 New Policy Proposal (Regular abuse-c Validation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nick Hilliard
nick at foobar.org
Thu Sep 14 14:25:55 CEST 2017
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > I am sure an impact assessment would work – my point was that a lot > of the criticism so far has been jumping to conclusions over the > impact. That's not an unreasonable comment, but the flip side is also true: the policy makes an a-priori assumption that this is the best approach for dealing with abuse contact management in the circumstances, without providing or considering any evidence for or against. Nick
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02 New Policy Proposal (Regular abuse-c Validation)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02 New Policy Proposal (Regular abuse-c Validation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]