[anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02 New Policy Proposal (Regular abuse-c Validation)

In either case the numbers will speak for themselves and any comments without seeing them are going to be premature.

Never mind the RIPE NCC staff effort costing – does someone have numbers on the # of ASNs with invalid abuse-c information, and whether there are significant clusters of such ASNs downstream of individual ISPs / LIRs?  

--srs

On 14/09/17, 5:56 PM, "Nick Hilliard" <nick at foobar.org> wrote:

    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