[anti-abuse-wg] [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation)

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 03:56:05PM +0200, ox wrote:
>so, still, there has been no objections to the verification process -
>if you have an objection to the process or would like to contribute an
>improvement, please do so Sascha?

OK, so for the avoidance of doubt among the trolls and the rules
lawyers: 

1) I object to the verification process proposals as floated on this
list and i
2) I stand by my interpretation of the IA as stating that
the NCC has no mandate to impose arbitrary hoops on members to
jump through.

Have I made myself sufficiently clear?

On a further note, there is a discussion in the DB-WG with the goal
of enabling delegation of more specific abuse-c for assigned or 
sub-allocated resources. The verification process, if
implemented, should take care not to conflict with this.

rgds,
Sascha Luck