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

On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 14:26:47 +0000
"Sascha Luck [ml]" <aawg at c4inet.net> wrote:
> 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?
> 
Not really. 

I am not so worried about you claiming that there is no mandate for arbitrary hoops, as that is quite clearly how you feel. 

What will be really helpful is if you say why you object to verifying abuse-c email addresses. 
Maybe I am missing something, is there any real or reasonable reason why abuse-c should not be verified?

Or are you simply objecting to a specific process? Or are you objecting
because a process is even being discussed? 

See what I mean? not really clear at all :(

Kind Regards

Andre