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

Brian Nisbet wrote:
> I believe the NCC have stated very clearly how incredibly unlikely
> deregistration of resources would be and I honestly don't believe the
> exaggeration for emphasis or otherwise is useful.

this seems to be a statement that just because an extreme policy
compliance enforcement mechanism hasn't been used in the past, it would
be appropriate to maintain it as a compliance enforcement mechanism in
the future for this situation.  This is a deeply non-compelling argument.

The core issue is proportionality. We're talking here about a tickbox
compliance mechanism to further the aims of a fuzzily stated principal
where the authors have taken a potshot at and sunk their own rationale.

The final sanction for non-compliance has - unusually for a RIPE policy
document - been reiterated as termination of contract and withdrawal of
resources.  For most LIRs, this would cause either serious or terminal
operational problems.

There is nothing proportional about this, and because of a gross lack of
proportionality, the policy should not be adopted in its current form.

Nick