[anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02

Malcolm (and, indeed, Sascha),

I did not intent to be flippant in my answer. I apologise that it came across in that way. It was meant as a genuine attempt to gain better understanding of the basis for the objection, not an attempt to dismiss or mischaracterise, although I can understand that it came across in that way.

I believe the points that Marco and I have made still stand in regards to the possible outcome of not adhering to this policy and whether that is a change or a valid reason for objection. 

Thank,

Brian
Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG




Brian Nisbet 
Network Operations Manager
HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network
1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland
+35316609040 brian.nisbet at heanet.ie www.heanet.ie
Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net>
> Sent: Friday 16 March 2018 09:28
> To: Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet at heanet.ie>; anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
> 
> On 16/03/2018 08:59, Brian Nisbet wrote:
> >> Nothing, and I didn't state that it was. The problem is that, once
> >> accepted, the implementation is out of the hands of this community or
> >> indeed everyone bar the NCC Board. They can make it as onerous and
> >> oppressive as they want.
> > Ah, ok, my apologies. So, because I'd like to be clear here, you are
> objecting to this proposal on the basis of something that may or may not
> happen in the future?
> >
> 
> Brian,
> 
> As a matter of principle I must object to that as a completely unfair
> mischaracterisation of what Sascha just said.
> 
> To object to a proposal "on the basis of something that may or may not
> happen in the future" makes it sound speculative, and thus unreasonable.
> 
> To object to a proposal on the basis that it *authorises* something
> undesirable to happen is perfectly reasonable; such an objection is on the
> basis that the measure before us would transfer the decision as to whether
> that thing should happen from us to (in this case) the NCC.
> That's something that is happening now, not something in the future.
> 
> You may disagree with Sascha as to whether 2017-02 does in fact authorise
> the NCC to do something undesirable, but it's not fair to rule out his concerns
> merely because the supposedly undesirable outcome is only authorised
> rather than required.
> 
> I think it really important that we recognise that when authorising the NCC to
> act, it is a legitimate objection to say that we wouldn't want them to exercise
> that authority in a particular way, and the scope of what is authorised ought
> to be limited in some way. I am far more concerned about that as a principle
> than I am about the outcome for this proposal in particular.
> 
> Kind Regards,
> 
> Malcolm.
> 
> --
>             Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
>    Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog  London Internet
> Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
> 
>                  London Internet Exchange Ltd
>            Monument Place, 24 Monument Street London EC3R 8AJ
> 
>          Company Registered in England No. 3137929
>        Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA