[anti-abuse-wg] Proposal 2019-03 BGP Hijacking

Thank you, yes, we did before. 😊

If what I wrote on the 25th of March is unclear, please let me know. To repeat, messages of support are useful and indicative, but they do not carry an argument.

Thanks,

Brian
Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG

Brian Nisbet
Service 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

From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net> On Behalf Of Töma Gavrichenkov
Sent: Saturday 30 March 2019 10:08
To: Carlos Friaças <cfriacas at fccn.pt>
Cc: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Proposal 2019-03 BGP Hijacking

On Sat, Mar 30, 2019, 10:23 AM Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net<mailto:anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net>> wrote:
Do supporters need to specify which parts of the proposal's text are more
meaningful for them?

Perhaps one of the Chairs can shed some light.

They in fact have done that before. To quote:

---- start ----

From: Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet at heanet.ie<mailto:brian.nisbet at heanet.ie>>
Date: Mon, Mar 25, 2019, 10:12 AM
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)

[..] To clarify, the discussion on this proposal is a discussion, not a vote. When judging consensus the Co-Chairs will look at the points made during the discussion, not count the +1s. Of course it is useful to get a feeling for general agreement, so simple statements of support or dissent are very useful, but they are not the core of the thing.

---- end ----

--
Töma
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20190401/7566b445/attachment.html>