[anti-abuse-wg] Astroturfing?

aaargh! 

now you have gone and done it, 

look what you have now forced me to do, again:

+1

(roflmao)

On Thu, 04 Apr 2019 10:50:56 +0530
Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists at gmail.com> wrote:

> It doesn't matter, mate. We are all astroturfers eh.
> 
> +1.
> 
> On 04/04/19, 10:36 AM, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of ac"
> <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net on behalf of ac at main.me> wrote:
> 
>     
>     +1
>     
>     (and if the +1 is not clear: It means I agree and I have nothing
> to add. If I am pressed to add a comment, to explain my +1 I would
> venture to say that I agree with what was said because I know there
> are very few people actively tracking BGP jacking. I also know that
> some of those that do track it have spoken out so I agree completely
> that identifying experts and testimony of actual cases will not be
> one of the top issues faced by the registry. I hope that my +1 will
> therefore be accepted as a simple +1 as I have nothing more to add
> than simply repeating what has been said and stating my agreement
> thereof. If my +1 is not acceptable or does not count as much,
> because I have not fully explained my agreement to what was said I
> would appreciate that being pointed out to myself)
>     
>     On Wed, 03 Apr 2019 19:57:35 +0530
>     Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
>     
>     > There are very few people who actively track BGP hijacks, the
>     > world over - even among the larger community of network
>     > security folks.
>     > 
>     > More than one of those individuals is on this mailing list and
>     > has spoken up during the discussion.
>     > 
>     > Identifying experts to detect and attest to cases of hijacking
>     > will be the least of RIPE NCC's problems.
>     > 
>     > On 03/04/19, 7:50 PM, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of Pavel
>     > Vraštiak" <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net on behalf of
>     > vrastiak at itself.cz> wrote:
>     > 
>     >     I, for instance, subscribed to this list to express my
>     > support for the proposal. After reviewing the comments I can
>     > say that the only thing that we can (hopefully) agree on is
>     > that BGP hijacks are generally bad and we would prefer
>     > technical solution instead of policy. 
>     >     I think that the idea of this proposal is good and I also
>     > think that it could make some small difference (in a good way).
>     > The questionable part is the process of choosing experts and
>     > impact on the RIPE NCC budget. Looking forward to v2.0.
>     >     
>     >     -- 
>     >     
>     >     Pavel
>     >     
>     >     On 03. 04. 19 15:21, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:  
>     >     > On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 12:52:45PM +0100, Carlos Friaas
>     >     > via anti-abuse-wg wrote:    
>     >     >> Just like a few days ago i wrote that i hoped there
>     >     >> wasn't any kind of discrimination against portuguese
>     >     >> participants, i hope there isn't also any kind of
>     >     >> discrimination against new participants on this WG.    
>     >     > 
>     >     > Please provide evidence for your insinuation that anyone
>     >     > here discriminates against Portuguese (or any other
>     >     > nationality for that matter.) I can't but regard such an
>     >     > insinuation as a cheap rhetorical trick.
>     >     >     
>     >     >> I may understand if some people prefer to have less
>     >     >> people in the WG, but i'm not part of that set.
>     >     >> While worrying about how we can improve rules/tools
>     >     >> against Abuse (that's the point of an Anti-Abuse WG,
>     >     >> right?), i would also like to see a much larger number
>     >     >> of people involved!    
>     >     > 
>     >     > I've long argued that all policy should only be discussed
>     >     > in ap-wg as I don't think this limited an audience should
>     >     > make policy with far-reaching consequences. Alas,
>     >     > everyone wants to rule in Hell rather than serve in
>     >     > Heaven. 
>     >     >> If someone has any doubt about if newcomers are real
>     >     >> persons, then please Google away. :-)    
>     >     > 
>     >     > Well, that gives me:
>     >     > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)#Meatpuppet
>     >     > 
>     >     > So the term "Astroturfing" is technically incorrect as
>     >     > that implies fictitious entities with some commercial
>     >     > interest behind it.
>     >     > Nobody has said that and new participants are always
>     >     > welcome, the more know about this the better.
>     >     > However: If someone shows up here only to add a "+1" to a
>     >     > proposal and is then never heard from again, I don't
>     >     > think their support should carry much weight. I trust the
>     >     > chairs to consider this, of course.
>     >     > 
>     >     > 
>     >     > rgds,
>     >     > SL    
>     >     >>
>     >     >>
>     >     >>
>     >     >>
>     >     >> On Wed, 3 Apr 2019, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
>     >     >>    
>     >     >>> All
>     >     >>>
>     >     >>> Is someone encouraging astroturfing?
>     >     >>>
>     >     >>> The number of either new or inactive members of this
>     >     >>> list who have posted one line messages in support of
>     >     >>> the recent policy discussion has reached insane levels
>     >     >>>
>     >     >>> Regards
>     >     >>>
>     >     >>> Michele
>     >     >>>
>     >     >>> -- 
>     >     >>> Mr Michele Neylon
>     >     >>> Blacknight Solutions
>     >     >>> Hosting, Colocation & Domains
>     >     >>> https://www.blacknight.com/
>     >     >>> https://blacknight.blog/
>     >     >>> Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
>     >     >>> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
>     >     >>> Personal blog: https://michele.blog/
>     >     >>> Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/
>     >     >>> -------------------------------
>     >     >>> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside
>     >     >>> Business Park,Sleaty
>     >     >>> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland  Company No.:
>     >     >>> 370845
>     >     >>>
>     >     >>>    
>     >     > 
>     >     >     
>     >     
>     >     
>     > 
>     > 
>     >   
>     
>     
>     
> 
>