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

Hi,

On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 09:17:20AM +0000, Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg wrote:
> Does the PDP specify that expressing support needs to include any specific 
> reason for said support?

This is a question that we have in AP regularily.

My stance as AP WG chair is that it is not required - if a comment is
basically a "I can support <proposal> as it is written, I see the need
to do something, and I agree with <proposal> as the method to do so",
a plain "I support <proposal>" conveys the same message.

*OTOH*, if there is a heated discussion with strong counterarguments, 
and there is no clear consensus emerging, it certainly helps the chairs
and the discussion if the "+1" voices showing up later express why they 
think that "the proposal is good as it stands" while others are so
strongly disagreeing with that.

(And technically, we do not need to reach consensus in discussion phase
- there *should* be "some support from the community" and no "obvious 
killer argument" opposing the proposal, but consensus only needs to be 
reached at the end of the review phase)

So - up to the proposers and chairs to decide whether to move on, and
it certainly *helps* these to judge arguments if arguments are brought
forward...

Gert Doering
        -- speaking from experience as AP chair, not positioned to 
           decide on an anti-abuse policy proposal
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20190330/9e8b1744/attachment.sig>