<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> <meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"> <style></style> </head> <body lang="EN-IE" link="blue" vlink="purple"> <div class="WordSection1"> Hi,<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I haven’t given an exhaustive list of all of the emails sent, but they are all in the archive. I believe I have covered some of the main points below. While I don’t feel a number of them are valid, as discussed, they were stated as initial reasons for objection.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Given my statements below I now wish people to either clarify their reasons for objection or say they no longer object or something in between.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> We’ll then review this at the end of the current phase.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Thanks,<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Brian<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <div> Brian Nisbet <o:p></o:p> Network Operations Manager<o:p></o:p> HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network<o:p></o:p> 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland<o:p></o:p> +35316609040 brian.nisbet@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie<o:p></o:p> Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270<o:p></o:p> </div> <o:p> </o:p> <div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4.0pt"> <div> <div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm"> From: Name <phishing@storey.xxx> Sent: Tuesday 13 March 2018 01:28 To: Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie>; anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: SPAM-heanet-- RE: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02 & Next Steps<o:p></o:p> </div> </div> <o:p> </o:p> <div> "we do not believe rough consensus has been reached."<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> <div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> <div> Who spoke out against it, and what did they say? I haven't seen anything that says that consensus has not been reached.<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> <div> What does "consensus" look like?<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> <div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> <div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> <blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:6.0pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt" id="replyBlockquote"> <div id="wmQuoteWrapper"> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02 & Next Steps From: Brian Nisbet <<a href="mailto:brian.nisbet@heanet.ie">brian.nisbet@heanet.ie</a>> Date: Mon, March 12, 2018 11:57 pm To: "<a href="mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net">anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net</a>" <<a href="mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net">anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net</a>> Colleagues, We've been thinking about this for some time and attempting to find a way through the various comments and messages in regards to 2017-02. We believe the best option at this point is to extend the review phase of this proposal for a further 4 weeks as we do not believe rough consensus has been reached. However we also do not believe that there has been sufficient clear argument to reject the proposal. We think that during this time it would be useful if those who engaged in the discussion but did not express a preference could do so. It would also be useful if those who commented on the first version of the proposal, especially those who objected, still objected after the second version was published. It should also be noted that the NCC have laid out the method by which they would plan to implement this proposal, so we do not believe that discussion around alternative methods nor additional checks is germane. It is also clear that the ARC will be used in conjunction with the automated checks. It is also clear that this will not require "make work" from any admins to answer. Finally we need to address the objections around the possible implications of organisations *not* following this policy. It is clear that 2017-02 does not attempt to introduce any additional processes nor change how the NCC would act in cases where policies are not followed. We believe this has been clarified. If members of the community have an issue with these procedures then we think that's a separate discussion, rather than a valid reason to object to 2017-02 Other than those listed above, there was a feeling expressed that this will not make any meaningful difference. Both the RIPE NCC and the proposers have said that this work to improve the quality of data will be greatly appreciated. We would also mention that policies can be further amended in the future. So, if everyone could take a look at the latest version of 2017-02 again that would be appreciated. If you have already stated your support there is no need to do so. If you are opposed, then please consider the above and the various discussions and see if you are still opposed to this version of the proposal. If so, can you please state which reasons for opposition have not been clarified nor resolved. Obviously if you haven't stated a preference either way, as I mention above, this is your opportunity to do so! Thanks, 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 <a href="mailto:brian.nisbet@heanet.ie">brian.nisbet@heanet.ie</a> <a href="http://www.heanet.ie"> www.heanet.ie</a> Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270 <o:p></o:p> </div> </blockquote> </div> </div> </body> </html>