<html><body><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#000; font-size:12pt;"><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 12pt; font-family: verdana, geneva;">What is there to oppose about 2017-02?</div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 12pt; font-family: verdana, geneva;"><br></div><div style=""><font face="verdana, geneva" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 12pt;">A completely ineffective policy, that doesn't even need to be a policy, that doesn't solve any of the original stated issues, which does nothing to change the system as is, which does </font><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 18pt;" mce_style="font-size: 18pt;">NOTHING</span><font face="verdana, geneva" style=""><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> to verify abuse </span><span style="font-size: 16px;">attributes</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;">, and you're bitching about it?</span></font></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 12pt; font-family: verdana, geneva;"><br></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 12pt; font-family: verdana, geneva;">You remind me of the national rifle association in the USA. 30 people get killed in a school, and asking for a basic background check for a firearm purchaser is simply too much to ask for.</div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 12pt; font-family: verdana, geneva;"><br></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 12pt; font-family: verdana, geneva;"><br></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 12pt; font-family: verdana, geneva;"><br></div>
<blockquote id="replyBlockquote" webmail="1" style="color: black; font-size: 10pt; font-family: verdana; border-left: 2px solid blue; margin-left: 8px; padding-left: 8px;">
<div id="wmQuoteWrapper">
-------- Original Message --------<br>
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02<br>
From: "Sascha Luck [ml]" <<a href="mailto:aawg@c4inet.net">aawg@c4inet.net</a>><br>
Date: Fri, March 16, 2018 4:03 am<br>
To: <a href="mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net">anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net</a><br>
<br>
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 03:33:42PM +0100, Sander Steffann wrote:<br>
>This proposal is a first step to catch low hanging fruit. Yes: there are many things that can (should) be improved, but getting consensus on these controversial topics is difficult. So the proposers are taking it one step at a time. Based on the discussion on this mailing list those steps apparently have to be very small, but at least there is the possibility of movement :)<br>
<br>
Correctly and perfectly summarised. A textbook example of<br>
early-stage frog-boiling.<br>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog</a><br>
<br>
The road to oppressive and onerous regulation is taken a small<br>
step at a time in the 21st century and that's why it is important<br>
to resist such attempts NOW while it is possible to do so without<br>
great personal sacrifice. <br>
<br>
For the avoidance of doubt, the above constitutes (continuing)<br>
opposition to 2017-02.<br>
<br>
rgds,<br>
Sascha Luck<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote></span></body></html>