<html><body><div>So he has no basis of objection, but don't even think of implementing something that might actually go towards helping the internet in the future, because it's a slippery slope and Adolf Hitler 2.0 will reign supreme, even though this proposal (as it turned out) does absolutely nothing to verify abuse mailbox attributes, but the mere fact this has come up as discussion is incredibly dangerous, because it shows there might be someone within any of the LIR who is acknowledging that maybe they are responsible for the internet being a shit hole, and that simply cannot happen, because then resource owners might actually have to do some work. What a horrible thought.</div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div> <blockquote id="replyBlockquote" webmail="1" style="border-left: 2px solid blue; margin-left: 8px; padding-left: 8px; font-size:10pt; color:black; font-family:verdana;"> <div id="wmQuoteWrapper"> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02 From: "Sascha Luck [ml]" <<a href="mailto:aawg@c4inet.net">aawg@c4inet.net</a>> Date: Sat, March 17, 2018 1:48 am To: Brian Nisbet <<a href="mailto:brian.nisbet@heanet.ie">brian.nisbet@heanet.ie</a>> Cc: "<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>> On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 08:59:55AM +0000, Brian Nisbet wrote: >Ah, ok, my apologies. So, because I'd like to be clear here, you are objecting to this proposal on the basis of something that may or may not happen in the future? If you want to be uncharitable, yes. However, this is the *last* point at which it is even *possible* for me to object to what I see as a dangerous slippy slope. >Ok, but do you have any issues with 2017-02 as written, bearing in mind what Marco and myself have already said about the policies around non-adherence to RIPE policies? > Yes, it adds another thing to an already long list of things that can trigger a monopoly provider to deny service to its (involuntary) customers. If you're determined to manufacture consensus by declaring an entire class of objections, to whit: medium to long term consequences of such a proposal, out of bounds; there is not much I can do. The record will show I've made my stand and history shall judge. rgds, Sascha Luck >> Also one point I raised remains so far entirely unaddressed - why does a >> proposal and its implementation plan prescribe the use of email (in 2018!) for >> contact information? > >As always, if you wish to propose something that involves other media, please do. But at present, this is the medium in use. > >Thanks, > >Brian >Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: anti-abuse-wg <<a href="mailto:anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net">anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net</a>> On Behalf Of >> >> Sascha Luck [ml] >> >> Sent: Thursday 15 March 2018 17:04 >> >> To: <a href="mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net">anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net</a> >> >> Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02 >> >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 03:33:42PM +0100, Sander Steffann wrote: >> >> >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 :) >> >> >> >> Correctly and perfectly summarised. A textbook example of early-stage >> >> frog- boiling. >> >> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog</a> >> >> >> >> The road to oppressive and onerous regulation is taken a small step >> >> at a time in the 21st century and that's why it is important to >> >> resist such attempts NOW while it is possible to do so without great >> personal sacrifice. >> >> >> >> For the avoidance of doubt, the above constitutes (continuing) >> >> opposition to 2017-02. >> >> >> >> rgds, >> >> Sascha Luck >> >> >> > </div> </blockquote></body></html>