<html 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=Windows-1252"> <meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"> <style></style> </head> <body lang="EN-IN" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"> <div class="WordSection1"> All I am asking is that cobblers stick to their last. People with backgrounds in routing and networking are not necessarily the people in their organizations that handle abuse issues. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Unless by extension you want your mailserver and spam filter people getting enable on your routers, or you want to go and filter spam for example.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm"> From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net> Date: Monday, 11 May 2020 at 10:48 PM To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> On Sat, May 09, 2020 at 11:56:58AM +0000, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >In a case where the community is polarised to this extent it would be better to break with procedure and call a vote for once. With member organizations represented by their abuse team heads, rather than IP / routing people, so that the organisation’s stance on this is clear. In the words of Lord Hoffman: " I find it difficult to express with appropriate moderation my disagreement with the proposition" Not only do you propose the abolition of the PDP, you want to also limit the "electorate" to such as are more likely to be sympathetic to your cause. I don't even know how to respond to this without invoking Godwin's Law or similar, so I'll stop here. rgds, Sascha Luck > >From: Gert Doering <gert@space.net> >Date: Saturday, 9 May 2020 at 3:57 PM >To: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists@gmail.com> >Cc: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>, anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> >Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox") >Hi, > >On Sat, May 09, 2020 at 01:12:32AM +0000, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> Has this even been put to a vote or is it the same group of extremely vocal RIPE regulars against it and the same group of extremely vocal security types for it? Rough consensus has its limitations in such cases. > >There is no voting. > >It's either "there is sufficient support and counterarguments have been >adequately addressed" or "no consensus, rewrite or withdraw". > >Gert Doering > -- NetMaster >-- >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<o:p></o:p> </div> </div> </body> </html>