This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/db-wg@ripe.net/

[db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01

• Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
• Next message (by thread): [db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Nick Hilliard nick at inex.ie
Tue Mar 1 11:17:50 CET 2016

denis wrote:
> There is nothing special about legacy resources or legacy resource 
> holders. They are IP addresses just like all the others. [...] From a
> moral, ethical and community point of view there should be no
> difference in the way either is treated.

These are good principals.

I support 2016-01 for these reasons and because the abuse-c mechanism,
while not perfect, is a good deal better than not having it.

Nick

• Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
• Next message (by thread): [db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

[ db-wg Archives ]