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

HI Randy

On 07/03/2016 15:47, Randy Bush wrote:
> [ contains question to NCC ]
>
>> I have not seen one opinion clearly stating that abuse is not an issue
>> and that they do not care about abuse.
>
> the american idiom is "primrose path."  it looks good at the start but
> you end up regretting walking it.  there are many issues of concern to
> operators.

This is NOT about concerns for operators. It is about concerns for uses 
of the internet who feel abused. You are looking at it from the wrong side.


> i would love to see a *usable* way to report a vulnerability
> in your network, a routing issue, ...  but i know this ain't gonna work.
>
> what data do the ncc need to do its job.  tech and admin.
>
> but, let's not make assertions of others' needs.
>
> NCC, to run the registry, do you need/want more than admin and tech?

I think you are confusing RIPE with RIPE NCC. In this thread we are 
discussing a RIPE policy. If the community decides they want abuse-c on 
all resources, the RIPE NCC will implement the policy. To some extent 
the views of the RIPE NCC at this stage are not relevant. They don't 
decide on the policy. This question you are asking is a policy question 
to be decided by the community not the RIPE NCC.

cheers
denis


>
> randy
>