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/ncc-services-wg@ripe.net/
[ncc-services-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] 2013-01 New Policy Proposal (Openness about Policy Violations)
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] 2013-01 New Policy Proposal (Openness about Policy Violations)
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] 2013-01 New Policy Proposal (Openness about Policy Violations)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sander Steffann
sander at steffann.nl
Mon Feb 18 07:55:22 CET 2013
Hi Sascha, >> I didn't really expect everyone to agree to the current text. But I did >> not expect such language and comparisons on this list, and it shocked >> me. As one of the proposers I ask you to please participate in a >> constructive discussion here to see what is possible and desirable and >> what is not. > > if you were under the impression I was attacking you personally, I > apologize, that was not my intent. [...] Thanks. Let's start focussing on the proposal again :-) > as for what is possible, I've thought more on it and have formend the > opinion that the only thing out of it, I could accept, is publication > of the fects if a complaint was upheld *and* resources removed for > cause. Your comment is still focused on one aspect of the draft text, but you haven't responded yet to any alternatives I proposed. The last one was the one I sent on Saturday: I want to suggest the following direction for this proposal: Change section 1 (1. Transparency on reported policy violations) to: - RIPE NCC publishes statistics on complaints/reports (number of complaints in each state: new, under investigation, etc) - RIPE NCC provides a way for the complainer and resource holder to see the progress, keeping the currently existing privacy options And leave section 2 (2. Transparency on reclaimed resources) as it currently is. I haven't seen any objections to that part yet. Please focus on this suggestion now. It is obvious that we are never getting consensus on the 'old' text :-) Thanks, Sander
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] 2013-01 New Policy Proposal (Openness about Policy Violations)
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] 2013-01 New Policy Proposal (Openness about Policy Violations)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]