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] 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] [anti-abuse-wg] 2013-01 New Policy Proposal (Openness about Policy Violations)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Peter Koch
pk at DENIC.DE
Mon Feb 18 13:32:03 CET 2013
Sander, all, On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 07:55:22AM +0100, Sander Steffann wrote: > Thanks. Let's start focussing on the proposal again :-) for the record, so that there's not only one voice against, I share Sascha's concerns. The proposal fails to assess the risk of 'sticking rumor' and also fails to explain what the exact goal is (actually, there might be two radically orthogonal ones) and why the proposed measures would support that goal. > 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 :-) I see two motivations in the PP: 1) alleged or perceived intransparency on 'complaint' handling at the NCC As curious as I might be myself, I fail to see why a complainant would deserve deeper insight into the state of investigation than anybody else or why this should happen in public. As an NCC oversight issue, a summary that will not identify any particular case, should be sufficient if it included start, end and duration. 2) "stopping abuse of these shared public resources" This really concerns me, but maybe by even only doubting I have already committed the abuse? We can surely discuss violations of allocation/assignment policies, especially the obtainment of resources by wilful submisison of wrong, forged or falsified information, but this is much different from any judgement about the use of tehse resources once they have been compliantly acquired. The NCC is not in the business of the latter. -Peter
- 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] [anti-abuse-wg] 2013-01 New Policy Proposal (Openness about Policy Violations)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]