> From: anti-abuse-wg-request@ripe.net
> Subject: anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 12, Issue 16
> To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
> Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 12:00:02 +0200
>
> Send anti-abuse-wg mailing list submissions to
> anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/anti-abuse-wg
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> anti-abuse-wg-request@ripe.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> anti-abuse-wg-owner@ripe.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of anti-abuse-wg digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. 2011-06 Move to Last Call (Abuse Contact Management in the
> RIPE NCC Database) (Brian Nisbet)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 08:55:07 +0100
> From: Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie>
> Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] 2011-06 Move to Last Call (Abuse Contact
> Management in the RIPE NCC Database)
> To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
> Message-ID: <5031ED5B.6090905@heanet.ie>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Colleagues,
>
> RIPE Proposal 2011-06 (Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE NCC
> Database) has reached the end of its extended Review Phase and a
> decision must now be made regarding the next steps. I (Tobias, as the
> main proposer, has, as agreed & discussed stepped back from his co-chair
> duties on this one) have gone through the various mails and discussions
> from the the review phase, a short summary of which is below.
>
> I feel that the main thrust of the discussion on 2011-06 gave support to
> the proposal.
>
> The initial discussion phase lead to a redrafting of the proposal and
> some questions over the mandatory nature of the attribute and the future
> of the IRTs. It was also clarified that while there may be further
> output from the ACM-TF and/or further proposals in this space, 2011-06
> was considered to be standalone.
>
> The second version was published on 16th April 2012, addressing, I
> believe, a number of points raised during the initial discussion phase.
> Some objections remained, such as opinions on the mandatory nature of
> the object and the lack of a wider plan.
>
> In May 2012 it was decided to go ahead and move the proposal to Review
> Phase, during which the RIPE NCC presented their impact analysis. This
> gave rise to discussion regarding the future of the IRT object. I
> believe that it has been clarified that while the NCC will put plans in
> place to deal with the decommissioning of the IRT object, they will, of
> course, only do so if the community proposes this. They have
> acknowledged that 2011-06 does not contain this proposal and so no
> action regarding the IRT object will be taken on foot of this proposal.
> I believe that the wider IRT community are happy with this.
>
> There was relatively little discussion during Review Phase, so it was
> extended for a further four weeks. During this time a number of
> objections were restated (mandatory nature and data protection issues)
> and discussed and a few new expressions of support were made.
>
> Overall it appears that there are three sustained objections to the
> proposal and twelve clear expressions of support. The opinion of some
> members of the list (who have commented) is unclear, however I feel
> there is sufficient consensus to move this proposal to Last Call.
>
> Emilio will made the formal announcement from the RIPE NCC PDO.
>
> If you disagree with this interpretation, please let me know.
>
> Brian
> Co-Chair, Anti-Abuse WG
>
>
>
> End of anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 12, Issue 16
> *********************************************