What is there to oppose about 2017-02?

A completely ineffective policy, that doesn't even need to be a policy, that doesn't solve any of the original stated issues, which does nothing to change the system as is, which does NOTHING to verify abuse attributes, and you're bitching about it?

You remind me of the national rifle association in the USA. 30 people get killed in a school, and asking for a basic background check for a firearm purchaser is simply too much to ask for.



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
From: "Sascha Luck [ml]" <aawg@c4inet.net>
Date: Fri, March 16, 2018 4:03 am
To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 03:33:42PM +0100, Sander Steffann wrote:
>This proposal is a first step to catch low hanging fruit. Yes: there are many things that can (should) be improved, but getting consensus on these controversial topics is difficult. So the proposers are taking it one step at a time. Based on the discussion on this mailing list those steps apparently have to be very small, but at least there is the possibility of movement :)

Correctly and perfectly summarised. A textbook example of
early-stage frog-boiling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog

The road to oppressive and onerous regulation is taken a small
step at a time in the 21st century and that's why it is important
to resist such attempts NOW while it is possible to do so without
great personal sacrifice.

For the avoidance of doubt, the above constitutes (continuing)
opposition to 2017-02.

rgds,
Sascha Luck