On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 12:34:56PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
there (formal policy proposal in anti-abuse?).
NO. Please NO. put any such proposals in apwg, where they belong. I cannot be that address policy that affects *every* member is made on a mailing list that few people read (largely due to the noise and regular incoherent ranting). I would consider any "consensus" reached in this way invalid. It's the equivalent of approving ACTA at 2am in the Fisheries Commission session (yup, that happened) I would also note that the only WG whose charter explicitly permits policy-making is address-policy and I think that was the intention. (ergo the above goes for any other "special interest" WG as well.
OTOH, the existing contracts people need to sign *do* contain clauses that resource holders will abide "all RIPE policies" (or such), so
Indeed and penalties for non-compliance exist. rgds, Sascha Luck