It doesn't matter, mate. We are all astroturfers eh. +1. On 04/04/19, 10:36 AM, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of ac" <anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net on behalf of ac@main.me> wrote: +1 (and if the +1 is not clear: It means I agree and I have nothing to add. If I am pressed to add a comment, to explain my +1 I would venture to say that I agree with what was said because I know there are very few people actively tracking BGP jacking. I also know that some of those that do track it have spoken out so I agree completely that identifying experts and testimony of actual cases will not be one of the top issues faced by the registry. I hope that my +1 will therefore be accepted as a simple +1 as I have nothing more to add than simply repeating what has been said and stating my agreement thereof. If my +1 is not acceptable or does not count as much, because I have not fully explained my agreement to what was said I would appreciate that being pointed out to myself) On Wed, 03 Apr 2019 19:57:35 +0530 Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists@gmail.com> wrote: > There are very few people who actively track BGP hijacks, the world > over - even among the larger community of network security folks. > > More than one of those individuals is on this mailing list and has > spoken up during the discussion. > > Identifying experts to detect and attest to cases of hijacking will > be the least of RIPE NCC's problems. > > On 03/04/19, 7:50 PM, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of Pavel Vraštiak" > <anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net on behalf of vrastiak@itself.cz> > wrote: > > I, for instance, subscribed to this list to express my support > for the proposal. After reviewing the comments I can say that the > only thing that we can (hopefully) agree on is that BGP hijacks are > generally bad and we would prefer technical solution instead of > policy. > I think that the idea of this proposal is good and I also think > that it could make some small difference (in a good way). The > questionable part is the process of choosing experts and impact on > the RIPE NCC budget. Looking forward to v2.0. > > -- > > Pavel > > On 03. 04. 19 15:21, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 12:52:45PM +0100, Carlos Friaas via > > anti-abuse-wg wrote: > >> Just like a few days ago i wrote that i hoped there wasn't any > >> kind of discrimination against portuguese participants, i hope > >> there isn't also any kind of discrimination against new > >> participants on this WG. > > > > Please provide evidence for your insinuation that anyone here > > discriminates against Portuguese (or any other nationality for > > that matter.) I can't but regard such an insinuation as a cheap > > rhetorical trick. > > > >> I may understand if some people prefer to have less people in > >> the WG, but i'm not part of that set. > >> While worrying about how we can improve rules/tools against > >> Abuse (that's the point of an Anti-Abuse WG, right?), i would > >> also like to see a much larger number of people involved! > > > > I've long argued that all policy should only be discussed in > > ap-wg as I don't think this limited an audience should make > > policy with far-reaching consequences. Alas, everyone wants to > > rule in Hell rather than serve in Heaven. > > > >> If someone has any doubt about if newcomers are real persons, > >> then please Google away. :-) > > > > Well, that gives me: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)#Meatpuppet > > > > So the term "Astroturfing" is technically incorrect as that > > implies fictitious entities with some commercial interest behind > > it. > > Nobody has said that and new participants are always welcome, > > the more know about this the better. > > However: If someone shows up here only to add a "+1" to a > > proposal and is then never heard from again, I don't think their > > support should carry much weight. I trust the chairs to consider > > this, of course. > > > > > > rgds, > > SL > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Wed, 3 Apr 2019, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: > >> > >>> All > >>> > >>> Is someone encouraging astroturfing? > >>> > >>> The number of either new or inactive members of this list who > >>> have posted one line messages in support of the recent policy > >>> discussion has reached insane levels > >>> > >>> Regards > >>> > >>> Michele > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Mr Michele Neylon > >>> Blacknight Solutions > >>> Hosting, Colocation & Domains > >>> https://www.blacknight.com/ > >>> https://blacknight.blog/ > >>> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > >>> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 > >>> Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ > >>> Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ > >>> ------------------------------- > >>> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside > >>> Business Park,Sleaty > >>> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: > >>> 370845 > >>> > >>> > > > > > > > > >
aaargh! now you have gone and done it, look what you have now forced me to do, again: +1 (roflmao) On Thu, 04 Apr 2019 10:50:56 +0530 Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
It doesn't matter, mate. We are all astroturfers eh.
+1.
On 04/04/19, 10:36 AM, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of ac" <anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net on behalf of ac@main.me> wrote:
+1
(and if the +1 is not clear: It means I agree and I have nothing to add. If I am pressed to add a comment, to explain my +1 I would venture to say that I agree with what was said because I know there are very few people actively tracking BGP jacking. I also know that some of those that do track it have spoken out so I agree completely that identifying experts and testimony of actual cases will not be one of the top issues faced by the registry. I hope that my +1 will therefore be accepted as a simple +1 as I have nothing more to add than simply repeating what has been said and stating my agreement thereof. If my +1 is not acceptable or does not count as much, because I have not fully explained my agreement to what was said I would appreciate that being pointed out to myself)
On Wed, 03 Apr 2019 19:57:35 +0530 Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
> There are very few people who actively track BGP hijacks, the > world over - even among the larger community of network > security folks. > > More than one of those individuals is on this mailing list and > has spoken up during the discussion. > > Identifying experts to detect and attest to cases of hijacking > will be the least of RIPE NCC's problems. > > On 03/04/19, 7:50 PM, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of Pavel > Vraštiak" <anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net on behalf of > vrastiak@itself.cz> wrote: > > I, for instance, subscribed to this list to express my > support for the proposal. After reviewing the comments I can > say that the only thing that we can (hopefully) agree on is > that BGP hijacks are generally bad and we would prefer > technical solution instead of policy. > I think that the idea of this proposal is good and I also > think that it could make some small difference (in a good way). > The questionable part is the process of choosing experts and > impact on the RIPE NCC budget. Looking forward to v2.0. > > -- > > Pavel > > On 03. 04. 19 15:21, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 12:52:45PM +0100, Carlos Friaas > > via anti-abuse-wg wrote: > >> Just like a few days ago i wrote that i hoped there > >> wasn't any kind of discrimination against portuguese > >> participants, i hope there isn't also any kind of > >> discrimination against new participants on this WG. > > > > Please provide evidence for your insinuation that anyone > > here discriminates against Portuguese (or any other > > nationality for that matter.) I can't but regard such an > > insinuation as a cheap rhetorical trick. > > > >> I may understand if some people prefer to have less > >> people in the WG, but i'm not part of that set. > >> While worrying about how we can improve rules/tools > >> against Abuse (that's the point of an Anti-Abuse WG, > >> right?), i would also like to see a much larger number > >> of people involved! > > > > I've long argued that all policy should only be discussed > > in ap-wg as I don't think this limited an audience should > > make policy with far-reaching consequences. Alas, > > everyone wants to rule in Hell rather than serve in > > Heaven. > >> If someone has any doubt about if newcomers are real > >> persons, then please Google away. :-) > > > > Well, that gives me: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)#Meatpuppet > > > > So the term "Astroturfing" is technically incorrect as > > that implies fictitious entities with some commercial > > interest behind it. > > Nobody has said that and new participants are always > > welcome, the more know about this the better. > > However: If someone shows up here only to add a "+1" to a > > proposal and is then never heard from again, I don't > > think their support should carry much weight. I trust the > > chairs to consider this, of course. > > > > > > rgds, > > SL > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Wed, 3 Apr 2019, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: > >> > >>> All > >>> > >>> Is someone encouraging astroturfing? > >>> > >>> The number of either new or inactive members of this > >>> list who have posted one line messages in support of > >>> the recent policy discussion has reached insane levels > >>> > >>> Regards > >>> > >>> Michele > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Mr Michele Neylon > >>> Blacknight Solutions > >>> Hosting, Colocation & Domains > >>> https://www.blacknight.com/ > >>> https://blacknight.blog/ > >>> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > >>> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 > >>> Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ > >>> Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ > >>> ------------------------------- > >>> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside > >>> Business Park,Sleaty > >>> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: > >>> 370845 > >>> > >>> > > > > > > > > >
participants (2)
-
ac -
Suresh Ramasubramanian