2013-01 New Policy Proposal (Openness about Policy Violations)
To prevent abuse and to give the holder a fair chance to resolve any policy violation before the report is published there has to be a time for a reply of four weeks. If the holder has resolved all problems before expiration of the deadline, the report is not published. Best regards Carsten Brückner
To prevent abuse and to give the holder a fair chance to resolve any policy violation before the report is published there has to be a time for a reply of four weeks. If the holder has resolved all problems before expiration of the deadline, the report is not published. Best regards Carsten Brückner
Hi all, (citing from the proposal)
The RIPE NCC will handle all such reports and update the state accordingly.
What I miss, is a state like 'closed, violation took place, ressource not (yet) returned' Otherwise it looks like the whole "returning" comes down to listing the ressource in the 'returned'-file. What happens if the ressource holder is "guilty" but does not want to return the ressources? Does returning mean, we all stop peering/announcing/whatever with the listed ressources? How can we re-allocate the ressources, when someone still uses it (against the ruling of RIPE NCC)? These questions are more technically, because I haven't understood fully how the whole process is meant to work. For the sake of transparency, I'd like to see - Date submitted; - The resources the report is about; - A short summary from RIPE NCC (2-3 lines) [not the initial report] published for alle reports that have the state 'closed,resources-returned'. Furthermore, if the ressource holder agrees, we should publish 'closed,no violation', 'closed,out of scope', 'closed,resolved by holder' reports, too. Just to make sure that subsequent reports will not report the same issue again and again. Best regards Dan -- Dan Luedtke http://www.danrl.de
participants (1)
-
Brückner, Carsten (BIT A 5) -
Dan Luedtke -
LIR (BIT A 5)