Re: [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 12, Issue 16
Brian,
From my side a full support for the proposal. Without any obligations the proposal may never work as foreseen.
And I would like to stress that Jerry Upton wrote on behalf of M3AAWG and in function as director, so representing the M3AAWG members. Looking at who those members are, I venture to see this as a very large support on behalf of the proposal. Best, Wout
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 *********************************************
Wout, Wout de Natris wrote the following on 20/08/2012 11:20:
Brian,
From my side a full support for the proposal. Without any obligations the proposal may never work as foreseen.
And I would like to stress that Jerry Upton wrote on behalf of M3AAWG and in function as director, so representing the M3AAWG members. Looking at who those members are, I venture to see this as a very large support on behalf of the proposal.
Thanks for that, however it should be noted that the mailing list is made up of individuals. While Jerry's email was noted as coming from M3AAWG and it is good that the group are involved in what we're doing here, the email carries the same weight, from a consensus point of view, as any other comment on the proposal. This is the same across all RIPE Working Groups. Brian.
+1 to what Wout said. Based on the M3AAWG endorsement of this proposal, it has support from the largest ISPs and messaging providers from around the world. +1 to the proposal from me personally. --srs On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Wout de Natris <denatrisconsult@hotmail.nl> wrote:
Brian,
From my side a full support for the proposal. Without any obligations the proposal may never work as foreseen.
And I would like to stress that Jerry Upton wrote on behalf of M3AAWG and in function as director, so representing the M3AAWG members. Looking at who those members are, I venture to see this as a very large support on behalf of the proposal.
Best,
Wout
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 *********************************************
-- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists@gmail.com)
Not currently members of M3AAWG however Emailvision (6bn + email messages per month) also supports this proposal +1 from me personally best Andrew Bonar Deliverability Director Emailvision -----Original Message----- From: anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Suresh Ramasubramanian Sent: 20 August 2012 13:01 To: Wout de Natris Cc: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 12, Issue 16 +1 to what Wout said. Based on the M3AAWG endorsement of this proposal, it has support from the largest ISPs and messaging providers from around the world. +1 to the proposal from me personally. --srs On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Wout de Natris <denatrisconsult@hotmail.nl> wrote:
Brian,
From my side a full support for the proposal. Without any obligations the proposal may never work as foreseen.
And I would like to stress that Jerry Upton wrote on behalf of M3AAWG and in function as director, so representing the M3AAWG members. Looking at who those members are, I venture to see this as a very large support on behalf of the proposal.
Best,
Wout
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 *********************************************
-- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists@gmail.com)
participants (4)
-
Andrew Bonar -
Brian Nisbet -
Suresh Ramasubramanian -
Wout de Natris