Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation)
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 03:56:05PM +0200, ox wrote:
so, still, there has been no objections to the verification process - if you have an objection to the process or would like to contribute an improvement, please do so Sascha?
OK, so for the avoidance of doubt among the trolls and the rules lawyers: 1) I object to the verification process proposals as floated on this list and i 2) I stand by my interpretation of the IA as stating that the NCC has no mandate to impose arbitrary hoops on members to jump through. Have I made myself sufficiently clear? On a further note, there is a discussion in the DB-WG with the goal of enabling delegation of more specific abuse-c for assigned or sub-allocated resources. The verification process, if implemented, should take care not to conflict with this. rgds, Sascha Luck
On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 14:26:47 +0000 "Sascha Luck [ml]" <aawg@c4inet.net> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 03:56:05PM +0200, ox wrote:
so, still, there has been no objections to the verification process - if you have an objection to the process or would like to contribute an improvement, please do so Sascha?
OK, so for the avoidance of doubt among the trolls and the rules lawyers:
1) I object to the verification process proposals as floated on this list and i 2) I stand by my interpretation of the IA as stating that the NCC has no mandate to impose arbitrary hoops on members to jump through.
Have I made myself sufficiently clear?
Not really. I am not so worried about you claiming that there is no mandate for arbitrary hoops, as that is quite clearly how you feel. What will be really helpful is if you say why you object to verifying abuse-c email addresses. Maybe I am missing something, is there any real or reasonable reason why abuse-c should not be verified? Or are you simply objecting to a specific process? Or are you objecting because a process is even being discussed? See what I mean? not really clear at all :( Kind Regards Andre
participants (2)
-
ox -
Sascha Luck [ml]