Just curious... How many of you folks have actually read sections 4.0, 5.0, and 6.0 of this pending proposal from the Database Working Group? https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2022-01 I suspect that many of you are going to want to read those sections before you have your memberships revoked for non-compliance. Regards, rfg
Hi, please see inline. On Thu, 23 Jun 2022, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
Just curious... How many of you folks have actually read sections 4.0, 5.0, and 6.0 of this pending proposal from the Database Working Group?
Read it just now. :-)
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2022-01
I suspect that many of you are going to want to read those sections before you have your memberships revoked for non-compliance.
I can't read any details about membership revokation. Also i don't see it as implicit. The three sections make perfect sense to me. In section 6.0, if i understood correctly this won't apply to legacy resources which are still out of any contractual relationship -- which also seems fine. Regards, Carlos
Regards, rfg
--
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/anti-abuse-wg
In message <alpine.LRH.2.21.2206231045180.15332@gauntlet.corp.fccn.pt>, =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Carlos_Fria=E7as?= <cfriacas@fccn.pt> wrote:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2022-01
I suspect that many of you are going to want to read those sections before you have your memberships revoked for non-compliance.
I can't read any details about membership revokation. Also i don't see it as implicit.
Well, I have been asking for various policies that would place some restrictions on member conduct (in other context) for quite some years now, and every time I have asked about such things, either in this region (RIPE) or ibn other regions I have always been told "Sorry, no, we can't do that because we have no enforcement mechanism and we have no way to disipline members." Any yet here we have a proposal that clearly intend to -force- members to put accurate information into their WHOIS records. This raises the obvious question: How? How will members be forced into this, when it has previously been asserted (in other contexts) that there never has been (and never will be) any way to force members to do anything OTHER THAN to pay their RIPE dues?
The three sections make perfect sense to me. In section 6.0, if i understood correctly this won't apply to legacy resources which are still out of any contractual relationship -- which also seems fine.
That's not the way that *I* read it. Regards, rfg
participants (2)
-
Carlos Friaças -
Ronald F. Guilmette