Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
Hi, On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 04:33:47PM -0700, Name wrote:
<html><body><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#000; font-size:12pt;"><div>So he has no basis of objection, but don't even think of implementing something that might actually go towards helping the internet in the future, because it's a slippery slope and Adolf Hitler 2.0 will reign supreme, even though this proposal (as it turned out) does absolutely nothing to verify abuse mailbox attributes, but the mere fact this has come up as discussion is incredibly dangerous, because it shows there might be someone within any of the LIR who is acknowledging that maybe they are responsible for the internet being a shit hole, and that simply cannot happen, because then resource owners might actually have to do some work. What a horrible thought.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div>
Reading comments like *this* as an argument *for* the proposal makes me wonder if I should reconsider being neutral about it. What Malcolm said is something that carefully needs to be considered: what is the real goal to be achieved, and does this proposal help in any way to get there? If *not*, extra measures that use up resources and could have unforeseen consequences, should not be implemented. What Sasha said is also something that carefully needs to be considered, and not just waved away as "he's just being irresponsible". To ask you: in which ways will this proposal help the internet make less of a "shit hole"? Those that care already have working abuse contacts, those that care not will find ways to fulfill the letter of the policy, and still care not. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 08:43:45 +0100 Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Reading comments like *this* as an argument *for* the proposal makes me wonder if I should reconsider being neutral about it. What Malcolm said is something that carefully needs to be considered: what is the real goal to be achieved, and does this proposal help in any way to get there? If *not*, extra measures that use up resources and could have unforeseen consequences, should not be implemented. What Sasha said is also something that carefully needs to be considered, and not just waved away as "he's just being irresponsible". To ask you: in which ways will this proposal help the internet make less of a "shit hole"? Those that care already have working abuse contacts, those that care not will find ways to fulfill the letter of the policy, and still care not.
I am not the American president and I actually object to the common use of the words "Shit Hole" as much as I object to women being grabbed by the pussy by powerful men, I guess. maybe I am just too conservative, maybe I am an assh*le myself, I do not know. Either way, I do choose to take offense. To answer the question though: This proposal does make the world a better place. If a resource holder wishes to be allocated scarce public resources such a resource holder should also be responsible about the operations of such scarce public resources. Andre
participants (3)
-
Gert Doering -
Name -
ox