This proposal might be well intentioned, but as currently written is riddled with issues 1.4 Is it a listing in a blocklist or a report from a National CERT? Why would a CERT be contacting RIPE about issues with an AS number? It potentially is an escalation of non-response, but that’s not what the document says 1.5 I don’t think the WG is really qualified to do this. While members of the WG might have deep experience in many aspects of security I cannot see how the group would suddenly morph into being arbiters of this. Same with respect to 3.2 - I’d also see this as being open to gaming 2.1 define “systematically” 3.4 that assumes that blocklist operators will remove IP ranges in a timely fashion or following some kind of logical process. While some of the bigger ones might, some of the smaller ones might not 3.5 “explicitly” - what does that mean? Same with “proportionate” What exactly are these proposed restrictions? These are just my initial observations Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072<tel:+353599183072> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090<tel:+353599183090> Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 I have sent this email at a time that is convenient for me. I do not expect you to respond to it outside of your usual working hours.