Malcolm (and, indeed, Sascha), I did not intent to be flippant in my answer. I apologise that it came across in that way. It was meant as a genuine attempt to gain better understanding of the basis for the objection, not an attempt to dismiss or mischaracterise, although I can understand that it came across in that way.
I believe the points that Marco and I have made still stand in regards to the possible outcome of not adhering to this policy and whether that is a change or a valid reason for objection. Thank, Brian Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG Brian Nisbet Network Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nis...@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270 > -----Original Message----- > From: Malcolm Hutty <malc...@linx.net> > Sent: Friday 16 March 2018 09:28 > To: Brian Nisbet <brian.nis...@heanet.ie>; anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net > Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02 > > On 16/03/2018 08:59, Brian Nisbet wrote: > >> Nothing, and I didn't state that it was. The problem is that, once > >> accepted, the implementation is out of the hands of this community or > >> indeed everyone bar the NCC Board. They can make it as onerous and > >> oppressive as they want. > > Ah, ok, my apologies. So, because I'd like to be clear here, you are > objecting to this proposal on the basis of something that may or may not > happen in the future? > > > > Brian, > > As a matter of principle I must object to that as a completely unfair > mischaracterisation of what Sascha just said. > > To object to a proposal "on the basis of something that may or may not > happen in the future" makes it sound speculative, and thus unreasonable. > > To object to a proposal on the basis that it *authorises* something > undesirable to happen is perfectly reasonable; such an objection is on the > basis that the measure before us would transfer the decision as to whether > that thing should happen from us to (in this case) the NCC. > That's something that is happening now, not something in the future. > > You may disagree with Sascha as to whether 2017-02 does in fact authorise > the NCC to do something undesirable, but it's not fair to rule out his > concerns > merely because the supposedly undesirable outcome is only authorised > rather than required. > > I think it really important that we recognise that when authorising the NCC to > act, it is a legitimate objection to say that we wouldn't want them to > exercise > that authority in a particular way, and the scope of what is authorised ought > to be limited in some way. I am far more concerned about that as a principle > than I am about the outcome for this proposal in particular. > > Kind Regards, > > Malcolm. > > -- > Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 > Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet > Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ > > London Internet Exchange Ltd > Monument Place, 24 Monument Street London EC3R 8AJ > > Company Registered in England No. 3137929 > Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
