Colleagues, Once again, thank you for your input and discussion regarding proposal 2017-02.
The Chairs have reviewed the various points raised and we feel that moving to the Concluding Phase of the PDP is the appropriate decision at this point. We believe that there is quite some support for the proposal and that the objections have either been dealt with or are not directly related to the substance of the proposal. This, to us, looks like rough consensus. Since the we moved to the Review Phase on the 18th of January we had quite a few different inputs, which is great. A couple of these inputs were between the two parts of the Review Phase, but the opinions have been noted. - There were quite a few straight-forward expressions of support from Sebastian Benoit, Thomas Hungenberg, Janos Zasako, Michele Neylon, Christoffer Dam Hansen, Wolfgang Tremmel, Name <phish...@storey.xxx>, Angel Gonzalez Berdasco, Sander Steffan and Karl-Josef Ziegler - Chris Hills supported the proposal but did ask about a potential escalation mechanism in case of an email bouncing back. At the moment this is provided by https://www.ripe.net/contact-form/report-incorrect-contact-information-in-the-ripe-database - Jordi Palet Martinez, Andreas Worbs, Arash Naderpour, ox (and others) did express a wish for a more extensive set of checks including required human interaction, but they acknowledged general support for the proposal even without this. - Erik Bais expressed some concerns in relation to a potential liability to the NCC. The NCC did not state any risk of a change of liability in their impact analysis and this has been confirmed after further conversation with them. - Sascha Luck, Nick Hilliard and Malcolm Hutty expressed objections and a lack of support due to the possible implications of an LIR failing to enter appropriate abuse contacts in the DB. They, generally, felt the risk of resources being reclaimed due to this was disproportionate. In response to this it was clarified that no new procedure was being created by 2017-02. Firstly It should be noted that the methods explained by the NCC in their Impact Analysis are binding on them and would only be changed by agreement at a future point in time. As clarified during the discussion, an incorrect abuse contact would trigger attempts by the NCC to contact the LIR to resolve the issue. Following this, it would be actions of the resource holder that could lead to the activation of the closure procedure - such as refusing to provide correct abuse contact information or remaining unresponsive over a longer period. It is felt by the Co-Chairs that objections to the relevant procedures (Closure of Members, Deregistration of Internet Resources and Legacy Internet Resources) should be raised in the with the Executive Board and/or the relevant RIPE Working Group and are not relevant objections to proposal 2017-02. - Alexander Isavnin agreed with the disproportionality and also felt that the proposal would not do enough to stop abuse. Given the NCC's input that they feel the proposal will greatly aid the ARC process and the generally incremental nature of process change, this objection is not felt sufficient to disrupt the rough consensus. - Gert Doering remained steadfastly neutral throughout. - Troy Mursch did not clearly express his opinion one way or the other during the Review Phase, but the Co-Chairs have interpreted his comments as broadly in support of the proposal. - Richard Clayton's comments in regards to the usefulness of occasional checks for abuse addresses have also been interpreted as being broadly in support of the proposal. - Rob Evans and Luis E. Muñoz commented, but did not clearly support or oppose the proposal Please let the WG know if you have any last comments on this proposal. Thanks, 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
