On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 02:20:46PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-04 > > As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this > four-week Discussion Phase is to discuss the proposal and provide feedback to > the proposer.
I have a hard time understanding what _policy_ this text actually proposes. It goes into significant detail describing a compliance evaluation process. If that's policy, it is inappropriate to defer changes to the RIPE NCC. If that's not policy, the PDP is the wrong tool. It remains unclear what actual problem should be addressed by the text and why six month intervals would mitigate any such problem better than the current procedure. The text remains unclear who the actual addressees of the policy are. > 5.0 Escalation to the RIPE NCC > Fraudulent behaviour (for example, an "abuse-mailbox" that only replies to > the RIPE NCC's emails or to messages with a specific subject or content), or > failure to comply with the remaining aspects of this policy (incorrect or > lack of response to cases of abuse) can be reported to the RIPE NCC for a > re-validation as per section 4.0. It is only here, very much in passing, that the text expresses an expectation regarding responses to messages sent to "abuse-mailbox" from third parties, again without being explicit. That said, I do not believe the RIPE community is in a position to define how network operators run their networks and even less so in a position to make any such definition enforcable through the NCC. On a broader scale, I am tired of the repeated attempts to re-purpose the registry database slice by slice. We can have _that_ debate, but neither is the PDP the right instrument for this, nor is this WG the appropriate venue. And just that nobody claims a doubt: I am opposed to 2019-04. -Peter
