There are many points to address here, but from the point of view of the
PDP I will address two.
First off, this policy has been raised in the Anti-Abuse Working Group.
This has been agreed between the relevant WG Chairs. While obviously
people are free to discuss it wherever they want, only
Dear Sergey,
Thank you for your question. These are the kinds of things that our formal
impact analysis will cover in the Review Phase. This is the best time to
explore these topics in more depth.
However, our initial understanding is that the proposal aims to identify and
fix invalid
Hi,
> Where in the proposed policy does it say that RIPE is going to de-register
>anyone?
Right at the end it does mention closure of memberships:
>b. Arguments opposing the proposal>>The proposal would result in increased
>workload for RIPE NCC, especially when following up on unresponsive
Hi,
On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 05:54:04PM +0100, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
> I will discuss this here as I do not accept the Anti-Abuse WG as
> a forum for this proposal. For one thing, this proposal affects
> every ripedb user - in fact, as this entails changes to how the
> NCC provides services, the
All,
I will discuss this here as I do not accept the Anti-Abuse WG as
a forum for this proposal. For one thing, this proposal affects
every ripedb user - in fact, as this entails changes to how the
NCC provides services, the services-wg would be an even better
venue. For another, given the
