On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 14:48:38 +
"Sascha Luck [ml]" wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 08:59:55AM +, Brian Nisbet wrote:
> >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?
So he has no basis of objection, but don't even think of implementing something that might actually go towards helping the internet in the future, because it's a slippery slope and Adolf Hitler 2.0 will reign supreme, even though this proposal (as it turned out) does absolutely nothing to verify ab
On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 08:59:55AM +, Brian Nisbet wrote:
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?
If you want to be uncharitable, yes. However, this is the *last*
po
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 i
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 apol
> -Original Message-
> From: Sascha Luck [ml]
> Sent: Thursday 15 March 2018 18:45
> To: Brian Nisbet
> Cc: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
>
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 05:08:29PM +, Brian Nisbet wrote:
> >For instance, what about t
