"we do not believe rough consensus has been reached."Who spoke out against it, and what did they say? I haven't seen anything that says that consensus has not been reached.What does "consensus" look like?
Original Message
Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02 & N
If 2017-02 is adopted, following sentence will be added to ripe-563:
"The RIPE NCC will validate the “abuse-mailbox:” attribute at least annually.
Where the attribute is deemed incorrect, it will follow up in compliance with
relevant RIPE Policies and RIPE NCC procedures."
In term of RIPE N
On 12/03/2018 12:57, Brian Nisbet wrote:
> Finally we need to address the objections around the possible
> implications of organisations *not* following this policy. It is
> clear that 2017-02 does not attempt to introduce any additional
> processes nor change how the NCC would act in cases where p
Colleagues,
We are now a little over 2 months to our meeting at RIPE76. This will be taking
place on Thursday 17th May at 11:00 CEST.
The Co-Chairs would like to invite submissions of topics for discussion or
presentation at the meeting. If you are interested in being on the agenda of
the meet
Dear colleagues,
Policy proposal 2017-02, "Regular abuse-c Validation" is now in the extended
Review Phase.
The goal of this proposal is to give the RIPE NCC a mandate to regularly
validate "abuse-mailbox:" information and to follow up in cases where the
attribute is deemed to be incorrect.
Y
Colleagues,
We've been thinking about this for some time and attempting to find a way
through the various comments and messages in regards to 2017-02.
We believe the best option at this point is to extend the review phase of this
proposal for a further 4 weeks as we do not believe rough consens
