On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 12:57:33PM +, 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
ly, does it need a change in policy if it's implemented as is? How does it change a single thing?
Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02 & Next Steps
From: Janos Zsako <zs...@iszt.hu>
Date: Wed, March 14, 2018 11:29 pm
To: N
Dear Anonymous "Name",
How do you check the email address is valid if you don't email it?
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2017-02
I think the NCC will be able to tell more details when the plans are ready.
For now, the relevant part is probably:
The RIPE NCC will valida
s out to be not working can be always reported to the RIPE NCC with the report form.
Original Message
Subject: RE: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02 & Next Steps
From: Brian Nisbet <brian.nis...@heanet.ie>
Date: Wed, March 14, 2018 10:31 pm
To: Name <p
5316609040 brian.nis...@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie
Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270
From: Brian Nisbet
Sent: Wednesday 14 March 2018 11:31
To: 'Name' ; anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
Subject: RE: SPAM-heanet-- RE: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02 &
Next Steps
"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] Dec
t
Objet : Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02 & Next Steps
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
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'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
