Hi Skeeve, Firstly, I don't think currend proposed solution is perfect, so I'm very welcome to hear your suggestions how to fix these problems.
Certainly, just e-mail address is NOT enough for Confer registration, but how can we set a rule in SIG guideline? Require to identify himself/herself when registering? Regards, Matt 2016-09-06 9:41 GMT+09:00 Skeeve Stevens <[email protected]>: > I wouldn't, but many others would. Don't wait until it's been abused > before you have to clean it up. > > > ...Skeeve > > *Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker* > *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service > [email protected] ; www.v4now.com > > Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve > > facebook.com/v4now ; <http://twitter.com/networkceoau>linkedin. > com/in/skeeve > > twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com ; Keybase: > https://keybase.io/skeeve > > > IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers > > On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Adam Gosling <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Skeeve >> >> >> >> I’m sure you wouldn’t do that, though. The Secretariat could add more >> stringent registration requirements into Confer, or use an off-the-shelf or >> online election platform. The question would always be convenience versus >> validity. >> >> >> >> I internally raised the potential for somebody to game the system purely >> to take advantage of the new travel support for SIG Chairs and so, at APNIC >> 41 Paul Wilson suggested the community might want to review the procedures >> to make sure they are comfortable with the new situation. >> >> >> >> Just to be clear, the Secretariat has no preference, opinion, or >> objective in the outcome of this discussion. So don’t take anything I say >> to be an endorsement of any outcome. >> >> >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> On 6/09/2016, 10:18, "Skeeve Stevens" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> This is worrying re Confer as I am quite sure I could register 100,000 >> people with unique addresses. >> >> >> >> We've entered a new era of bots - this would not be hard. >> >> >> >> ...Skeeve >> >> >> >> *Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker* >> >> *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service >> >> [email protected] ; www.v4now.com >> >> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve >> >> facebook.com/v4now ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve >> >> twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com ; Keybase: >> https://keybase.io/skeeve >> >> [image: mage removed by sender.] >> >> IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers >> >> >> >> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Adam Gosling <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Randy >> >> >> >>>> On 5/09/2016, 20:52, "Randy Bush" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> [ this is address policy? ] >> >> No this is not address policy. The SIG Guidelines are the rules of >> procedure for all SIGs. The proposal was also sent to the other SIG mailing >> lists, but will be discussed in the Policy SIG as there is more agenda time >> there. >> >> >> Secondary, it can be used by fraud, like hijacking the position of >> >> Chair agaist the Community by inviting many persons who never >> attend >> >> the community discussion. >> >> ... >> >> I would like to propose limiting eligible voters of SIG Chair >> election >> >> to registered participants of APNIC Conference where the election >> is >> >> held. >> >> >> >> In this context, registered participants include remote >> participants >> >> who register to Confer, or its successor in future. >> >> is there an unstated assumption that many persons could attend the >> meeting who are not registered locally or remotely? does that >> assumption hold? >> >> The Secretariat doesn’t physically check registrations at the door to the >> Policy SIG sessions, I guess a bunch of extra people could wander in >> without badges. I’m not sure if we would notice. >> >> At present remote participation (using the CONFER tool) only requires a >> simple registration with unique email address. We tried more stringent >> registration procedures with the Webcasting (like ARIN) and got a lot of >> negative feedback. >> >> >> > I would like to propose aligning Chair' term with Co-Chair's term, >> > which means that Chair and all Co-Chair will serve for same two >> years. >> >> could make for a tough transition if both are replaced at the same >> time. >> >> >> randy >> >> >> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy >> * >> _______________________________________________ >> sig-policy mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy >> >> >> >> >> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy >> * >> _______________________________________________ >> sig-policy mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy >> > > > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy > * > _______________________________________________ > sig-policy mailing list > [email protected] > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy >
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
