Dear all,
I do not wish to add stress or burden on anyone but here are three
additional staff working documents from the Commission, which may cast
light on some of the proposals they're putting forward (or at least why):
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/AUTO/?uri=SWD:2017:500:FIN
http://eu
As I know not everyone is on or reads the ripe-list, I felt it useful to
forward this to the WG.
Thanks,
Brian
Forwarded Message
Subject:[ripe-list] Network security and Brussels
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 11:19:53 +0200
From: Gordon Lennox
To: ripe-l...@ripe.net
In either case the numbers will speak for themselves and any comments without
seeing them are going to be premature.
Never mind the RIPE NCC staff effort costing – does someone have numbers on the
# of ASNs with invalid abuse-c information, and whether there are significant
clusters of such ASN
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> I am sure an impact assessment would work – my point was that a lot
> of the criticism so far has been jumping to conclusions over the
> impact.
That's not an unreasonable comment, but the flip side is also true: the
policy makes an a-priori assumption that this is
Suresh,
Indeed, and it's a point that I should have reiterated earlier in
regards to when in the process the NCC will provide their impact assessment.
Thanks,
Brian
Brian Nisbet
Network Operations Manager
HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network
1st Floor, 5 George's Dock,
Sorry – two sets of impacts
1. Impact on NCC staff’s time – ok, impact assessment
2. How many ASNs are we talking about here and can they be aggregated under
some specific upstream providers?
I am sure an impact assessment would work – my point was that a lot of the
criticism so far has been ju
Suresh,
This information will be part of the NCC's Impact Assessment, which is
supplied at the end of the initial discussion phase. The first phase is
around the proposal itself and whether the community feels it has merit
in and of itself.
All of the pieces are required for the whole that is the
