[address-policy-wg] 2006-04 Draft Document will be produced (Contact e-mail Address Requirements)

Hi

It seems to me that this policy is about having a rule that says
"everyone responsible for address space should provide contact details
and keep them up to date". Having such a rule is a good starting point.
But who is going to enforce it and how?

Our support team already get many complaints about invalid contact
details. If we have a policy that says people should keep them up to
date, we may just get more complaints. People will tell us we have a
policy about it so what are we going to do about it?

let me give you a quote from our standard reply about invalid contact data:

"There may be options we could pursue to check the validity of the contact
data in the objects in the RIPE Database. Where we have a direct
relationship with the owners of these objects we could request that they
update this information. But we do not have a mandate from the RIPE
community to allocate any resources to this activity. If you feel this
should have a higher priority then you may raise the issue on the Database
Working Group or Antispam Working Group or Address Policy Working Group
mailing lists."

So a question that needs answering is do you want to allocate resources
to finding ways to check the validity of email addresses in the RIPE
Databse and what realistic penalty can be applied to unreachable people?

regards
Denis Walker
Software Engineering Department
RIPE NCC


McTim wrote:
> Hello Michael,
>
> On 9/26/06, Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com
> <Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com> wrote:
>> >     http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-04.html
>>
>> This policy is directed at ISPs and at their customers.
>
> What makes you think this?
>
>>
>> >Registration data (range, contact information, status etc.)
>> >must be correct at all times (i.e. they have to be maintained).
>> >Every organisation controlling an IP address should provide
>> >at least one working contact e-mail address where notifications
>> >of abuse emanating from that IP address can be sent.
>>
>> A company in the SPAM business could be in full compliance
>> with this policy if they operate an auto-responder like
>> RIPE's hostmaster mailbox, which replies to every email
>> saying "Thank you for your concern. We will deal with
>> the matter promptly". The net benefit to the Internet
>> community would be zero.
>>
>
> yes, but it's not supposed to stop SPAM, just correct an old oversight,
> that of an email address not being a required contact detail.
>
>> >All persons and organisations assigned an IP address should
>> >act to prevent abusive messages originating from that IP address.
>>
>> I don't believe that RIPE has any authority over what
>> ISP customers do with their Internet connection. If
>> a customer has a contract with and ISP for the purposes
>> of originating abusive messages, then what authority
>> does RIPE have to forbid this? On the other hand, if this
>> is something which should be forbidden, who is the proper
>> authority to take action? My answers are "None" and
>> "National governments".
>>
>
> Would it be acceptable to you if it said:
>
> |All persons and organisations assigned an IP address should
> act to prevent abusive messages originating from that IP address
> without their knowledge"  or smt similarly toothless??
>