[anti-abuse-wg] update on netsecdb project

For APNIC prop-079 there was a great deal of opposition but still it got the
consensus because of optimisim it shares. Again there is no procedure of
penalizing the members for not updating the abuse-c contact and than there
is no method to make sure the abuse-c is active or not. LACNIC and ARIN
already have this policy with slight changes for quite sometime, how was the
response in that region related to spam?


Regards,

Aftab A. Siddiqui


On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 5:36 PM, Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet at heanet.ie> wrote:

> Frank,
>
>
> This group IS the community, so why is their no proposal so far ?
>> After 2 years ?
>>
>
> There has been an amount of discussion on this topic in both AA and DB
> working groups over the last few years but no concensus has been reached.
>
> At the meeting in Lisbon it was agreed between DB and AA that as no further
> comments had been made, the matter was to be closed.  This does not,
> obviously, mean that it can't be raised again and both WGs would be most
> interested in any proposals you may have.
>
>  I would love to work together with more expirienced members of the
>> mailling list, but as far as I see it: simply nothing happens ...
>>
>> The first step should be a mandatory abuse-field.
>>
>> We could simply copy APNICs proposal:
>> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-079
>>
>
> In this policy Tobias Knecht (tk at abusix.org) has stated that if he is
> successful in APNIC he plans to propose something similar in the RIPE
> region.  I would suspect he is the best person to talk to about
> collaboration.
>
> I will note again that previous attemtps to make things mandatory have
> failed, but as we are in a rapidly changing environment, it is difficult to
> predict what response a renewed proposal will bring.  As Fearghas points
> out, the NCC are always willing to aid people with proposals, as are the
> relevant WG chairs.
>
> I would, of course, reject that the WG has done nothing in two years and we
> hope, in May, to chair another productive meeting.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Brian.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20100406/72612e06/attachment.html>