[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

Not yet, that will be the next step.
Its quite easy for APNIC to send an email twice a year to all abuse-contacts
including a link, that has to be clicked.

With that you could publish a list of non-responsive provider and you
will have another instrument to measure good from bad.

Kind regards, Frank
--
PHADE Software - PowerWeb                       http://www.powerweb.de
Inh. Dipl.-Inform. Frank Gadegast             mailto:frank at powerweb.de
Schinkelstrasse 17                                fon: +49 33200 52920
14558 Nuthetal OT Rehbruecke, Germany             fax: +49 33200 52921
======================================================================
Public PGP Key available for frank at powerweb.de

> 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.
> >
> >
> 
> --00504502cbef1cc23e048390f106
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> 
> <div>For=A0APNIC prop-079 there was a great deal of opposition but still it=
>  got the consensus because of optimisim it shares. Again there is no proced=
> ure 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 A=
> RIN already have this policy with slight changes for quite sometime, how wa=
> s the response in that region related to spam?</div>
> 
> <div>=A0</div>
> <div><br clear=3D"all">Regards,<br><br>Aftab A. Siddiqui<br><br><br></div>
> <div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 5:36 PM, Brian Nisbet <sp=
> an dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:brian.nisbet at heanet.ie">brian.nisbet at h=
> eanet.ie</a>></span> wrote:<br>
> <blockquote style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex=
> ; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class=3D"gmail_quote">Frank,=20
> <div class=3D"im"><br><br>
> <blockquote style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex=
> ; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class=3D"gmail_quote">This group IS the community, so =
> why is their no proposal so far ?<br>After 2 years ?<br></blockquote><br></=
> div>
> There has been an amount of discussion on this topic in both AA and DB work=
> ing groups over the last few years but no concensus has been reached.<br><b=
> r>At the meeting in Lisbon it was agreed between DB and AA that as no furth=
> er comments had been made, the matter was to be closed. =A0This does not, o=
> bviously, mean that it can't be raised again and both WGs would be most=
>  interested in any proposals you may have.<br>
> <br>
> <blockquote style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex=
> ; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class=3D"gmail_quote">
> <div class=3D"im">I would love to work together with more expirienced membe=
> rs of the<br>mailling list, but as far as I see it: simply nothing happens =
> ...<br><br></div>
> <div class=3D"im">The first step should be a mandatory abuse-field.<br><br>=
> We could simply copy APNICs proposal:<br><a href=3D"http://www.apnic.net/po=
> licy/proposals/prop-079" target=3D"_blank">http://www.apnic.net/policy/prop=
> osals/prop-079</a><br>
> </div></blockquote><br>In this policy Tobias Knecht (<a href=3D"mailto:tk at a=
> busix.org" target=3D"_blank">tk at abusix.org</a>) has stated that if he is su=
> ccessful in APNIC he plans to propose something similar in the RIPE region.=
>  =A0I would suspect he is the best person to talk to about collaboration.<b=
> r>
> <br>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. =A0As Fearghas points=
>  out, the NCC are always willing to aid people with proposals, as are the r=
> elevant WG chairs.<br>
> <br>I would, of course, reject that the WG has done nothing in two years an=
> d we hope, in May, to chair another productive meeting.<br><br>Thanks,<br><=
> font color=3D"#888888"><br>Brian.<br><br></font></blockquote></div><br>
> 
> --00504502cbef1cc23e048390f106--
>