[anti-abuse-wg] DRAFT: RIPE proposal - implementation of an

On 9 Apr 2010, at 10:02, Frank Gadegast , Dipl-Inform. Frank Gadegast wrote:
>> 
> 
> Thats up for discussion.
> Preferably every incident will generate one mail to be qick as possible.
> Surely its also possible to summarizereal  outbreaks.

OK

> 
>>> 
>>> You can then look up the report (or even automate it), reset
>>> his radius password and kick him out, waiting for him
>>> to phone your support :o)
>> 
>> Not everyone has the same business model
> 
> Right, some members seem to make money with abuse ...


Again - if you expect there to be ANY dialogue you need to drop that attitude

It's offensive and totally unhelpful


> 
>>> Or you could redirect him to a webpage describing that there
>>> are too many reports coming in for his IP in a whatever time.
>>> Its all up you.
>>> 
>>> My dream system looks like this:
>>> - abuse reports will get standarized
>> 
>> that would be helpful
> 
> Indeed.
> 
>>> - monitoring systems will be developed at all RIRs
>> 
>> Monitoring for what exactly???
> 
> abuse reports


I'm having difficulty understanding this.

If a RIPE member has an abuse contact and sets up abuse contact objects for every allocation, why do you need anything else?

>> 
>> 
>> And again you are working under the false assumption that ALL RIPE members offer the same services as you do and in the same way.
> 
> So we are even not clear that abuse is kind of "evil" and should be acceptable
> because its the business of the member ?
> 
> We should close this list, if we could not even have the same oppinion here.
> 
> But feel free to explain these "business models" to me ...

Again - drop the attitude

You have to understand that not every RIPE member offers the same services or has the same resources at their disposal etc.,



> 
>>> "Bad providers" could be even published by RIPE :o)
>> 
>> 
>> Are you insane? RIPE cannot open itself up for that kind of liability
> 
> Why not, blacklists are doing the same, whats the difference ?

Ask a lawyer.





> 
>>> Well, thats only work at RIPE NCC, its not that complicated to
>>> automated bounces ...
>> 
>> So you say .. 
> 
> Yes, its quite easy.

No it isn't. 

Either:

- learn how to discuss this with other RIPE members
or

keep on with your stupid attitude and see how far it gets you

> 
>> You cannot speak for all providers / RIPE members.
> 
> Thats one of the reasons for a centralized system located at RIPE.
> The system only needs to be implemented once, there will be nearly
> no costs on the members side (except that they have
> to deal with report, but they can still ignore them and except
> the costs that might be added to RIPEs fees, but that should not be that
> much.

You do not know that.

You have no way of knowing how much of a load would be placed on RIPE's systems


> 
>> You are also suggesting putting a very heavy load on RIPE's systems which someone will have to pay for. Who?
> 
> The member.
> Simply add the costs to RIPE general costs and shared the along the members
> with the current mechanism, small member pay less, big one more.
> 
>>>> confirmation would be enough, although you'd need some way to deal with
>>>> automated reports.
>>> 
>>> Well, the monitoring system could send always the same backlink
>>> for the same IP, so that the ISP could still count the amount
>>> of incoming reports for one IP automatically and then
>>> "answers" it as being closed with just clicking ONE link.
>>> 
>>> Good idea ?
>> 
>> So you expect RIPE members to completely rework their abuse desks to fit into your view of the world?
> 
> Not MY VIEW, a standarized view.

You're not a very good listener, are you?



> Thats the goal.
> 
> Lets see it this way: providers have to change their infrastructure
> regulary for a couple or reasons and always have done.
> Serverhousing changed pretty much during the last years.
> There was the change from ISDN to DSL dialin, there are new
> technologies for HTML, Flash and Mail every day.
> 
> And do not forget IPv6, EVERY member has to change that in the new future.
> 
>> I can't see that happening, because not all RIPE members are the same or work in the same way.
> 
> Well they work on the same basics, what are allocations and other resources.
> Resources cause traffic, and every members uses resources like nameservices,
> webpages and email. And spam problem comes into play with the later.
> 
> The difference isnt that big.
> Business models have nothing to do with how to deal with resources the got from RIPE.

Yes it does

If you think that you can live in a world where business models have zero impact on reality then you are deluded


> 
> 
> Kind regards, Frank
> 
>> 
>> 
>> Mr Michele Neylon
>> Blacknight Solutions
>> Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
>> ICANN Accredited Registrar
>> http://www.blacknight.com/
>> http://blog.blacknight.com/
>> http://mneylon.tel
>> Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
>> US: 213-233-1612 
>> UK: 0844 484 9361
>> Locall: 1850 929 929
>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
>> -------------------------------
>> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
>> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845
>> 
>> 
> 

Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
ICANN Accredited Registrar
http://www.blacknight.com/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://mneylon.tel
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
US: 213-233-1612 
UK: 0844 484 9361
Locall: 1850 929 929
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845