[anti-abuse-wg] Abuse Contact Information - Policy Proposal

Hello together,

why are we moving the problem of non existing abuse contact away from
open access to bulk access.

I would suggest the following.

Anti-Abuse Working Group publishes a Best Practice Paper, which tells
every RIPE member that the "ONE" and "ONLY" way for publishing abuse
contact information is:

Creating an IRT Object with an abuse-mailbox attribute.

If there is such a paper, a lot of institutions will push this to their
members as a best practice paper and they will have to follow.


The next step is a policy proposal that does the following things:

- Introduce the IRT Object into ASN Objects.
- Make the abuse-mailbox attribute mandatory for the IRT Objects.
- Make IRT Objects mandatory for directly by RIPE delegated Ranges.


IMHO this will solve all the problems.

Query is possible with the -b and you get for all IPs in the RIPE region
at least one contact, that is in direct connection with RIPE.

The Abuse Finder Tool (which is really cool) is able to give back an
contactfor all IP addresses all the time.

The query restriction problem is solved and Bulk Data service is not
needed. Saves money, saves resources, save small institutions from not
reporting abusive behavior because of to big barriers.

The ISP/LIR/... can decide if he wants to receive all messages for his
netranges and forward them to the right contact or if he offers his
customers the possibility to create an own IRT Object. If the Object is
wrong all messages go to the Top Contact again and he can check out why
his customer is not offering the right contact information.


I think this is all there, this is easy, it is not yet another big idea
to solve all the problems and being disappointed if it is not working.
Writing a Best Practice, making a abuse-mailbox attribute mandatory and
making an IRT Object Mandatory should not waste resources at RIPE.

Please give me just feedback to the Best Practice part. I think this
should really happen and the next steps could be discussed in a policy
process.

Thanks,

Tobias

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 262 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20100723/7e498917/attachment.sig>