[anti-abuse-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2010-08 New Policy Proposal (Abuse contact information)

Hi,

> So nearly 9000 LIRs and 216 irt objects registered. Let us assume for a
> minute that only 50% of those LIRs are interested in creating
> inet[6]nums for assigning IP addresses to their customers. So your
> proposal is basically saying:
> 4300 LIRs should each write an e-mail to RIPE NCC explaining how they
> handle abuse in their organization and requesting an irt object and RIPE
> NCC should evaluate all those requests in a rather prolonged process.

I'm not sure if the explaining part of requesting an IRT Object was part
of the original proposal or the original idea of having an IRT Object,
or if this was something RIPE NCC decided to do for whatever reason.
Will say, that RIPE NCC should be able to decide if they want people to
explain or if they do not want them to explain. I think not explaining
makes things easier. On the other hand making something mandatory
excludes the option of refusing it from RIPE NCC side.

So in my opinion there is no need to explain and if needed we can change
any decision of an old policy in the new policy.

> Furthermore, all future PI assignments to end users need to have an irt
> reference, so all new PI holders also need to form an abuse team and
> document this accordingly through the RIPE NCC. I am also very curious
> how PI assignments to individual persons will form such an abuse team.

No. If an ISP decides to do all the abuse handling for his customers he
can do it. Create one IRT Object, link all inet(6)nums to this IRT
object and all is good.

If the ISP decides, that his customers should or can do the abuse
handling, possibly this is something that can be changed on a per
customer base, they have to create an IRT Object for the customer.

This gives more flexibility to the ISPs. Think about business ISPs
delegating a /24 to a customer and this customer wants to do his own
abuse handling. Yes such customers really exists ;-) Today this is a
huge problem and creates more trouble for NOCs than helping them or
their abuse department.

Thank you for the feedback,

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/20101108/b86f5ea5/attachment.sig>