[anti-abuse-wg] Reporting Fraud

Hi all,

> That proposal seems quite reasonable.  What were the objections?

The objections were that there might be ISPs that have hundreds of
objects and they that they are not able to check all these objects once
a year.

I now think we should just say that we are leaving out person objects
and just do the frequent update process with all technical objects
members can change attributes in and org and IRT objects.

That is absolutely no problem in the APNIC region, because they will
have the IRT object being mandatory end of this year. But in other
regions we do not have something like that and I'm not sure if we can
get consensus on this. But I will try within the next few days to get
something for RIPE together.

> Is it appropriate to assume that the main objections were to this part?
> 
>     - After the 60-day period has passed, if the object owner has not
>       verified their object details, APNIC will add the ranges of
>       resources maintained by the non-responsive object owner to the
>       publicly available list of resources described in 4.5.1 below.

No absolutely not. This idea came from APNIC members not from me.

So as already mentioned let me get something together for the RIPE
region and I will post it here.

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/20100930/3d2d0a73/attachment.sig>