[anti-abuse-wg] RIPE NCC Abuse Complaints, Audits and Reports

On 17.08.2011 16:20, James Davis wrote:
> On 17/08/2011 14:29, Athina Fragkouli wrote:
>> For confidentiality reasons, the RIPE NCC does not report on
>> individual audits, on the changes/amendments made in the audits or on
>> the comments/communication with the LIR during the audit.
> 
> I think that there needs to be a balance between the privacy and
> transparency in the process.
> 
> I've noticed that a LIR and PI assignment I complained about earlier in
> the year have disappeared. I can't be sure that it's one of those, but
> I'm assuming that it is.

Some feedback --e.g. "thanks, your complaint was useful: we closed that LIR",
or "your complaint was useless, please avoid sending x in the future"-- might
educate complainants and thus optimize the time spent on these issues by
abuse teams at both RIPE's and complainants'.  Of course, the more restricted
the senders base, the higher the percent-wise effect of educating a single
one of them.  Should abuse at RIPE only be used by LIRs?  In this case, users at
deeper branches of the delegation tree would send to abuse at LIR and so forth,
provided that valid abuse teams are available at those levels.  (This
approach is consistent with the currently advised hierarchical procedure for
locating an abuse-mailbox for a given IP address.)

>> Because we are in the process of setting this up, we welcome your 
>> feedback and any experiences you would like to share on this mailing 
>> list. We will not comment on each and every suggestion, but we will
>> take the feedback/comments into account in developing this new
>> procedure.

Thanks.