[anti-abuse-wg] 2011-06 New Policy Proposal (Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE NCC Database)

Hi!

On 12/07/2011 07:43 PM, Frank Gadegast wrote:
> Usally people have different mailboxes or mail addresses for different
> purposes.

I.e. your idea is to require every admin-c to have different mailboxes.

> The proposal even helps here a lot to seperate personal email addresses
> from abuse email addresses, simply because the abuse-c has to be
> defined now.

There already is an admin-c.

To force admin-cs to use different/multiple mailboxes, another attribute is necessary.
That would be abuse-mailbox.
This already exists, so everybody who wants to use it, can use it. It's just that currently nobody is forced to use it, if you don't want/need to use it, you don't have to.

> So, everybody thats has to complain simply knows now who to contact

...that would be the admin-c.
And following the proposal: in some cases following weird, diffuse, and sparsely defined policies maybe also an abuse-c.

> and will nevermore bother somebodys personal email address like
> the email named in the admin-c (see an example below).

The email address listed in my admin-c object is not my private personal email, but the email address chosen for the admin-c - for being contacted in case of administrative issues.
This is true for both role and person objects.
If you don't want to be emailed personally, use a role object. If you don't want people to use a specific email - don't list it in your contact objects!

Even if you chose for whatever strange reason to enter into a role or person object an email you don't want people querying the db to know/use, what you would need following that rationale is an abuse-mailbox attribute for that admin-c object. Not another -c object.
(Actually I guess a new 'secret-email' attribute would fit best for your needs)

> The other places will fanish just in the moment the abuse-c is
> introduced, simply because because every resource owner has
> to re-think, how a complaint should reach him.

Sorry, no. According to the proposal, there will be additional objects and attributes. And people are forced to 'accept' being bulk-spammed. That's it.

The rest is prophecy (and experience suggests the opposite - see the remarks on contradicting abuse-mailbox and other attributes in this very same thread).

Btw, a short hint for resource owners on how to be contacted:
- list your postal address in the way you'd wish to be contacted by postal service
- list the phone number you'd wish to be contacted by by phone
- list the fax number you'd wish to be contacted by by fax, or leave it out if you don't want to be contacted by fax
- list the email address you'd wish to be contacted by, or leave it out if you don't want to be contacted by email
- list the abuse-mailbox email address you'd wish to be contacted by in case of abuse complaints in case you wish to have a special mailbox for those, or leave it out if you don't

> If the resource owner does not like any confusion, he will
> have to remove abuse contacts from the remark section.

Non-sequitur.
I'd say: to minimize confusion, let's not add the proposed stuff. :)

> Its the usual reaction from somebody who likes to hide his personal
> responsibility:

Well I think my explanation was quite comprehensive.

On the other hand I think trying to go ad personam in a technical discussion should not be accepted.

ConSol* GmbH is - as you probably already know from your extensive research, which btw also shows that your 'accusation' of 'hiding' is obviously unfounded - not my company. I'm working for ConSol*, and domain registration is not in my areas of responsibility or influence. Having said that - while wondering why, I mean it's not (well - it shouldn't be) your business - you might want to return to on-topic, non-ad-personam discussion.
And what responsibility are you referring to? I mean, this sounds like I'm supposed to "take the responsibility to disagree with you"? Spooky...

> hm, no abuse contact in the remarks, no abuse-mailbox, no nothing ...

Thanks for providing the opportunity to point that out.
There is no abuse-c (well...), there is no abuse-mailbox, but there's no no nothing: there is an admin-c, and that admin-c has (among other contact data) an e-mail.

> And a personal email address, thats obviously not related to
> your company (mabye simple because a lot of spam and wrong
> complains is arriving there).

Again, all this is pulled out of thin air (much like the 'substance' of the proposal, if you ask me).

It's a person object, in that regard 'personal email address' is probably formally right. And also: not surprising. :)
I don't see how that is 'obviously not related to the company'. And regarding the rest of your statement, I don't quite understand what you're trying to say there.

> You should really support the proposal, it will help you a lot.

Well actually, as I already explained, at least for the broad majority this proposal doesn't help, but complicates things and causes partly severe problems. So I don't really see a future for it...
And this also doesn't really seem to change, it actually gets worse: in your reply I didn't find a single argument explaining or clarifying on the issues I mentioned, or bringing forward any new or neglected aspects. And experience shows that being attacked personally when trying to discuss a technical issue is a red flag regarding the subject and/or the motivation of the attacking party...

I still failed to see who might be 'helped' by the proposed stuff, and how... I mean, I'm convinced the authors at least had to think this will somehow help them, but I don't see how...

Regards,

	Chris