[anti-abuse-wg] 2011-06 Discussion Period extended until 7 May 2012 (Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE NCC Database)

Hi Brian, all,

Brian Nisbet wrote:
> Leo Vegoda wrote, On 17/04/2012 00:22:
> > Hi Denis,
> >
> > On Apr 16, 2012, at 2:32 pm, Denis Walker wrote:
> >
> >> I am not aware of any formal big picture, but I follow the mailing list
> >> as closely as I am sure you and many others do. As you will know many of
> >> these issues invoke much discussion on the list.
> >
> > I think we only get one opportunity to do this right. Doing it without a strategy that's been agreed by the whole community seems quite scary.
> 
> While I think that Frank has given a good outline, what is "this" to
> your mind?
> 
> Is it abuse contact management, is it data verification? Part of the
> problem that we hit with the ACM-TF is that data verification is a very
> big thing and people have a lot of reactions to it. This lead to a
> decision to try to get the abuse-c nailed down and integrated, before,
> should the community or TF decide, looking at data verification, and
> indeed the scope of that.

I think my concerns are that if we have a large problem and solve it in pieces, because the work is done in pieces they might not tessellate well and leave us with something that is a bit broken. In particular, I am concerned that if a proposal for a new abuse-c object is approved but no contact data management policy is approved we just have a new layer of stale data. In general, I think more stale data is worse than less stale data.

On the other hand, I can see that discussing multiple policy proposals simultaneously is difficult. I think my concerns would be allayed if the resulting policies (once approved) were implemented as part of a single, coherent programme of work and not as individual projects. That way, I think we could be fairly sure all the pieces fit well together.

Regards,

Leo