[anti-abuse-wg] the mandatory abuse field

"Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" wrote:

Hi,

> This conversation seems to be going round and round in circles and I'm getting quite confused.
>
> My understanding was that the object / field would be used / assigned in any allocations of IP space.

Sure, the direct allocation will have it first.
Then its up to the member to communicate the new field to the 
subdelegation customers to get rid of all the reports :o)

Its should be the goal, than any resource holder have its own
abuse mailbox address.

>Can someone please explain to me how it is possible that an organisation could have IPs but not have an email address or website?

There are e.g. ISPs that provide VPN only, they tunnel everything, and
there is no abuse happening at all.
And there are other examples.

Sure they have email themselve, but maybe they dont like to communicate it.

> And if that is the case, then shouldn't the next level up be taking responsibility for abuse of the resources? Or am I missing something?

That would be ideal and our final goal, but there are lots out there, 
that simply do not want to take responsibility for several reasons.
And they dont care about blacklists, they fear the costs, work or
whatever.

> I like the suggestion that the field be a URL that can be either a mailto or a http.

I really dont like to mix email address with URLs, even if they have a 
mailto:, email addresses are really easy to recognize, by software
or by humans, its clear what to do with an email address, for everybody.
Lots of end users dont even know what an URL is and might get confused.

An URL should only be optional as a seperate field ...
That could be another proposal ...

>I don't really care if some reporters have issues with this or not - I don't work for them and they're not paying me or anyone else - in fact many of them are getting paid .. so .. I also have issues with a lot of the automated reporting tools that some people insist on using, but that's off topic :)
>
> I strongly oppose any "non responsive" type label being used. That will cause a lot of issues for LIRs and will do little to advance the anti-abuse ethic

Good, so that idea is done. It was only a possibility to discuss ...


Kind regards, Frank

>
> Regards
>
> Michele
>
> Mr Michele Neylon
> Blacknight Solutions ♞
> Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
> ICANN Accredited Registrar
> http://www.blacknight.co
> http://blog.blacknight.com/
> http://blacknight.cat
> http://mneylon.tel
> Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
> US: 213-233-1612
> Locall: 1850 929 929
> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
> Facebook: http://fb.me/blacknight
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
> -------------------------------
> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845
>
>
>
>


-- 

Mit freundlichen Gruessen,
--
MOTD: "have you enabled SSL on a website or mailbox today ?"
--
PHADE Software - PowerWeb                       http://www.powerweb.de
Inh. Dipl.-Inform. Frank Gadegast             mailto:frank at powerweb.de
Schinkelstrasse 17                                fon: +49 33200 52920
14558 Nuthetal OT Rehbruecke, Germany             fax: +49 33200 52921
======================================================================