[anti-abuse-wg] the mandatory abuse field

Hi,

> I think the resistance comes because a number of related ideas have
> been tried in the past, and they have failed. So we'd like to see
> whatever abuse reporting changes made don't just add to the current
> confusion without actually improving anything.

And I fully understand this point. And that is one of the reasons why we 
wanted RIPE NCC to consult with this, to get a better view on how we can 
clean up the mess that is existing with a better solution.

At the moment I think the proposal hits a lot of points that would make 
things easier and even if we figure out that we missed something or we 
need something more or less, we are moving in the same framework as we 
do with admin-c and tech-c and this will make it much more flexible for 
future change requests than what we have at the moment.


> As I said in the beginning, I'd just like to make sure that whatever is
> done actually improves things.

So what is your feeling with the latest version of the proposal? Does it 
improve things?

> Mind you, I'm not totally opposed to a mandatory abuse field, I just
> don't see the point without a policy governing how it is used. I would
> be quite supportive of a policy which said something like:

I fully agree. But we can not go all the steps at once. Believe me this 
is not the last proposal I'm coming up with ;-) We have the data 
accuracy part and some other things that we need to take care of.

>    If someone reports that an abuse mailbox is unresponsive to the RIPE
>    NCC, they will investigate. If the RIPE NCC also finds the abuse
>    mailbox is unresponsive, then they will alert the resource holder. If
>    the resource holder has not fixed the problem within 30 days, then
>    the resources will be revoked. If the holder tries to hide an
>    unresponsive abuse mailbox, for example by adding a filter that
>    allows RIPE NCC mails through but ignores all others, then resources
>    will be revoked immediately.

I would probably not agree to that in that restrictive way, but yes 
there must be a way to figure these things out, but as already said, one 
step after the other and not everything at once.

> I just think that such a policy has no chance of being approved. :)

I definitively agree on that, but that will be another box of fun to 
find a common accepted way. :-)

Thanks,

Tobias