[anti-abuse-wg] 2013-01 New Policy Proposal (Openness about Policy Violations)

Hi Sander, 

I think I understand the intent of the proposal, however I would think I would want a bit more reluctant in going overboard on the transparency. 

What I read in the proposal is that you want to know if you made a complained, that you want to know the status, steps taken etc.  

However until that is processed (resources revoked), is it required to have it published publicly?  I don't think so, especially to avoid slander as the form of attack by anonymous complainers. 

If someone complains about someone/somebody/resource, should it not be a better way to have that status info between the complainer, the owner of the resource / object and RIPE ?  Especially if you want to make sure that everyone involved is updated about the status. 

That could be done behind a RIPE NCC account, where the owner of the resource can see who has complained and the complainer can see the status or a ticket status system with a unique ID per entry and a pin number for added safety. 

If there are things that are not correct and resources are revoked, it could be listed somewhere that the resource was revoked based on a violation of the policy, with a key-word indicating why (incorrect contact details or contact lost, returned or policy violation etc. ) 
Investigated complains, which are processed but no violation, should be communicated back to the complainer, but not posted publicly imho. 

The idea of publicly publishing entries about certain resource (holders) based on anonymous complains is something I don't like. 
Yes I think I understand why one would want to be anonymous in certain cases, but if we are going to publish that kind of data, it should only be the actual problems and not all open and closed cases. 

Regards,
Erik Bais