[anti-abuse-wg] Clarification Regarding Needs Assessment and Audits

Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 04:52:14PM +0200, Frank Gadegast wrote:
>>> ... The exact services for which the
>>> resources are being requested are not considered as part of the
>>> evaluation process. As an example, if address space is requested for the
>>> technical need of a mail server, it is not verified what type of mails
>>> are being sent through that server.
>>> ...
>>> - Assignments are registered properly and being used for the purpose
>>> they were requested for (if not, the technical need is re-evaluated)
>>
>> These two points interest me the most.
>> Lets say, an LIR is requesting IPs for the purpose of access,
>> but then runs mailservers on it, sending lots of spam.
>
> You're mixing "allocation" and "assignment".  The LIR requests an
> *allocation*, which is not bound to a specific purpose.

Im mixing nothing here.
You need to specify a purpose for any assignment you make from
your allocation, internally or directly to the NCC.

And the purpose seems to be re-evaluated when there is an audit
started.

So the two questions remain:

- first, how do you find evidence, that the LIR is using the
   address space now for a different purpose ?
- second, did it ever happen, that the NCC revoked address
   space or allocations or terminated a contract, because the
   LIR was using the IPs for a different purpose and then denied
   fix that ?

I could have written here "assignments or allocations or terminated" ...

> The end user (which might be the LIR itself, but usually is "a customer
> of the LIR") receives an *assignment*, which comes with a technical
> need.

Did not say anything different.

Pointing to a possible failure in my wording just stops others in
answering important questions (what happens a lot lately), simply
because its interupting "the flow" ;o)

Its important to know, how the community can help starting
an audit process with the goal to revoke some address space
that is obviously used for massive abuse.
We need to know, how to start this process (e.g. where is
this form ?), what to proove, how to give evidence aso and
how the NCC handles this.
Simply because it seems to be the only mossible procedure
to revoke address space, when its not used for its
initial purpose anymore.

And I really like to have an answer from the NCC about all this.


Kind regards, Frank


>
> Gert Doering
>          -- NetMaster
>