[anti-abuse-wg] 2013-01 Discussion Period extended until 26 June 2013 (Openness about Policy Violations)

Hi Sascha,

> The text needs to state explicitly that this reporting is anonymised, ie
> does not contain any information that can be used to identify either the
> resource or the holder.

I have no problem with that.

>> The RIPE NCC will provide a way to follow the progress of the
>> investigation for both the person submitting a report and the
>> organization(s) mentioned in the report.
> 
>> This information will not be published publicly.
> 
> This is better than v1.0 but still leaves room for abuse, viz. there is
> no mechanism to ensure the information provided by the NCC is not
> published by the submitter.  A possible solution would be to restrict
> submission of complaints to the LIRportal , thereby ensuring that the
> submitter is contractually obliged to the NCC and disclosure of this
> information can be appropriately sanctioned. Such sanctions would need
> to be enough to discourage abuse.

I don't see any further role for the RIPE NCC here. Certainly not in regard to defining 'sanctions'. The RIPE NCC is not the police.

Maybe we have different ideas about what 'follow the progress' means. I certainly don't mean the content of every e-mail sent or received, but some kind of status indicator. The NCC will very probably define terms and conditions for any information they disclose. I certainly don't intend that the NCC breaks its confidentiality agreements etc. If you want to define more strictly in policy what should and should not be published then please provide text.

>> 3. Transparency on reclaimed resources
> 
>> As the 'delegated' files show the resources that the RIPE NCC has
>> delegated to others, so will the 'returned' files show the resources
>> delegated or returned to the RIPE NCC.  The format of the 'returned'
>> files will be publicly published to facilitate automatic processing.
> 
>> The reason for resources being returned can be:
> 
>>   'returned': Returned by the holder
>>   'contact-lost': The RIPE NCC could not contact the holder
>>   'policy-violation': Reclaimed because of a policy violation
> 
> I'd like to know more about the use-case for this, particularly under
> the aspect of "automated processing"

It just says that the file format will be published in a well defined and publicly known format. What exactly is your point here?

Cheers,
Sander