[anti-abuse-wg] Updated Document: Abuse Contact Data Sets

Brian

Thanks for sharing this

A couple of notes:

- there seems to be an assumption that “quality” and “responsiveness” are somehow linked. 
- the flow for ccTLD domain lookups seems to jump from the IANA DB directly to the CERT, which seems like overkill. The whois data *might* provide contact information that would be useful or failing that the hostname lookup would give the hosting provider / ISP. 
(or maybe I’ve misread the chart?)

Regards

Michele

--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
http://www.blacknight.host/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://ceo.hosting/ 
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845







On 20/01/2016, 16:22, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of Brian Nisbet" <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net on behalf of brian.nisbet at heanet.ie> wrote:

>Colleagues,
>
>The group working on this document (L. Aaron Kaplan, Mirjam Kühne, 
>Christian Teuschel) have produced a new draft. This draft contains a 
>number of updates, based on feedback from the community.
>
>The main changes are:
>
>- clarified terminology such as abuse handler, security incident,
>registrant, national CERT, etc.
>- clarified problem statement
>- removed specific mentioning of name-based services in the problem
>statement
>- used "European" examples
>- added API details for Nation CSIRT DB
>- elaborated on conclusion and next steps
>
>This document was sent to me earlier in the week, but for various 
>reasons I didn't manage to forward it on to you all until now. With the 
>TF-CSIRT meeting happening next week it would be great if we could 
>gather any further feedback before the end of this week, but I realise 
>that is quite a short term period, for which I apologise. So I'm not 
>proposing a hard cut-off by end of day on Friday, but I think it would 
>be extremely useful if people could try to post to the list before then.
>
>This would hopefully allow the authors to go to the TF-CSIRT meeting 
>with a very nearly final draft and then complete it shortly afterwards.
>
>Certainly I would propose no more than a working week to receive other 
>feedback, so we'd be looking at the end of Wednesday 27th.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Brian
>Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG