[anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01

+1

-jg




On 03/03/2016, 10:03 p.m., "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of denis" <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net on behalf of ripedenis at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>Hi Gert
>
>I am sorry but I TOTALLY disagree with you here. You have a very old 
>fashioned view of both the registry and the 'management' of the internet 
>by some bottom up, open, transparent, industry/community driven process.
>
>I make no apologies here for doing another Donald Trump. I am going to 
>say what needs to be said, regardless of what people think about what I say.
>
>Your view is typical of people who have been involved in this industry 
>for a very long time. You probably remember the days when the internet 
>was an 'old boys club' and everyone involved in the development knew 
>each other. That was last century....we have moved on since then. The 
>internet now impacts in some way on the lives of almost every person on 
>this planet. It is part of the critical infrastructure of 21st century 
>life at every level.
>
>There is much political interest now in how the internet is managed. 
>Someone has to take responsibility for this management. The ITU and many 
>governments are seriously interested in getting their hands on this 
>management. But the RIRs and other technical/user interest groups are 
>still able to show a responsible approach to managing a global 
>infrastructure.
>
>The public finds abuse on the internet a serious problem. Not just spam 
>but the more serious criminal aspects like phishing. This can destroy 
>people's lives. Politicians are all self interested. If they can grab 
>hold of a public concern and make campaigns out of it then it benefits 
>their careers. The more technical people play down the impact of 
>handling abuse on the internet and show they really don't want to be 
>bothered in handling it, the more you play into their hands in the long 
>term.
>
>The RIRs have to be much more involved these days in internet governance 
>and the handling of issues like abuse concerns. Whether you like it or 
>not these are real concerns for the registries now. So either you 
>surrender control to governments through the ITU and accept a very 
>different internet to what we have now, or you move with the times and 
>embrace the political and responsible management concerns of a 21st 
>century, global resource.
>
>The more I hear long term, experienced internet people like yourself and 
>Randy constantly criticising the role of the RIRs and wishing for the 
>old days, the more I fear for the future of the internet.
>
>cheers
>denis
>
>
>On 03/03/2016 19:54, Gert Doering wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 12:56:05PM +0200, andre at ox.co.za wrote:
>>> it is actually very simple:
>>>
>>> any rigorously correct resource allocation registry data must
>>> include accurate abuse records.
>>
>> No.  It needs to contain accurate records of who has been delegated
>> responsibility for that (admin-c / org).
>>
>> abuse-c is a way to ease finding the *right* contacts instead of always
>> having to write paper mail to the company CEO - and that makes sense,
>> but it's a convenience to operators (as is tech-c), and in no means
>> required for the function as registry.
>>
>> Which might conincide with the fact that the paperwork you sign when
>> opening a LIR has no field for abuse-c...
>>
>> Gert Doering
>>          -- NetMaster
>>
>