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

Hi

I fail to understand how spammer are legal in certain country  has to do with my reasoning or logic.

The argument is about if there is managing position for community to take, my answer is no, we are not law enforcement and  we only do book keeping, we don't tell people what to do, if they want to be good guy, great, if they don't care about spam or any abuse so to say, ok, it's their call. Making things mandatory with no real enforcing power are just not working.

So make logic simple to understand, if the abuse is serious as crime, you don't need abuse c to get the right person(law enforcement has much better way than ripe db), if it is not serious as crime, if the op cares, with or without abuse c they will have their abuse contact there, and will deal with it. For ops don't care, with or without abuse c, they still don't care. So you can put up an extra line ask people to fill, but I don't think it makes much difference.



> On 4 Mar 2016, at 20:00, Jeffrey Race <jrace at post.harvard.edu> wrote:
> 
> Dear Lu,
> 
> Your reasoning fails the logic test because you do not cognize  the mismatch
> between the operation of "law to enforce things" and the spammer business
> model.     The loss to no single victim rises above the threshold to initiate
> either criminal or civil proceedings.   The spammers organize their business
> model in this way expecting most people to have your attitude.
> 
> This is clearly explained in
> 
> <http://www.jeffreyrace.com/nugget/spam_05.pdf>
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Dr. Jeffrey Race, President
> Cambridge Electronics Laboratories
> 20 Chester Street, Somerville MA 02144-3005
> Tel +1 617 629-2805 Fax +1 617 623-1882
> 
> Avoid spinal damage from computer use! 
>        Read "Cripples by Thirty?"
> 
> <http://www.camblab.com/nugget/nugget.htm>
> 
> --Original Message Text---
> From: Lu Heng
> Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2016 14:20:28 +1300
> 
> Hi there:
> 
> I think the whole notion about we are managing the internet though the policy are not correct.
> 
> 
> We are not managing the internet, we are book keeping really.
> 
> 
> Denis, your argument standing on a group that if we do not manage the internet, the gov will step
> in and do it for us, but that is largely untrue.
> 
> 
> The Gov are managing it now as we speak, they have something called law to enforce things, they
> really don't need bother to go though policy here to block content they dislike, bust people they
> think are bad, find people are responsible, if there is a seriou crime going on, with or without
> abuse-c, gov will find them or not---abuse c does not change the outcome.
> 
> 
> Take China for example, A 500 m user can not access Facebook, tell me they go though any sort of
> APNIC policy to do that, same goes for some countries inA Middle East.
> 
> 
> So my last point is. If you like their gov job, you can apply one, don't try to push community here
> to do gov's job.
> 
> 
> On Friday 4 March 2016, denis <ripedenis at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi Peter
> 
> OK lets cut to the bottom line. Does anyone NOT agree with these points:
> 
> -Internet abuse (in it's various forms) is considered both a nuisance and a danger by the publicA 
> -Politicians will jump onto any band wagon that has popular public support and enhances their
> careers
> -Responsible internet resource management includes receiving and handling abuse complaints related
> to the networks you manage
> 
> If we all supported these points, especially the last one, then in an ideal world all network
> managers would be happy to provide abuse contact details and would take action on complaints
> received.
> 
> Unfortunately we don't live in that ideal world. The fact that so many experienced technical
> internet people are opposing this policy worries me. So many of you are fixating on this point
> about 'mandatory', 'enforcing', 'justifying'. If everyone agreed with point 3 above then you would
> all be willing to do this voluntarily anyway. So what difference does it make to those of you who
> do this anyway if it is mandatory?
> 
> But we know some people simply can't be bothered to handle abuse complaints and we also know some
> people make money by providing services to the abusers. There is no point pretending this does not
> happen. If there is a lot of money to be made some people will want a slice of it. That is why this
> has to be mandatory.
> 
> When abuse-c was first introduced it was made clear that this was the first step of a process. The
> intention was for all IP addresses within the RIPE region to have one common way of documenting an
> abuse contact that can be accessed programatically. It was also made clear that this first step had
> nothing to do with whether anyone responds to reports sent to that contact. Because it was and
> still is clear that some people don't want to publicise any abuse contact details it had to be and
> still has to be mandatory. If you enter data into the RIPE Database you are required to ensure it
> is correct. Dealing with whether anyone responds to the reports sent to this contact is a separate
> issue and should not cloud the discussion on the abuse-c information in the RIPE Database. Neither
> should the technical implementation of the abuse-c attribute.
> 
> I know there are policies about policies for legacy resources. Personally I think that is crazy.
> All IP addresses are technically the same no matter how or when you acquired it. Abuse can come
> from any one of them.
> 
> I don't know why we are making the policy side so complicated. The principle is simple. If you
> manage IP addresses in the public domain, from where abuse can be generated, responsible management
> requires you to provide abuse contact details!!!
> 
> cheers
> denis
> 
> On 03/03/2016 23:30, Peter Koch wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 11:46:45AM +0100, denis wrote:
> 
> In these days of political interest in how the internet is 'managed' the
> RIRs need to do more than 'just maintain an accurate registry'. The
> 
> 
> indeed. The community should be careful to maintain and improve the
> credibility and legitimacy of its policy development process.
> ``Extra constitutional'' activity (imposing "abuse" handling procedures
> camouflaged as syntax changes to database objects) and retroactive
> changes to policy without an exceptional justification both aren't
> helpful.
> 
> 2016-01 claims "Better data quality", which is not backed with arguments.
> 2016-01 claims "More accurate data for abuse contact", which is not
> A  A  A  A  A supported by arguments or evidence/precedent.
> 
> internet is a crucial part of modern life. Abuse is considered to be a
> serious problem. What you are saying is that you don't give a dam about
> abuse and are not interested in being part of the management of abuse.
> 
> 
> The alleged correctness of data does not imply a "right to response" (cf ripe-563),
> and rightfully so.A  Therefore the claims that refusal to add abuse-c
> would imply refusal to deal with abuse reports are pointless, since
> the sheer presence of the attribute does not imply anything, either.
> 
> Also, I have not heard RA¬diger (or anyone else) claim they would not
> want to even add abuse-c - it's making this policy mandatory what is
> being contested.A  ripe-639 re-establishes the 'special role' of
> legacy resources as exempt from policy changes:
> 
> A  A  A  A  Any existing or future RIPE policy referring to resources shall not apply
> A  A  A  A  to legacy resources unless the policy explicitly includes legacy resources in its
> scope.
> 
> Now, if that was simply a matter of a boilerplate in any future policy
> (xxx shall also apply to legacy resources), this clause would not make
> the slightest sense.A  Consequently, a special consideration is needed.
> 2016-01 simply refers to inconsistency (obviously a simple consequence
> of ripe-639 and thus not exceptional) and "better data quality" - without
> justification.A  No indication is given of any harm caused by legacy
> resources currently not subject to ripe-563.A  ripe-563/ripe-639
> do not preclude use of abuse-c for legacy resources, either.
> 
> All in all, I understand the motivation behind 2016-01, but the reasoning
> is far too poor to justify proceeding with the proposal.
> 
> -Peter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> --
> Kind regards.
> Lu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>