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

On 05/03/2016 12:36, h.lu at anytimechinese.com wrote:
>>
>> The issue that abuse-C resolves is the provision of a consistent
>> and thus parseable contact point for abuse issues.
>>
>> Of course if there was a way to get abuse contacts to be more
>> responsive then everyone would be happier (or unhappier .. ).
>>
> Before that there is a field called abuse:
>
>
>>
>> The issue isn’t that simple. Prior to the introduction of abuse-c
>> people would try to contact whatever contact they could find.
>>
>>
> Again, before that there is "abuse:"
>>> So you can put up an extra line ask people to fill, but I don't
>>> think it makes much difference.
>>

no there was no field called abuse. Before the "abuse-c:" policy the 
attribute "abuse-mailbox:" was allowed in 5 object types: PERSON, ROLE, 
MNTNER, ORGANISATION, IRT. There was no policy or even any guidelines on 
where to put it. This was left entirely to the user's judgement if they 
put anything anywhere. Or they might add it to a remark in any object. 
It was completely unworkable.

>>
> Lastly, again, I sent the first message was to against the argument
> about managing internet part in which I strongly disagree, abuse c or
> not, I don't strong opinion against it, nor do I have strong feeling
> to support it, I just dislike the medatory  part and doubt its
> usefulness.

You can doubt the 'responsibility' of network manages to properly handle 
abuse complaints or their honesty in defining a true abuse complaint 
email address, but you cannot doubt the need for a single, machine 
parsable abuse contact. It needs to be mandatory because so many people 
seem unwilling to define it voluntarily.

As far as the government aspect is concerned you clearly understand 
nothing about internet governance, despite all the discussion on this 
topic in recent years. The internet is not currently managed by 
governments or the police as you suggested. It is still largely self 
governed by the industry. But there are some governments, China being 
one of them, who would love to put it into the hands of the ITU and have 
government telcos operate the internet on a country basis. At the moment 
industry bodies, including the RIRs, are proving to governments and LEAs 
they are capable of managing this thing called the internet. But it is a 
fragile peace. If governments or LEAs feel they are not able to get what 
they want/need things could change.

Abuse IS an important issue for the internet. It is also an emotive 
issue for the public and one that the media loves to make sensational 
stories out of.

To me this policy is a no brainer. If the industry wants to show it has 
a responsible attitude to this topic, EVERY internet resource should be 
covered by an abuse contact. The fact that so many of you are making 
such a fuss over it and basically saying you don't care about abuse and 
will not handle complaints shows why it is such an important topic.

...and before any of you individually start screaming at me "I never 
said I don't care about abuse" this whole discussion is about accepting 
that 'people' do not want to be responsible. Lets turn it on its head 
and start with the premise that everyone 'should' be responsible and 
should handle abuse and then start working out how to move in that 
direction. In other words, stop evading the real issue and tackle it.

cheers
denis