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

Hi There:



On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 10:18 AM, denis <ripedenis at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> 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.

Well, claim I "understand nothing about internet governance" in a
public mailing list are both in polite and unprofessional.

Internet governance is another huge topic in which I am not sure if it
is suitable to be discussed in this mailing list, and its relevance to
the current topic.

And I seriously doubt the idea "if we don't manage the internet the
government will take over" thing has any thing to do with the current
discussion, and the idea itself of course.

Since I do not have strong opinion about  the "abuse C" discussion, I
will stop here and leave others to debate the topic in question.


>
> 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



-- 
--
Kind regards.
Lu