[anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02 New Policy Proposal (Regular abuse-c Validation)

Hi,

On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 08:13:32AM +0200, ox wrote:
> clearly you are supportive of this as non support of this makes no
> sense other than to derail ethical and moral behavior towards public
> owned allocated resources.

That's an invalid conclusion.  Someone might share the same goal ("have
a robust registry with valid contact information") but still disagree
with the particular means - any policy change needs to be weighted (at
least) against "does it achieve the set goal?" and "does the extra 
effort imposed relate positively to the effect".

Which is why I'm not speaking up in favour or against this proposal
either.  I share the goals ("robust registry") but I have my doubts
that this is going to achieve much - those that have good documentation
today will have a bit more work, and those that do not care will continue
to not care, finding ways to fulfill the policy, but still not caring.

We can force people to have abuse mailboxes that trigger a response if
a mail from the RIPE NCC is received.

We (as in "the 10 people that speak up their mind here") can not force 
them to have working abuse handling, as in, infected customer systems
gets fixed, IoT shit gets tracked down and disconnected, malicious 
customers get thrown out.

Thus, ambivalence on the policy.

Gert Doering
        -- long time handler of abuse@
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20171006/ad14401d/attachment.sig>