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

On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 08:35:14 +0200
Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
Hi, always good to hear your voice :)

> 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".
> 
okay, but with respect. yours is an invalid conclusion. even when
re-reading your reply above: 

my opinion on your reply is that you are being economic with your truth.

> 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.
> 
if nobody cares then nothing will happen, yet, there is a need for
something to happen.

My central point is this:

+++++
requiring abuse email (RR data) to be valid and functional is a very
basic tenet (as it relates to morality and ethics as well as RR "goals")
+++++

> We can force people to have abuse mailboxes that trigger a response if
> a mail from the RIPE NCC is received.
> 
this is perfectly fine, imnsho, as it indicates receipt of
communications, even if it is autoresponded.

it just cannot autorespond: that this is a non monitored mailbox - as
by definition, in this proposal, it has to be functional. 

functional implies that it can receive and respond to communications
and is not a "black hole" or dev/null

> 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.
> 
of course. the point is not to 'force' anyone to do anything.

the point is to have functional real contact data and information.

see the basic tenet above...

> Thus, ambivalence on the policy.
> 

is this a good thing? please reconsider your ambivalence? all it takes
is for a few good people....(Edmond Burke...)

> Gert Doering
>         -- long time handler of abuse@

Andre 

ditto