[anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02 Review Phase Reminder

On Fri, 16 Feb 2018 12:30:53 -0800
Troy Mursch <troy at wolvtech.com> wrote:

>  1) With a lot of words about improving trust and safety in Proposal's
> summary, there is no evidence about issues with trust and safety with
> uncheked "abuse-c:"

>> I've seen plenty of evidence and ramifications from first hand
>> experience when abuse notifications go ignored/unanswered.
> 
+1

> 2) In my experience, real abusers have all their contacts valid (and
> responsive).

>> Please share more of your experiences. I've never heard of this claim
>> nor understand what a "real abuser" is.
> 
+1

> 3) Why only abuse-c have to be checked? There are a lot of different
> contacts or information, that could be verified.

>> Because that's where you send abuse notifications. In many cases,
>> these will be critical messages regarding ongoing threats, such as a
>> denial of service attack or malware distribution.

+1

 
> Also, RIPE NCC executive just got extraordinary powers to revoke
> resource 

>>False - no new powers are granted to RIPE NCC by this
>> proposal.
> 
+1

> 
> 
> __
> 
> *Troy Mursch*
> 
> *Security Researcher*
> 
> Bad Packets Report <https://badpackets.net/>
> 
> @bad_packets <https://twitter.com/bad_packets>
> 
> (702) 509-1248
> 
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 11:47 AM, Alexander Isavnin
> <isavnin at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Thanks for the reminder!
> >
> > Better late than never.
> >
> > I strongly oppose to this proposal.
> >
> > 1) With a lot of words about improving trust and safety in
> > Proposal's summary, there is no evidence about issues with trust
> > and safety with uncheked "abuse-c:"
> > 2) In my experience, real abusers have all their contacts valid (and
> > responsive).
> > 3) Why only abuse-c have to be checked? There are a lot of different
> > contacts or information, that could be verified.
> >
> > Also, RIPE NCC executive just got extraordinary powers to revoke
> > resources. So we have to be very carefull with policies, which may
> > lead to resource revocation just because of e-mail issues (i had
> > such issues with RIPE NCC mail servers).
> >
> > Plus all other arguments against or concerning about this proposal,
> > raised in discussion previously.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Alexander Isavnin
> >
> >
> >
> > Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum
> >
> >