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

Dear Herve!

On 2018-02-17 19:00:22 CET, Herve Clement wrote:
> Alexander,
> 
I'v stated my opinion and rationale - thank you for your respect.

Hope WG Chair will take my opinion (stated before the end of 16 Feb) in account.

> 
> Just two things before additional answers beginning of next week: 
> - We've already explained that there's no additional "extraordinary power" given to the RIPE NCC via this proposal: the very potential possibility of an LIR closure exists in the current policies (cf. my message dated 24th January)

I'v seen those mails. I just want to clarify - it's my beliefs (bad) against your beliefs (good).

If RIPE NCC Managing director have joined this discussion, clarifying procedures of non-financial LIR closure and/or resource revocation - i would agree with you. 
Otherwise "very potencial possibility" might become "exactly".
There is very well working procedure of non-payment closure. Unless there is exaclty well working and accepted procedure for other reasons of closure - we have to be very accurate with easily violatable policies. (I'v seen brand new RIPE-697).

> 
> - You've the right not to agree, that's something I respect. That's not a reason to judge presentations "funny" or proposals "as theater"...
Please, do not take my judgement so personal, i have reasons to not agree with this policy, which i'm explaning you here.
Policy that gives no significant and actual change - is a theater. 
(well, "security theater" is US definition of ineffective but demonstrative activities related to security)
And i have another reason for stating that. This theater already had it's pre-premiere perfomance called
"Law Enforcement Engagement with the RIPE Policy Development Process":
https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/roundtable/january-2018/pdp-rt-brussels-leaning-final.pdf
For me it looks like "propose something, just to show that LEAs are involved in activity related to security".

And about "funny" proposal presentation. Let's have some quotes: 
"essential part of the accountability of the RIPE community", "undermines the effectiveness of the policy", "Improving the trust and safety of the IP address space is a priority for the RIPE community","essential to ensure the efficiency","essential to establish a trusted and transparent environment" - these are so bombastic and sonorous, compared to 1 paragraph of policy change , which will actualy change nothing in abuse handling behavior, so i can't call it rather than funny.

At least you had chance to pre-validate all abuse-c contacts available now in database and provide stats in policy rationale. 

I will change my opinion, if Europol (or any other LEA) could provide any evidence, that incorrect abuse-c: which stayed in database longer than 1 year led to something terrible like homicid. Or not so terrible, like unpaid parking, at least. 

Kind regards,
Alexander Isavnin

Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum