[anti-abuse-wg] [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation)

On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 17:26:47 +0000
Nick Hilliard <nick at foobar.org> wrote:

> Brian Nisbet wrote:
> > Given the NCC have repeatedly said that the ARC is not a suitable
> > way to validate the abuse contact and have proposed an alternative
> > method, supported by the ARC process, do you have any comment on
> > the actually proposed process?  
> 
> Honestly, it's hard to tell.
> 
<snip>
> 
> What's absent from this process is any mechanism to link the email
> address to the sorts of metrics and expected results described in
> presentations given by the authors, e.g. the presentation given in the
> RIPE75 AAWG session.
> 
> What's also absent is a clear statement that the email address which
> has been "validated" isn't necessarily connected to anyone in the
> organisation handling abuse or that it may not actual function at all
> in any meaningful way.
>

RIPE sends a six digit alpha numeric that is entered on the RIPE website

solves both the above points.
 
> This isn't intended to rubbish what the RIPE NCC are proposing:
> they've been asked to do something which is fundamentally almost
> impossible to do in a meaningful way, and have suggested that by
> redefining the problem into something which can largely automated,
> that a practically impossible task can be turned into something
> feasible.
> 

"fundamentally almost impossible" seriously? how does fundamentally and
"almost" even sit next to each other and then followed by meaningful ???

I do not agree with anything you have said, because I do not find any
foundation to any of it. 

> The problem is that there is now a substantial mismatch between the
> stated aims of the policy proposal and the proposed validation method.
> 
> I'm going to object to this version of the policy proposal too.
> Partly on these grounds, and partly due to the observation that few,
> if any, of the substantial objections made by numerous people to
> version 1.0 have been resolved either.
> 
> If the latter needs fleshing out for the purposes of ensuring that
> these remain registered as formal unresolved objections, it would be
> helpful to know, because a bunch of these problems really haven't
> been addressed at all.
> 
> Nick
>