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

On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 14:19:26 +0100
Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 11:25:12AM +0000, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> > I have no problem with abuse-c validation, either via ARC, or the
> > mechanism proposed in this policy, and probably not via a range of
> > other mechanisms either.  But threatening to terminate the right of
> > an organisation to continue to exist in the case of non compliance
> > of the terms specified in 2017-02 is frankly absurd.  
> 
> I second this concern.
> I do see the need for a working abuse contact, and I do see the need
> of sanctions in case a policy is violated, but "deregister all
> resources, because your mail server was broken when we tested" is too
> extreme (exaggeration for emphasis).
> 
+1 for the need for sanctions when policy is violated

+1 for the need for the sanctions process to be more clearly described

Maybe when policy is violated, multiple times (more than once) and also
then notice by additional communication (phone?) and if that also fails
then loss of resource is reasonable.

There has to be a stick otherwise it is all pointless anyway. So, defining the stick 
somewhat better (fairly) is not unreasonable. 

Andre