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

I agree that exaggeration is not useful, and probably we need to have several clear attempts before turning down a contract, BUT, if we are talking about proportionality, there are MANY cases of abuses where the responsible LIRs aren't responding at all, and this means a very big harm to the networks being abused. Is that proportional?

So clearly, if an LIR is running a decent business and is a good "net citizen", because is responsible of the damages that are caused from that network to others, there is no point to complain, about a possible enforcement of a policy after allowing many attempts to resolve that, of course, unless that LIR is willing to hide the head in the sand as an ostrich if that happens, which I think will show the rest of the Internet what is that LIR business/"who you are".

Regards,
Jordi
 

-----Mensaje original-----
De: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net> en nombre de Nick Hilliard <nick at foobar.org>
Fecha: lunes, 22 de enero de 2018, 16:09
Para: Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet at heanet.ie>
CC: Gert Doering <gert at space.net>, <anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net>
Asunto: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation)

    Brian Nisbet wrote:
    > I believe the NCC have stated very clearly how incredibly unlikely
    > deregistration of resources would be and I honestly don't believe the
    > exaggeration for emphasis or otherwise is useful.
    
    this seems to be a statement that just because an extreme policy
    compliance enforcement mechanism hasn't been used in the past, it would
    be appropriate to maintain it as a compliance enforcement mechanism in
    the future for this situation.  This is a deeply non-compelling argument.
    
    The core issue is proportionality. We're talking here about a tickbox
    compliance mechanism to further the aims of a fuzzily stated principal
    where the authors have taken a potshot at and sunk their own rationale.
    
    The final sanction for non-compliance has - unusually for a RIPE policy
    document - been reiterated as termination of contract and withdrawal of
    resources.  For most LIRs, this would cause either serious or terminal
    operational problems.
    
    There is nothing proportional about this, and because of a gross lack of
    proportionality, the policy should not be adopted in its current form.
    
    Nick
    
    
    



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.