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

On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 16:20:41 +0000
"Sascha Luck [ml]" <aawg at c4inet.net> wrote:
<snip v1 around here - as we are already past that>
> "The objective of this proposal is not to devise a detailed
> validation procedure. The RIPE NCC is best placed to assess the
> technical challenges and the financial and human resources
> necessary to conduct validation tests in the most efficient
> manner."
> 
> This actually makes the entire discussion around captchas and
> humans wasting their time with reading abuse-c emails redundant.
> Nothing of the kind of process you're dreaming about is actually
> part of the proposal, so I will forgo any further discussion on
> this unless a new implementation proposal comes along.
> What you have is a problem with the Impact Assessment and the way
> the NCC proposes to validate this contact. In fact, on this point
> alone, *I* should support the proposal and *you* should oppose
> it. (However, since I'm not sure the implementation process
> cannot just change without my consent, I still oppose it on this
> point, too)
> 

it is most definitely not "detailed validation procedure" to simply say: 

send an alphanumeric key to be entered on website after solving a capcha

this entire issue makes abuse-c special, much more special than admin/tech etc.

MANY auto respond, ignore, save money, avoid, etc their abuse-c - in
fact there is also a lot of fake, non functional and dev/null abuse-c
records.

we would not be having this discussion or any need for all this if this
was not an Internet abuse issue or an issue at all.

yet, here we are.

even if it is not specified/accepted in v2 RIPE NCC may well consider
that it is the best "technical and financial" benefit to design the abuse-c 
validation in this manner - as it is ethical, mostly automated and does 
solve two extremely important issues unique to abuse-c

> 3) Not explicitly stated in the proposal.
> The proposal and the IA assume that the abuse-c: is an email
> address (and the object, iirc explicitly asks for one). I don't
> think any new policy should be made that, even implicitly, ties
> RIPE NCC database information to legacy technologies.
> 
you make no sense? Please help me understand what you are saying?

if you regard email as a legacy technology, which direct communication
standard has overtaken it? 

afaik the death of email has been 'marketed' for the past 30 years. but
it is FUD as there is simply no other general communication standard
that replaces it (and there has never been) 


Kind Regards

Andre