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

Dear colleagues,

On 2018-01-23 08:53:56 CET, Name wrote:
> "Maybe when policy is violated, multiple times (more than once) and alsothen notice by additional communication (phone?) and if that also failsthen loss of resource is reasonable."This is too unfair on RIPE and no body (RIPE included) has enough resources to police something that should be the responsibility of the resource holder.ICANN has a process where they publicly publish their warning letters on their website and then revoke accreditation.Some of the suggestions on this list are amazingly crazy: That it's OK to own a massive IP range, yet to not even need to have a functioning abuse reporting address.
> 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase
> (Regular abuse-c Validation)
> From: ox <andre _at_ ox.co _dot_ za">andre _at_ ox.co _dot_ za>
> Date: Tue, January 23, 2018 12:33 am
> To: anti-abuse-wg _at_ ripe _dot_ net">anti-abuse-wg _at_ ripe _dot_ net
> 
> On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 14:19:26 +0100
> Gert Doering <gert _at_ space _dot_ net">gert _at_ space _dot_ 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. 

I would like to provide some clarification.

As outlined in the impact analysis, the RIPE NCC has experience
resolving situations where an abuse-mailbox attribute is not working.
If the attribute can't be fixed during the automated process, in
the manual follow-up we would take the specific circumstances
of the resource holder into account. If they are responsive but
experiencing problems fixing the abuse contact, we will allow
them time to solve the problem. We will also provide support to help
them update their information in the RIPE Database.

The RIPE NCC would not activate the closure procedure simply because a
mail server was broken. The closure procedure can be activated if the
resource holder refuses to provide correct abuse contact information,
which would be considered a consistent policy violation, or
if they are unresponsive over a longer period. During this process, the
RIPE NCC will have attempted to contact them several times via different
channels before considering that a resource holder is unresponsive.

It is also important to note that this policy proposal does not change
the reasons that can lead the closure of LIRs or de-register Internet
number resources. These reasons are defined by existing RIPE Policies and
related RIPE NCC procedures.

Kind regards,

Marco Schmidt
Policy Development Officer
RIPE NCC

 
> Andre
> 



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