[anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02

On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 11:52:06 +0100
Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote:
> Hi,
> On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 10:53:55AM +0200, ox wrote:
> > To answer the question though: This proposal does make the world a
> > better place.
> > If a resource holder wishes to be allocated scarce public resources
> > such a resource holder should also be responsible about the
> > operations of such scarce public resources.  
> In which way, exactly, would this proposal have an effect to achieve 
> this goal (a goal that I share, to state it explicitly)?
> I maintain the position that those that do care can be reached today,
> and those that do not care will find ways to fulfill the letter of
> the policy, and not change their ways.
> So, to repeat Malcolm's position: if we introduce new work for the
> NCC and the LIRs, does it improve things enough to be the right thing
> to do?
> (As a side note, we recently were contacted by the NCC because one of
> our 'sponsoring LIR' customers had changed their primary domain and 
> forgot to update their contact details in the RIPE DB, thus, making
> them unreachable.  Someone noticed, complained to the NCC, the NCC
> contacted the sponsoring LIR, and contact details were corrected.
> Things seem to work today where people care...)
> 
simply because it does not really stop a determined thief from
stealing your car, should we stop installing locks on car doors?

the "new work" that you are talking about is establishing that
submitted data is accurate. in the RIR case, this is paramount anyway
and for LIR, submit real and updated data oh, and do not use:
mickeymouse at example.com - if you want public resources, is not
unreasonable at all.

Yes, you are quite correct. (I agree completely) you have those who
care and those who do not.  And yes, those that do not care will find
ways around it. But having some sort of policy is a start, even though
what we are actually ending up with is not much at all and even then
there are those that think even having a watery (watered down,
toothless, etc) policy is a future threat.

in practice there exists a problem and it is a real problem, so my
view is simply 'baby steps' - so, of course this means that Sascha is
also correct as there are people (like me) who will in the future argue
for even more... - but to now use this compromise of those that want
more with those that want nothing - as an actual reason to object, is
ludicrous and frankly objectionable in itself. (and should not be taken
into consideration as any real objection anyway)

Regards

Andre