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

Thanks for question, i really forgot to add important clarification paragraph for objection.

On 2018-03-27 14:50:13 CET, Brian Nisbet wrote:
> Alexander,
> 
> Thanks for this. 
> 
> I'd just like to clarify something, are you objecting wholly to this proposal because you would prefer stronger/more complex checks? In that you feel it doesn't go far enough?
I'm objecting wholly to this proposal, because i doesnt' significantly improve data quality of the whole registry and doesn't help to prevent serious abuse.
And being IT guy (and sometimes executive) i do not like implementing something, "just because we can".
(and i had arguments, that valid abuse-c won't help against really malicious abuse)

If we need such kind of policy, than it should be full scale Automated Registry Checks (probably with all contacts, validity of routing, validity of resource assigments, responsiveness of contacts, etc..) - in a way, which will guarantee some measurable level on quality. (NCC Database SLA)

But now, i prefer current situation, with trust to LIRs and light assisted checks.

Years ago, talking first time to Rob Blokzijl i'v asked him: "Why information in database is not being checked fully, with all phone numbers/emails checks, submitting confirming papers for each assignment etc, like any activities done in Russia?". He responded something like "It's not in tradition". And i value such traditions.
I would like for us to stay in Western European tradition, rather than moving to Police State tradition.
But if community decides to move - the move should be done with good and complete approach.

Hope you'll get me right.

Kind regards,
Alexander Isavnin


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