[anti-abuse-wg] Verification of abuse contact addresses ?

Speaking in general and not just about this case.

All the RIRs membership contracts mandate following the policies, otherwise there is a contractual breach and the "services" (read resources as well) can be canceled/reclaimed. At least, this is my reading.

So, no need to have an explicit text in each "policy" that talks about that. Of course, if some policies have that text, it is a good reminder about that.

In some regions, there is a more explicit policy about resource reclamation, which helps to define, for example, the period of time for the reclamation, etc.

Regards,
Jordi
 
 

-----Mensaje original-----
De: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net> en nombre de Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com>
Fecha: viernes, 8 de marzo de 2019, 22:51
Para: Shane Kerr <shane at time-travellers.org>, Fi Shing <phishing at storey.xxx>, "anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net" <anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net>
Asunto: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Verification of abuse contact addresses ?

    Earlier versions of the proposed policy had language that some people took to mean that removing resources etc., was a possible escalation. 
    I don't think it was originally the intent, though personally I can see merit in it being an escalation path. 
    
    
    --
    Mr Michele Neylon
    Blacknight Solutions
    Hosting, Colocation & Domains
    https://www.blacknight.com/
    http://blacknight.blog/
    Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
    Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
    Personal blog: https://michele.blog/
    Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/
    -------------------------------
    Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
    Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland  Company No.: 370845
     
    
    On 09/03/2019, 06:46, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of Shane Kerr" <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net on behalf of shane at time-travellers.org> wrote:
    
        Fi Shing,
        
        As far as I know there is nothing in any policy about decommissioning 
        resources. (I'm not even sure what that would mean in practice...)
        
        I don't think that such a proposal would get consensus in the RIPE 
        community, but I am often wrong so if you want this then please submit a 
        policy proposal. The RIPE NCC staff, the working group chairs, or some 
        friendly community member can help you with this.
        
        Cheers,
        
        --
        Shane
        
        On 08/03/2019 22.25, Fi Shing wrote:
        > /But Marco's response mentions to *correcting* the contact addresses, not
        > just verifying them. That involves working with human beings, so it
        > makes sense that it will take a while./
        > /
        > /
        > No it doesn't - that was the whole point of the "change" in the first 
        > place, that it was to reduce the amount of verification needed to be 
        > done by RIPE. There is a simple automated way to verify the entries - 
        > click a link, enter a CAPTCHA, or your resources are decommissioned 
        > within 24 hours.
        > 
        > How much crime can be committed in the months it has taken (and 
        > continues to take)?
        > 
        > 
        > 
        > 
        > 
        >     -------- Original Message --------
        >     Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Verification of abuse contact addresses ?
        >     From: Shane Kerr <shane at time-travellers.org
        >     <mailto:shane at time-travellers.org>>
        >     Date: Fri, March 08, 2019 9:40 pm
        >     To: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net <mailto:anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net>
        > 
        >     Fi Shing,
        > 
        >     I'm sure verifying the delivery of 70k e-mails (or however many is in
        >     the database) can be done in a few hours.
        > 
        >     But Marco's response mentions to *correcting* the contact addresses,
        >     not
        >     just verifying them. That involves working with human beings, so it
        >     makes sense that it will take a while.
        > 
        >     Cheers,
        > 
        >     --
        >     Shane
        > 
        >     On 08/03/2019 11.07, Fi Shing wrote:
        >     > If it takes more than a week to verify your entire database, there is 
        >     > the first sign that something is wrong with your system.
        >     > 
        >     > 
        >     >     -------- Original Message --------
        >     >     Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Verification of abuse contact addresses ?
        >     >     From: Marco Schmidt <mschmidt at ripe.net <mailto:mschmidt at ripe.net>
        >      ><mailto:mschmidt at ripe.net>>
        >     >     Date: Thu, March 07, 2019 10:03 pm
        >     >     To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg at tristatelogic.com <mailto:rfg at tristatelogic.com>
        >     >     <mailto:rfg at tristatelogic.com>>,
        >     >     anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net <mailto:anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net>
        >     <mailto:anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net>
        >     > 
        >     >     Hello Ronald,
        >     > 
        >     >     We are planning to publish an updated timeline soon.
        >     > 
        >     >     Ultimately, our implementation will depend of the level of cooperation
        >     >     we get from LIRs and the nature of issues that need to be fixed before
        >     >     an abuse contact can be updated (for example, some organisations may
        >     >     need to reset their maintainer password).
        >     > 
        >     >     Over the next few weeks we will be analysing our progress, to make a
        >     >     realistic estimation. From observations so far, we think we might be
        >     >     able to finish our initial validation of all abuse contacts within six
        >     >     months - but it is still too early to make any strong predictions.
        >     > 
        >     >     Kind regards,
        >     >     Marco Schmidt
        >     >     RIPE NCC
        >     > 
        >     > 
        >     >     On 05/03/2019 21:51, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
        >     >     > In message <9c95c110-d5a3-e94a-6b3c-b02030736e7c at ripe.net
        >     <mailto:9c95c110-d5a3-e94a-6b3c-b02030736e7c at ripe.net>
        >     >     <mailto:9c95c110-d5a3-e94a-6b3c-b02030736e7c at ripe.net>>,
        >     >     > Marco Schmidt <mschmidt at ripe.net <mailto:mschmidt at ripe.net>
        >      ><mailto:mschmidt at ripe.net>> wrote:
        >     >     >
        >     >     >> It is correct that the implementation phase is still ongoing. Currently
        >     >     >> we are validating all the abuse contact information referenced in LIR
        >     >     >> organisation objects. Then we will proceed with the validation of abuse
        >     >     >> contacts referenced in LIR resource objects - the example that you
        >     >     >> mentioned belongs to this group. And finally all abuse contacts
        >     >     >> referenced in End User (sponsored) objects will be validated.
        >     >     > Thanks for the info Marco.
        >     >     >
        >     >     > I guess the only question I would ask is this:  Is there a published
        >     >     > timeline for how this whole process is planned to play out, and for
        >     >     > when it is planned to be completed?
        >     >     >
        >     >     >
        >     >     > Regards,
        >     >     > rfg
        >     >     >
        >     > 
        >     > 
        > 
        > 
        
        
        
    
    



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
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.