[anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

Are they is the question

For example - ARIN just reclaimed a large number of IPs from an actor that created a large number of  shell companies.  http://m.slashdot.org/story/355802

--srs

________________________________
From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net> on behalf of Nick Hilliard <nick at foobar.org>
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2019 3:08 AM
To: Gert Doering
Cc: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

Gert Doering wrote on 16/05/2019 21:47:
> No positive effect, but lots of negative side-effects.

Abuse mailboxes are already checked. What matters for abuse management
is whether reports are acted on. This policy doesn't address that.

If the RIPE NCC is instructed to send 6-monthly reminders to all abuse
contacts with the implicit threat that if they aren't acted on in the
way specified in this policy, that the organisation in question can look
forward to having their addressing resources vapourised, this will
aggravate the RIPE NCC membership and corrode community trust in the
organisation. The one thing it won't do is make abuse management better.

Internet abuse management is not something that you're going to fix by
beating LIRs with sticks, and if they don't react, that you threaten to
beat them harder.

Separate to this, it's inappropriate to micromanage the NCC in RIPE
policy. It would be good if the RIPE working groups stopped trying to
tell the RIPE NCC people how to do their jobs.

Nick

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20190516/a6287412/attachment.html>