[anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

No point repeating Nick's points, but I agree. 

The current proposal should be abandoned - it's not getting better with each iteration

Regards

Michele


--
Mr Michele Neylon

Blacknight Solutions

Hosting, Colocation & Domains

https://www.blacknight.com
https://blacknight.blog /

http://ceo.hosting/

Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072

Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090

-------------------------------

Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park, Sleaty Road, Graiguecullen, Carlow, R93 X265,Ireland  Company No.: 370845

On 28/04/2020, 20:27, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of Nick Hilliard" <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net on behalf of nick at foobar.org> wrote:

    Petrit Hasani wrote on 28/04/2020 15:01:
    > A new version of RIPE policy proposal, 2019-04, "Validation of
    > "abuse-mailbox"", is now available for discussion.

    The updated version of this policy proposal is here:

    > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-04/draft

    The proposal has the following problems, each of which would be 
    sufficient reason it its own right to reject the proposal:

    > and must not force the sender to use a form.

    It's not the job of the RIPE NCC to tell its members how to handle abuse 
    reports, and it is beyond inappropriate for this working group to expect 
    the RIPE NCC to withdraw numbering resources if member organisations 
    don't comply with an arbitrary policy which forces the use of SMTP email 
    like this.

    > [...] is present and can receive messages at least every six months*.
    > If the validation fails, the RIPE NCC
    and:

    > *The RIPE NCC may change the validation period depending on the level
    > of accuracy of the contacts. For example, switching from six-month to
    > one-year period once contact accuracy has improved.

    This addition proposes to micromanage the RIPE NCC even further. 
    Arbitrary time-scales like this are operational details which have no 
    place in a well-thought-out policy.

    > This validation process will not check how the abuse cases are
    > processed. The community should escalate/report back to the RIPE NCC,
    > so anonymised statistics can be collected and periodically
    > published.

    > However, the community should report any situation to the RIPE NCC,
    > which can provide (anonymous) periodical statistics to the community,
    > which can take further decisions about that.

    This proposes that the RIPE NCC becomes an abuse reporting clearinghouse 
    based on unsubstantiated community gossip.  This is inappropriate in 
    many different ways.

    > It should be clear that the policy intent is not to look into how the
    > abuse mailbox is monitored or how abuse cases are handled.

    It's difficult to take this seriously when the intent of most of the 
    rest of the text in the proposal is about using the RIPE NCC to monitor 
    how abuse cases are handled and to ensure that the abuse mailbox is 
    monitored.

    The proposal is self-contradictory, intrusive into NCC membership 
    business processes and there is no compelling reason to believe that the 
    proposal will end up reducing the amount of abuse on the internet.

    In addition, all of these problems were identified in previous versions 
    of the proposal, i.e. none of them has been resolved and because of 
    that, there is no reason to think that this version is any more likely 
    to reach consensus than any of the previous versions.

    The proposal needs to be abandoned.

    Nick