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

Hi,

On Wed, 29 Apr 2020, Nick Hilliard wrote:

> Serge Droz via anti-abuse-wg wrote on 29/04/2020 16:55:
>> So, it's the security guys, saying
>>
>>    This may help a bit, but won't solve all problems.

+1 here.


>> versus the infrastructure operators saying
>>
>>    Beware! This it creating huge costs and will not help at all, and
>> answering two mails a year will be our ruin.
>
> The root problem is that the policy proposes to use the RIPE NCC to enforce 
> abuse management processes.
>
> The specifics in this iteration of the document are to threaten and then act 
> to deregister an organisation's number resources - and thereby remove their 
> ability to conduct business - if the organisation declines to handle abuse 
> complaints over email.

If the "deregistration" could be placed outside of the picture (in a new 
version?), what's the next major hurdle then...?

I mean, if "deregistration" is not possible when validation fails 
(continuously), there might still be positive outcomes (transparency...), 
if the price tag on the RIPE NCC is not that big. I don't see an impact 
analysis yet, but if it's affordable for other RIRs, maybe it will be also 
for the RIPE NCC -- who knows?


> To be clear, it's a fundamental right in large chunks of the RIPE service 
> region to conduct business.  If the RIPE NCC acts to threaten to remove this 
> ability to conduct business,

Very glad it's "business", not "abuse" :-))


Carlos


> there would need to be sound legal justification 
> for doing so.
>
> Nick
>