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

I do not disagree with this.

Serge


On 30.04.20 09:41, Hans-Martin Mosner wrote:
> Am 30.04.20 um 02:58 schrieb Suresh Ramasubramanian:
>>
>> However, being in a fiduciary role - with IPv4 being traded like
>> currency these days the description fits - RIPE NCC can’t not get
>> involved.
>>
> ...
>> NCC owes it to the rest of its membership and the internet community
>> at large to take a more active role in this matter.
>>
> This.
> 
> And as long as RIPE and/or NCC explicitly does not want to take action
> when RIPE members don't handle abuse from their networks properly, the
> whole issue of validating abuse mailbox addresses is moot. After all
> discussion, the toothless compromise will be that there should be an
> abuse mailbox, and FWIW it can be handled by Dave Null because nobody
> will exert pressure on the resource holder to do anything else.
> 
> Our problem on the receiving side of network abuse is not with the few
> good-willing but technically challenged providers whose abuse mailbox
> isn't working properly but with those large operators who don't give a
> flying f about their customer's network abuse.
> 
> Personally, I consider the anti-abuse WG a failure at this point. When I
> joined I had hoped to see and possibly support constructive work towards
> a reduction in network abuse, but apparently there are big players in
> this game who are not interested in such a reduction as it would
> undermine their "business".
> 
> Cheers,
> Hans-Martin
> 

-- 
Dr. Serge Droz
Chair of the FIRST Board of Directors
https://www.first.org