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

Hans-Martin and other fellow anti-abuse working group members,

On 30/04/2020 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.
Before the validation policy & implementation, one could argue that no 
policy could require anti-abuse response, because perhaps abuse reports 
were simply not arriving.

This validation is weak now, so this argument is still reasonable.

The proposed change in validation increases the strictness, so that it 
will be unreasonable to argue that abuse reports are not getting delivered.

This is a change which ultimately satisfies nobody; people wanting 
strong anti-abuse policies do not see much point since it doesn't 
improve abuse handling, and people wanting loose or non-existent 
anti-abuse policies think it is a waste of time.

However, the proposed stronger anti-abuse reporting confirmation does 
create a technical framework where the possibility of setting a policy 
with requirements for not only acknowledging abuse reports but actually 
handling them in some way. Furthermore, it allows a framework that might 
have "teeth": meaning that there can be consequences for not following 
the policy.

This proposed policy change moves us closer to a state where addressing 
the question can not be put off any further. Depending on where you 
stand on the overall idea of RIPE and the RIPE NCC's role in anti-abuse 
is, this either excites or upsets you.

Cheers,

--
Shane