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

Dear Jordi,

> There are existing procedures for that in extreme cases.

I think it's now obvious that existing procedures does not work.


--
Sergey


Friday, May 8, 2020, 1:20:45 PM, you wrote:

JPMvaaw> However, I fully understand that the community prefer to do things in different steps.

JPMvaaw> We initially asked for the abuse mailbox.

JPMvaaw> Then we added a technical validation.

JPMvaaw> Now I'm asking for a better validations and make sure that
JPMvaaw> the reporting is feasible. I'm not asking to verify if you handle the abuse case or not.

JPMvaaw> *AND* I'm not asking to take *new* actions. There are
JPMvaaw> existing procedures for that in extreme cases.
JPMvaaw>  

JPMvaaw> El 30/4/20 9:51, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Serge Droz via
JPMvaaw> anti-abuse-wg" <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net en nombre de
JPMvaaw> anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net> escribió:

JPMvaaw>     I do not disagree with this.

JPMvaaw>     Serge


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

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




JPMvaaw> **********************************************
JPMvaaw> IPv4 is over
JPMvaaw> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
JPMvaaw> http://www.theipv6company.com
JPMvaaw> The IPv6 Company

JPMvaaw> This electronic message contains information which may be
JPMvaaw> privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be
JPMvaaw> for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and
JPMvaaw> further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying,
JPMvaaw> distribution or use of the contents of this information, even
JPMvaaw> if partially, including attached files, is strictly
JPMvaaw> prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you
JPMvaaw> are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure,
JPMvaaw> copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
JPMvaaw> information, even if partially, including attached files, is
JPMvaaw> strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense,
JPMvaaw> so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.