<html><body><div><div>"A working abuse-c mailbox is great, but mandating this requirement in this way is going to turn the abuse-c mechanism into a window-dressing exercise which can be satisfied by an autoresponder."</div><div> </div><div><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAPTCHA" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAPTCHA</a></div> </div> <blockquote id="replyBlockquote" style="border-left: 2px solid blue; margin-left: 8px; padding-left: 8px; font-size:10pt; color:black; font-family:verdana;" webmail="1"> <div id="wmQuoteWrapper"> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02 New Policy Proposal (Regular abuse-c Validation) From: Nick Hilliard <<a href="mailto:nick@foobar.org">nick@foobar.org</a>> Date: Tue, September 12, 2017 12:00 am To: "<a href="mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net">anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net</a>" <<a href="mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net">anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net</a>> > The goal of this proposal is to give the RIPE NCC a mandate to > regularly validate "abuse-c:" information and to follow up in cases > where contact information is found to be invalid. which states: > b. Arguments opposing the proposal [...] > If organisations are not cooperative, the RIPE NCC ultimately has the > possibility to close their RIPE NCC membership and deregister their > Internet number resources. The most serious problem with this proposal is that it's saying: "make sure your abuse-c mailbox is working and if it isn't, this proposal is explicitly threatening that the RIPE NCC can take your numbering resources away". This is a highly aggressive approach and I don't think this is a viable or appropriate way of handling stewardship of IP numbering resources, and particularly not from a monopoly organisation. Useful abuse management is far more than tickbox compliance with having your abuse-c mailbox connected up to an autoresponder. A working abuse-c mailbox is great, but mandating this requirement in this way is going to turn the abuse-c mechanism into a window-dressing exercise which can be satisfied by an autoresponder. On this basis I don't support this proposal. Why didn't the authors just talk to the RIPE NCC and ask them to include abuse-c validation in the Assisted Registry Check? This seems like a far less heavy-handed option than creating a policy proposal. It also involves better quality community outreach, and without the threat of aggression implicit in proposal 2017-02. Nick </div> </blockquote></body></html>