<html><body><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#000; font-size:12pt;"><div><i><span style="">"Maybe when policy is violated, multiple times (more than once) and also</span><br style=""><span style="">then notice by additional communication (phone?) and if that also fails</span><br style=""><span style="">then loss of resource is reasonable."</span></i><br></div><div><br></div><div>This is too unfair on RIPE and no body (RIPE included) has enough resources to police something that should be the responsibility of the resource holder.</div><div><br></div><div>ICANN has a process where they publicly publish their warning letters on their website and then revoke accreditation.</div><div><br></div><div>Some of the suggestions on this list are amazingly crazy: That it's OK to own a massive IP range, yet <span style="font-size: 12pt;">to not even need to have a functioning abuse reporting address.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><br></span></div>
<blockquote id="replyBlockquote" webmail="1" style="border-left: 2px solid blue; margin-left: 8px; padding-left: 8px; font-size:10pt; color:black; font-family:verdana;">
<div id="wmQuoteWrapper">
-------- Original Message --------<br>
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase<br>
(Regular abuse-c Validation)<br>
From: ox <<a href="mailto:andre@ox.co.za">andre@ox.co.za</a>><br>
Date: Tue, January 23, 2018 12:33 am<br>
To: <a href="mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net">anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net</a><br>
<br>
On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 14:19:26 +0100<br>
Gert Doering <<a href="mailto:gert@space.net">gert@space.net</a>> wrote:<br>
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 11:25:12AM +0000, Nick Hilliard wrote:<br>
> > I have no problem with abuse-c validation, either via ARC, or the<br>
> > mechanism proposed in this policy, and probably not via a range of<br>
> > other mechanisms either. But threatening to terminate the right of<br>
> > an organisation to continue to exist in the case of non compliance<br>
> > of the terms specified in 2017-02 is frankly absurd. <br>
> <br>
> I second this concern.<br>
> I do see the need for a working abuse contact, and I do see the need<br>
> of sanctions in case a policy is violated, but "deregister all<br>
> resources, because your mail server was broken when we tested" is too<br>
> extreme (exaggeration for emphasis).<br>
> <br>
+1 for the need for sanctions when policy is violated<br>
<br>
+1 for the need for the sanctions process to be more clearly described<br>
<br>
Maybe when policy is violated, multiple times (more than once) and also<br>
then notice by additional communication (phone?) and if that also fails<br>
then loss of resource is reasonable.<br>
<br>
There has to be a stick otherwise it is all pointless anyway. So, defining the stick <br>
somewhat better (fairly) is not unreasonable. <br>
<br>
Andre<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote></span></body></html>