<html><body><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#000; font-size:12pt;"><div><i><span style="">"I maintain the position that those that do care can be reached today, and</span><br style=""><span style="">those that do not care will find ways to fulfill the letter of the policy,</span><br style=""><span style="">and not change their ways."</span></i></div><div><i><span style=""><br></span></i></div><div>There has already been discussion about cancelling resources of people who don't comply.</div><div><br></div><div> Firstly, there is nothing in this policy to comply with. It consists of RIPE checking if a mail server exists. If a resource owner sets their abuse mailbox to "Ronald.McDonald@hotmail.com", they will be deemed to have a valid abuse contact, because <a href="http://hotmail.com">hotmail.com</a> has a valid email server associated.</div><div><br></div><div>The original intention was for resource owners to have to click a link in an email to prove the email address exists & that there's someone monitoring it. But that was so utterly difficult it looks to have been abandoned.</div><div><br></div><div>Secondly, they have tried to say that talking about consequences is a conversation "for another day." (ie: never).</div><div><br></div><div>So, if you are against this policy, you should be happy because it's garbage anyway.</div><div><br></div><div>The original reason for the discussion was that RIPE were having to contact resource owners when the abuse email address didn't work. This outcome doesn't even do that. <u>They will still be contacting as many people as they were before this policy (which doesn't even need to be a policy) will be introduced</u>.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></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] Decision on Proposal 2017-02<br>
From: Gert Doering <<a href="mailto:gert@space.net">gert@space.net</a>><br>
Date: Sat, March 17, 2018 9:52 pm<br>
To: ox <<a href="mailto:andre@ox.co.za">andre@ox.co.za</a>><br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net">anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net</a><br>
<br>
Hi,<br>
<br>
On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 10:53:55AM +0200, ox wrote:<br>
> To answer the question though: This proposal does make the world a<br>
> better place.<br>
> <br>
> If a resource holder wishes to be allocated scarce public resources<br>
> such a resource holder should also be responsible about the operations<br>
> of such scarce public resources.<br>
<br>
In which way, exactly, would this proposal have an effect to achieve <br>
this goal (a goal that I share, to state it explicitly)?<br>
<br>
I maintain the position that those that do care can be reached today, and<br>
those that do not care will find ways to fulfill the letter of the policy,<br>
and not change their ways.<br>
<br>
So, to repeat Malcolm's position: if we introduce new work for the NCC <br>
and the LIRs, does it improve things enough to be the right thing to do?<br>
<br>
<br>
(As a side note, we recently were contacted by the NCC because one of<br>
our 'sponsoring LIR' customers had changed their primary domain and <br>
forgot to update their contact details in the RIPE DB, thus, making them<br>
unreachable. Someone noticed, complained to the NCC, the NCC contacted <br>
the sponsoring LIR, and contact details were corrected. Things seem to<br>
work today where people care...)<br>
<br>
Gert Doering<br>
-- NetMaster<br>
-- <br>
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?<br>
<br>
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard<br>
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann<br>
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)<br>
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279<br>
</div>
</blockquote></span></body></html>