[db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01

On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 09:00:27 +0100
Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote:
> Hi,
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 01:21:04AM +0100, denis wrote:
> > OK lets cut to the bottom line. Does anyone NOT agree with these
> > points:
> > -Internet abuse (in it's various forms) is considered both a
> > nuisance and a danger by the public
> > -Politicians will jump onto any band wagon that has popular public 
> > support and enhances their careers
> > -Responsible internet resource management includes receiving and 
> > handling abuse complaints related to the networks you manage
> All totally true.
> The relevant question for the PDP is "does 2016-01 help achieve the
> goal of better combatting Internet abuse"?
> 
no. it is not up to the ncc to decide what constitutes abuse on a
network and to even have a goal of 'combatting abuse'

it is however of the utmost importance, as important as being able to
deliver accurate physical address data, to deliver accurate abuse data.

this is an absolute minimum for a modern day rigorously correct resource
allocation registry

it is not just a convenience for ops, it is a
data/consumer/person/world/peoples 
driven demand.
 
> [..]
> > I don't know why we are making the policy side so complicated. The 
> > principle is simple. If you manage IP addresses in the public
> > domain, from where abuse can be generated, responsible management
> > requires you to provide abuse contact details!!!
> 
> Will making "providing a mail address in a specific field" mandatory
> for people the RIPE NCC doesn't currently have a contract with (and
> that do not particularily frequently show up on the "evil boys list")
> help achieve your goals?  Why?
> 
it aids in so many ways, for starters, establishing the level of trust
in a network, it provides a single point of contact for a range of
issues. if you decide to add devnull at example.com to your abuse-c I
already have a good idea what to do with abuse complaints - (simply do
not bother sending them anywhere as you do not want them and do not
care)
> You should know that I'm quite active in working to work against
> network abuse, but at the same time, I'm not willing to accept every
> potential measure of the anti-spam community as "THIS MUST BE DONE!
> NOW!".
> 
it is a large problem and maintaining an up to date data about abuse
records - as I am doing now - is actually not my job - but that of the
ncc.

by up to date i mean: a record of ops that want / act on abuse and a
record of ops and ranges that do not. (many of those are simply now
dropped at borders)

> As in all policy decisions, every change needs to answer the
> questions "is we are changing *effective* in reaching the goal?",
> "what are the side effects?" and "are there other ways towards the
> common goal?" (and potentially "is the goal actually something the
> community agrees upon").
> 

the changes are demanded so that the ncc can meet it's obligations.

and be a correct resource allocation registry

ac
	-- not even a padawan  ;)

> Gert Doering
>         -- NetMaster