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

Hi Suresh

On 07/03/2016 13:19, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>
>> On 07-Mar-2016, at 5:44 PM, Niall O'Reilly <niall.oreilly at ucd.ie>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I think Peter Koch, Gert Doering, and Gilles Massen have answered
>> this question adequately already.
>
> Gert followed a rather socratic method - answering a question with
> another :)
>
> The current method is absolutely not useful in that the lack of
> standardization means people (including me) who are stuck with large
> amounts of phish to report have no other alternative but do a
> substantial part of the process manually.

As I said in previous replies, abuse-c is standardised and is fully 
deployed for RIPE NCC resources. You should not need to do any manual 
lookups.

cheers
denis


>
> —srs
>
> Quoting Gert -
>
>> The relevant question for the PDP is "does 2016-01 help achieve the
>> goal of better combatting Internet abuse"?
>>
>> [..]
>>> 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?