[ncc-services-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] 2013-01 New Policy Proposal (Openness about Policy Violations)

Hi Sascha,

> Utterly and completely unacceptable. The proposal, in its current form, is akin to the police publishing every complaint they receive, with full details of the subject of the complaint, whether justified or not. I also note that is "The identity of the submitter, if the submitter indicated that it can be made public;" No such protection is afforded the subject of the complaint.

Fair point. But would you really give any value to an anonymous report that is marked as closed,no-violation?

> This proposal is nothing but a denunciant's charter, the legality of which is doubtful (NCC Legal please to comment). The idea that publishing these reports makes abuse of the reporting system less likely - where the attack *is* the publishing of these reports - is laughable.
> 
> I therefore register my vehement opposition and, indeed, protest against this proposal in its current form. As a possible compromise, I could accept the publication of reports where the NCC has found that a violation was indeed committed.

Publishing nothing at all would not be acceptable to me. Letting the RIPE NCC do some 'spam filtering' before publishing anything would not be a problem, but waiting until the complaint is completely resolved would not make the process more visible. A big problem I have with reporting something to the police is that you never see if action has been taken, and that gives the feeling that reporting is useless, even when it is not. I want to change that.

How about initially only publishing:
- Date submitted;
- The resources the report is about;
- The identity of the submitter, if the submitter indicated that it can be made public;
- The current state.

The exact content of the report is not the most important part to me.

Then (for example) if someone was then sending in bogus complaints about my IPv4 allocation the only published information would be:
- 2013-04-01
- 37.77.56.0/21
- Anonymous submitter
- closed,no-violation

Not that exciting...

Cheers,
Sander