March 2018 - anti-abuse-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
by Name 19 Feb '19

19 Feb '19

9 11

Decision on Proposal 2017-02 & Next Steps
by Brian Nisbet 28 Mar '18

28 Mar '18

Colleagues, We've been thinking about this for some time and attempting to find a way through the various comments and messages in regards to 2017-02. We believe the best option at this point is to extend the review phase of this proposal for a further 4 weeks as we do not believe rough consensus has been reached. However we also do not believe that there has been sufficient clear argument to reject the proposal. We think that during this time it would be useful if those who engaged in the discussion but did not express a preference could do so. It would also be useful if those who commented on the first version of the proposal, especially those who objected, still objected after the second version was published. It should also be noted that the NCC have laid out the method by which they would plan to implement this proposal, so we do not believe that discussion around alternative methods nor additional checks is germane. It is also clear that the ARC will be used in conjunction with the automated checks. It is also clear that this will not require "make work" from any admins to answer. Finally we need to address the objections around the possible implications of organisations *not* following this policy. It is clear that 2017-02 does not attempt to introduce any additional processes nor change how the NCC would act in cases where policies are not followed. We believe this has been clarified. If members of the community have an issue with these procedures then we think that's a separate discussion, rather than a valid reason to object to 2017-02 Other than those listed above, there was a feeling expressed that this will not make any meaningful difference. Both the RIPE NCC and the proposers have said that this work to improve the quality of data will be greatly appreciated. We would also mention that policies can be further amended in the future. So, if everyone could take a look at the latest version of 2017-02 again that would be appreciated. If you have already stated your support there is no need to do so. If you are opposed, then please consider the above and the various discussions and see if you are still opposed to this version of the proposal. If so, can you please state which reasons for opposition have not been clarified nor resolved. Obviously if you haven't stated a preference either way, as I mention above, this is your opportunity to do so! Thanks, Brian Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG Brian Nisbet Network Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nisbet(a)heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270

6 10

need help: RTBH from Rostelecom (russia)
by Sebastien Ceuterickx 27 Mar '18

27 Mar '18

Dear working group, I am writing with regards to our IP being blocked by Rostelecom (Russia). We have tried to contact them using the mailing list from the RIPE database but we still did not get any answer. I have also tried ENOG without success. I wonder if someone has a good contact to them or an idea to get their attention ;-) I thank you for your help in this matter, Best, Sebastien --- Sébastien CEUTERICKX Network and Infrastructure Engineering Mobile: +41 78 694 15 92 Proton Technologies AG Chemin du Pré-Fleuri, 3 CH-1228 Plan-les-Ouates, Genève, Switzerland

2 1

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
by Name 20 Mar '18

20 Mar '18

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
by herve.clement＠orange.com 19 Mar '18

19 Mar '18

As co-authors, if we propose this policy, that's because we believe that improving the Whois reliability is good for the Internet. With regard to the first analysis conducted by the RIPE NCC, about 10%-25% of the current 70,000 distinct abuse contact emails seem technically incorrect, this implies that between 7,000 and 17,500 email addresses are not working ones. If contacted by the RIPE NCC, resource holders will be requested to fix this information and will be able to receive abuse notifications. So there will be a significant difference between receiving something vs receiving anything. Perhaps a part of these holders don't care but they will be contactable. The other part will be educated about this abuse-c field during the process. And an annual checking would ensure that the contacts remain more up-to-date. Regards Hervé -----Message d'origine----- De : anti-abuse-wg [mailto:anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net] De la part de ox Envoyé : lundi 19 mars 2018 03:23 À : JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg Objet : Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02 On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 13:43:54 +0000 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net<mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net>> wrote: <snip> > I'm not a lawyer, but deal a lot with them, and I'm sure anyway, there > are more informed voices even from the NCC that can confirm, and > actually it will be interesting to confirm. > +1 I would like to also present the other side of the same argument: If the NCC provides a platform that supplies fake/false/wrong information it could also attract arguments of legal liability... Similarly, if the NCC does not provide abuse contact information there could also be legal arguments that this is a dereliction of trust with regards public resource management and that also opens up arguments of liability... So, this would be most interesting to confirm. Regards Andre _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
by Erik Bais 18 Mar '18

18 Mar '18

I still have some serious concerns about this proposal. I wonder how this might have an effect on the conduit role of (transit)-networks. And if the RIPE NCC will be requested to report (by the community or by legal court actions) or will be held liable in some way shape or form for the accurate information in case a resource holder will end up in a court case because they are not responsive on abuse complains. As a community we should tread carefully if we want to push the RIPE NCC in the middle of those kind of legal cases or want it to be held accountable on that. Especially in case of Copyright complaints for instance. The RIPE NCC is having agreements / contracts with all resource holders for ownership via End-User Agreements or LIR agreements, however in case of acting on operational topics like abuse handling, that SHOULD NOT be a part of it. Having a working method of abuse handling is a task of the resource holder themselves. If they decide to not act on or not have a valid abuse contact, it is their own responsibility. With all subsequent consequences. The RIPE NCC provides a datamodel in the RIPE DB to populate the field, but it should not get involved in validation of the information. The amount of work involved in validating just that specific field with no guarantee on or added value on actual responsiveness after it is validated, is a waste of community funds. Because those who want to respond on abuse complaints are already having working abuse contacts and those who don't, still won't. I fear that this task will be more or similar resource consuming than implementing 2007-01 .. ( Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC ) Especially since it is stated that this should be done on a yearly basis. So in the end, it looks like expensive window dressing which might open up the RIPE NCC with a legal liability. However novel the intent is of authors. I would strongly advice against this. Regards, Erik Bais

3 2

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
by Karl-Josef Ziegler 18 Mar '18

18 Mar '18

Andre Ox wrote: > But having some sort of policy is a start, even though > what we are actually ending up with is not much at all and even then > there are those that think even having a watery (watered down, > toothless, etc) policy is a future threat. Yes, I agree. Making only a small step - even if it may be only symbolic - is still better than making no steps at all. Best regards, Karl-Josef

2 1

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
by Gert Doering 17 Mar '18

17 Mar '18

Hi, On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 10:53:55AM +0200, ox wrote: > To answer the question though: This proposal does make the world a > better place. > > If a resource holder wishes to be allocated scarce public resources > such a resource holder should also be responsible about the operations > of such scarce public resources. In which way, exactly, would this proposal have an effect to achieve this goal (a goal that I share, to state it explicitly)? I maintain the position that those that do care can be reached today, and those that do not care will find ways to fulfill the letter of the policy, and not change their ways. So, to repeat Malcolm's position: if we introduce new work for the NCC and the LIRs, does it improve things enough to be the right thing to do? (As a side note, we recently were contacted by the NCC because one of our 'sponsoring LIR' customers had changed their primary domain and forgot to update their contact details in the RIPE DB, thus, making them unreachable. Someone noticed, complained to the NCC, the NCC contacted the sponsoring LIR, and contact details were corrected. Things seem to work today where people care...) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

2 1

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
by Name 17 Mar '18

17 Mar '18

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
by Name 17 Mar '18

17 Mar '18

3 2