"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."

There has already been discussion about cancelling resources of people who don't comply.

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 hotmail.com has a valid email server associated.

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.

Secondly, they have tried to say that talking about consequences is a conversation "for another day." (ie: never).

So, if you are against this policy, you should be happy because it's garbage anyway.

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. 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.



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
From: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
Date: Sat, March 17, 2018 9:52 pm
To: ox <andre@ox.co.za>
Cc: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net

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