> cheersdenisco-chair DB-WG
>
>      From: Daniel Stolpe <stolpe@resilans.se>
>  To: denis walker <ripedenis@yahoo.co.uk>
> Cc: "anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net" <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net>
>  Sent: Thursday, 30 March 2017, 16:10
>  Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] "abuse-c:" - a question....with no
> answers?
>
>
> Hi Denis,
>
> Maybe som kind of "abuse-org" would do the trick. I.e. the default
> abuse contact goes via the normal "org" attribute, but if there
> exists an "abuse-org" you can put different contact details there.
>
> Just a plain email address might become a little bit too anonymous.
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel
>
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2017, denis walker wrote:
>
> > Colleagues
> >
> > A couple of weeks ago I asked the question below. No one has yet
> > responded. We need to resolve the issues around "abuse-c:", which
> > means we must make some software changes. In order to make the
> > right changes we need your feedback. If "abuse-c:" is nothing more
> > than an email address tagged on to a resource then the changes can
> > be very simple. The working group chairs can't make these
> > decisions.  We need your input and direction...
> >
> > I understand that this issue has been talked about so many times
> > over several years...with no solution. This time we are determined
> > to take some action. Whilst nothing is ever final, lets make this
> > the last discussion on "abuse-c:" for a while.
> >
> > cheers
> > denis
> > co-chair DB-WG
> >
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> > From: "ripedenis@yahoo.co.uk" <ripedenis@yahoo.co.uk>
> > To: "anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net" <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net>
> > Sent: Thursday, 16 March 2017, 18:14
> > Subject: "abuse-c:" - a question....
> >
> > Colleagues
> >
> > I would like to ask the community a question that looks at a wider
> > picture than the "abuse-c:" attribute itself. Depending on how
> > people react to this question, it may impact the chosen path to
> > solving the issue with documenting abuse contact details in the
> > RIPE Database.
> >
> > The current implementation for "abuse-c:" documents the default
> > contact details for who handles abuse issues within an organisation
> > that holds resources. If the email address is invalid or there is
> > no response to a complaint sent to that address it is clear who the
> > organisation is and there are other contacts related to this
> > organisation.
> >
> > Sometimes a resource holder delegates some responsibility for the
> > management of (one or more of) their resource(s) to another
> > person/organisation. This may be just the abuse handling. With the
> > current database semantics it is not always possible to create a
> > separate ORGANISATION object to document this responsibility. This
> > issue has been described as 'How to reference the email address for
> > the abuse reports for this resource?'.
> >
> > The simple version of my question is 'Is it enough to only know the
> > email address and an un-validated postal address for the abuse
> > handler?'. An email address can be 'anyone@anybody.com'. This tells
> > you nothing about 'anyone' or 'anybody'. It is a one directional
> > channel to throw something down that may end in a black hole. If
> > nothing happens, who was supposed to have this responsibility? Not
> > everyone who uses this abuse contact information understands the
> > RIPE Database structure, the resource hierarchy or the contractual
> > responsibilities of the related parties. They may have searched
> > online for who to complain to, got this email address and got no
> > response. How do you take further action against an email address?
> >
> > What I am working round to is explaining why the "abuse-c:" was
> > designed the way it is. Where responsibility for handling abuse was
> > delegated to another party (separate organisation or another
> > internal department) we wanted to maintain a closely coupled link
> > between the resource listing a contact and an organisation
> > responsible or accountable for abuse handling. As it turned out
> > this created the need for repetitive data in some cases and not
> > being able to record the right details in some other cases.
> >
> > The simplest solution that has been discussed in the past is to
> > allow the "abuse-c:" attribute in resource objects. This does
> > create some resource and data management issues. But these can be
> > solved by providing resource managers with the right software
> > tools. Now we get to the in depth version of my question. Do we
> > need to maintain that close coupling in the database between who is
> > responsible or accountable for handling abuse for a resource and
> > their correct and validated (by the resource holder) contact
> > details?
> >
> > If the answer to this question is a simple 'no' then we can easily
> > add "abuse-c:" attributes anywhere pointing to an email address and
> > provide the resource managers with tools to maintain the
> > data....job done.
> >
> > If the answer is anything other than a simple 'no' and we believe
> > abuse information consumers without an in depth knowledge of the
> > database or industry need to easily understand 'who' claims to be
> > behind an email address then we may need a more complex solution.
> >
> > I hope this makes sense and look forward to comments and questions.
> >
> > cheers
> > denis
> > co-chair DB-WG
>
> _________________________________________________________________________________
> Daniel Stolpe          Tel:  08 - 688 11 81
> stolpe@resilans.se Resilans AB            Fax:  08 - 55 00 21 63
>       http://www.resilans.se/ Box 45 094
>     556741-1193 104 30 Stockholm
>
>
>