For APNIC prop-079 there was a great deal of opposition but still it got the consensus because of optimisim it shares. Again there is no procedure of penalizing the members for not updating the abuse-c contact and than there is no method to make sure the abuse-c is active or not. LACNIC and ARIN
Not yet, that will be the next step. Its quite easy for APNIC to send an email twice a year to all abuse-contacts including a link, that has to be clicked. With that you could publish a list of non-responsive provider and you will have another instrument to measure good from bad. Kind regards, Frank -- PHADE Software - PowerWeb http://www.powerweb.de Inh. Dipl.-Inform. Frank Gadegast mailto:frank@powerweb.de Schinkelstrasse 17 fon: +49 33200 52920 14558 Nuthetal OT Rehbruecke, Germany fax: +49 33200 52921 ====================================================================== Public PGP Key available for frank@powerweb.de
already have this policy with slight changes for quite sometime, how was the response in that region related to spam?
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 5:36 PM, Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> wrote:
Frank,
This group IS the community, so why is their no proposal so far ?
After 2 years ?
There has been an amount of discussion on this topic in both AA and DB working groups over the last few years but no concensus has been reached.
At the meeting in Lisbon it was agreed between DB and AA that as no further comments had been made, the matter was to be closed. This does not, obviously, mean that it can't be raised again and both WGs would be most interested in any proposals you may have.
I would love to work together with more expirienced members of the
mailling list, but as far as I see it: simply nothing happens ...
The first step should be a mandatory abuse-field.
We could simply copy APNICs proposal: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-079
In this policy Tobias Knecht (tk@abusix.org) has stated that if he is successful in APNIC he plans to propose something similar in the RIPE region. I would suspect he is the best person to talk to about collaboration.
I will note again that previous attemtps to make things mandatory have failed, but as we are in a rapidly changing environment, it is difficult to predict what response a renewed proposal will bring. As Fearghas points out, the NCC are always willing to aid people with proposals, as are the relevant WG chairs.
I would, of course, reject that the WG has done nothing in two years and we hope, in May, to chair another productive meeting.
Thanks,
Brian.
--00504502cbef1cc23e048390f106 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div>For=A0APNIC prop-079 there was a great deal of opposition but still it= got the consensus because of optimisim it shares. Again there is no proced= ure of penalizing the members for not updating the abuse-c contact and than= there is no method to make sure the abuse-c is active or not. LACNIC and A= RIN already have this policy with slight changes for quite sometime, how wa= s the response in that region related to spam?</div>
<div>=A0</div> <div><br clear=3D"all">Regards,<br><br>Aftab A. Siddiqui<br><br><br></div> <div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 5:36 PM, Brian Nisbet <sp= an dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:brian.nisbet@heanet.ie">brian.nisbet@h= eanet.ie</a>></span> wrote:<br> <blockquote style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex= ; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class=3D"gmail_quote">Frank,=20 <div class=3D"im"><br><br> <blockquote style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex= ; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class=3D"gmail_quote">This group IS the community, so = why is their no proposal so far ?<br>After 2 years ?<br></blockquote><br></= div> There has been an amount of discussion on this topic in both AA and DB work= ing groups over the last few years but no concensus has been reached.<br><b= r>At the meeting in Lisbon it was agreed between DB and AA that as no furth= er comments had been made, the matter was to be closed. =A0This does not, o= bviously, mean that it can't be raised again and both WGs would be most= interested in any proposals you may have.<br> <br> <blockquote style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex= ; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class=3D"gmail_quote"> <div class=3D"im">I would love to work together with more expirienced membe= rs of the<br>mailling list, but as far as I see it: simply nothing happens = ...<br><br></div> <div class=3D"im">The first step should be a mandatory abuse-field.<br><br>= We could simply copy APNICs proposal:<br><a href=3D"http://www.apnic.net/po= licy/proposals/prop-079" target=3D"_blank">http://www.apnic.net/policy/prop= osals/prop-079</a><br> </div></blockquote><br>In this policy Tobias Knecht (<a href=3D"mailto:tk@a= busix.org" target=3D"_blank">tk@abusix.org</a>) has stated that if he is su= ccessful in APNIC he plans to propose something similar in the RIPE region.= =A0I would suspect he is the best person to talk to about collaboration.<b= r> <br>I will note again that previous attemtps to make things mandatory have = failed, but as we are in a rapidly changing environment, it is difficult to= predict what response a renewed proposal will bring. =A0As Fearghas points= out, the NCC are always willing to aid people with proposals, as are the r= elevant WG chairs.<br> <br>I would, of course, reject that the WG has done nothing in two years an= d we hope, in May, to chair another productive meeting.<br><br>Thanks,<br><= font color=3D"#888888"><br>Brian.<br><br></font></blockquote></div><br>
--00504502cbef1cc23e048390f106--