Hi all,

Following comments received after the publication of the "review phase" 2017-02 policy proposal, please find answers we would like to address:

- On the question if the suggested implementation is in line with our intend for this proposal, based on our presentation during RIPE 75 and the summary of the proposal

o The implementation suggested is a good step towards the right direction, our feeling was that the metrics proposed in the RIPE 75 presentation were too specific and RIPE NCC’s proposal is well balances regarding previous concerns of the community. The lack or presence of safety and security online are fundamental issues that underpin much of how the Internet does (and does not) function. Every little step towards an accountable Internet environment which is safe for every netizen, from IT literate individuals to everyone’s kids and grandma is a step in the right direction.

- On the request for a more strict validation with emails, links, captcha etc. -

o The Policy Proposal specifically refrains to mandate a validation mechanism, delegating all subsequent steps to NCC existing rules. Therefore, criticism in this sense are geared towards the Impact Assessment and the way the NCC proposes to validate this contact, rather than towards the Policy itself. It would be wise to keep the need for abuse –c accuracy separated from the nitty gritty details of HOW the validation happens. Which can be subject to another series of policies altogether, insomuch « RIPE NCC will follow up in compliance with relevant RIPE Policies and RIPE NCC procedures. »

- on the possibility that RIPE NCC would introduce or heavy validation methods that would exceed the impact analysis.

o This possibility doesn’t exist. Facts and real figures (and not philosophical speculations) state that the RIPE NCC has “significant experience with resolving these kinds of situations. Over the past five years, it has investigated and resolved more than 1,000 external reports on incorrect “abuse-mailbox:” attributes, without ever needing to trigger the closure and deregistration procedure”. 0/1000 is a pretty low percentage and this risk is very much acceptable when weighted against the benefits of having a healthy and functioning abuse –c resource.

- On the fear that the RIPE NCC close an LIR for a broken mail server has started again.

o The Impact Analysis specifically states that “the RIPE NCC will be sympathetic to the specific situation of the resource” which seems a bit at odds with the possibility of immediate closure and shutdown, so much so that “closure and deregistration procedure as a last resort”, and anyways this is NOT the question at heart in THIS policy proposal, which is specifically centred on making the abuse –c contact a reliable, truthful, open, consistent and available internet resource.

Sara and Hervé

PS: Although Greg Mounier will remain involved in the RIPE community, his colleague Sara Mercolla will continue to work on this policy proposal with Hervé

-----Message d'origine-----
De : anti-abuse-wg [mailto:anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net] De la part de Marco Schmidt
Envoyé : jeudi 18 janvier 2018 12:22
À : anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
Objet : [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation)

Dear colleagues,

Policy proposal 2017-02, "Regular abuse-c Validation" is now in the Review Phase.

The goal of this proposal is to give the RIPE NCC a mandate to regularly validate "abuse-c:" information and to follow up in cases where the attribute is deemed to be incorrect.

This proposal has been updated following the last round of discussion and is now at version v2.0. Some of the differences from version v1.0 include:

- A focus on validating the "abuse-mailbox:" attribute and fixing incorrect contact information

- Added references to RIPE Policies and RIPE NCC procedures

The RIPE NCC has prepared an impact analysis on this latest proposal version to support the community’s discussion. You can find the full proposal and impact analysis at:

https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2017-02

And the draft documents at:

https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2017-02/draft

As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four-week Review Phase is to continue discussing the proposal, taking the impact analysis into consideration, and to review the full draft policy document.

At the end of the Review Phase, the WG Chairs will determine whether the WG has reached rough consensus. It is therefore important to provide your opinion, even if it is simply a restatement of your input from the previous phase.

We encourage you to read the proposal, impact analysis and draft document, and share your comments on <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> before 16 February 2018.

Kind regards,

Marco Schmidt

Policy Development Officer

RIPE NCC

Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum