On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 17:26:47 +0000 Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
Brian Nisbet wrote:
Given the NCC have repeatedly said that the ARC is not a suitable way to validate the abuse contact and have proposed an alternative method, supported by the ARC process, do you have any comment on the actually proposed process?
Honestly, it's hard to tell.
<snip>
What's absent from this process is any mechanism to link the email address to the sorts of metrics and expected results described in presentations given by the authors, e.g. the presentation given in the RIPE75 AAWG session.
What's also absent is a clear statement that the email address which has been "validated" isn't necessarily connected to anyone in the organisation handling abuse or that it may not actual function at all in any meaningful way.
RIPE sends a six digit alpha numeric that is entered on the RIPE website solves both the above points.
This isn't intended to rubbish what the RIPE NCC are proposing: they've been asked to do something which is fundamentally almost impossible to do in a meaningful way, and have suggested that by redefining the problem into something which can largely automated, that a practically impossible task can be turned into something feasible.
"fundamentally almost impossible" seriously? how does fundamentally and "almost" even sit next to each other and then followed by meaningful ??? I do not agree with anything you have said, because I do not find any foundation to any of it.
The problem is that there is now a substantial mismatch between the stated aims of the policy proposal and the proposed validation method.
I'm going to object to this version of the policy proposal too. Partly on these grounds, and partly due to the observation that few, if any, of the substantial objections made by numerous people to version 1.0 have been resolved either.
If the latter needs fleshing out for the purposes of ensuring that these remain registered as formal unresolved objections, it would be helpful to know, because a bunch of these problems really haven't been addressed at all.
Nick