Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02 Review Phase Reminder
On 2018-02-17 13:25:24 CET, Name wrote:
If they are responsive, then there will be no issue with them validating their email address.
That's a good reason not to implement "security theater" policy. Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum
Alexander, Just two things before additional answers beginning of next week: - We've already explained that there's no additional "extraordinary power" given to the RIPE NCC via this proposal: the very potential possibility of an LIR closure exists in the current policies (cf. my message dated 24th January) - You've the right not to agree, that's something I respect. That's not a reason to judge presentations "funny" or proposals "as theater"... Regards Hervé -----Message d'origine----- De : anti-abuse-wg [mailto:anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net] De la part de Alexander Isavnin Envoyé : samedi 17 février 2018 18:25 À : anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Objet : Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02 Review Phase Reminder On 2018-02-17 13:25:24 CET, Name wrote:
If they are responsive, then there will be no issue with them validating their email address.
That's a good reason not to implement "security theater" policy. Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.
Dear Herve! On 2018-02-17 19:00:22 CET, Herve Clement wrote:
Alexander,
I'v stated my opinion and rationale - thank you for your respect. Hope WG Chair will take my opinion (stated before the end of 16 Feb) in account.
Just two things before additional answers beginning of next week: - We've already explained that there's no additional "extraordinary power" given to the RIPE NCC via this proposal: the very potential possibility of an LIR closure exists in the current policies (cf. my message dated 24th January)
I'v seen those mails. I just want to clarify - it's my beliefs (bad) against your beliefs (good). If RIPE NCC Managing director have joined this discussion, clarifying procedures of non-financial LIR closure and/or resource revocation - i would agree with you. Otherwise "very potencial possibility" might become "exactly". There is very well working procedure of non-payment closure. Unless there is exaclty well working and accepted procedure for other reasons of closure - we have to be very accurate with easily violatable policies. (I'v seen brand new RIPE-697).
- You've the right not to agree, that's something I respect. That's not a reason to judge presentations "funny" or proposals "as theater"...
Please, do not take my judgement so personal, i have reasons to not agree with this policy, which i'm explaning you here. Policy that gives no significant and actual change - is a theater. (well, "security theater" is US definition of ineffective but demonstrative activities related to security) And i have another reason for stating that. This theater already had it's pre-premiere perfomance called "Law Enforcement Engagement with the RIPE Policy Development Process": https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/roundtable/january-2018/pdp-rt-bru... For me it looks like "propose something, just to show that LEAs are involved in activity related to security". And about "funny" proposal presentation. Let's have some quotes: "essential part of the accountability of the RIPE community", "undermines the effectiveness of the policy", "Improving the trust and safety of the IP address space is a priority for the RIPE community","essential to ensure the efficiency","essential to establish a trusted and transparent environment" - these are so bombastic and sonorous, compared to 1 paragraph of policy change , which will actualy change nothing in abuse handling behavior, so i can't call it rather than funny. At least you had chance to pre-validate all abuse-c contacts available now in database and provide stats in policy rationale. I will change my opinion, if Europol (or any other LEA) could provide any evidence, that incorrect abuse-c: which stayed in database longer than 1 year led to something terrible like homicid. Or not so terrible, like unpaid parking, at least. Kind regards, Alexander Isavnin Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum
participants (3)
-
Alexander Isavnin -
herve.clement＠orange.com -
Name