Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
Hi, On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 12:56:05PM +0200, andre@ox.co.za wrote:
it is actually very simple:
any rigorously correct resource allocation registry data must include accurate abuse records.
No. It needs to contain accurate records of who has been delegated responsibility for that (admin-c / org). abuse-c is a way to ease finding the *right* contacts instead of always having to write paper mail to the company CEO - and that makes sense, but it's a convenience to operators (as is tech-c), and in no means required for the function as registry. Which might conincide with the fact that the paperwork you sign when opening a LIR has no field for abuse-c... Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hi Gert I am sorry but I TOTALLY disagree with you here. You have a very old fashioned view of both the registry and the 'management' of the internet by some bottom up, open, transparent, industry/community driven process. I make no apologies here for doing another Donald Trump. I am going to say what needs to be said, regardless of what people think about what I say. Your view is typical of people who have been involved in this industry for a very long time. You probably remember the days when the internet was an 'old boys club' and everyone involved in the development knew each other. That was last century....we have moved on since then. The internet now impacts in some way on the lives of almost every person on this planet. It is part of the critical infrastructure of 21st century life at every level. There is much political interest now in how the internet is managed. Someone has to take responsibility for this management. The ITU and many governments are seriously interested in getting their hands on this management. But the RIRs and other technical/user interest groups are still able to show a responsible approach to managing a global infrastructure. The public finds abuse on the internet a serious problem. Not just spam but the more serious criminal aspects like phishing. This can destroy people's lives. Politicians are all self interested. If they can grab hold of a public concern and make campaigns out of it then it benefits their careers. The more technical people play down the impact of handling abuse on the internet and show they really don't want to be bothered in handling it, the more you play into their hands in the long term. The RIRs have to be much more involved these days in internet governance and the handling of issues like abuse concerns. Whether you like it or not these are real concerns for the registries now. So either you surrender control to governments through the ITU and accept a very different internet to what we have now, or you move with the times and embrace the political and responsible management concerns of a 21st century, global resource. The more I hear long term, experienced internet people like yourself and Randy constantly criticising the role of the RIRs and wishing for the old days, the more I fear for the future of the internet. cheers denis On 03/03/2016 19:54, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 12:56:05PM +0200, andre@ox.co.za wrote:
it is actually very simple:
any rigorously correct resource allocation registry data must include accurate abuse records.
No. It needs to contain accurate records of who has been delegated responsibility for that (admin-c / org).
abuse-c is a way to ease finding the *right* contacts instead of always having to write paper mail to the company CEO - and that makes sense, but it's a convenience to operators (as is tech-c), and in no means required for the function as registry.
Which might conincide with the fact that the paperwork you sign when opening a LIR has no field for abuse-c...
Gert Doering -- NetMaster
+1 -jg On 03/03/2016, 10:03 p.m., "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of denis" <anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net on behalf of ripedenis@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Hi Gert
I am sorry but I TOTALLY disagree with you here. You have a very old fashioned view of both the registry and the 'management' of the internet by some bottom up, open, transparent, industry/community driven process.
I make no apologies here for doing another Donald Trump. I am going to say what needs to be said, regardless of what people think about what I say.
Your view is typical of people who have been involved in this industry for a very long time. You probably remember the days when the internet was an 'old boys club' and everyone involved in the development knew each other. That was last century....we have moved on since then. The internet now impacts in some way on the lives of almost every person on this planet. It is part of the critical infrastructure of 21st century life at every level.
There is much political interest now in how the internet is managed. Someone has to take responsibility for this management. The ITU and many governments are seriously interested in getting their hands on this management. But the RIRs and other technical/user interest groups are still able to show a responsible approach to managing a global infrastructure.
The public finds abuse on the internet a serious problem. Not just spam but the more serious criminal aspects like phishing. This can destroy people's lives. Politicians are all self interested. If they can grab hold of a public concern and make campaigns out of it then it benefits their careers. The more technical people play down the impact of handling abuse on the internet and show they really don't want to be bothered in handling it, the more you play into their hands in the long term.
The RIRs have to be much more involved these days in internet governance and the handling of issues like abuse concerns. Whether you like it or not these are real concerns for the registries now. So either you surrender control to governments through the ITU and accept a very different internet to what we have now, or you move with the times and embrace the political and responsible management concerns of a 21st century, global resource.
The more I hear long term, experienced internet people like yourself and Randy constantly criticising the role of the RIRs and wishing for the old days, the more I fear for the future of the internet.
cheers denis
On 03/03/2016 19:54, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 12:56:05PM +0200, andre@ox.co.za wrote:
it is actually very simple:
any rigorously correct resource allocation registry data must include accurate abuse records.
No. It needs to contain accurate records of who has been delegated responsibility for that (admin-c / org).
abuse-c is a way to ease finding the *right* contacts instead of always having to write paper mail to the company CEO - and that makes sense, but it's a convenience to operators (as is tech-c), and in no means required for the function as registry.
Which might conincide with the fact that the paperwork you sign when opening a LIR has no field for abuse-c...
Gert Doering -- NetMaster
No. It needs to contain accurate records of who has been delegated responsibility for that (admin-c / org).
abuse-c is a way to ease finding the *right* contacts instead of always having to write paper mail to the company CEO - and that makes sense, but it's a convenience to operators (as is tech-c), and in no means required for the function as registry.
Which might conincide with the fact that the paperwork you sign when opening a LIR has no field for abuse-c...
bingo i suspect this may derive from the ncc mixing the registration data with the irr data in a single whois hell. newer folk seem to think they are the same. randy
On 03/03/2016 23:13, Randy Bush wrote:
No. It needs to contain accurate records of who has been delegated responsibility for that (admin-c / org).
abuse-c is a way to ease finding the *right* contacts instead of always having to write paper mail to the company CEO - and that makes sense, but it's a convenience to operators (as is tech-c), and in no means required for the function as registry.
Which might conincide with the fact that the paperwork you sign when opening a LIR has no field for abuse-c...
bingo
i suspect this may derive from the ncc mixing the registration data with the irr data in a single whois hell. newer folk seem to think they are the same.
...whilst the older folk are creating a new hell by clinging to the past and burying their heads in the sand... cheers denis
randy
participants (4)
-
denis -
Gert Doering -
James Gannon -
Randy Bush