+1 --srs

On 25-May-2016, at 9:52 PM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com> wrote:

All internet resources, be they IP addresses or domain names, should have an accessible abuse contact. This proposal addresses this gap for legacy IP space and should be adopted.

Regards

Michele

-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://ceo.hosting/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265, Ireland Company No.: 370845

...

On 23/05/2016, 04:21, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of Marco Schmidt" <anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net on behalf of mschmidt@ripe.net> wrote:

Dear colleagues,

The Discussion Phase for 2016-01, "Include Legacy Internet Resource Holders in the Abuse-c Policy” has been extended until 21 June 2016.

The goal of this proposal is to extend ripe-563, "Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE Database” to include Legacy Internet Resource Holders.

The proposal text has been revised based on mailing list feedback and a new version (2.0) is now published. This has started a new Discussion Phase for the proposal.

The main difference from version 1.0 is that the policy will be only applied when creating or modifying Legacy Internet Resource objects in the RIPE Database.

You can find the full proposal at:

https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-01

We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net>.

Regards,

Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

Gilles, Thanks for the contribution, but I would like to remind you and the community that abuse-c is a reality, that policy reached consensus some time ago! Can we please frame the discussion on this policy in that context, rather than referring to points outside of that scope? Thanks, Brian Brian Nisbet, Network Operations Manager HEAnet Limited, Ireland's Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1 Registered in Ireland, no 275301 tel: +35316609040 web: http://www.heanet.ie/ Gilles Massen wrote on 25/05/2016 21:59:

Hi,

While I do agree with the rationale in "It will benefit the entire Internet community to have better quality abuse contact data", I don't believe that the policy text provides any help towards that goal, quite the contrary.

Specifically: forcing people to add an abuse-c as a matter of ticking a checkbox leads to not-working or ignored abuse email boxes. And I rather have no abuse-c than an ignored one - it is a clear signal and leads to much better use of a reporters time.

Make sure that people need to make an informed choice by not providing an abuse-c, but dot not force.

So I keep opposing the policy.

best, Gilles Massen

Brian, On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 09:43:59AM +0200, Brian Nisbet wrote:

Thanks for the contribution, but I would like to remind you and the community that abuse-c is a reality, that policy reached consensus some time ago!

questionable.

Can we please frame the discussion on this policy in that context, rather than referring to points outside of that scope?

We keep hearing that people "want" this policy just because they neglect the difference between legacy and RIR space, where there is a reason that the retroactive application of policy needs justification. "Don't see", "don't want" or "don't understand" the difference does not qualify as justification in my books. So, cf my previous request <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/2016-March/003265.html>, can the proponents please respond accordingly? Thanks, Peter

On 26 May 2016, at 10:15, Gilles Massen wrote:

[…] a community that has been granted extensive exemptions from RIPE policies […]

With respect, I have to disagree with this characterization of the situation. Holders of legacy resources have not been _granted_ any exemption from RIPE policies. They simply _are_ exempt from these policies, because they hold resources which are unconstrained by any agreement of the kind which the RIPE NCC rightly requires for resources which it has allocated or assigned. A proposal, such as this one, which depends on authority or power which the RIPE NCC has never had, is moot. Best regards, Niall O’Reilly

Hi Piotr,

...

Specifically: forcing people to add an abuse-c as a matter of ticking a checkbox leads to not-working or ignored abuse email boxes. And I rather have no abuse-c than an ignored one - it is a clear signal and leads to much better use of a reporters time.

This argument could be easily extended by making it more general: forcing people to add any contact including e-mail or phone number could lead to kind of garbage. Yet, noone oppose to have ORGANISATION, ROLE and PERSON objects in the database.

I completely agree, it could be extended. In fact you have a vast range of data, from absolutely essential to completely wasteful. What you don't have is consensus on where to put the abuse-c on that range. The usefulness of no data also tends to vary with the intended use and actual use of the data consumer. best, Gilles -- Fondation RESTENA - DNS-LU 2, avenue de l'Université LU-4365 Esch-sur-Alzette tel: +352.4244091 fax: +352.422473