Constructive Approach & Anonymity (Was RE: Verification of abuse contact addresses ? )
Folks, We aim for constructive discussion on the mailing list at all times and I would ask everyone to bear this in mind. I very much agree with " We make this a better world by helping with advice that empowers, not with diminish comments." I would also point out that there is no requirement for legal names to be used on the mailing list and there are many reasons in this world for anonymity. As a final point to consider, the word 'lame' isn't great as it is ableist. There are many, many other suitable words in the English language that merit examination that are much better in this context. Thanks, Brian Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG Brian Nisbet Service Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nisbet@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270
-----Original Message----- From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Serge Droz via anti-abuse-wg Sent: Friday 8 March 2019 10:54 To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Verification of abuse contact addresses ?
Hi
I'm fairly new here. This is a formidable task, and not easily achieved. So kudos to RIPE for doing this. The abuse contacts already there helped me a lot.
I don't appreciate people who can't even stand up with their real names, just pointing out that others are lame.
We make this a better world by helping with advice that empowers, not with diminish comments.
Cheers Serge
On 08.03.19 11:40, Shane Kerr wrote:
Fi Shing,
I'm sure verifying the delivery of 70k e-mails (or however many is in the database) can be done in a few hours.
But Marco's response mentions to *correcting* the contact addresses, not just verifying them. That involves working with human beings, so it makes sense that it will take a while.
Cheers,
-- Shane
On 08/03/2019 11.07, Fi Shing wrote:
If it takes more than a week to verify your entire database, there is the first sign that something is wrong with your system.
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Verification of abuse contact addresses ? From: Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net <mailto:mschmidt@ripe.net>> Date: Thu, March 07, 2019 10:03 pm To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@tristatelogic.com <mailto:rfg@tristatelogic.com>>, anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net <mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net>
Hello Ronald,
We are planning to publish an updated timeline soon.
Ultimately, our implementation will depend of the level of cooperation we get from LIRs and the nature of issues that need to be fixed before an abuse contact can be updated (for example, some organisations may need to reset their maintainer password).
Over the next few weeks we will be analysing our progress, to make a realistic estimation. From observations so far, we think we might be able to finish our initial validation of all abuse contacts within six months - but it is still too early to make any strong predictions.
Kind regards, Marco Schmidt RIPE NCC
On 05/03/2019 21:51, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > In message <9c95c110-d5a3-e94a-6b3c-b02030736e7c@ripe.net <mailto:9c95c110-d5a3-e94a-6b3c-b02030736e7c@ripe.net>>, > Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net <mailto:mschmidt@ripe.net>> wrote: > >> It is correct that the implementation phase is still ongoing. Currently >> we are validating all the abuse contact information referenced in LIR >> organisation objects. Then we will proceed with the validation of abuse >> contacts referenced in LIR resource objects - the example that you >> mentioned belongs to this group. And finally all abuse contacts >> referenced in End User (sponsored) objects will be validated. > Thanks for the info Marco. > > I guess the only question I would ask is this: Is there a published > timeline for how this whole process is planned to play out, and for > when it is planned to be completed? > > > Regards, > rfg >
-- Dr. Serge Droz Member of the FIRST Board of Directors Senior Advisor ICT4Peace https://www.first.org https://www.ict4peace.org
Brian I agree with you on most points, however I do have issues with the one regarding anonymity. If someone is going to come onto this list and start casting aspersions at RIPE members, RIPE NCC staff etc., which has happened more than once and seems to be trend, then I do not see why they should have the right to anonymity. RIPE members and NCC staff should have the ability to face their accuser, but if they're hiding behind a veil of anonymity that's problematic. Personally I also find it very hard to engage in any meaningful debate with "someone" if I have absolutely no idea who they are, who they represent or what their agenda is. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 On 09/03/2019, 00:15, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of Brian Nisbet" <anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net on behalf of brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> wrote: Folks, We aim for constructive discussion on the mailing list at all times and I would ask everyone to bear this in mind. I very much agree with " We make this a better world by helping with advice that empowers, not with diminish comments." I would also point out that there is no requirement for legal names to be used on the mailing list and there are many reasons in this world for anonymity. As a final point to consider, the word 'lame' isn't great as it is ableist. There are many, many other suitable words in the English language that merit examination that are much better in this context. Thanks, Brian Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG Brian Nisbet Service Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nisbet@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270 > -----Original Message----- > From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of > Serge Droz via anti-abuse-wg > Sent: Friday 8 March 2019 10:54 > To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net > Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Verification of abuse contact addresses ? > > Hi > > I'm fairly new here. This is a formidable task, and not easily achieved. > So kudos to RIPE for doing this. The abuse contacts already there helped me > a lot. > > I don't appreciate people who can't even stand up with their real names, just > pointing out that others are lame. > > We make this a better world by helping with advice that empowers, not with > diminish comments. > > Cheers > Serge > > > On 08.03.19 11:40, Shane Kerr wrote: > > Fi Shing, > > > > I'm sure verifying the delivery of 70k e-mails (or however many is in > > the database) can be done in a few hours. > > > > But Marco's response mentions to *correcting* the contact addresses, > > not just verifying them. That involves working with human beings, so > > it makes sense that it will take a while. > > > > Cheers, > > > > -- > > Shane > > > > On 08/03/2019 11.07, Fi Shing wrote: > >> If it takes more than a week to verify your entire database, there is > >> the first sign that something is wrong with your system. > >> > >> > >> -------- Original Message -------- > >> Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Verification of abuse contact > >> addresses ? > >> From: Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net > >> <mailto:mschmidt@ripe.net>> > >> Date: Thu, March 07, 2019 10:03 pm > >> To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@tristatelogic.com > >> <mailto:rfg@tristatelogic.com>>, > >> anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net <mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> > >> > >> Hello Ronald, > >> > >> We are planning to publish an updated timeline soon. > >> > >> Ultimately, our implementation will depend of the level of > >> cooperation > >> we get from LIRs and the nature of issues that need to be fixed > >> before > >> an abuse contact can be updated (for example, some organisations > >> may > >> need to reset their maintainer password). > >> > >> Over the next few weeks we will be analysing our progress, to > >> make a > >> realistic estimation. From observations so far, we think we might > >> be > >> able to finish our initial validation of all abuse contacts > >> within six > >> months - but it is still too early to make any strong predictions. > >> > >> Kind regards, > >> Marco Schmidt > >> RIPE NCC > >> > >> > >> On 05/03/2019 21:51, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > >> > In message <9c95c110-d5a3-e94a-6b3c-b02030736e7c@ripe.net > >> <mailto:9c95c110-d5a3-e94a-6b3c-b02030736e7c@ripe.net>>, > >> > Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net <mailto:mschmidt@ripe.net>> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> It is correct that the implementation phase is still ongoing. > >> Currently > >> >> we are validating all the abuse contact information referenced > >> in LIR > >> >> organisation objects. Then we will proceed with the validation > >> of abuse > >> >> contacts referenced in LIR resource objects - the example that > >> you > >> >> mentioned belongs to this group. And finally all abuse > >> contacts > >> >> referenced in End User (sponsored) objects will be validated. > >> > Thanks for the info Marco. > >> > > >> > I guess the only question I would ask is this: Is there a > >> published > >> > timeline for how this whole process is planned to play out, and > >> for > >> > when it is planned to be completed? > >> > > >> > > >> > Regards, > >> > rfg > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > Dr. Serge Droz > Member of the FIRST Board of Directors Senior Advisor ICT4Peace > https://www.first.org https://www.ict4peace.org
In message <EA68C6C9-B6F4-4B41-AF1E-FF63C174B164@blacknight.com>, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com> wrote:
RIPE members and NCC staff should have the ability to face their accuser, but if they're hiding behind a veil of anonymity that's problematic. Personally I also find it very hard to engage in any meaningful debate with "someone" if I have absolutely no idea who they are, who they represent or what their agenda is.
+1 I concur 100%. Moreover, I think it's not even a good use of bits to go around "casting aspersions" from behind a veil of secrecy. I confess that I myself hdo use and have used anonymous accounts on some platforms, but never for advocacy of anything where I had some hopes of people taking my words seriously. Regards, rfg
On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 18:33:47 -0700 "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@tristatelogic.com> wrote:
In message <EA68C6C9-B6F4-4B41-AF1E-FF63C174B164@blacknight.com>, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com> wrote:
RIPE members and NCC staff should have the ability to face their accuser, but if they're hiding behind a veil of anonymity that's problematic. Personally I also find it very hard to engage in any meaningful debate with "someone" if I have absolutely no idea who they are, who they represent or what their agenda is.
+1 I concur 100%.
+1 but, in an open wg, any random unknown "accusers" are hardly credible. The value of whatever is directly related to the proof of whatever and we all have an agenda, we are all (hopefully) real people, not all of us represent anyone. Yes, I do agree, it is "very hard", in real life (IRL), to engage any other human being in any forum anywhere. We never really know who anyone really is or what their real agenda is (or are) and often we may perceive that they represent x whereas and in truth, they secretly represent y. It would be extremely useful if we could, under penalty of death, make all human beings wear little name badges containing the real truth of whom they really are, what the ranking, order and importance of all their agenda's are and then, we should make it completely illegal to represent more than one entity at the same time... (not signing the above drivel with my name as it was posted by my cat)
participants (4)
-
ac -
Brian Nisbet -
Michele Neylon - Blacknight -
Ronald F. Guilmette