[anti-abuse-wg] Abuse contact information sense

Hi Brian,

thank you for your response.

I understand what you are telling me. I understand the steps RIPE has done in abuse control. I understand that in the current policies framework RIPE has not mandate to do something. I understand that RIPE community can be resistent to any changes in this way... but I can't understand why things can't change.

Do you think it would be an issue to the vast majority of LIR to have a deal with RIPE  about copyright? 

Regards,

Ángel


-----Mensaje original-----
De: anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net] En nombre de Brian Nisbet
Enviado el: miércoles, 16 de julio de 2014 17:37
Para: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net
Asunto: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Abuse contact information sense

Angel,

Others have responded to you, but I wanted to add a point or two. 
Everything the RIPE NCC does is informed by policy made by the community. The creation of the abuse-c was due to one such policy, 2011-06. That policy explicitly did not add anything around mandatory responses, in no small part because it was felt to be just one step and if an attempt was made to get everything in one go, nothing would be got.

There are "natural" next steps around data verification (does the abuse-c actually exist) and, potentially, mandatory responses, but my guess would be at least the second of these would face significant resistance from parts of the community. I could be wrong, of course, but that's what my gut is telling me.

Without such a policy the NCC have no mandate from the RIPE Community to force LIRs to do anything.

Does that make sense?

Brian
Co-Chair, RIPE AA WG
Angel Fernandez Pineda wrote the following on 15/07/2014 18:18:
> Hi all,
>
> thanks James, thanks Lu for your comments, but I can't be agree with you.
>
> If the goal of the RIPE abuse information is just to exist and not to compromise the owner to do something, it sounds a little bit unuseful. Or is there any other goal that I can't see?
>
> Is RIPE "responsible" to manage those things? Yes, from my point, because it is doing it now. RIPE's inaction in front of abuse situations is a way to manage or govern internet. It is a RIPE decision. As well as RIPE can create policies that undertake the LIRs in front of abuse situations, not to do it is an internet govern decision. At least from my point of view.
>
> James, you talked about filters: IP filters, email filters, ... You are right, it is true. As it is true that IP blacklist due to spam are a problem because it is difficult to recover the IPs when the problem is solved or there is a use change. In this way, I'm afraid that we will see a worse situation with regional bloked IP addresses. The courts can force ISPs to block certain IP addresses at the entrances to their countries, and in fact is being done. It is difficult to achieve because it requires much effort, but it is even more difficult to undo once it is ordered, because it must be again an order of a court.
>
> The future scenario could be more and more IP ranges blocked in some countries and not in others.
>
> I don't like it. Do you?
>
> Regards,
>
> Ángel
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net 
> [mailto:anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net] En nombre de Lu Enviado el: 
> martes, 15 de julio de 2014 14:11
> Para: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at
> CC: James Davis; anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net
> Asunto: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Abuse contact information sense
>
> agree, for years ripe community tried to explain to rest of the world ripe Ncc is not the governor of the internet, let's not make this job more difficult.
>
> This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above.
> It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
>
>> On 2014年7月15日, at 下午8:07, Wilfried Woeber <Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at> wrote:
>>
>> James Davis wrote:
>>
>>>> On 15/07/2014 10:56, Angel Fernandez Pineda wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> You're right, it doesn't oblige anyone to actually do anything -
>>
>> Actually, this was one of my worries, when the abuse-c stuff was 
>> designed, that having this (mandatory) attribute would send the
>> (confusing) message to the "user", that there's an obligation to 
>> react (and respond) to each and every piece of incoming mail.
>>
>> Even more worrying, that the NCC would be seen as "responsible" to 
>> manage those things.
>>
>> Alas, this is definitely outside the scope of the NCC's 
>> responsibilities, just as it is outside the NCC's responsibility to 
>> assure, that every IP address that is listed in the registry has to 
>> be accessible, with each type of packets, from every other endpoint on the Internet.
>>
>> Just as there are filters out there, for packets, there are lots of 
>> filters and policies around, what to do with (different types, from 
>> different sources
>> of) incoming mail.
>>
>> Just as an explanation and not as supporting (perceived) (C) violations.
>>
>> Regards, hth,
>> Wilfried.
>>
>