[anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02 Review Phase Extended (Regular abuse-c Validation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Brian Nisbet
brian.nisbet at heanet.ie
Wed Mar 28 12:20:05 CEST 2018
Ok, thank you Alexander, I now feel I better understand your objection. Thanks, Brian Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG Brian Nisbet Network 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 at heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270 > -----Original Message----- > From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net> On Behalf Of > Alexander Isavnin > Sent: Tuesday 27 March 2018 14:39 > To: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02 > > Thanks for question, i really forgot to add important clarification paragraph > for objection. > > On 2018-03-27 14:50:13 CET, Brian Nisbet wrote: > > Alexander, > > > > Thanks for this. > > > > I'd just like to clarify something, are you objecting wholly to this proposal > because you would prefer stronger/more complex checks? In that you feel it > doesn't go far enough? > I'm objecting wholly to this proposal, because i doesnt' significantly improve > data quality of the whole registry and doesn't help to prevent serious abuse. > And being IT guy (and sometimes executive) i do not like implementing > something, "just because we can". > (and i had arguments, that valid abuse-c won't help against really malicious > abuse) > > If we need such kind of policy, than it should be full scale Automated Registry > Checks (probably with all contacts, validity of routing, validity of resource > assigments, responsiveness of contacts, etc..) - in a way, which will > guarantee some measurable level on quality. (NCC Database SLA) > > But now, i prefer current situation, with trust to LIRs and light assisted > checks. > > Years ago, talking first time to Rob Blokzijl i'v asked him: "Why information in > database is not being checked fully, with all phone numbers/emails checks, > submitting confirming papers for each assignment etc, like any activities done > in Russia?". He responded something like "It's not in tradition". And i value > such traditions. > I would like for us to stay in Western European tradition, rather than moving > to Police State tradition. > But if community decides to move - the move should be done with good and > complete approach. > > Hope you'll get me right. > > Kind regards, > Alexander Isavnin > > > Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02 Review Phase Extended (Regular abuse-c Validation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]