<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 30.04.20 um 02:58 schrieb Suresh
Ramasubramanian:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:SG2PR03MB40535E74B76910EBCB4FA0AAF5AA0@SG2PR03MB4053.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div><br>
<div style="direction: ltr;">However, being in a fiduciary
role - with IPv4 being traded like currency these days the
description fits - RIPE NCC can’t not get involved.</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
...<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:SG2PR03MB40535E74B76910EBCB4FA0AAF5AA0@SG2PR03MB4053.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div style="direction: ltr;">NCC owes it to the rest of its
membership and the internet community at large to take a
more active role in this matter.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>This.</p>
<p>And as long as RIPE and/or NCC explicitly does not want to take
action when RIPE members don't handle abuse from their networks
properly, the whole issue of validating abuse mailbox addresses is
moot. After all discussion, the toothless compromise will be that
there should be an abuse mailbox, and FWIW it can be handled by
Dave Null because nobody will exert pressure on the resource
holder to do anything else.</p>
<p>Our problem on the receiving side of network abuse is not with
the few good-willing but technically challenged providers whose
abuse mailbox isn't working properly but with those large
operators who don't give a flying f about their customer's network
abuse.</p>
<p>Personally, I consider the anti-abuse WG a failure at this point.
When I joined I had hoped to see and possibly support constructive
work towards a reduction in network abuse, but apparently there
are big players in this game who are not interested in such a
reduction as it would undermine their "business".</p>
<p>Cheers,<br>
Hans-Martin<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>