[anti-abuse-wg] themes on lists and meetings

> 
> Frank,

Hi,

> I fear we are rapidly entering into, or have already entered into, 
> unproductive territory, but anyway...
> 
> "Dipl-Inform. Frank Gadegast" wrote the following on 07/04/2010 19:54:
> >
> >>> (still waiting on a discussion of the system I discribed arround lunch time)
> >>
> >> Are you talking about replicating the Tobias' APNIC proposal in the RIPE
> >> region and/or publishing lists of non-responders?  I, the list and, I
> >
> > No, Im talking about an abuse-adress like ip1.ip2.ip3.ip4 at abuse.ripe.net
> > wich forward all incoming abuse reports to the responsible member
> > I discribed.
> 
> Then by all means write a proposal, please.  From a personal point of 

A proposal should be discussed with lots of people to get enough input first.
This list would be perfect for this.

> view, I cannot see the usefulness of creating another abuse address, as 

First, nobody has to look up abuse addresses via whois anymore.
Second, the real abuse address of the member can be hidden.
Third, delivery of abuse reports can be automated and maybe
standarized in the future (there are already formats for abuse reports).

> it still has to be pointed at a real address and something still needs 
> to be done with it, the latter two are the bigger problem.  And if 
> people were mailing an @ripe.net address, it would seem to shift the 
> responsibility for enforcement, and the blame for breach, onto the NCC?

Not all all.

Fourth, RIPE could find out, what member really reads abuse reports
and control which one are failing with "User unknown", "Mailbox full"
aso.

The usefullness would be that NCC could monitor wich member gets
how many complaints to quickly overlook what member really
needs more information about how to secure the own networks.
Most newer providers are no even aware of, that there own
customers are causing a lot of trouble.

> >> As the agenda will, in no small part, feature presentations and
> >> discussions, it is difficult to proceed as you're suggesting, however
> >> consensus is not something that is reached purely at meetings.  The
> >> mailing list, where more members can participate is, as I've mentioned,
> >> the main location for dicussion.  To take, for instance, the IRT object
> >
> > But there is no discussion.
> > And this might be, becuase most discussion currently happens
> > at the meetings.
> > Thats why everybody on the list should now, what will be discussed
> > on the meetings to give feedback BEFORE the meeting ist happening.
> > If people get the feeling, that there ideas and input are welcome,
> > they might even appear at the mettings ...
> 
> There are certain things that it's possible to give feedback on, other 
> things it's more difficult to give feedback on, especially presentations 

But at least the agenda could be discussed.

Where are the archives of this list ?
http://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/anti-abuse-wg
does not point me to the right page ?

I would really like to flip through them now.

> which will only be finished shortly before the WG meeting.  I will, as I 
> promised, be publishing a draft agenda for the meeting before the end of 
> this week and we can see what comes from that.
> 
> > Again, doing anythign at meetings cuts out the majority of the members,
> > this is like an oligarchy ...
> 
> Anything?  By the extension of that logic we'd never have meetings.  The 

I meant "doing everthing at meetings".

> reality of human social interaction is that we're still better at doing 
> things when we're face to face with each other for short periods of 
> time.  There is no intent to cut people out, remote participation is now 
> much easier, no hard decisions are made (consensus is not declared 
> purely based on a meeting) and minutes are posted.
> 
> >>> Well, maybe there will be more ideas coming ...
> >>
> >> For agenda items?
> >
> > Sure, did anybody ever asked for them ?
> > Im maybe old and forget a lot, but quickly flicked
> > through the last mails from the list and did not find anything like
> > "call for agenda items".
> 
> Really?  I sent two mails, one on the 10th of March, one on the 31st. 

Well, they did not reach me ...
Checked my archive, my antispam-folders, nothing.

> I've received a couple of offers of talks, they will be happening at the 
> meeting.  I also received a suggestion of something to look at, so I 
> did. :)  Generally a call for items goes out two months before a 
> meeting, so yes.  Please note, these two mails were the latest two on 
> the list before Claus' mail on the 6th.
> 
> > There is a lot to discuss.
> > - first I would call for agenda items
> > - then I would call for anti-spam-system hosted by RIPE
> >
> > Then we should talk in details about all this to finally find the best
> > ideas and solution and these should be talked about at the meetings.
> > I bet that lots of people will attend meetings, when their ideas
> > will find there way to meetings ...
> 
> Their ideas will find their way to meetings, please stop claiming 
> otherwise without any evidence to support that.  Agenda items have 
> always been called for.  So far very few concrete ideas have been put 
> forth.  The notion you raised of an abuse address requires a lot more 
> fleshing out before it could become a proposal and be properly 

Indeed, lets discuss it.
Here.

So far, I only received two comments.
One from you simply saying "dont think its good for anything"
and from sombody else saying "dont like it".

Did not receive one usefull and productive comment ...

> discussed.  A variety of questions spring to mind for me, some of which 
> I've outlined above.  However without more detail, there will not be 
> proper discussion.

Maybe everybody on this list could comment it, I collect the ideas
and improvements and re-post it to the list ?



Kind regards, Frank
--
PHADE Software - PowerWeb                       http://www.powerweb.de
Inh. Dipl.-Inform. Frank Gadegast             mailto:frank at powerweb.de
Schinkelstrasse 17                                fon: +49 33200 52920
14558 Nuthetal OT Rehbruecke, Germany             fax: +49 33200 52921
======================================================================
Public PGP Key available for frank at powerweb.de



> Regards,
> 
> Brian.
>