[anti-abuse-wg] update on netsecdb project
Brian Nisbet brian.nisbet at heanet.ie
Wed Apr 7 13:14:27 CEST 2010
"Dipl-Inform. Frank Gadegast" wrote the following on 06/04/2010 19:40: >> >>> I just discribed one arround launch time. >>> RIPE should urged all members to stop spam originating from their networks. >> >> You did not describe a silver bullet. The RIPE community has urged >> their members to stop spam and abuse for years, RIPE-409 says it quite >> plainly, this has been the repeated advice. There are potential ways of > > Advise is very different to forcing members to do something and > to have sanctions, right ? So, you are suggesting a number of measures that the community should ask the NCC to put in place to punish members who are judged, by someone, to be responsible for network abuse? > (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 have no doubt, the community, are interested in any proposal that might reduce network abuse, but after the mails today and yesterday I think some clarification and something that might be motion towards a proposal might be useful? >> enforcing this, but please do not claim that what has been discussed so >> far today will suddenly stop network abuse. > > Well, I see it from my perspective. > Developing a own dnsbl basing on the spam our customers receive > reduced the problem for us to nearly nothing, but this was hard work > and still needs ajustments and further development to keep up > with the spammers newest technologies. > > Adapting this expirience and the expirience from all members > for the whole RIPE region and developing regulations for all > members cannot be so complicated ... It really can. > There is just no will from most members, because it means work. > Who will vote for a regulation that ends up in work ? Many people have in the past, if they believe the work will involve improving the situation for their customers and for their staff. >> And the minutes of each meeting are posted to the list. So far no >> discussion has come out of them. > > Sure, most interested members will not intend meetings (because > they have to fight against the Spam arriving out of the networks > from attendees *** sorry *** had to make this joke). > > It would be much more productive and generate more consensus, > if the points would be discussed on the list BEFORE the meeting. 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 discussion, it was decided in Lisbon to close that item as no discussion had taken place, either at meetings or on the mailing list, for some time, not just because of an action at a meeting. >>> goverments ? >>> this will make all worse and slower ... >> >> The aim is to get governments and LEAs onside, to examine policies and > > Might be your aim, this was not discussed on the list. No, this is a oft-stated aim of the NCC and a fair chunk of the community. In addition, our interactions with governments and the LEAs were clearly referenced and minuted at the Lisbon meeting. There will be further information presented in Prague (and remember, these meetings can be followed online) and the points raised there will be put forward for further discussion on the mailing list. We will post what agenda we can, but there's very little to discuss on the list before a meeting, unless some concrete proposals are made. >> procedures at RIR level and to avoid the making of necessary legislation >> and to keep the bottom up consensus approach. However there is no way > > Forget, how do you think that there will be a world-wide consensus > in Goverments ? That does not happen in the EU and will never. I do not believe there will be consensus amongst governements, that's not what I'm suggesting. >> that governments will not be involved, the idea is to take their input >> and show them we, as a community, are acting. > > Weird starting point, goverments have no idea, what the Internet is ... It's not the starting point, but there is no question that the RIPE community and the NCC need to talk to governments need to show good stewardship of the resources we have and need to avoid *un*-necessary legislation. (Thanks to NOR for pointing out the lacking *un* when I mentioned this previously.) >>>> We're trying to finalise the agenda at the moment, but the work that is >>>> taking place with the NCC, the RIPE community and the LEAs will be >>> >>> Well, please post it to the list, so that it can be discussed before >>> its finalized. >> >> I will post an agenda, but I'm not sure what discussion there is likely >> to be as my two calls for agenda items have, so far, met with one single >> response. Equally, the agenda of any WG is reasonably mutable and on > > Well, maybe there will be more ideas coming ... For agenda items? >> Apologies, I should have been clearer. As has been stated elsewhere >> and, I believe, on this list, while policy proposals will, undoubtedly, >> be discussed at meetings, the primary place to discuss policy is the WG >> mailing list and there is no intention or plan to purely discuss things >> at meetings. > > Then I somehow really missed detailed discussion, I counted about > 100 mails during the last year ... Well, no, there has not been discussion, equally there has not been any policy proposals. Discussion will take place on list, should there be things to discuss. Brian.