[anti-abuse-wg] Last Call on Policy 2017-02 - Moving to Concluding Phase

Brian,

Your interpretation is correct, I support this proposal as I noted in my
post
<https://badpackets.net/ripe-ncc-releases-new-policy-proposal-for-abuse-contact-validation/>
in September.


Thanks,

__

*Troy Mursch*

*Security Researcher*

Bad Packets Report <https://badpackets.net/>

@bad_packets <https://twitter.com/bad_packets>

(702) 509-1248

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 4:25 AM, Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet at heanet.ie>
wrote:

> Colleagues,
>
> Once again, thank you for your input and discussion regarding proposal
> 2017-02.
>
> The Chairs have reviewed the various points raised and we feel that moving
> to the Concluding Phase of the PDP is the appropriate decision at this
> point. We believe that there is quite some support for the proposal and
> that the objections have either been dealt with or are not directly related
> to the substance of the proposal. This, to us, looks like rough consensus.
>
> Since the we moved to the Review Phase on the 18th of January we had quite
> a few different inputs, which is great. A couple of these inputs were
> between the two parts of the Review Phase, but the opinions have been noted.
>
> - There were quite a few straight-forward expressions of support from
> Sebastian Benoit, Thomas Hungenberg, Janos Zasako, Michele Neylon,
> Christoffer Dam Hansen, Wolfgang Tremmel, Name <phishing at storey.xxx>,
> Angel Gonzalez Berdasco, Sander Steffan and Karl-Josef Ziegler
>
> - Chris Hills supported the proposal but did ask about a potential
> escalation mechanism in case of an email bouncing back. At the moment this
> is provided by https://www.ripe.net/contact-form/report-incorrect-contact-
> information-in-the-ripe-database
>
> - Jordi Palet Martinez, Andreas Worbs, Arash Naderpour, ox  (and others)
> did express a wish for a more extensive set of checks including required
> human interaction, but they acknowledged general support for the proposal
> even without this.
>
> - Erik Bais expressed some concerns in relation to a potential liability
> to the NCC. The NCC did not state any risk of a change of liability in
> their impact analysis and this has been confirmed after further
> conversation with them.
>
> - Sascha Luck, Nick Hilliard and Malcolm Hutty expressed objections and a
> lack of support due to the possible implications of an LIR failing to enter
> appropriate abuse contacts in the DB. They, generally, felt the risk of
> resources being reclaimed due to this was disproportionate. In response to
> this it was clarified that no new procedure was being created by 2017-02.
> Firstly It should be noted that the methods explained by the NCC in their
> Impact Analysis are binding on them and would only be changed by agreement
> at a future point in time. As clarified during the discussion, an incorrect
> abuse contact would trigger attempts by the NCC to contact the LIR to
> resolve the issue. Following this, it would be actions of the resource
> holder that could lead to the activation of the closure procedure - such as
> refusing to provide correct abuse contact information or remaining
> unresponsive over a longer period. It is felt by the Co-Chairs that
> objections to the relevant procedures (Closure of Members, Deregistration
> of Internet Resources and Legacy Internet Resources) should be raised in
> the with the Executive Board and/or the relevant RIPE Working Group and are
> not relevant objections to proposal 2017-02.
>
> - Alexander Isavnin agreed with the disproportionality and also felt that
> the proposal would not do enough to stop abuse. Given the NCC's input that
> they feel the proposal will greatly aid the ARC process and the generally
> incremental nature of process change, this objection is not felt sufficient
> to disrupt the rough consensus.
>
> - Gert Doering remained steadfastly neutral throughout.
>
> - Troy Mursch did not clearly express his opinion one way or the other
> during the Review Phase, but the Co-Chairs have interpreted his comments as
> broadly in support of the proposal.
>
> - Richard Clayton's comments in regards to the usefulness of occasional
> checks for abuse addresses have also been interpreted as being broadly in
> support of the proposal.
>
> - Rob Evans and Luis E. Muñoz commented, but did not clearly support or
> oppose the proposal
>
> Please let the WG know if you have any last comments on this proposal.
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20180427/e260bc37/attachment.html>