[anti-abuse-wg] [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
ox
andre at ox.co.za
Sat Jan 20 06:40:07 CET 2018
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 17:26:47 +0000 Nick Hilliard <nick at foobar.org> wrote: > Brian Nisbet wrote: > > Given the NCC have repeatedly said that the ARC is not a suitable > > way to validate the abuse contact and have proposed an alternative > > method, supported by the ARC process, do you have any comment on > > the actually proposed process? > > Honestly, it's hard to tell. > <snip> > > What's absent from this process is any mechanism to link the email > address to the sorts of metrics and expected results described in > presentations given by the authors, e.g. the presentation given in the > RIPE75 AAWG session. > > What's also absent is a clear statement that the email address which > has been "validated" isn't necessarily connected to anyone in the > organisation handling abuse or that it may not actual function at all > in any meaningful way. > RIPE sends a six digit alpha numeric that is entered on the RIPE website solves both the above points. > This isn't intended to rubbish what the RIPE NCC are proposing: > they've been asked to do something which is fundamentally almost > impossible to do in a meaningful way, and have suggested that by > redefining the problem into something which can largely automated, > that a practically impossible task can be turned into something > feasible. > "fundamentally almost impossible" seriously? how does fundamentally and "almost" even sit next to each other and then followed by meaningful ??? I do not agree with anything you have said, because I do not find any foundation to any of it. > The problem is that there is now a substantial mismatch between the > stated aims of the policy proposal and the proposed validation method. > > I'm going to object to this version of the policy proposal too. > Partly on these grounds, and partly due to the observation that few, > if any, of the substantial objections made by numerous people to > version 1.0 have been resolved either. > > If the latter needs fleshing out for the purposes of ensuring that > these remain registered as formal unresolved objections, it would be > helpful to know, because a bunch of these problems really haven't > been addressed at all. > > Nick >
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]