[anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02 & Next Steps

If 2017-02 is adopted, following sentence will be added to ripe-563:



"The RIPE NCC will validate the “abuse-mailbox:” attribute at least annually. Where the attribute is deemed incorrect, it will follow up in compliance with relevant RIPE Policies and RIPE NCC procedures."



In term of RIPE NCC powers, nothing more is added than "current RIPE NCC procedures are in force"



Hervé







-----Message d'origine-----
De : anti-abuse-wg [mailto:anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net] De la part de Malcolm Hutty
Envoyé : lundi 12 mars 2018 11:08
À : anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net
Objet : Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02 & Next Steps



On 12/03/2018 12:57, Brian Nisbet wrote:

> Finally we need to address the objections around the possible

> implications of organisations *not* following this policy. It is clear

> that 2017-02 does not attempt to introduce any additional processes

> nor change how the NCC would act in cases where policies are not

> followed.



I think that's slightly misleading.



If we have an existing rule that non-compliance with RIPE policies can result in withdrawal of resources, then while it is strictly that "this does not change how the NCC would act in cases where policies are not followed", by adding a new policy that must be followed we're still broadening the range of circumstances in which resources can be withdrawn.



So I think it is a legitimate objection to this policy proposal to say "If this policy is adopted, resources can be withdrawn merely for failure to maintain this field, and I think that's a disproportionate outcome".



I think it's also worth noting that the provision of the rules that non-compliance leads to withdrawal of resources is not something of long standing, proven appropriate by the passage of time: it was only brought in at the GM at the end of last year. Before then, while we did have another version of that rule, it wouldn't have interacted with this policy in the same way. So it is appropriate to be careful about not creating unforeseen interactions.



Personally, I do think that it would be disproportionate. If I were convinced compliance with this policy would have a significant impact on the problem, it would be a more difficult call; as it is, the risk/reward balance seems quite unfavourable.



Malcolm.

--

            Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523

   Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog  London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/



                 London Internet Exchange Ltd

           Monument Place, 24 Monument Street London EC3R 8AJ



         Company Registered in England No. 3137929

       Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA



_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20180312/eda12383/attachment.html>