[anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Suresh Ramasubramanian
ops.lists at gmail.com
Wed Apr 29 18:26:22 CEST 2020
Is there anything that stops NCC from doing additional due diligence such as validating abuse issues along with the invalid contact information etc, before taking such a decision? On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 9:52 PM Nick Hilliard <nick at foobar.org> wrote: > > Serge Droz via anti-abuse-wg wrote on 29/04/2020 16:55: > > So, it's the security guys, saying > > > > This may help a bit, but won't solve all problems. > > > > versus the infrastructure operators saying > > > > Beware! This it creating huge costs and will not help at all, and > > answering two mails a year will be our ruin. > > The root problem is that the policy proposes to use the RIPE NCC to > enforce abuse management processes. > > The specifics in this iteration of the document are to threaten and then > act to deregister an organisation's number resources - and thereby > remove their ability to conduct business - if the organisation declines > to handle abuse complaints over email. > > To be clear, it's a fundamental right in large chunks of the RIPE > service region to conduct business. If the RIPE NCC acts to threaten to > remove this ability to conduct business, there would need to be sound > legal justification for doing so. > > Nick > -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists at gmail.com)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]