Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[AfriNIC-rpd] Abuse Contact Information in the AfriNIC Service Region - Version 2

Tobias Knecht tk at
Sat Sep 25 10:46:11 UTC 2010


thanks for this good feedback.
I changed some of the things mentioned here. Please let me know if this
is still okay for all the others.

> In Section 1:
>   "This is a proposal to introduce a reference to a specific and dedicated
>    object which shall be used in future as the one and only place to
> publish
>    abuse contact information within the AfriNIC region."
> I suggest rewriting this as:
>   This proposal specifies a dedicated object which shall be used as the
>   preferred place to publish abuse public contact information within the
>   AfriNIC service region.

Sounds good. Changed it.

> In Section 2, I suggest a minor rewrite:
>   Currently within the AfriNIC service region, the abuse reports are
> sent to
>   the e-mail address specified in the e-mail field, as encouraged on the
>   AfriNIC website [1].

Sounds good. Changed it.

> In Section 4:
>   "It is proposed that the technical staff of AfriNIC finds a way to
> create a
>    new or uses an already existing object, which implements the following
>    qualities:"
> I suggest:
>   It is proposed that the AfriNIC create a new or reuses an existing
> object,
>   which has the following properties:
> I suggest removing the sub-section numbering in Section 4.  You could
> define the properties as follows:
>   (a)  A unique reference by inetnum, inet6num and aut-num
>   (b) Contains two e-mail attributes:
>       (i) "e-mail:" for personal communication
>       (ii) "abuse-mailbox:" for automatic report handling
> Instead of referring to classic whois, you could have:
>   The object should be accessible through Whois.

Sounds good as well. Changed it.

> The qualities of the "Abuse Finder Database", as mentioned in this
> proposal, is unclear.  There is a reference to the RIPE Abuse Finder
> Database.  As AfriNIC does not run, it does not have any
> control over that database.

That is true. I would have liked it if there would be a cooperation or a
similar approach in the AfriNIC region. But as far as I can see this is
already planned. So I keep this not in the proposal.

>    "AfriNIC publishes a Best Practice Paper and a Documentation, which
> encourages
>     all members to use the new object to publish abuse contact
> information."
> The Best Practice Paper would be the documentation.  I would rewrite that:
>   AfriNIC publishes a Best Practice Paper to encourage its members to
> use the
>   object to publish abuse contact information.

Okay. Sounds good as well. Can we go one step further and say that
AfriNIC is informing their members about this actively?

"AfriNIC publishes a Best Practice Paper and informs all their members
actively to encourage them to use the object to publish abuse contact

> There are two 5.1 sub-sections in the proposal.
> In Section 5.1:
>  "Nevertheless it is suggested to AfriNIC to offer a way to receive
> reports about
>   not working or not accurate objects. But this is part of another
> proposal."
> I suggest that you post that other proposal for discussion and amend the
> above accordingly.

We have been discussing this already at APNIC. But it didn't find
consensus in the first round, so we have to change things. But we will
publish this as soon as possible.

> In Section 6:
>  "There will be no immediate affect for AfriNIC members with existing
> resource
>   registrations already in the AfriNIC Whois Database. The only effect
> is the
>   opportunity to publish a dedicated abuse contact object and profit by the
>   advantages."
> The first sentence is incorrect.  I gather that you mean that "There
> will be no immediate impact" or "It will not affect".
> Is this a profit-making policy proposal?  Who is going to profit? :-) 
> Maybe you meant "benefit" as in "for the common good".

Right. Changed this as well.

Thank you again for the deep analysis of this proposal and the good

I hope the new Version (see attached) will find consensus here as well.

Thanks Tobias

-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: AFPUB-2010-GEN-002-V3.txt
URL: <>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 262 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list