[rpd] "Abuse Contact Policy Update" (AFPUB-2018-GEN-001-DRAFT06)

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

We should remember that when this (any) policy passes consensus and is ratified by the board, it can take some time to implement. Further to that, any policy is subjected to be improved while and after implemented. We are humans, we can fail, Internet can change, we need the RPD and the staff reports (such as the Members Service's feedback) to keep improving them. This is why consensus is about "conceding" (“Rough consensus is achieved when all issues are addressed, but not necessarily accommodated"), we may not 100% agree that a policy is perfect, but it is better than nothing and we can keep improving with *real* experience.

In this case, I guess it will be around 3-6 months. At some point during the implementations (this are operational issues), I think AFRINIC should make sure to inform all the members that they should start filling their abuse-c, so when the validation really starts, we have as less "missing" or "invalid" contacts as possible.

Then I don't expect it will be wise to "validate" all the members at once, instead, for example, each week validate the members that have signed the RSA that week. This way, the workload (in case of failed contacts that need to be escalated) is split across the year. Again, those are operational details, but seems sensible to do that way or in a similar one.

If that approach is followed, the initial "complete" membership validations will take one year. The staff can probably implement it in such way that they can "speed-up or slow-down" validations if for example one week most of them succeeded or on the other way around, etc.

In the next validation round, they will have stats to compare if the quality of the contacts is going much better or worse, and decide about adjusting the number of validations per year, etc.

Just a few ideas :-)

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 17/8/20 10:21, "Frank Habicht" <geier at geier.ne.tz> escribió:

    Hi,

    On 17/08/2020 07:30, Noah wrote:
    > 6 months is too long for periodic validation. Can that be updated
    > immediately to a much shorter period say monthly or quarterly.

    I was initially thinking 6 months is too short.

    But I think Jordi found a good compromise.
    And he rightly left some freedom for AfriNIC staff regarding the details.

    The right interval after all considerations and all opinions from the
    RPD list might be 6.78 months or 5.18 months, but is that very important?

    I believe it's more important that we get the policy passed, as good as
    we can.

    Details like the precise interval (where there will always be someone
    who will suggest half a month difference), we can in my opinion postpone
    after we have resolved the much more important question about the colour
    of the bike shed at AfriNIC's office building. I want blue!

    Frank

    _______________________________________________
    RPD mailing list
    RPD at afrinic.net
    https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.