[rpd] Decisions ... Abuse contact

[lucilla fornaro]

If you do not define or give an input of what abuse is, then how can you
properly manage people's mailbox's subject line?

This is a crucial element, in my opinion.


More importantly, the proposal aims to supply AFRINIC of something that has
nothing to do with its scopes. It is not up to AFRINIC to rule like a local
court or local policy.

As mentioned several times, asking AFRINIC to act as a central government
goes against the main element that identifies the Internet:
decentralization. The Internet is controlled by many, no one can own it,
control it, or switch it off for everyone.

 AFRINIC should not evaluate how I manage MY mailbox.


Lucilla

Il giorno lun 21 set 2020 alle ore 14:33 Frank Habicht <geier at geier.ne.tz>
ha scritto:


> Dear chairs,

>

> On 21/09/2020 03:04, ABDULKARIM OLOYEDE wrote:

> > 6.       Abuse Contact Update

> >

> > The proposal makes it mandatory for AFRINIC to include in each resource

> > registration, a contact where network abuse from users of those

> > resources will be reported.  The proposal whois DB attribute (abuse-c)

> > to be used to publish abuse public contact information. There’s also a

> > process to ensure that the recipient must receive abuse report and that

> > contacts are validated by AFRINIC regularly. However, there some

> > opposition to the proposal there are:

> >

> > a.                   Staff analysis on how it affects legacy holder not

> > conclusive  (not sure why this should affect legacy holders)

> >

> > b.                  The proposal doesn’t state what will be the

> > consequences of one member fails to comply. Why are we creating the

> > abuse contact when there is no consequence for not providing the abuse

> > contact

> >

> > c.                   Abuse contact email and issues with GDPR concerning

> > the whois database

> >

> > d.                  No proper definition of the term Abuse

> >

> > e.                  To force members to reply to their abuse email is

> > not in the scope of AFRINIC.

> >

> > Chairs Decision: No rough consensus

>

> About d. "No proper definition of the term Abuse"

> yes, this was mentioned several times by members opposing.

> The proposal is about "abuse contacts". it is not about what "abuse" is.

> there is no need for a definition of "abuse".

> In my humble opinion the request for a definition of abuse is off-topic.

>

> Question: if someone makes a proposal about lame DNS servers in domain

> objects for Reverse-DNS, and I object arguing that a definition of RPKI

> is needed - what would you do with this argument?

> Q2: can arguments about a proposal be irrelevant to this proposal?

> Q3: was that the case here? were arguments, that a definition for abuse

>     is required, irrelevant?

>

> I request chairs' response to Q2 and Q3.

>

>

> About e. "To force members to reply to their abuse email is not in the

> scope of AFRINIC."

> Yes, that was mentioned several times.

> And also this is something the proposal does not do and does not attempt.

> And all the comments about (d.) above apply.

>

>

> If irrelevant objections are taken as valid arguments, please note that

> I foresee that any future proposal can get rejected and the PDP will be

> stuck.

>

>

> About c. "Abuse contact email and issues with GDPR concerning the whois

> database"

> - I didn't see that on the mailing list, can you remind us, or was that

> only during the live session?

> - there are other contact information in whois. can staff confirm

> whether AfriNIC are GDPR compliant?

> - would that status change if abuse contacts would be added?

>

>

> About b. "The proposal doesn’t state what will be the consequences of

> one member fails to comply. Why are we creating the abuse contact when

> there is no consequence for not providing the abuse contact"

> - I can imagine that AfriNIC would include in their meeting

> presentations information regarding how big (in measurable terms) this

> problem is.

> - from that the WG can discuss and decide if more actions are necessary.

>

>

> About a. "Staff analysis on how it affects legacy holder not conclusive

>  (not sure why this should affect legacy holders)"

> I didn't see that before, but as is tradition in my part of the world,

> let me respond to the question with a question:

> Are legacy holders subject to any for the PDWG's policies?

>

>

> Thanks,

> Frank

>

> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at afrinic.net

> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200921/cb40da1e/attachment.html>