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

[rpd] Abuse Contact Policy

Jaco Kroon jaco at uls.co.za
Wed Sep 23 10:55:06 UTC 2020


Hi Lamiaa,

Thank you for the clarification.

Kind Regards,
Jaco

On 2020/09/23 12:38, Lamiaa Chnayti wrote:


> Hello Jaco,

>

> Let me explain again in a simpler form.

>

> 1. I do agree we should have abuse-c in whois.

> 2. I even agree to make it mandatory . 

>

> What I do not agree with is to make abuse-c any different from other

> mandatory contact.

>

> Here is policy text for admin-c and tech-c:

>

> /7.5.1 Registering contact persons

> Administrative and technical contact persons must be registered for

> each ASN assigned. The registered administrative contact ('admin-c')

> is the person responsible for the ASN and should generally be someone

> who is physically located at the site of the AS.

> The technical contact ('tech-c') need not be physically located at the

> site of the AS but must be a person who is responsible for the

> day-to-day operation of that AS.

> /

> I suggest this policy should remove the entire 8.X section, and

> instead, just have one line at 7.5.1, (adding one sentence below

> tech-c) *“The abuse contact("abuse-c") should be a person who can

> handle abuse issues on the network, and it is for  network to

> communicate each other on abuse issues.”* Just like how we treat other

> mandatory contact attribute in the whois, if someone creates an object

> without it, the system returns to error, just like admin-c or tech-c.

>

> And problem solved, what you are concerned with have been addressed at

> 100%. And on a side note, if a network is a responsible network, I

> believe they all already have an abuse contact there, since it was a

> function of whois many versions ago, and for the ones who never care

> for abuse (mostly large residential telecoms), I doubt what we do here

> would matter much in the real world. 

>

>

> Regards,

>

>  

>

> Lamiaa

>

>

>

> Le mar. 22 sept. 2020 à 12:30, Jaco Kroon <jaco at uls.co.za

> <mailto:jaco at uls.co.za>> a écrit :

>

> Hi Lamiaa,

>

> On 2020/09/22 10:32, Lamiaa Chnayti wrote:

>>

>> Hello again Jordi,

>>

>>  

>>

>> Of course I can choose NOT TO REPLY, this is my network, and I

>> decide how I want to run it. Everyday I ignore tons of e-mailsand

>> they go to a folder called spam, and it is entirely up to me to

>> decide IN MY NETWORK what I consider spam. I think you

>> fundamentally mix up the concept of "management of IP address

>> registration" with "management of network". AFRINIC only has a

>> mandate to manage registration of IP numbers, it does not have the

>>

> No.  I suspect Jordi knows a fair amount of the difference.  More

> so than most.

>

>> capacity or mandate to manage networks. And once you get that,

>> you will also understand why your dashboard

>>

> Nobody is asking Afrinic to manage any networks.  We're asking

> them to help those of that want to be good netizens to enable us

> to do that, by ensuring that contact can be made with other

> networks for the purposes of resolving abuse related problems.  My

> experience says that usually these disputes are between customers

> of ISPs but they insist that the ISPs should do something about

> it.  So short of me dropping your entire set of prefixes, I'd

> prefer to be able to make contact with you in order to look for a

> resolution.  Personally, I'm not worried about screaming insults

> and the like, those or nitty gritty issues people should sort out

> themselves, but what happens if a customer of yours is actively

> trying to hack on of mine?  Or the other way around?  Would you

> prefer we all just drop each other's routes and never actually

> resolve anything?

>

>> policy, your hijacking as policy violation, your over-intrusive

>> management clause in abuse-c get pushed back very hard in RIPE.

>> Hands off my network, as Randy Bush famously said.

>>

> I am sorry, in my opinion you're out of line here, that is

> bordering on a personal attack on Jordi, we're all trying to make

> this Internet a better place.  As is Jordi.  Whilst I do not agree

> with him on everything, what is it to you have a single email

> address that people can mail you on?  Honestly, nobody said you're

> not allowed to filter spam on that.  Again, you choose what is

> spam and not.  We're asking you to be responsible.  Basically by

> saying you refuse to publish an abuse contact you're effectively

> being an elitist stating that your network is so perfect that

> there is no reason anyone would ever need to contact you in an

> attempt to resolve a (probably) legitimate issue.

>

> My response to that would be:  So why should I route your

> traffic?  Why shouldn't I just outright reject all your prefixes?

>

> By enabling networks to contact each other via an abuse contact it

> enables all of us to communicate better, towards sorting out real

> issues.  If you don't want to be part of the solution, my personal

> opinion is that you should not form part of the internet.  My

> opinion is that by making abuse related contact more reliable

> we're improving the overall networking landscape.  You're still

> welcome to ignore contact you don't consider legitimate.  But know

> that that leaves us few options if you do ignore a legitimate issues.

>

>>  

>> And why on earth does a network have to give AFRINIC their

>> confidential data? Networks have already showedtechnical need

>> during the application process and done correct registration of

>> their numbers, and they are done with AFRINIC from this point on.

>> How they manage a network is entirely out of the scope of AFRINIC.

>>

> No one is asking for confidential data.  We're asking for a

> contact where we can make contact with you in a case where of my

> customers and one of yours have issues with each other, in order

> to get problems / issues / disputes / whatever resolved amicably

> instead of via lawyers, so by all means, if you prefer me first

> suing Afrinic for your contact details, and then suing you for

> damages + costs ... guess we can go that route too.

>

> Alternatively I can file abuse complaints against you with your

> transit providers and if they agree with me, it's not just one or

> two of your customers that's going to face difficulty, it's going

> to be all of them.

>

> Either way, with an attitude like yours I'm fairly certain not

> many people will think twice about dropping your prefixes.

>

>>  

>>

>> As for my perspective, it is really simple, for the good of the

>> internet and for the future of this region, we are not making

>> policies for individual networks, but rather policies impacting

>> billions of people's internet access, and it needs to be

>> abundantly clear on what we can do and what is not for us to

>> decide. Yes, you are right, all networks should be run

>> responsively,  just like all your neighbors  shouldn't play loud

>> music after 10pm, but that doesn't mean you can force your local

>> church to arrest them and ban them from Sunday service. Same with

>> abuse, if a network is running abusively, police will find them

>> and shut them down--again, not AFRINIC's business.

>>

> Yes, you're right.  This policy is for improving the internet for

> billions of people, by enabling networks to contact each other to

> resolve abuse related issues such that the internet can remain an

> open and friendly place by eliminating the problems.  An abuse

> contact allows us to achieve exactly that.  Without it, no one is

> going to contact you regarding individual customers of yours,

> enabling you to take action against your individual customers, or

> to work with your customers to resolve problems, they're going to

> track down your transit providers, and they're going to get your

> entire network isolated and de-routed.  You leave them no other

> choices.

>

>

> Kind Regards,

> Jaco

>

>

>>

>>

>> Le lun. 21 sept. 2020 à 15:42, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD

>> <rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>> a écrit :

>>

>> Hi Lamiaa,

>>

>>  

>>

>> Internet is about cooperation, I don’t think you can choose

>> “not to reply”. You can choose “not to consider it an abuse”,

>> but not reply at all, in my opinion, will be against the

>> correct management of the resources, which you’re bound as an

>> AFRINIC member. You can choose to no reply to victims if they

>> insist in something that you told them is not an abuse,

>> that’s fine, but you must reply to AFRINIC for the validation

>> of any data, whois, etc.

>>

>>  

>>

>> Regarding how you run your network, I’m trying to understand

>> your perspective, that’s it.

>>

>>  

>>

>> Regards,

>>

>> Jordi

>>

>> @jordipalet

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> El 21/9/20 14:46, "Lamiaa Chnayti" <lamiaachnayti at gmail.com

>> <mailto:lamiaachnayti at gmail.com>> escribió:

>>

>>  

>>

>> Hey Jordi,

>>

>>

>>

>> You keep mixing up two very simple concepts, it is ok for

>> AFRINIC to include abuse-c as part of whois registration,

>> just like admin-c or tech-c. But IT IS ENTIRELY absurd to

>> have AFRINIC to verify how members reply to their Email, even

>> down to the subject line. It is entirely the network's right

>> to choose NOT to reply to that "victim ISP" at all because it

>> doesn't think this is an abuse.

>>

>>  

>>

>> And again you keep asking about my personal network and how I

>> run it, and which is entirely irrelevant to this policy

>> discussion. You can not disqualify people by disallowing

>> anyone not running a network in this list, so what is your

>> point? People discussing here who are running networks or not

>> are none of anyone's business and is not relevant to the

>> discussion of this policy.

>>

>>  

>>

>> Regards,

>>

>>  

>>

>> Lamiaa

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> Le lun. 21 sept. 2020 à 10:00, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD

>> <rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>> a écrit :

>>

>> Hi Lamiaa,

>>

>>  

>>

>> 8.3 and 8.4 are making sure that you respond to an abuse

>> case, **not** that you **recognize** it as an abuse. It

>> is your choice to tell the “victim ISP”, look for me this

>> is not an abuse, so I will not do anything about it.

>>

>>  

>>

>> AFRINIC can’t verify this automatically, because it

>> doesn’t make sense that AFRINIC is “sending” fake abuse

>> reports to see if they get a response.

>>

>>  

>>

>> AFRINIC can only send an email for the validation of the

>> mailbox. It is an existing mailbox? I’m getting a

>> response (for example, have they, once I send the

>> validation email, clicked the link or went into MyAfrinic

>> to input the validation code?).

>>

>>  

>>

>> 8.4 also states the timing for the validation.

>>

>>  

>>

>> 8.5 is the validation itself, so I guess, according to

>> your response, that you’re ok with this specific point.

>> If we don’t have it, AFRINIC can’t do a periodic validation.

>>

>>  

>>

>> 8.6. is making sure that you don’t try to fake the

>> validation. For instance, you could respond only to

>> AFRINIC validations and then discard all the other

>> emails. If we don’t have that, the policy may become

>> useless. Note also that in fact, if you follow the RSA,

>> **anyone** could escalate **any** lack of CPM compliance.

>> So this is making sure that the policy text is honest and

>> transparent.

>>

>>  

>>

>> Or do you prefer to be filtered because you don’t respond?

>>

>>  

>>

>> Clearly this proposal is not asking AFRINIC to be a

>> police. Is only making sure that the parties **can

>> talk**. Again: AFRINIC will not be involved in “how you

>> handle the case”, but I least you should be able to be

>> contacted and respond.

>>

>>  

>>

>> See this example:

>>

>> If AK or Moses customers are sending me spam, or trying

>> to intrude my network, and they have abuse contacts, I

>> will be able to complain to them. Then we have two cases:

>>

>> 1.   Moses responds to me and say “you’re right, this is

>> against our AUP” (is irrelevant what the law in Moses

>> country say, it is the contract with customers what says

>> what is allowed or not). Let’s fix it. I will warn the

>> customer, and if they don’t stop, we will filter their

>> email port, or even cancel the contract (just examples,

>> only Moses can decide what they do).

>>

>> 2.   AK instead doesn’t care, or the mailbox is full or

>> bouncing emails or respond “sorry in our network we allow

>> that”. Then I can take my own decision, filter only that

>> IP address, or the complete AK network. I can even see if

>> this is allowed in his country and take legal actions

>> (which usually you don’t do because is costly and more of

>> the regulations don’t know “anything” about abuse or even

>> Internet!).

>>

>> AFRINIC will not take any measure if AK decides that is

>> not an abuse. It is our problem not AFRINIC problem.

>> However, if the email is bouncing, AFRINIC will

>> revalidate the abuse-c and make sure that it works.

>>

>>  

>>

>> Is like a phone book. You have there the phones and they

>> must be correct, or you need to update them every “n”

>> months. The phone book doesn’t tell the purpose of each

>> phone. If you don’t want to accept calls related to

>> “ordering pizzas”, you tell the caller “this number is

>> not for that”, but at least you must pick up the phone

>> otherwise, you don’t know if it is somebody calling by

>> error or someone that you really want to talk. And this

>> is true for **every** whois contact.

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> Can you let us know how do you handle it in the networks

>> that you operate?

>>

>>  

>>

>> Regards,

>>

>> Jordi

>>

>> @jordipalet

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> El 21/9/20 10:00, "Lamiaa Chnayti"

>> <lamiaachnayti at gmail.com

>> <mailto:lamiaachnayti at gmail.com>> escribió:

>>

>>  

>>

>> Hi Fernando, 

>>

>>  

>>

>> I think you are very confused. I never said I have a

>> problem with people completing their registration. Keep

>> registration---having an abuse contact Email in the

>> whois, just like tech contact or admin contact--I am

>> perfectly fine with it, and I think the current policy

>> achieves 99% it, if you want to add this contact as

>> mandatory field I am fine with it as well.

>>

>>  

>>

>>  But the problem of this policy in 8.3-8.6, is that it

>> requires AFRINIC to monitor the members HOW to manage

>> their abuse mailbox down to the subject line,  and that

>> is out of the scope of AFRINIC, just read my last email

>> with logic in mind and you will understand. I suggest

>> this policy should be very simple,  adding one line to

>> the current policy-- abuse contact is mandatory, and it's

>> done, everything else should be deleted.

>>

>>  

>>

>> And again, you are trying to use AFRINIC for something

>> that is not in its scope, how someone manages their

>> mailbox is not in the scope of AFRINIC, it is like you go

>> to your local church to ask them to arrest your neighbour

>> who plays loud music at night when you should go to

>> police instead. Same thing for someone running an abusive

>> network, as many already stated, it is up to a local Jury

>> to decide if it is simply at an annoying level or a

>> criminal offense, but either way please do go to your

>> local police to report it.

>>

>>  

>>

>> As for the internet, we never tell you how to behave--you

>> are entirely at your rights in the internet to behave

>> abusively, but it is also entirely in everyone's rights

>> to block you, that's how de-centralizing works, no

>> central governing, everyone plays nice because that's the

>> only way for everyone else to play with you, and this

>> policy here asks AFRINIC to act like a central government

>> even down to manage people's mailbox's subject line and

>> that is way beyond what internet meant to be.

>>

>>  

>>

>> Regards,

>>

>>  

>>

>> Lamiaa

>>

>>  

>>

>> Le dim. 20 sept. 2020 à 23:42, Fernando Frediani

>> <fhfrediani at gmail.com <mailto:fhfrediani at gmail.com>> a

>> écrit :

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> On 19/09/2020 13:19, Lamiaa Chnayti wrote:

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> <clip>

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> How is it in the scope of AFRINIC to decide how I

>> manage my abuse mailbox? If I want to reply only

>> to a specific subject line of my abuse box, it is

>> entirely in my right to do. Even if I don't want

>> to reply at the abuse mailbox at all, that is my

>> right to do so and if I think no action in my

>> network would be considered abuse (although

>> unlikely), but it is still from  the internet

>> community point of view, entirely in my right to

>> do so. You might choose to block me as a network,

>> but that is also your right.

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> The reason internet is called INTER-NET is

>> because of its decentralized nature, you have to

>> play nice for others to play with you, but this

>> community never forces anyone to play nice, it is

>> not in the scope of AFRINIC to decide how members

>> reply to their abuse mailbox, so if 8.3,8.4, 8.5

>> and 8.6 are deleted in its entirety, I might

>> consider supporting it. Also Jordi, I feel you

>> always have this central management type of

>> thinking, and that is so not internet.

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> It is not in the scope of any RIR how anyone manage

>> people's

>>

>> mailboxes.

>>

>>

>> Nobody exists alone in the Internet. If an organization

>>

>> hypothetically doesn't care at all and refuses to

>> respond to abuse

>>

>> emails it probably should re-think its existence in

>> the Internet

>>

>> business.

>>

>>  

>>

>> The Internet is what is among many reasons because of the

>>

>> cooperation among its organizations, and there are

>> certain rules

>>

>> that are agreed cooperatively and must be observed by

>> everyone

>>

>> willing remain on it, otherwise it may in many cases

>> cause serious

>>

>> damage to those willing to operate in serious manner

>> and keep it a

>>

>> healthy place to most people who depend on it.

>>

>>  

>>

>> This forum is about setting rules on how registration

>> information

>>

>> about resources are kept and it may be of the wish of the

>>

>> community to refuse keep registration for those who

>> repetitively

>>

>> abuse of their individual rights.

>>

>>  

>>

>> Fernando

>>

>>

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> Regards,

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> Lamiaa

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>  

>>

>> Le ven. 18 sept. 2020 à 09:23,

>>

>> JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net

>> <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>> a écrit :

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> Hi Lamiaa,

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> I don’t agree. Internet doesn't depend on

>>

>> any jurisdiction; abuse is about what I (the

>> victim

>>

>> operator) consider abuse. The RFC is clear

>> about that,

>>

>> in short “Inappropriate public behaviour” (is a

>>

>> mailbox so to be able to contact in case

>> there is a

>>

>> possible inappropriate behaviour in the public

>>

>> Internet). If you want a clearer definition,

>> abuse is

>>

>> **anything** that I don’t want to accept in my

>>

>> network because is in any way damaging it.

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> If I don’t want to accept a DoS, or spam,

>>

>> or phising, DMCA, or whatever, this is abuse

>> **for

>>

>> me**. I’ve the right to tell you because that

>>

>> abuse is coming from your network. If you

>> believe that

>>

>> is not abuse (and here is your jurisdiction

>> in some

>>

>> cases, in other just doesn’t exist, but it

>> may be also

>>

>> your “business” decision – like operators

>> that don’t

>>

>> care if their customers do spam or intrusion

>>

>> attempts), you’ve the right to tell me

>> “sorry, this is

>>

>> not abuse for us”, and then I’ve the right to

>> decide

>>

>> if I should filter your network based on your

>>

>> response.

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> Not having an abuse contact, means that

>>

>> I’m not able to contact you, so we can’t talk, we

>>

>> can’t investigate or agree if it is an abuse

>> or not,

>>

>> so you (the offender operator) don’t have the

>> chance

>>

>> to decide about it! Is bad for you, is bad

>> for me. In

>>

>> those cases, my best choice is to filter you.

>> This

>>

>> create problems for your customers and my

>> customers.

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> We can’t depend on jurisdictions, because

>>

>> then the policy will need to consider

>> inter-relations

>>

>> among every possible “pairs” of country

>> worlds, and we

>>

>> will need to update the policy based on any

>>

>> jurisdiction change. The policy is not about

>> that, is

>>

>> about having a valid responsible contact, not

>> about

>>

>> deciding what is an abuse, which is among the two

>>

>> parties.

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> Tell me what is different from AFRINIC

>>

>> than the rest of the world, because none of

>> the RIRs

>>

>> have defined abuse in their policies. I even

>> don’t

>>

>> recall that having appeared in the discussions!

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> If

>>

>> you want, I’m happy to change the title of the

>>

>> proposal to “supposed abuse contact”, that may be

>>

>> clearing your point?

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> Again,

>>

>> this is not about defining what is abuse, this is

>>

>> among the parties. It is about making sure that

>>

>> there is a valid responsible contact in case of

>>

>> anyone needs to report what he considers an

>> abuse.

>>

>> AFRINIC will not punish anyone that believes that

>>

>> his customer is not doing an abuse because in his

>>

>> country is not an abuse.

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> Regards,

>>

>>  

>>

>> Jordi

>>

>>  

>>

>> @jordipalet

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> El

>>

>> 18/9/20 9:59, "Lamiaa Chnayti"

>> <lamiaachnayti at gmail.com

>> <mailto:lamiaachnayti at gmail.com>>

>>

>> escribió:

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> Hello

>>

>> Jordi,

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> RFC2142

>>

>> only defines a tiny portion of the network

>> abuse. In

>>

>> real world operation, abuse consists of a  much

>>

>> boarder range : DMCA(copy rights) claims,

>>

>> unsolicited emails , phishing  websites ,

>> trade mark

>>

>> disputes etc. 

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> All

>>

>> those are legal issues that vary vastly across

>>

>> different juridictions in which no one but

>> each of

>>

>> the juridiction’s judges can decide if it is an

>>

>> abuse or an illegal activity. Claiming that

>> RFC2142

>>

>> defines not even 1% of real world abuse is

>>

>> laughable.

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> Regards,

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> Lamiaa

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> Le jeu.

>>

>> 17 sept. 2020 à 15:51, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via

>>

>> RPD <rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>>

>>

>> a écrit :

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> Hi

>>

>> Lamiaa,

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> I’ve

>>

>> said this already. This policy doesn’t

>>

>> enforce abuse, it enforces that the abuse

>>

>> contact is there, and works.

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> Today

>>

>> AFRINIC is paying for the cost of the

>>

>> abuse handling because only a tiny

>>

>> fraction of the members has the abuse

>>

>> contacts in place.

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> If

>>

>> the contacts in the RIR database aren’t

>>

>> actual and accurate, this is a clear

>>

>> violation of the RSA. So what is

>>

>> unacceptable is not having the contacts,

>>

>> not on the other way around.

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> Abuse

>>

>> is not defined by the RIRs, everybody

>>

>> knows it and this is the reason why NONE

>>

>> of the RIRs have re-defined it, because it

>>

>> is already stated in RFC2142. Can you

>>

>> justify why AFRINIC is different and need

>>

>> a definition?

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> How

>>

>> you define it in the networks that you

>>

>> operate?

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> Regards,

>>

>>  

>>

>> Jordi

>>

>>  

>>

>> @jordipalet

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> El 17/9/20

>>

>> 10:49, "Lamiaa Chnayti"

>> <lamiaachnayti at gmail.com

>> <mailto:lamiaachnayti at gmail.com>>

>>

>> escribió:

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> Hello,

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> I

>>

>> will have to agree with Lucilla on what

>>

>> she said and would like to add to it

>>

>> that :

>>

>>  

>>

>> Firstly, Abuse

>>

>> enforcement is out of scope for RIRs.

>>

>>  

>>

>> Secondly, RIRs

>>

>> have no ability to define what is

>>

>> “abuse”, one abuse or even criminal

>>

>> activity could be entirely a legal

>>

>> operation in a different jurisdiction.

>>

>>  

>>

>> Finally, making

>>

>> a member forcefully reply to abuse

>>

>> contact Emails are a waste of resources

>>

>> and totally pointless, it is entirely up

>>

>> to the member to define what they think

>>

>> is acceptable in their network operation

>>

>> and how they react to it. AFRINIC has no

>>

>> mandate to force any member to reply to

>>

>> an “abuse”, since AFRINIC doesn’t even

>>

>> have the ability to identify what is

>>

>> considered an abuse.

>>

>>  

>>

>> Therefore the

>>

>> entire policy is out of scope for the

>>

>> RIR operation.

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> Regards,

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> Lamiaa

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> Le jeu. 17

>>

>> sept. 2020 à 07:42, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ

>>

>> via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net

>> <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>>

>>

>> a écrit :

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> Hi Lucilla,

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> Today we already have

>>

>> mnt-IRT, and everybody who operate

>>

>> networks understand what it is an

>>

>> abuse. If you operate networks you

>>

>> know that **anything** which

>>

>> is a non-authorized use of a

>>

>> network is an abuse.

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> If you send spam,

>>

>> attack networks, try to intrude

>>

>> networks, etc., all those are

>>

>> abuse.

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> What the policy ask

>>

>> is to make sure that in AFRINIC

>>

>> everybody has an abuse contact

>>

>> (today we have mnt-IRT, but is not

>>

>> mandatory, and as a results many

>>

>> African networks are filtered

>>

>> because lack of that – and

>>

>> consequently they do not respond

>>

>> to abuse cases -, which exist in

>>

>> all the other regions of the

>>

>> world).

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> Not having an abuse

>>

>> means more chances of legal

>>

>> actions, more cost, for both the

>>

>> victims and the ISPs. Having

>>

>> that means that you have more

>>

>> chances to resolve it in

>>

>> goodfaith.

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> One of the **most

>>

>> important** Afrinic

>>

>> missions is to have accuracy on

>>

>> the database, which includes

>>

>> accuracy on the contacts. We are

>>

>> not fulfilling that in this

>>

>> situation.

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> Remember that **all**

>>

>> the other RIRs have already this

>>

>> kind of policy. This one is like

>>

>> the one that has been

>>

>> implemented in APNIC, and the

>>

>> accuracy of the contacts is now

>>

>> 87.5% as reported this month in

>>

>> the last APNIC meeting. In that

>>

>> report **none** of the

>>

>> members indicated any of the

>>

>> issues that you indicated

>>

>> (didn't happened as well in the

>>

>> other regions).

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> You know who is

>>

>> interested in not having abuse

>>

>> contacts? Those that use their

>>

>> networks for doing abuse

>>

>> (hijacking, spam, DoS,

>>

>> intrusions, etc.).

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> Can you explain if

>>

>> the network that you operate has

>>

>> an abuse contact an how if one

>>

>> of your customes is trying to

>>

>> penetrate my network or do a

>>

>> DoS, I will be able to contact

>>

>> you and if you will do anything

>>

>> or just ignore it?

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> Regards,

>>

>>  

>>

>> Jordi

>>

>>  

>>

>> @jordipalet

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> El

>>

>> 17/9/20 2:21, "lucilla fornaro"

>>

>> <lucillafornarosawamoto at gmail.com

>> <mailto:lucillafornarosawamoto at gmail.com>>

>>

>> escribió:

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> Dear

>>

>> all,

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> I

>>

>> have some concerns about the

>>

>> “Abuse Contact Policy”.

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> First

>>

>> of all, it does not offer a

>>

>> specific and regulated

>>

>> description of the term

>>

>> “abuse”  and this opens the

>>

>> door to potentially bigger

>>

>> problems: a surplus of

>>

>> reports, discrimination/legal

>>

>> issues, and a waste of

>>

>> resources. Around the world,

>>

>> we can perceive what abuse is

>>

>> in very different ways.

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> Afrinic

>>

>> is not entitled to force

>>

>> members to report abuses and

>>

>> most importantly, this

>>

>> proposal does not represent

>>

>> Afrinic’s purpose.

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> I,

>>

>> therefore, oppose this policy.

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> Thank

>>

>> you,

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> Lucilla 

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> _______________________________________________

>>

>> RPD mailing list RPD at afrinic.net

>> <mailto:RPD at afrinic.nethttps://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> **********************************************

>>

>>

>> IPv4 is over

>>

>>

>> Are you ready for the new Internet ?

>>

>>

>> http://www.theipv6company.com

>> <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.

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> _______________________________________________

>>

>>

>> RPD mailing list

>>

>>

>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto: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

>> <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.

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> _______________________________________________

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> RPD mailing list

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

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

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> Le jeu.

>>

>> 17 sept. 2020 à 15:49, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via

>>

>> RPD <rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>>

>>

>> a écrit :

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> Hi

>>

>> Lamiaa,

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> I’ve

>>

>> said this already. This policy doesn’t

>>

>> enforce abuse, it enforces that the abuse

>>

>> contact is there, and works.

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> Today

>>

>> AFRINIC is paying for the cost of the abuse

>>

>> handling because only a tiny fraction of the

>>

>> members has the abuse contacts in place.

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> If the

>>

>> contacts in the RIR database aren’t actual

>>

>> and accurate, this is a clear violation of

>>

>> the RSA. So what is unacceptable is not

>>

>> having the contacts, not on the other way

>>

>> around.

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> Abuse is

>>

>> not defined by the RIRs, everybody knows it

>>

>> and this is the reason why NONE of the RIRs

>>

>> have re-defined it, because it is already

>>

>> stated in RFC2142. Can you justify why

>>

>> AFRINIC is different and need a definition?

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> How you

>>

>> define it in the networks that you operate?

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> Regards,

>>

>>  

>>

>> Jordi

>>

>>  

>>

>> @jordipalet

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> El 17/9/20

>>

>> 10:49, "Lamiaa Chnayti"

>> <lamiaachnayti at gmail.com

>> <mailto:lamiaachnayti at gmail.com>>

>>

>> escribió:

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> Hello,

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> I

>>

>> will have to agree with Lucilla on what

>>

>> she said and would like to add to it that

>>

>> :

>>

>>  

>>

>> Firstly, Abuse

>>

>> enforcement is out of scope for RIRs.

>>

>>  

>>

>> Secondly, RIRs

>>

>> have no ability to define what is “abuse”,

>>

>> one abuse or even criminal activity could

>>

>> be entirely a legal operation in a

>>

>> different jurisdiction.

>>

>>  

>>

>> Finally, making

>>

>> a member forcefully reply to abuse contact

>>

>> Emails are a waste of resources and

>>

>> totally pointless, it is entirely up to

>>

>> the member to define what they think is

>>

>> acceptable in their network operation and

>>

>> how they react to it. AFRINIC has no

>>

>> mandate to force any member to reply to an

>>

>> “abuse”, since AFRINIC doesn’t even have

>>

>> the ability to identify what is considered

>>

>> an abuse.

>>

>>  

>>

>> Therefore the

>>

>> entire policy is out of scope for the RIR

>>

>> operation.

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> Regards,

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> Lamiaa

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> Le jeu. 17

>>

>> sept. 2020 à 07:42, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ

>>

>> via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net

>> <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>>

>>

>> a écrit :

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> Hi

>>

>> Lucilla,

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> Today

>>

>> we already have mnt-IRT, and

>>

>> everybody who operate networks

>>

>> understand what it is an abuse. If

>>

>> you operate networks you know that

>> **anything**

>>

>> which is a non-authorized use of a

>>

>> network is an abuse.

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> If

>>

>> you send spam, attack networks, try

>>

>> to intrude networks, etc., all those

>>

>> are abuse.

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> What

>>

>> the policy ask is to make sure that

>>

>> in AFRINIC everybody has an abuse

>>

>> contact (today we have mnt-IRT, but

>>

>> is not mandatory, and as a results

>>

>> many African networks are filtered

>>

>> because lack of that – and

>>

>> consequently they do not respond to

>>

>> abuse cases -, which exist in all

>>

>> the other regions of the world).

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> Not having an abuse

>>

>> means more chances of legal

>>

>> actions, more cost, for both the

>>

>> victims and the ISPs. Having that

>>

>> means that you have more chances

>>

>> to resolve it in goodfaith.

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> One of the **most

>>

>> important** Afrinic missions

>>

>> is to have accuracy on the

>>

>> database, which includes accuracy

>>

>> on the contacts. We are not

>>

>> fulfilling that in this situation.

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> Remember that **all**

>>

>> the other RIRs have already this

>>

>> kind of policy. This one is like

>>

>> the one that has been implemented

>>

>> in APNIC, and the accuracy of the

>>

>> contacts is now 87.5% as reported

>>

>> this month in the last APNIC

>>

>> meeting. In that report **none**

>>

>> of the members indicated any of

>>

>> the issues that you indicated

>>

>> (didn't happened as well in the

>>

>> other regions).

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> You know who is

>>

>> interested in not having abuse

>>

>> contacts? Those that use their

>>

>> networks for doing abuse

>>

>> (hijacking, spam, DoS, intrusions,

>>

>> etc.).

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> Can you explain if

>>

>> the network that you operate has

>>

>> an abuse contact an how if one of

>>

>> your customes is trying to

>>

>> penetrate my network or do a DoS,

>>

>> I will be able to contact you and

>>

>> if you will do anything or just

>>

>> ignore it?

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> Regards,

>>

>>  

>>

>> Jordi

>>

>>  

>>

>> @jordipalet

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> El

>>

>> 17/9/20 2:21, "lucilla fornaro"

>>

>> <lucillafornarosawamoto at gmail.com

>> <mailto:lucillafornarosawamoto at gmail.com>>

>>

>> escribió:

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> Dear

>>

>> all,

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> I

>>

>> have some concerns about the

>>

>> “Abuse Contact Policy”.

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> First

>>

>> of all, it does not offer a

>>

>> specific and regulated

>>

>> description of the term “abuse”

>>

>>  and this opens the door to

>>

>> potentially bigger problems: a

>>

>> surplus of reports,

>>

>> discrimination/legal issues, and

>>

>> a waste of resources. Around the

>>

>> world, we can perceive what

>>

>> abuse is in very different ways.

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> Afrinic

>>

>> is not entitled to force members

>>

>> to report abuses and most

>>

>> importantly, this proposal does

>>

>> not represent Afrinic’s purpose.

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> I,

>>

>> therefore, oppose this policy.

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> Thank

>>

>> you,

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> Lucilla 

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> _______________________________________________

>>

>> RPD mailing list RPD at afrinic.net

>> <mailto: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.

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> _______________________________________________

>>

>>

>> RPD mailing list

>>

>>

>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto: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.

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> _______________________________________________

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> RPD mailing list

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

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

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> --

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>> Lamiaa

>>

>> CHNAYTI

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> **********************************************

>>

>>

>> 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.

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> _______________________________________________

>>

>>

>> RPD mailing list

>>

>>

>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>

>>

>>

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

>>

>>  

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> _______________________________________________

>>

>> RPD mailing list

>>

>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>

>>

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

>>

>>  

>>

>>  

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> _______________________________________________

>>

>> RPD mailing list

>>

>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>

>>

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

>>

>> --

>>

>> Lamiaa CHNAYTI

>>

>>  

>>

>> _______________________________________________ RPD

>> mailing list RPD at afrinic.net <mailto: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.

>>

>> _______________________________________________

>> RPD mailing list

>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto: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.

>>

>> _______________________________________________

>> RPD mailing list

>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>

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

>>

>>

>> _______________________________________________

>> RPD mailing list

>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>

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

> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto: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/20200923/271fb550/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the RPD mailing list