Search RPD Archives
[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.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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> **********************************************
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list