[rpd] Decisions ... Abuse contact

[ABDULKARIM OLOYEDE]

Hi Frank,
See comment inline

On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 5:15 PM Frank Habicht <geier at geier.ne.tz> wrote:


> Dear chairs,

>

> On 21/09/2020 08:32, Frank Habicht wrote:

> > Dear chairs,

> >

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

> >> 6.       Abuse Contact Update

> >>

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

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

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

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

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

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

> >> opposition to the proposal there are:

> >>

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

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

> >>

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

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

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

> >> contact

> >>

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

> >> the whois database

> >>

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

> >>

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

> >> not in the scope of AFRINIC.

> >>

> >> Chairs Decision: No rough consensus

> >

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

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

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

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

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

> >

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

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

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

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

>

Yes


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

> >     is required, irrelevant?

>

No, cos the proposal is about abuse



> > I request chairs' response to Q2 and Q3.

>

> Dear chairs, requesting a response.

> Note: chairs said this was a point of opposition.

> I argue that this was an irrelevant point.

>

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

> > scope of AFRINIC."

> > Yes, that was mentioned several times.

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

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

>

> How can people complain that the proposal does something, when the

> proposal doesn't do that?

> How can that be a valid objections?

> Chairs?

>

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

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

> > stuck.

> >

> >

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

> > database"

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

> > only during the live session?

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

> > whether AfriNIC are GDPR compliant?

>

> AfriNIC staff: above is a question for you.

> yes, I think I know the answer, but maybe the ones arguing that this is

> a problem with the proposed policy don't know the answer.

>

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

>

> same... AfriNIC staff, please help.

>

>

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

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

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

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

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

> > problem is.

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

>

> Chairs, does my above answer sufficiently address the point b. of

> opposition that you had listed as relevant?

>

>

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

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

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

> > let me respond to the question with a question:

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

>

> Madhvi, please help: does any policy affect legacy holders?

>

>

> Thanks,

> Frank

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at afrinic.net

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

>


-- 
Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng>, Weekly Bulletin 
<http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal 
<http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal 
<https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200928/70082b2a/attachment.html>