[rpd] Decisions ... Abuse contact

[Ekaterina Kalugina]

Dear Noah, Gregoire, and Jordi,

The fact that you do not like the objections to this proposal does not mean
that they are not valid.

There are still a number of matters that are unclear such as what would
happen to members who refuse to comply; issues with GDPR; the definition of
abuse; and the enforcement of this policy by AFRINIC. These are all VALID
concerns, and if you disagree - it is a matter of your opinion and NOT
their legitimacy.

I also think that mandatory abuse-c ought to be implemented, but these
objections must be addressed first. And until they are - there is no rough
consensus, and therefore the policy has no place in the last call.

Best,

Ekaterina


On Wed, 30 Sep 2020, 15:21 Noah <noah at neo.co.tz> wrote:

>
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 9:20 AM Madhvi Gokool <madhvi at afrinic.net> wrote:
>
>> Dear Frank/Community members
>>
>>
>> a) In the Impact Assessment, staff assumed that the policy will not
>> impact the legacy resources in the AFRINIC whois database and requested the
>> authors to confirm that this is so.  AFRINIC staff needs to keep this in
>> consideration at the time of implementation(myafrinic and whois business
>> rules) - abuse-c mandatory for non-legacy resources. Staff were therefore
>> satisfied with this confirmation and had not indicated otherwise to the
>> co-chairs and community in the session.
>>
>> b) "AFRINIC is bound by the Mauritian Data Protection Act 2017 (inspired
>> by GDPR). For more information on AFRINIC's Privacy Policy, click on the
>> following link - https://www.afrinic.net/privacy. Thus, implementation
>> of the abuse-c will not impact negatively on AFRINIC's data protection
>> obligations."
>>
>> c) The only policy that affects the legacy resource holders is documented
>> in Section 5.7 of the CPM  - and it regards transfers of legacy resources.
>> Legacy Holders are not bound by any other resource policies.
>>
>> Staff therefore will confirm with the authors that their policies do not
>> affect legacy resources , especially when implementation will be done on
>> the whois database.  This is  to ensure that the implementation does not
>> negatively impact  how the legacy resource holders manage their resources
>> on the whois database.
>>
>> d) In the Policy Implementation Experience Report during
>> AFRINIC-32/AIS'20 , staff have pointed out that Section 8 of the CPM does
>> not enforce a mandatory abuse contact . They also mentioned that they are
>> having to respond to an increase in complaints regarding missing abuse
>> contacts in the number resources in the AFRINIC whois database and that
>> operators have warned that they will filter the resources with no abuse
>> contacts.  Staff are therefore doing the work for the members , as they are
>> bound to respond to any queries that are logged with the AFRINIC service
>> desk.  This situation is not scalable in the long term & AFRINIC invites
>> the community to also ponder on this feedback.
>>
>
> Madhvi thanks for all the clarifications beyond the staff assessment.
>
> Clearly this proposal had no valid objections, yet it was tossed back to
> the list based on invalid definitions arguments as though we are all not
> internet folk to understand what *abuse-c* really means.
>
> Can we move forward to the last call now.
>
> Cheers,
> Noah
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200930/68c0dbc3/attachment.html>