[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>