[rpd] Decisions ... Abuse contact

[Gaby Giner]

Hi Noah, Jordi, everyone,

I am confused. Everyone is raising the claim that there are "invalid"
objections and though I do not reject that statement, it seems like it's
being used here to automatically dismiss the objections raised by the
community as for this policy. It was kindly summarized for us by the
Co-chairs, and just to get everyone up to speed, here are THE objections to
this policy:

6.       Abuse Contact Update

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.*
Okay, people have addressed several concerns such as A, C, D but I think B
and E deserve to be raised up as well because (and maybe it is just me
being overwhelmed with the barrage of emails lately) I haven't read enough
rebuttal for these points. Even if one were to consider that they are not
valid objections, one could not steamroll the policy into last call
immediately without addressing the entirety of the summarized objections
from the community discussion by saying that every objection is invalid.

Gaby


On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 9:23 PM 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/b3d7214c/attachment.html>