[rpd] Decisions ... Abuse contact

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

Hi Gaby, all,

 

In my opinion, and the opinion of a few other community members, also objections B and E have been resolved, so they aren’t valid. In fact, if we accept those objections, probably half of the CPM will be out of scope and invalid.

 

I just sent the appeal to the Appeal Committee, and I will also be forwarding it to the list in a minute.

 

Now is time to rest this thread and await either an alternative decision of the chairs or from the Appeal Committee.

 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 30/9/20 16:22, "Gaby Giner" <gabyginernetwork at gmail.com> escribió:

 

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

_______________________________________________ RPD mailing list 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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200930/58852bec/attachment.html>