[rpd] Decisions ... Abuse contact

[Patrick Okui]

Dear Chloe, all, [response inline]

On 30 Sep 2020, at 17:53 EAT, Chloe Kung wrote:


> Like for objection d; no proper definition of the term Abuse, there is 

> still a need to address on it. Yes the proposal is about 

> “building” abuse contact, but just like what Jordi has said, “ 

> The policy only needs to state what the staff should evaluate and 

> thus, what members should do”, if the definition of the word/ act of 

> Abuse is not clear, how can the staff evaluate such action then? Let's 

> say if they interpret those cases in their own different ways, it will 

> not be fair to any of the parties nor would it be something we want I 

> suppose. And there are high chance of having mis-interpretation too!


Note that we have a tech-c contact for technical issues. There is no 
definition of what constitutes ‘technical’ issues for a tech-c 
contact. The requirement in this proposal is therefore not to define 
abuse. The requirement is for the holder of resources to specify where 
abuse complaints (by the definition *of the person complaining*) should 
go. Validation is only that it is a working destination that is active.

If someone sends you non abuse (by *your* definition) to your abuse 
contact your response is simply “This doesn’t constitute abuse 
because XYZ”. XYZ can be as simple as “the laws in my country and my 
AUP don’t prohibit such behaviour” or “connecting to port 80 is 
how browsers work”. If someone escalates to AFRINIC the only thing 
AFRINIC will ask is “Did Chloe’s abuse contact respond?”. Beyond 
that AFRINIC should not get involved.

Please give an example of a situation where a complaint requires AFRINIC 
to describe abuse.

--
patrick
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200930/e2596402/attachment.html>