[rpd] Decisions ... Abuse contact

[Chloe Kung]

Dear Patrick,

I see your point and thank you very much. Before I respond to that, I just want to say it actually leads to my another reason for objecting this proposal for it doesn’t state what will be the consequences nor does it guarantee the abuse email will be checked on a routine basis. Then I think it will only become a meaningless policy.

If all Afrinic needs to do when it’s getting involved is to ask whether or not someone’s abuse contact responded, and should not be doing anything beyond that, then why would we even need this proposal ? The way I see it is that, I imagine abuse cases have existed and happened before, so if they really care, both the complainants and the complainees would already have a more effective way to do it. And for those who doesn’t really care, having this abuse contact set up mandatorily doesn’t not help.

Let’s say if now Afrinic is going to do just a little more than that, maybe giving a warning. Then I suppose they will at least have to look into the case ? And so under such circumstances Afrinic will need to have a clear/ defined concept to determine if the abuse case is valid and if further actions are needed ? Though I believe this is out of the scope of RIRs.

Best,
Chloe
From: Patrick Okui <pokui at psg.com>
Date: Thursday, October 1, 2020 at 02:58
To: Chloe Kung <chloe.kung.public at gmail.com>
Cc: "rpd at afrinic.net" <rpd at afrinic.net>, Jaco Kroon <jaco at uls.co.za>
Subject: Re: [rpd] Decisions ... Abuse contact


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/20201002/4c2e7a51/attachment.html>