[rpd] Decisions ... Abuse contact

[Patrick Okui]

Dear Lucilla, all,

Actually it is very useful for someone to clarify exactly what statement 
they are referring to and why they agree or disagree with existing 
statements around that issue. Without that, it’s impossible to 
understand each other’s viewpoints. I’ll await her clarity on if 
I’m understanding her issue with the proposed 8.5

However from what the two of you are saying (plus your comments on 
another thread supporting a larger change deleting an entire section 
which I’ve read) can we agree on the following statements about abuse 
contact handling (with or without this policy):

1. mandatory abuse-c is needed in whois.

2. validation of the abuse-c is needed.

3. failure to comply would be treated as normal violation of RSA.

Please correct me if I’m wrong on this. It would also be helpful if 
anyone who disagrees with these three basic statements speaks up with 
their reasons why.

On 4 Oct 2020, at 5:33 EAT, lucilla fornaro wrote:


> dear Patrick, dear all,

>

> I think Lamiaa has been very clear about what concerns her position, 

> that nothing has to do with false accusations against AFRINIC staff.

>

> It is pacific to agree that most of us believe that we should have a 

> mandatory abuse contact. Just like Lamiaa, I believe that one of the 

> main issues here is that because maintaining database accuracy is an 

> operational problem, it should be left to the staff to decide how to 

> validate the contact info in the whois database.

> As I wrote in other emails, amending the section 7.5.1 to include the 

> mandatory abuse-c as part of whois registration would be a better 

> option.

>

> regards,

>

> Lucilla

>

> Il giorno dom 4 ott 2020 alle ore 04:13 Patrick Okui <pokui at psg.com> 

> ha scritto:

>

>> Hi Lamiaa,

>>

>> Actually you did not explain your position. It helps to be precise 

>> with

>> what you mean.

>>

>> You simply said:

>>

>> *“Check accuracy of database data is part of afrinic operational 

>> routing

>> and has no need to be put in the policy. We don’t micro manage 

>> afrinic.”*

>>

>> So I simply asked you to clarify if you imagined AFRINIC could simply 

>> make

>> abuse-c mandatory without our say so or if they weren’t facing 

>> issues with

>> the existing optional abuse-c.

>>

>> Note that admin-c has a restriction that does not apply to any other

>> contact. The requirement that the contact be resident in the AS. The 

>> exact

>> roles of the different contacts is why they can have different 

>> restrictions.

>>

>> So to be clear from your email, you agree that AFRINIC’s issue is

>> legitimate and they need to be able to require members have mandatory

>> abuse-c. It is not obvious that a mandatory contact is needed. This 

>> point

>> is listed by the co-chairs as one of the outstanding issues. (point 

>> e.

>> under the policy at

>> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2020/011372.html )

>>

>> If I understand you (correct me where I’m wrong), what you take 

>> issue with

>> (in this particular email thread) is 8.5. Specifically:

>>

>> *8.5 Validation of "abuse-c"/"abuse-mailbox”*

>>

>> *AFRINIC will validate compliance with the items above, both when the

>> "abuse-c" and/or "abuse-mailbox" attributes are created or updated, 

>> as well

>> as periodically, not less than once every 6 months, and whenever 

>> AFRINIC

>> sees fit.*

>>

>> Note that this is to address issues raised by some other people. Not 

>> to

>> pick on Chloe but as a recent example she commented as recorded at

>> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2020/011590.html

>>

>> *nor does it guarantee the abuse email will be checked on a routine 

>> basis.

>> Then I think it will only become a meaningless policy.*

>>

>> The text proposed by Jordi says AFRINIC can pick the duration and 6 

>> months

>> (1/2 the billing cycle) is suggested as the max time between 

>> validations.

>> In this text, AFRINIC can choose to validate weekly, or monthly or 

>> etc. I

>> think the proposed text is a good compromise you can suggest a 

>> different

>> timing. It just says AFRINIC can verify as often as they want, but 

>> anyone

>> who reads the policy knows that any contact they retrieve is at most 

>> 6

>> months from its last validation (or less if AFRINIC decide to do this 

>> more

>> often).

>>

>> If this is a heavy point of contention, we can always ask staff to 

>> clarify

>> what they understand from the proposed text and what they think about 

>> the

>> phrasing of timelines. After all, it falls on their shoulders to 

>> implement.

>>

>> On 3 Oct 2020, at 20:30 EAT, Lamiaa Chnayti wrote:

>>

>> Hi Patrick,

>>

>> You are not following any logic here, and it seems like you are a 

>> very

>> confused person on your argument.

>>

>> 1. You claimed that you want to have policy text dictated AFRINIC how

>> OFTEN they should validate contact in the whois.

>>

>> 2. I am telling you maintaining database accuracy (in which partly

>> includes validating contact info in the database) is an operational 

>> issue.

>> It should not be put into policy text, and it should be left to the 

>> staff

>> to decide how they want to validate the contact info in the whois 

>> database.

>> That is not only abuse-c, but any other contact in the DB should be

>> reachable and accurate. We don’t need a policy for that as that is

>> Afrinic’s mandate and daily routine job.

>>

>> And how did you arrive from the above arguments to claim I was saying 

>> that

>> the staff were lying?

>>

>> Staff claimed they have had an increase in work load due to the lack 

>> of

>> mandatory abuse contact. Nobody is disputing that. Everyone here 

>> agrees we

>> can, and we probably should, have a mandatory abuse contact. However, 

>> we

>> should simply put it together with the other mandatory contacts. 

>> There is

>> no reason making an entire section for a simple contact information. 

>> And

>> when did I say that is a lie?

>>

>> Please, you are making a serious accusation about me without any 

>> ground

>> and potentially you are in breach of the code of conduct.

>>

>> Additionally, I did not send the letter to you in private. I simply 

>> forgot

>> to press respond to all at the bottom which is a completely 

>> forgivable

>> oversight. You are simply making too big of a noise for a simple 

>> mistake.

>>

>> Regards,

>>

>> Lamiaa

>>

>> Le sam. 3 oct. 2020 à 11:45, Patrick Okui <pokui at psg.com> a écrit :

>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> Hi Lamiaa,

>>>

>>>

>>> Great that you cc’ed the list this time.

>>>

>>>

>>> Kindly clarify your position on the following in the email I wrote 

>>> and

>>> you just responded to..

>>>

>>>

>>> Are you trying to say that the AFRINIC staff is lying to the RPD 

>>> list as

>>> per https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2020/011534.html ?

>>> Particularly point d? If so please respond to Madhvi with further 

>>> queries

>>> or suggestions.

>>>

>>>

>>> AFRINIC staff only operate within the boundaries of the policies we 

>>> make.

>>> They can’t randomly make data mandatory that we say is optional or 

>>> vice

>>> versa.

>>>

>>>

>>> On 3 Oct 2020, at 13:42 EAT, Lamiaa Chnayti wrote:

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> Hello Patrick,

>>>

>>> Check accuracy of database data is part of afrinic operational 

>>> routing

>>> and has no need to be put in the policy. We don’t micro manage 

>>> afrinic.

>>>

>>> Regards,

>>>

>>> Lamiaa

>>>

>>> Le sam. 3 oct. 2020 à 11:41, Patrick Okui <pokui at psg.com> a écrit 

>>> :

>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Hi Lamiaa,

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Grateful if you can cc the RPD list on your contributions.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Are you trying to say that the AFRINIC staff is lying to the RPD 

>>>> list as

>>>> per https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2020/011534.html ?

>>>> Particularly point d?

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> AFRINIC staff only operate within the boundaries of the policies we

>>>> make. They can’t randomly make data mandatory that we say is 

>>>> optional or

>>>> vice versa.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> On 3 Oct 2020, at 13:10 EAT, Lamiaa Chnayti wrote:

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Hello Patrick,

>>>>

>>>> Check accuracy of database data is part of afrinic operational 

>>>> routing

>>>> and has no need to be put in the policy. We don’t micro manage 

>>>> afrinic.

>>>>

>>>> Regards,

>>>>

>>>> Lamiaa

>>>>

>>>> Le sam. 3 oct. 2020 à 07:49, Patrick Okui <pokui at psg.com> a écrit 

>>>> :

>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Dear Elvis,

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> I’ll address just one of your points people keep bringing up.

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> On 3 Oct 2020, at 1:05 EAT, Ibeanusi Elvis wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Dear Community,

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Once more regarding this abuse contact policy or abuse-c, 

>>>>> irrespective

>>>>> of the lack of a clear definition of what constitutes or entails 

>>>>> an abuse,

>>>>> there is no guarantee that the abuse contact mail box will be 

>>>>> routinely

>>>>> checked and the properly defined concept to determine if an abuse 

>>>>> cases is

>>>>> valid and hence, take necessary action as pointed out by @Chloe.

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Are you intentionally not reading the proposal text at

>>>>> https://www.afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2018-gen-001-d6#proposal

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Specifically:

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> *8.5 Validation of "abuse-c"/"abuse-mailbox”*

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> *AFRINIC will validate compliance with the items above, both when 

>>>>> the

>>>>> "abuse-c" and/or "abuse-mailbox" attributes are created or 

>>>>> updated, as well

>>>>> as periodically, not less than once every 6 months, and whenever 

>>>>> AFRINIC

>>>>> sees fit.*

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> --

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> patrick

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> _______________________________________________

>>>>>

>>>>> RPD mailing list

>>>>>

>>>>> RPD at afrinic.net

>>>>>

>>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

>>>>>

>>>>> --

>>>> Lamiaa CHNAYTI

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> --

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> patrick

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> --

>>> Lamiaa CHNAYTI

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> --

>>>

>>>

>>> patrick

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> --

>> Lamiaa CHNAYTI

>>

>> --

>> patrick

>> _______________________________________________

>> RPD mailing list

>> RPD at afrinic.net

>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

>>





--
patrick
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20201004/d8436450/attachment-0001.html>