[rpd] General Abuse Contact Policy Proposal

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

Hi Lamiaa,

 

The problem is that there is a need in some of the topics, to have expertise to be able to decide if something is too intrusive or not:

 
What is more intrusive, asking for a validation or allowing victims to pay for the abuses?
What is more intrusive, asking for a validation or because it doesn’t exist and you don’t even bother to say “this is not abuse for me”, get the full network filtered by the rest of the world, or even worst, many AFRICAN networks become filtered?
What is more intrusive, asking for a validation to the resource holders, or imposing the cost into AFRINIC, which is covered by members?
What is more intrusive, asking for a validation or enforcing the RSA, which stands for appropriate use of the resources? It is appropriate to ignore abuses from your customers?
 

Are you really thinking in the good of the community with any of those? It looks to me extremely contradictory. This is only good for the interest of those operators that just *don’t care about what their resources are used for, even if that means criminal activities*. Very sad to need to say that, but is what it looks.

 

I’ve been always defending that it doesn’t care who your work for, if you have experience or not to contribute, if you use an anonymous or fake name, because all is about *VALID-JUSTIFICATIONS AGAINST CONSENSUS* but if that doesn’t work, I need to start thinking that I was wrong, and only operators with experience should participate at least in some of the discussions, because invalid objections like personal views of “it is too intrusive” not well balanced versus cost-benefit *for all* (including victims and resources holders), break all this.

 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 19/10/20 19:04, "Lamiaa Chnayti" <lamiaachnayti at gmail.com> escribió:

 

Hey Mike,

 

First, as you clearly posited in your email above, you can work in a shareholder and, at the same time, represent your personal opinions, right? In that case, if working in your model means that your personal opinion would always contradict what you work in to say there are NO biases, then that's just counterproductive, isn't it?

 

Well, it's the same for me. I think my proposal could do good for this community, regardless if the company I have provided my services for once, benefits or not. And honestly speaking,  I don’t even know whether the organisation you are referring to will be benefited or not. I proposed it solely because I believe it’s good for the Internet and the community in general. 

As you can see in our previous discussion, I  believe Jordi’s proposal is too intrusive and out of the scope of AFRINIC, that’s why I proposed this current policy. No one has told me how my proposal will affect the organisation in either a good way or bad way. Frankly, if you disagree with me regarding the proposal per se, that’s your freedom.

 

One could also make the case that you're just working for the sole benefit of Liquid Telecom or whatever organization you’re associated with.

 

As I said, this is my personal input on the matter. You can't just disregard my opinion because it is somehow by chance favorable to a shareholder I have been associated with. You're basically in the same boat as I am, but you are castigating me for doing something you've already done, which is quite hypocritical.

 

Also, to get this clear for once, anything added besides constructive comments on the policy itself in this thread is totally irrelevant to the discussion whether it is my CV, social media info or extracurricular activities. What we shall focus on here is solely policy development. Furthermore, I would be more than happy to disclose any information when asked privately, but not under a thread of important policy discussion because it’s clearly off topic. Let’s not make this whole thing into a personal attack on one’s credentials when we are supposed to be focusing on the policy.

 

Lamiaa

 

Le lun. 19 oct. 2020 à 11:53, Mike Silber <silber.mike at gmail.com> a écrit :

I have 30 years of experience in dealing with abuse complaints.

 

When I represent my employer I use my official work email. When I use my personal email, it is to reflect my personal opinions.

 

Your criticism of the policy and your new proposal seem designed to promote your employer’s current business model.

 

I think it is disingenuous to pretend that is your “personal” opinion.

 

As such, I would consider your utterances with more credibility if they were not pretending to be personal opinions but rather stated as being reflective of your employer’s position.

 

 

On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 at 12:06, Lamiaa Chnayti <lamiaachnayti at gmail.com> wrote:

 

Hey Mike,

 

Since you are so curious about my life, which is none of your business, I speak 4 languages, which have brought me the opportunity of translating the Larus website. (Which explains the communications specialist experience in my profile, what can I say, I’m trying to put as much as I can on my CV to boost up my profile to future opportunities)

 

All this aside, I do not have to explain myself to you or to anyone else in this list, and I will not allow this strategy of yours of diverting the attention from the policy to my personal life and my social media profiles instead. You have NO right of publishing my info on the list without my approval !! 

 

I am asking the chairs to seriously condemn this behaviour on the list because it is getting out of hand and it has become obvious bullying and interference in personal matters. I want this picture removed from this list and the archives.

 

Lamiaa

 

Le lun. 19 oct. 2020 à 10:53, Mike Silber <silber.mike at gmail.com> a écrit :

Your LinkedIn profile says you are a Laurus Foundation employee and not a fellow.

 

Which one is it?

 

 

 

 

 

On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 at 11:48, Lamiaa Chnayti <lamiaachnayti at gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Mike,

 

I hope you have read through my proposal, even though the official announcement has not been done yet. 

 

Also, I do not understand what you mean by is this a Larus proposal ? As shown on the website, it is my and Wijdane’s proposal. I have been discussing the abuse matter intensively on the list with Jordi, which only solution I could find to improve it, is to come up with another version of the policy.

 

But, to clarify your confusion, I have been a fellow with Afrinic, Internet Society and Larus. I am also an undergraduate Architecture student, exploring many fields of Interest.

 

Anyways, this proposal is proposed by me, Lamiaa, as a member of the community and as someone from Africa. Affiliation does not make proposals, people do, and this is MY proposal. Following your logic,I would like know as well, are your comments made by Liquid Telecom or ICANN ? Or any other organization that you’ve worked with ?

 

This proposal is created for the good of the community, and if you don’t like it, or there’s anything wrong with it, you can feel free to oppose to it with valid objection – and an objection such as the “proposal is made by Lamiaa who is from LF” is obviously not a valid one .

 

I am looking forward to your inputs about the policy itself.

 

Regards,

 

Lamiaa

 

Le lun. 19 oct. 2020 à 10:13, Mike Silber <silber.mike at gmail.com> a écrit :

Hi Lamiaa

 

Is see you work for the Laurus Foundation.

 

Is this a Laurus proposal?

 

Mike

 

On Fri, 02 Oct 2020 at 22:29, Lamiaa Chnayti <lamiaachnayti at gmail.com> wrote:

Hello,

 

I would like to seize the occasion to propose a new version of the Abuse Contact policy , which you will find attached below.

 

I am looking forward to hearing your inputs and contributions.

 

Regards,

 

Lamiaa

 

_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
RPD at afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

-- 

Lamiaa CHNAYTI

 

-- 

Lamiaa CHNAYTI

 

_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
RPD at afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

-- 

Lamiaa CHNAYTI

 

_______________________________________________ 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/20201019/a5075484/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 318235 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20201019/a5075484/attachment-0001.jpg>