<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><p style="color:rgb(14,16,26);background-color:transparent;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="background-color:transparent;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">If you do not define or give an input of what abuse is, then how can you properly manage people's mailbox's subject line?</span></p><p style="color:rgb(14,16,26);background-color:transparent;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="background-color:transparent;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">This is a crucial element, in my opinion. </span></p><p style="color:rgb(14,16,26);background-color:transparent;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><br></p><p style="color:rgb(14,16,26);background-color:transparent;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="background-color:transparent;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">More importantly, the proposal aims to supply AFRINIC of something that has nothing to do with its scopes. It is not up to AFRINIC to rule like a local court or local policy.</span></p><p style="color:rgb(14,16,26);background-color:transparent;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="background-color:transparent;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">As mentioned several times, asking AFRINIC to act as a central government goes against the main element that identifies the Internet: decentralization. The Internet</span><span style="background-color:transparent;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"> is controlled by many, no one can own it, control it, or switch it off for everyone.</span></p><p style="color:rgb(14,16,26);background-color:transparent;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="background-color:transparent;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"> AFRINIC should not evaluate how I manage MY mailbox. </span></p><p style="color:rgb(14,16,26);background-color:transparent;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="background-color:transparent;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><br></span></p><p style="color:rgb(14,16,26);background-color:transparent;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="background-color:transparent;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">Lucilla </span></p></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Il giorno lun 21 set 2020 alle ore 14:33 Frank Habicht <<a href="mailto:geier@geier.ne.tz" target="_blank">geier@geier.ne.tz</a>> ha scritto:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Dear chairs,<br>
<br>
On 21/09/2020 03:04, ABDULKARIM OLOYEDE wrote:<br>
> 6. Abuse Contact Update<br>
> <br>
> The proposal makes it mandatory for AFRINIC to include in each resource<br>
> registration, a contact where network abuse from users of those<br>
> resources will be reported. The proposal whois DB attribute (abuse-c)<br>
> to be used to publish abuse public contact information. There’s also a<br>
> process to ensure that the recipient must receive abuse report and that<br>
> contacts are validated by AFRINIC regularly. However, there some<br>
> opposition to the proposal there are:<br>
> <br>
> a. Staff analysis on how it affects legacy holder not<br>
> conclusive (not sure why this should affect legacy holders)<br>
> <br>
> b. The proposal doesn’t state what will be the<br>
> consequences of one member fails to comply. Why are we creating the<br>
> abuse contact when there is no consequence for not providing the abuse<br>
> contact<br>
> <br>
> c. Abuse contact email and issues with GDPR concerning<br>
> the whois database<br>
> <br>
> d. No proper definition of the term Abuse<br>
> <br>
> e. To force members to reply to their abuse email is<br>
> not in the scope of AFRINIC.<br>
> <br>
> Chairs Decision: No rough consensus<br>
<br>
About d. "No proper definition of the term Abuse"<br>
yes, this was mentioned several times by members opposing.<br>
The proposal is about "abuse contacts". it is not about what "abuse" is.<br>
there is no need for a definition of "abuse".<br>
In my humble opinion the request for a definition of abuse is off-topic.<br>
<br>
Question: if someone makes a proposal about lame DNS servers in domain<br>
objects for Reverse-DNS, and I object arguing that a definition of RPKI<br>
is needed - what would you do with this argument?<br>
Q2: can arguments about a proposal be irrelevant to this proposal?<br>
Q3: was that the case here? were arguments, that a definition for abuse<br>
is required, irrelevant?<br>
<br>
I request chairs' response to Q2 and Q3.<br>
<br>
<br>
About e. "To force members to reply to their abuse email is not in the<br>
scope of AFRINIC."<br>
Yes, that was mentioned several times.<br>
And also this is something the proposal does not do and does not attempt.<br>
And all the comments about (d.) above apply.<br>
<br>
<br>
If irrelevant objections are taken as valid arguments, please note that<br>
I foresee that any future proposal can get rejected and the PDP will be<br>
stuck.<br>
<br>
<br>
About c. "Abuse contact email and issues with GDPR concerning the whois<br>
database"<br>
- I didn't see that on the mailing list, can you remind us, or was that<br>
only during the live session?<br>
- there are other contact information in whois. can staff confirm<br>
whether AfriNIC are GDPR compliant?<br>
- would that status change if abuse contacts would be added?<br>
<br>
<br>
About b. "The proposal doesn’t state what will be the consequences of<br>
one member fails to comply. Why are we creating the abuse contact when<br>
there is no consequence for not providing the abuse contact"<br>
- I can imagine that AfriNIC would include in their meeting<br>
presentations information regarding how big (in measurable terms) this<br>
problem is.<br>
- from that the WG can discuss and decide if more actions are necessary.<br>
<br>
<br>
About a. "Staff analysis on how it affects legacy holder not conclusive<br>
(not sure why this should affect legacy holders)"<br>
I didn't see that before, but as is tradition in my part of the world,<br>
let me respond to the question with a question:<br>
Are legacy holders subject to any for the PDWG's policies?<br>
<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Frank<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
</blockquote></div>