<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Times New Roman \(Cuerpo en alfa";
panose-1:2 2 6 3 5 4 5 2 3 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML con formato previo Car";
margin:0cm;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
span.HTMLconformatoprevioCar
{mso-style-name:"HTML con formato previo Car";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML con formato previo";
font-family:Consolas;}
span.EstiloCorreo21
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:70.85pt 3.0cm 70.85pt 3.0cm;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body lang=ES link=blue vlink=purple style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Tks Madhvi,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>With all this in mind, I’m formally asking to the chairs, as per CPM section 3.5, to reconsider their position regarding this proposal (AFPUB-2018-GEN-001-DRAFT06 - Abuse Contact Policy Update), which should be brought to the last call.<b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Regarding your point c. I already clarified this in the meeting, just want to make sure that you captured it correctly. There is nothing in the CPM that affects legacy holders.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>In fact, even 5.7 doesn’t affect legacy holders, because 5.7.4.3 *<b>only</b>* affects the transferred resources, when the resources are transferred, and that means it affects the new resource holder “not the legacy holder”. It is a small clarification (not related to this proposal), but I think is key to correctly interpret this point.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Jordi<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>@jordipalet<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>El 30/9/20 8:20, "Madhvi Gokool" <<a href="mailto:madhvi@afrinic.net">madhvi@afrinic.net</a>> escribió:<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p style='margin-left:35.4pt'>Dear Frank/Community members<o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p><p style='margin-left:35.4pt'>a) In the Impact Assessment, staff assumed that the policy will not impact the legacy resources in the AFRINIC whois database and requested the authors to confirm that this is so. AFRINIC staff needs to keep this in consideration at the time of implementation(myafrinic and whois business rules) - abuse-c mandatory for non-legacy resources. Staff were therefore satisfied with this confirmation and had not indicated otherwise to the co-chairs and community in the session.<o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin-left:35.4pt'>b) "AFRINIC is bound by the Mauritian Data Protection Act 2017 (inspired by GDPR). For more information on AFRINIC's Privacy Policy, click on the following link - <span style='color:black'><a href="https://www.afrinic.net/privacy">https://www.afrinic.net/privacy</a>. Thus, implementation of the abuse-c will not impact negatively on AFRINIC's data protection obligations."</span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin-left:35.4pt'>c) The only policy that affects the legacy resource holders is documented in Section 5.7 of the CPM - and it regards transfers of legacy resources. Legacy Holders are not bound by any other resource policies. <o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin-left:35.4pt'>Staff therefore will confirm with the authors that their policies do not affect legacy resources , especially when implementation will be done on the whois database. This is to ensure that the implementation does not negatively impact how the legacy resource holders manage their resources on the whois database. <o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin-left:35.4pt'>d) In the Policy Implementation Experience Report during AFRINIC-32/AIS'20 , staff have pointed out that Section 8 of the CPM does not enforce a mandatory abuse contact . They also mentioned that they are having to respond to an increase in complaints regarding missing abuse contacts in the number resources in the AFRINIC whois database and that operators have warned that they will filter the resources with no abuse contacts. Staff are therefore doing the work for the members , as they are bound to respond to any queries that are logged with the AFRINIC service desk. This situation is not scalable in the long term & AFRINIC invites the community to also ponder on this feedback.<o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin-left:35.4pt'>Kind Regards<o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin-left:35.4pt'>Madhvi<o:p></o:p></p><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>-- <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>Madhvi Gokool<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>Senior IP Resources Specialist<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>AFRINIC Ltd.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>t: +230 403 5100 | f: +230 466 6758 | <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>w: <a href="http://www.afrinic.net">www.afrinic.net</a><o:p></o:p></pre><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>On 28/09/2020 8:09 PM, Frank Habicht wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>Dear chairs,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>On 21/09/2020 08:32, Frank Habicht wrote:<o:p></o:p></pre><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>Dear chairs,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>On 21/09/2020 03:04, ABDULKARIM OLOYEDE wrote:<o:p></o:p></pre><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>6. Abuse Contact Update<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>The proposal makes it mandatory for AFRINIC to include in each resource<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>registration, a contact where network abuse from users of those<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>resources will be reported. The proposal whois DB attribute (abuse-c)<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>to be used to publish abuse public contact information. There’s also a<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>process to ensure that the recipient must receive abuse report and that<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>contacts are validated by AFRINIC regularly. However, there some<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>opposition to the proposal there are:<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>a. Staff analysis on how it affects legacy holder not<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>conclusive (not sure why this should affect legacy holders)<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>b. The proposal doesn’t state what will be the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>consequences of one member fails to comply. Why are we creating the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>abuse contact when there is no consequence for not providing the abuse<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>contact<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>c. Abuse contact email and issues with GDPR concerning<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>the whois database<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>d. No proper definition of the term Abuse<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>e. To force members to reply to their abuse email is<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>not in the scope of AFRINIC.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>Chairs Decision: No rough consensus<o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>About d. "No proper definition of the term Abuse"<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>yes, this was mentioned several times by members opposing.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>The proposal is about "abuse contacts". it is not about what "abuse" is.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>there is no need for a definition of "abuse".<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>In my humble opinion the request for a definition of abuse is off-topic.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>Question: if someone makes a proposal about lame DNS servers in domain<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>objects for Reverse-DNS, and I object arguing that a definition of RPKI<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>is needed - what would you do with this argument?<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>Q2: can arguments about a proposal be irrelevant to this proposal?<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>Q3: was that the case here? were arguments, that a definition for abuse<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'> is required, irrelevant?<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>I request chairs' response to Q2 and Q3.<o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>Dear chairs, requesting a response.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>Note: chairs said this was a point of opposition.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>I argue that this was an irrelevant point.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></pre><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>About e. "To force members to reply to their abuse email is not in the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>scope of AFRINIC."<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>Yes, that was mentioned several times.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>And also this is something the proposal does not do and does not attempt.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>And all the comments about (d.) above apply.<o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>How can people complain that the proposal does something, when the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>proposal doesn't do that?<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>How can that be a valid objections?<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>Chairs?<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></pre><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>If irrelevant objections are taken as valid arguments, please note that<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>I foresee that any future proposal can get rejected and the PDP will be<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>stuck.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>About c. "Abuse contact email and issues with GDPR concerning the whois<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>database"<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>- I didn't see that on the mailing list, can you remind us, or was that<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>only during the live session?<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>- there are other contact information in whois. can staff confirm<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>whether AfriNIC are GDPR compliant?<o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>AfriNIC staff: above is a question for you.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>yes, I think I know the answer, but maybe the ones arguing that this is<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>a problem with the proposed policy don't know the answer.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></pre><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>- would that status change if abuse contacts would be added?<o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>same... AfriNIC staff, please help.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></pre><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>About b. "The proposal doesn’t state what will be the consequences of<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>one member fails to comply. Why are we creating the abuse contact when<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>there is no consequence for not providing the abuse contact"<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>- I can imagine that AfriNIC would include in their meeting<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>presentations information regarding how big (in measurable terms) this<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>problem is.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>- from that the WG can discuss and decide if more actions are necessary.<o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>Chairs, does my above answer sufficiently address the point b. of<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>opposition that you had listed as relevant?<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></pre><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>About a. "Staff analysis on how it affects legacy holder not conclusive<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'> (not sure why this should affect legacy holders)"<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>I didn't see that before, but as is tradition in my part of the world,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>let me respond to the question with a question:<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>Are legacy holders subject to any for the PDWG's policies?<o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>Madhvi, please help: does any policy affect legacy holders?<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>Frank<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'>RPD mailing list<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'><a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net">RPD@afrinic.net</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:35.4pt'><a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>_______________________________________________ RPD mailing list RPD@afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <o:p></o:p></p></div><br>**********************************************<br>
IPv4 is over<br>
Are you ready for the new Internet ?<br>
http://www.theipv6company.com<br>
The IPv6 Company<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
</body></html>