<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;}
/* 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;}
span.EstiloCorreo18
{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'>Hi Mimi,<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'>Can you justify why is poorly placed?<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'>AFRINIC existing abuse policy is not mandatory, and it has been demonstrated by staff provided data, that, as a consequence, it doesn’t work.<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'>The proposal also allow multiple channels, is not stating that you don’t have further data such as phone or whatever, it is just mandating to have at least email. So, the “two-channels” that you mention are still possible.<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'>Personal data is not allowed in Mauritius, so all the channels must take that in consideration, and the proposal allows that.<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'>It is simple and in fact, there are open-source tools, such as fail2ban, that can handle the automation and provide multiple channels automatically. For example, you could call up to send an automated response in first place that explains the one submitting the report that you handle automatically (and consequently much faster) cases submitted according to a standard format such as X-ARF/RFC5965/RFC6650. Then you can try to parse the data if other formats are used and if that’s not possible, an alternative automated email could tell the reporter that a manual handling is required and create a ticket, contact him by email or other channels, etc.<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'>Note that all this is something that each network can freely decide (so internal operational details), and still comply with the proposal and definitively will help all the parties, but all that need a framework, as set by this proposal, to ensure that the email is working.<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'>And, no it doesn’t create a duplicate CPM content, because basically the one that we have is not useful at all, so we need to improve it.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>The basis of the PDP is to evolve as we learn. If we try to use the excuse of “we already have something in the CPM for that”, then we will never have a better CPM and learnings along the time will be wasted.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><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 7/6/21 23:43, "Mimi dy" <<a href="mailto:dym5328@gmail.com">dym5328@gmail.com</a>> escribió:<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8.0pt;margin-left:35.4pt;text-align:justify;line-height:106%'><span lang=EN-IN style='color:black'>Hi everyone,</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8.0pt;margin-left:35.4pt;text-align:justify;line-height:106%'><span lang=EN-IN style='color:black'>Since the PDWG co-chairs announced the official start of the last call period for the <b>Abuse Contact Policy, </b>I find it essential to call out the community, so they become aware of the limitations of the proposed policy, which unfortunately, reached rough consensus.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8.0pt;margin-left:35.4pt;text-align:justify;line-height:106%'><span lang=EN-IN style='color:black'>To some extent, some people might think that the proposed policy makes sense and can see potential in improving the service quality of AFRINIC, by providing functional abuse-c information, increasing accountability among resource-holders, offering an appropriate platform/ contact for complainants to submit their complaints and reducing the related expenditure. Nonetheless, I simply do not agree with it, why? Because its pillars are poorly placed, and more importantly, AFRINIC’s existing abuse contact information policy is sufficient and very well-designed. To emphasize and clarify my point of view, the existence of two channels or abuse contacts is highly efficient. The automated mailbox can manage recurrent and frequent complaints, by providing automatic solutions and direct answers already incorporated in their database. On the other hand, the personal communication contact can handle much more complex complaints, requiring human intervention to suggest solutions or further actions. Consequently, I am convinced that both channels are of extreme necessity in handling abuse complaints and providing victims with diverse ways to deal with unfortunate situations. Also, we cannot deny that it saves AFRINIC’s efforts trying to create an abuse-c attribute all over again, and it prevents the members’ from wasting precious time developing useless policies, that are only a duplicate of the CPM policies, and initiating the long procedures of approval and ratification.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8.0pt;margin-left:35.4pt;text-align:justify;line-height:106%'><span lang=EN-IN style='color:black'>I wish that, during this last call period, more members will contest the rough consensus that this policy reached, based on what I logically maintained above.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8.0pt;margin-left:35.4pt;text-align:justify;line-height:106%'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8.0pt;margin-left:35.4pt;text-align:justify;line-height:106%'><span style='color:black'>Warmly.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><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>