March 2018 - anti-abuse-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
by Name 19 Feb '19

19 Feb '19

9 11

Decision on Proposal 2017-02 & Next Steps
by Brian Nisbet 28 Mar '18

28 Mar '18

Colleagues, We've been thinking about this for some time and attempting to find a way through the various comments and messages in regards to 2017-02. We believe the best option at this point is to extend the review phase of this proposal for a further 4 weeks as we do not believe rough consensus has been reached. However we also do not believe that there has been sufficient clear argument to reject the proposal. We think that during this time it would be useful if those who engaged in the discussion but did not express a preference could do so. It would also be useful if those who commented on the first version of the proposal, especially those who objected, still objected after the second version was published. It should also be noted that the NCC have laid out the method by which they would plan to implement this proposal, so we do not believe that discussion around alternative methods nor additional checks is germane. It is also clear that the ARC will be used in conjunction with the automated checks. It is also clear that this will not require "make work" from any admins to answer. Finally we need to address the objections around the possible implications of organisations *not* following this policy. It is clear that 2017-02 does not attempt to introduce any additional processes nor change how the NCC would act in cases where policies are not followed. We believe this has been clarified. If members of the community have an issue with these procedures then we think that's a separate discussion, rather than a valid reason to object to 2017-02 Other than those listed above, there was a feeling expressed that this will not make any meaningful difference. Both the RIPE NCC and the proposers have said that this work to improve the quality of data will be greatly appreciated. We would also mention that policies can be further amended in the future. So, if everyone could take a look at the latest version of 2017-02 again that would be appreciated. If you have already stated your support there is no need to do so. If you are opposed, then please consider the above and the various discussions and see if you are still opposed to this version of the proposal. If so, can you please state which reasons for opposition have not been clarified nor resolved. Obviously if you haven't stated a preference either way, as I mention above, this is your opportunity to do so! Thanks, Brian Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG Brian Nisbet Network Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nisbet(a)heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270

6 10

need help: RTBH from Rostelecom (russia)
by Sebastien Ceuterickx 27 Mar '18

27 Mar '18

Dear working group, I am writing with regards to our IP being blocked by Rostelecom (Russia). We have tried to contact them using the mailing list from the RIPE database but we still did not get any answer. I have also tried ENOG without success. I wonder if someone has a good contact to them or an idea to get their attention ;-) I thank you for your help in this matter, Best, Sebastien --- Sébastien CEUTERICKX Network and Infrastructure Engineering Mobile: +41 78 694 15 92 Proton Technologies AG Chemin du Pré-Fleuri, 3 CH-1228 Plan-les-Ouates, Genève, Switzerland

2 1

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
by Name 20 Mar '18

20 Mar '18

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
by herve.clement＠orange.com 19 Mar '18

19 Mar '18

As co-authors, if we propose this policy, that's because we believe that improving the Whois reliability is good for the Internet. With regard to the first analysis conducted by the RIPE NCC, about 10%-25% of the current 70,000 distinct abuse contact emails seem technically incorrect, this implies that between 7,000 and 17,500 email addresses are not working ones. If contacted by the RIPE NCC, resource holders will be requested to fix this information and will be able to receive abuse notifications. So there will be a significant difference between receiving something vs receiving anything. Perhaps a part of these holders don't care but they will be contactable. The other part will be educated about this abuse-c field during the process. And an annual checking would ensure that the contacts remain more up-to-date. Regards Hervé -----Message d'origine----- De : anti-abuse-wg [mailto:anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net] De la part de ox Envoyé : lundi 19 mars 2018 03:23 À : JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg Objet : Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02 On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 13:43:54 +0000 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net<mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net>> wrote: <snip> > I'm not a lawyer, but deal a lot with them, and I'm sure anyway, there > are more informed voices even from the NCC that can confirm, and > actually it will be interesting to confirm. > +1 I would like to also present the other side of the same argument: If the NCC provides a platform that supplies fake/false/wrong information it could also attract arguments of legal liability... Similarly, if the NCC does not provide abuse contact information there could also be legal arguments that this is a dereliction of trust with regards public resource management and that also opens up arguments of liability... So, this would be most interesting to confirm. Regards Andre _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
by Erik Bais 19 Mar '18

19 Mar '18

I still have some serious concerns about this proposal. I wonder how this might have an effect on the conduit role of (transit)-networks. And if the RIPE NCC will be requested to report (by the community or by legal court actions) or will be held liable in some way shape or form for the accurate information in case a resource holder will end up in a court case because they are not responsive on abuse complains. As a community we should tread carefully if we want to push the RIPE NCC in the middle of those kind of legal cases or want it to be held accountable on that. Especially in case of Copyright complaints for instance. The RIPE NCC is having agreements / contracts with all resource holders for ownership via End-User Agreements or LIR agreements, however in case of acting on operational topics like abuse handling, that SHOULD NOT be a part of it. Having a working method of abuse handling is a task of the resource holder themselves. If they decide to not act on or not have a valid abuse contact, it is their own responsibility. With all subsequent consequences. The RIPE NCC provides a datamodel in the RIPE DB to populate the field, but it should not get involved in validation of the information. The amount of work involved in validating just that specific field with no guarantee on or added value on actual responsiveness after it is validated, is a waste of community funds. Because those who want to respond on abuse complaints are already having working abuse contacts and those who don't, still won't. I fear that this task will be more or similar resource consuming than implementing 2007-01 .. ( Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC ) Especially since it is stated that this should be done on a yearly basis. So in the end, it looks like expensive window dressing which might open up the RIPE NCC with a legal liability. However novel the intent is of authors. I would strongly advice against this. Regards, Erik Bais

3 2

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
by Karl-Josef Ziegler 18 Mar '18

18 Mar '18

Andre Ox wrote: > But having some sort of policy is a start, even though > what we are actually ending up with is not much at all and even then > there are those that think even having a watery (watered down, > toothless, etc) policy is a future threat. Yes, I agree. Making only a small step - even if it may be only symbolic - is still better than making no steps at all. Best regards, Karl-Josef

2 1

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
by Gert Doering 18 Mar '18

18 Mar '18

Hi, On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 10:53:55AM +0200, ox wrote: > To answer the question though: This proposal does make the world a > better place. > > If a resource holder wishes to be allocated scarce public resources > such a resource holder should also be responsible about the operations > of such scarce public resources. In which way, exactly, would this proposal have an effect to achieve this goal (a goal that I share, to state it explicitly)? I maintain the position that those that do care can be reached today, and those that do not care will find ways to fulfill the letter of the policy, and not change their ways. So, to repeat Malcolm's position: if we introduce new work for the NCC and the LIRs, does it improve things enough to be the right thing to do? (As a side note, we recently were contacted by the NCC because one of our 'sponsoring LIR' customers had changed their primary domain and forgot to update their contact details in the RIPE DB, thus, making them unreachable. Someone noticed, complained to the NCC, the NCC contacted the sponsoring LIR, and contact details were corrected. Things seem to work today where people care...) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

2 1

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
by Name 17 Mar '18

17 Mar '18

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
by Name 17 Mar '18

17 Mar '18

3 2

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
by Name 17 Mar '18

17 Mar '18

7 11

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
by Name 16 Mar '18

16 Mar '18

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
by Name 15 Mar '18

15 Mar '18

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
by Brian Nisbet 15 Mar '18

15 Mar '18

Morning, What we’re discussing right now is the policy as proposed and the NCC’s implementation plan. We’ve had discussion at an earlier point in regards to additional methods of verification, however it was made clear that there would be marked opposition to things that required human interaction in this way. With this in mind we are proceeding on this basis. Obviously if you would like to propose an alternative, then the WG Co-Chairs and the RIPE Policy Development Office are very happy to assist you with this. Thanks, Brian Brian Nisbet Network Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nisbet(a)heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270 From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net> On Behalf Of Name Sent: Thursday 15 March 2018 00:40 To: Marco Schmidt <mschmidt(a)ripe.net>; anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02 "If this policy change reaches consensus, the RIPE NCC will proactively validate whether the "abuse-mailbox:" attribute is valid." No it doesn't. How does RIPE loading a system that checks whether a mail server exists even need a change to policy? There is nothing listed in this "policy" that even needs to be implemented as policy. From what is said, RIPE will not check whether an abuse mailbox is valid, but whether a mail server exists at a domain specified. Mail server exists ≠ valid abuse mailbox attribute -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02 From: Marco Schmidt <mschmidt(a)ripe.net<mailto:mschmidt@ripe.net>> Date: Thu, March 15, 2018 2:02 am To: anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net<mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> Dear Malcolm, On 2018-03-14 14:47:13 CET, Malcolm Hutty wrote: > On 14/03/2018 13:32, Marco Schmidt wrote: > > Please let me reiterate that the RIPE NCC will not activate the > > closure procedure simply for failure to maintain the "abuse-mailbox:" > > attribute. > > > > The closure procedure could be activated if the resource holder refuses > > to provide correct abuse contact information or is unresponsive over a > > longer period (during which the RIPE NCC will have made several attemps > > to contact the resource holder via different channels). > > Marco, > > Thank you for your detailed mail. However I do not understand how the > two sentences quoted above are consistent with each other. Is it that > you won't activate the closure procedure *solely* for failure to > maintain abuse-mailbox, but might activate it if this was compounded > with some other breach? > > How would you feel if the policy was amended to say something along the > lines of > > "For the pupose of RIPE-676 paragraph 1.6.2.1.1 (Violation of RIPE > Policys and RIPE NCC Procedures), failure to maintain the abuse-mailbox > attribute shall not be deemed sufficient reason to terminate the SSA in > itself, but may be deemed an aggravating factor contributing towards a > decision to terminate the SSA." I see how those two lines can be confusing when taken together - thank you for asking us to clarify. If this policy change reaches consensus, the RIPE NCC will proactively validate whether the "abuse-mailbox:" attribute is valid. If our automated validation indicates that the attribute is technically incorrect, we will contact the resource holder (directly or indirectly via the sponsoring LIR) and ask them to review and correct the "abuse-mailbox:" attribute. This is still outside of the closure and deregistration procedure. It would be the following actions of the resource holder that could lead to us activating the closure procedure - such as refusing to provide correct abuse contact information or remaining unresponsive over a longer period. This is already our current procedure when investigating incorrect contact information and this would not change if the policy change reaches consensus. Regarding potential amendments, it would be up to the Anti-Abuse Working Group to decide if these are worthwhile. But I am happy to provide the RIPE NCC's understanding based on the current version of the policy proposal as well as clarification on the current RIPE policy framework. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC > > Kind Regards, > > Malcolm. > > -- > Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 > Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog > London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ > > London Internet Exchange Ltd > Monument Place, 24 Monument Street London EC3R 8AJ > > Company Registered in England No. 3137929 > Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA > > Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
by Name 15 Mar '18

15 Mar '18

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02 & Next Steps
by Name 14 Mar '18

14 Mar '18

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02 & Next Steps
by Name 14 Mar '18

14 Mar '18

2 1

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02 & Next Steps
by Brian Nisbet 14 Mar '18

14 Mar '18

And apologies for the subject change, which I meant to edit. We’ve a new email system in work which needs training. Brian Brian Nisbet Network Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nisbet(a)heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270 From: Brian Nisbet Sent: Wednesday 14 March 2018 11:31 To: 'Name' <phishing(a)storey.xxx>; anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: RE: SPAM-heanet-- RE: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02 & Next Steps Hi, I haven’t given an exhaustive list of all of the emails sent, but they are all in the archive. I believe I have covered some of the main points below. While I don’t feel a number of them are valid, as discussed, they were stated as initial reasons for objection. Given my statements below I now wish people to either clarify their reasons for objection or say they no longer object or something in between. We’ll then review this at the end of the current phase. Thanks, Brian Brian Nisbet Network Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nisbet(a)heanet.ie<mailto:brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> www.heanet.ie<http://www.heanet.ie> Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270 From: Name <phishing(a)storey.xxx<mailto:phishing@storey.xxx>> Sent: Tuesday 13 March 2018 01:28 To: Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet(a)heanet.ie<mailto:brian.nisbet@heanet.ie>>; anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net<mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> Subject: SPAM-heanet-- RE: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02 & Next Steps "we do not believe rough consensus has been reached." Who spoke out against it, and what did they say? I haven't seen anything that says that consensus has not been reached. What does "consensus" look like? -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02 & Next Steps From: Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet(a)heanet.ie<mailto:brian.nisbet@heanet.ie>> Date: Mon, March 12, 2018 11:57 pm To: "anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net<mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net>" <anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net<mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net>> Colleagues, We've been thinking about this for some time and attempting to find a way through the various comments and messages in regards to 2017-02. We believe the best option at this point is to extend the review phase of this proposal for a further 4 weeks as we do not believe rough consensus has been reached. However we also do not believe that there has been sufficient clear argument to reject the proposal. We think that during this time it would be useful if those who engaged in the discussion but did not express a preference could do so. It would also be useful if those who commented on the first version of the proposal, especially those who objected, still objected after the second version was published. It should also be noted that the NCC have laid out the method by which they would plan to implement this proposal, so we do not believe that discussion around alternative methods nor additional checks is germane. It is also clear that the ARC will be used in conjunction with the automated checks. It is also clear that this will not require "make work" from any admins to answer. Finally we need to address the objections around the possible implications of organisations *not* following this policy. It is clear that 2017-02 does not attempt to introduce any additional processes nor change how the NCC would act in cases where policies are not followed. We believe this has been clarified. If members of the community have an issue with these procedures then we think that's a separate discussion, rather than a valid reason to object to 2017-02 Other than those listed above, there was a feeling expressed that this will not make any meaningful difference. Both the RIPE NCC and the proposers have said that this work to improve the quality of data will be greatly appreciated. We would also mention that policies can be further amended in the future. So, if everyone could take a look at the latest version of 2017-02 again that would be appreciated. If you have already stated your support there is no need to do so. If you are opposed, then please consider the above and the various discussions and see if you are still opposed to this version of the proposal. If so, can you please state which reasons for opposition have not been clarified nor resolved. Obviously if you haven't stated a preference either way, as I mention above, this is your opportunity to do so! Thanks, Brian Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG Brian Nisbet Network Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nisbet(a)heanet.ie<mailto:brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> www.heanet.ie<http://www.heanet.ie> Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02 & Next Steps
by Name 14 Mar '18

14 Mar '18

2 1

Agenda Submissions RIPE76
by Brian Nisbet 12 Mar '18

12 Mar '18

Colleagues, We are now a little over 2 months to our meeting at RIPE76. This will be taking place on Thursday 17th May at 11:00 CEST. The Co-Chairs would like to invite submissions of topics for discussion or presentation at the meeting. If you are interested in being on the agenda of the meeting, please email the Co-Chairs at aa-wg-chair(a)ripe.net Thanks, Brian Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG Brian Nisbet Network Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nisbet(a)heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270

1 0

2017-02 Review Phase Extended (Regular abuse-c Validation)
by Marco Schmidt 12 Mar '18

12 Mar '18

Dear colleagues, Policy proposal 2017-02, "Regular abuse-c Validation" is now in the extended Review Phase. The goal of this proposal is to give the RIPE NCC a mandate to regularly validate "abuse-mailbox:" information and to follow up in cases where the attribute is deemed to be incorrect. You can find the full proposal and the RIPE NCC impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2017-02 And the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2017-02/draft As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four week extended Review Phase is to continue discussing the proposal, taking the impact analysis into consideration, and to review the full draft RIPE Policy Document. At the end of the Review Phase, the WG Chairs will determine whether the WG has reached rough consensus. We encourage you to read the proposal, impact analysis and draft document, and share your comments on <anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net> before 10 April 2018. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Status of Proposal 2017-02
by Name 06 Mar '18

06 Mar '18

2 1