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

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

Status of Proposal 2017-02
by Brian Nisbet 28 Feb '18

28 Feb '18

Colleagues, As you're aware the review period for 2017-02 ended on February 16th. Since that time I've been trying to sift through the various comments and discussions to try to get some feeling for consensus or not. There are a number of voices both for and against the proposal, so if the working group could indulge me with a little more time I'll get back to you all next week with some further thoughts and a decision on how to proceed. Apologies for the delay, 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

RIPE NCC Report: Law Enforcement Agency Requests 2017
by Athina Fragkouli 28 Feb '18

28 Feb '18

Dear colleagues, The RIPE NCC has published a transparency report that details the nature of the requests we received from law enforcement agencies (LEAs) in 2017. You can find the report here: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-698 Kind regards, Athina Fragkouli Head of Legal RIPE NCC

2 2

Cybercrime 'pandemic' may have cost the world $600 billion last year
by Name 24 Feb '18

24 Feb '18

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02 Review Phase Reminder
by Name 22 Feb '18

22 Feb '18

7 7

@EXT: RE: 2017-02 Review Phase Reminder
by Marcolla, Sara Veronica 22 Feb '18

22 Feb '18

Hi all, There are a couple of points to be made here, and sorry for the tardiness: The policy is not introducing a revolutionary concept, as many commenters pointed out, it is basically a representation of an established internet good practice where technical/admin contacts are real channels through which pertinent communication can easily reach whomever needs to take action. It is not a "security theatre", because this is not a geopolitical discussion but rather a technical mean to make sure that the internet ecosystem is a bit more functioning. In fact, the impact analysis mentions that the RIPE NCC estimates that 10-25% of the current abuse contact emails seems to be technically incorrect, and the key aspect to take into consideration is here the technical lack of correctness of such addresses, which result in technical faults, such as for example the ultimate inability of communicating a message to the desired receiver due to a non-functioning, outdated, or misspelled mail address. The proposed policy change was drafted with this in mind, and the expectation is that it will likely increase the chance that an abuse report can be send to a working address, thus probably making a huge lot of sysadmins very happy - and not only them. This policy will not bestow upon RIPE NCC new and extraordinary powers : the extreme measure (and I'd like to underline the term extreme as ultima ratio measure) of proceeding to close an account is the very last resort, and comes as a consequence of a non-responsive behaviour during a significantly extended period of time. Internet is fast, action upon errors has to happen (understandingly fast) : a lack of care in this respect shows a lack of care for the ecosystem itself, and such behaviour should not be encouraged. Moreover, it reflects an existing process based on current policies and procedures: this particular policy change would only expose ADDITIONAL incorrect contact information to this process, as the RIPE NCC would be enabled to identify incorrect abuse contact emails proactively rather than lagging behind, acting retroactively when receiving an external report about it. On the question why only abuse-c was subject to a specific policy, the reason is due to the prominence such entry: surely a policy could extend beyond that. On the claim that abuse-c checks are useless, this is a point to strongly object: inaccurate information is detrimental to all, leads to all kind of complications which can be easily solved with keeping records straight, channels open for communication. Every member can collaborate an put forward policy proposals, and it is down to the whole membership to promote or reject the idea, not the member, as everyone is equally engaged as part of the same ecosystem. Kind regards, Hervé & Sara -----Original Message----- From: anti-abuse-wg [mailto:anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Alexander Isavnin Sent: 17 February 2018 22:19 To: anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02 Review Phase Reminder Dear Herve! On 2018-02-17 19:00:22 CET, Herve Clement wrote: > Alexander, > I'v stated my opinion and rationale - thank you for your respect. Hope WG Chair will take my opinion (stated before the end of 16 Feb) in account. > > Just two things before additional answers beginning of next week: > - We've already explained that there's no additional "extraordinary > power" given to the RIPE NCC via this proposal: the very potential > possibility of an LIR closure exists in the current policies (cf. my > message dated 24th January) I'v seen those mails. I just want to clarify - it's my beliefs (bad) against your beliefs (good). If RIPE NCC Managing director have joined this discussion, clarifying procedures of non-financial LIR closure and/or resource revocation - i would agree with you. Otherwise "very potencial possibility" might become "exactly". There is very well working procedure of non-payment closure. Unless there is exaclty well working and accepted procedure for other reasons of closure - we have to be very accurate with easily violatable policies. (I'v seen brand new RIPE-697). > > - You've the right not to agree, that's something I respect. That's not a reason to judge presentations "funny" or proposals "as theater"... Please, do not take my judgement so personal, i have reasons to not agree with this policy, which i'm explaning you here. Policy that gives no significant and actual change - is a theater. (well, "security theater" is US definition of ineffective but demonstrative activities related to security) And i have another reason for stating that. This theater already had it's pre-premiere perfomance called "Law Enforcement Engagement with the RIPE Policy Development Process": https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/roundtable/january-2018/pdp-rt-br… For me it looks like "propose something, just to show that LEAs are involved in activity related to security". And about "funny" proposal presentation. Let's have some quotes: "essential part of the accountability of the RIPE community", "undermines the effectiveness of the policy", "Improving the trust and safety of the IP address space is a priority for the RIPE community","essential to ensure the efficiency","essential to establish a trusted and transparent environment" - these are so bombastic and sonorous, compared to 1 paragraph of policy change , which will actualy change nothing in abuse handling behavior, so i can't call it rather than funny. At least you had chance to pre-validate all abuse-c contacts available now in database and provide stats in policy rationale. I will change my opinion, if Europol (or any other LEA) could provide any evidence, that incorrect abuse-c: which stayed in database longer than 1 year led to something terrible like homicid. Or not so terrible, like unpaid parking, at least. Kind regards, Alexander Isavnin Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum ******************* DISCLAIMER : This message is sent in confidence and is only intended for the named recipient. If you receive this message by mistake, you may not use, copy, distribute or forward this message, or any part of its contents or rely upon the information contained in it. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the relevant e-mails from any computer. This message does not constitute a commitment by Europol unless otherwise indicated. *******************

1 0