Are they is the question For example - ARIN just reclaimed a large number of IPs from an actor that created a large number of shell companies. http://m.slashdot.org/story/355802 --srs ________________________________ From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2019 3:08 AM To: Gert Doering Cc: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox") Gert Doering wrote on 16/05/2019 21:47:
No positive effect, but lots of negative side-effects.
Abuse mailboxes are already checked. What matters for abuse management is whether reports are acted on. This policy doesn't address that. If the RIPE NCC is instructed to send 6-monthly reminders to all abuse contacts with the implicit threat that if they aren't acted on in the way specified in this policy, that the organisation in question can look forward to having their addressing resources vapourised, this will aggravate the RIPE NCC membership and corrode community trust in the organisation. The one thing it won't do is make abuse management better. Internet abuse management is not something that you're going to fix by beating LIRs with sticks, and if they don't react, that you threaten to beat them harder. Separate to this, it's inappropriate to micromanage the NCC in RIPE policy. It would be good if the RIPE working groups stopped trying to tell the RIPE NCC people how to do their jobs. Nick