Hi, On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 12:02:48AM +0100, Carlos Friaças wrote:
There is no indication that the complications Jordi is proposing are an actual improvement in any metric, except "human life time wasted".
Starting with "complications" is really not that constructive.
If the process is too complex let's work on it, and make it simpler where it is possible.
We have an existing process that is the result of a PDP discussed in this very working group, reflecting community consensus on the balance between checking and annoyance. Nobody has made a convincing argument why this needs to be made stricter and more time consuming.
Trying to build a softer approach, maybe the NCC doesn't need to send _everyone_ a message twice a year, but if someone finds an abuse-mailbox to be unresponsive, then if it is mandatory to have a working contact/mailbox, the NCC could only get into the picture when someone detects that is not in place.
Or is _that_ already in place...?
We *HAVE* a process to check abuse contacts. We *HAVE* ARCs. So, please state *first* what is wrong or insufficient with the current process, and why these added complications would improve the end goal: abuse reports sent to ISPs are handled "better" (in a to-be-defined metric). Note: taking away lifetime from the people doing abuse mail handling is not going to make them more enthusiastic about doing their job. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279