Re: [marf] Abuse reporting, was draft-jdfalk-marf-as

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely
> Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 9:17 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: [marf] Abuse reporting, was draft-jdfalk-marf-as
> 
> I don't agree.  WHOIS is trying and getting better.  IIRC, I found an
> abuse POC in Arin saying something like they haven't been able to
> verify such address for a while.  A rather non-formal statement that
> suggests they do routinely check those email addresses.
> https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#three6
> 
> The abuse contact is mandatory in Apnic
> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-079
> 
> Ripe has an abuse finder tool, and a task force is discussing the
> introduction of an abuse-c.
> http://apps.db.ripe.net/search/abuse-finder.html
> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/tf/abuse-contact
> 
> I think a document is needed in order to state the "obvious" facts
> that RIRs don't have the scope for discussing.  Since JD said it
> cannot be part of the FBL AS, we'd probably better write a new one.
> 
> Is it possible to do so?

We'd have to recharter to do it.  For now if you want to get started, post it as an individual submission, and later we can consider rechartering to take it on.

Also, John pointed you at the WEIRDS pre-working-group list.  ICANN people approached me about starting that effort up, and right now they're exploring requirements.  There will probably be a bar BoF at the Quebec City conference next month followed by a lobby to create a working group later on once they get some momentum going.

It's true that any standard we produce won't compel a WHOIS provider to give out information it doesn't want to make available, but ICANN does have a little more stomping power on registrars than the IETF does.

-MSK