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

[Alessandro Vesely <[e-mail]>]

On 29/Jun/11 19:42, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ietf.org On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely
>> 
>> 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.

Hm, the charter provides for an "ARF guidelines document".  Couldn't
this non-FBL guidelines be considered a part of a multi-part document,
together with the FBL AS, the cfblbcp, and the redaction docs?
Anyway, I'll try and post an individual submission if you think that's
the right thing to do.

> 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.

Hmm, the concluded Web Elucidation of Internet-Related Developments
has nothing to do with this, has it?  IETF's "concluded" page also
mentions a Whois and Network Information Lookup Service concerned with
a historical son-of-WHOIS protocol...

> 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.

It seems ARIN, APNIC, LACNIC, and RIPE already have abuse team
contacts, and are possibly adjusting related procedures, such as
removing query rate limits.  AfriNIC is apparently discussing that.

It is still unclear who should do what in this evolving scenario.
There are lots of web pages entitled something like How To Complain To
The Spammer's Provider, most of which are reminiscent of a time when
there were no means to automate abuse reporting.  Updating such
documentation is clearly out of WHOIS providers' scope.

What is this WG's opinion about such an additional document?