As abuse notices might have legal effect, a company could state they will only accept them by fax, or with registered mail.
A webform, for a regulator, most likely will be seen as an 'upgrade'. Note that FB and Google also *only accept* complaints, notices etc via webforms. So one can argue a webform is abuse@ 2.0 :) So I do not share you view that a webform is a second rate instrument for accepting abuse notifications. As for ECD/DSA that will most likely be subject to lobby forces beyond our imagination, so anything is possible there ... -- IDGARA | Alex de Joode | a...@idgara.nl | +31651108221 | Skype:adejoode On Tue, 08-09-2020 15h 51min, Carlos Friaças <cfria...@fccn.pt> wrote: > On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, Alex de Joode wrote: > > > There are a couple of things in play here. > > Networks normally fall under the "mere conduit' provisions of the eCommerce > > Directive (ECD (EU law)), this > > means they do not have a (legal) requirement to actively address abuse > > within their networks. They need to > > forward the abuse to their customer, but basically that is it. > > Before that, a webform may be in the way :-) > > If the regulator understands that artificial 'requirement' to be a way of > avoiding that action of forwarding the abuse, then they might act. Or not. > > > > > The up coming DSA (Digital Services Act, which > > will supersede the ECD) (as it stand now) will retain this provision for > > networks. So the chance of regulation > > (within the EU area) for networks with respect to 'abuse handling' is very > > low. > > Unless there are some additional provisions... > > > > > The proposal was flawed, no clear identifiable upside (except for a feel > > good factor) and a lot extra work for > > no real gain. > > > > If you want to fight the prevalence of internet abuse, ripe policy might > > not be your best avenue. > > Clearly. But this comment is directly tied with the earlier suggestion of > renaming the WG... > > > Regards, > Carlos > > > > > > Cheers, > > Alex > > > > ?-- IDGARA | Alex de Joode | a...@idgara.nl | +31651108221 | Skype:adejoode > > > > On Tue, 08-09-2020 13h 33min, Suresh Ramasubramanian " > > target="_blank"><ops.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Probably through regulation as you say. If ripe doesn?t want to be the > > Internet police they?ll suddenly find > > that there actually is such a thing created and with oversight over them, > > sooner or later. Nobody is > > going to like the result if that happens, neither the government nor ripe > > nor its membership. > > > > --srs > > > > ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > From: anti-abuse-wg " target="_blank"><anti-abuse-wg-boun...@ripe.net> on > > behalf of Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg > > " target="_blank"><anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2020 4:44:26 PM > > To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net " target="_blank"><anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> > > Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Report & Co-Chair's Decision on Proposal > > 2019-04 > > > > Hi, > > > > I would like to second Piotr's comment. Thank you for your hard work, and > > for not quitting over anti-abuse. > > > > As i read it consensus was not reached, and it's hard to dispute the > > objections are not valid/admissible: > > > > " > > 1) Nick Hilliard and Erik Bais commented that the effort and cost to > > implement this proposal are too great in relations to the benefits that > > are alleged. > > > > 2) Michele Neylon and Arash Naderpour commented that they oppose forcing > > operators to use only email for > > handling abuse reports and internal handling procedures should be solely > > defined by the operator. > > " > > > > I just want to note that: > > A) it's very hard to measure the benefits. some parties would see bigger > > benefits than others. > > B) converging abuse reports to email usage is a rule that is inexistent > > *today*. people which are not worried about abuse, will likely want to > > keep it that way... as a webform is an effective way of discouraging > > reports. > > > > > > At some point, people which discard abuse reports (or people which > > simulate handling abuse reports) will not be able to run networks. > > We're far from it, but if it gets to that point that will not be reached > > through consensus, but probably through regulation. > > > > > > Regards, > > Carlos > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 7 Sep 2020, Piotr Strzyzewski via anti-abuse-wg wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 03:19:27PM +0000, Brian Nisbet wrote: > > > > > > Brian, Alireza, Tobias, > > > > > >> A few weeks ago we reached the end of the latest review phase for > > >> 2019-04. The Co-Chairs have worked > > closely with the NCC Policy Development Office since then to try to make a > > decision on this policy. This > > email contains a report on the Discussion Phase and Review Phase and then a > > final decision which, we > > believe, is supported by the activity during those phases. > > >> > > >> As always, this is underpinned by the RIPE PDP - > > >> https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-710 > > > > > > [cut] > > > > > >> With all of this in mind, and with the continued failure of any kind of > > >> consensus from the working > > group, the Co-Chairs have decided to withdraw this proposal. As always we > > would welcome proposals on > > this and other matters, however we do not feel that there is any likelihood > > of 2019-04, regardless of > > possible edits, reaching consensus in the short or medium term. > > > > > > Thank you for all your hard work here. It was not an easy task to > > > fulfill. With this is mind, it is even more important that you have made > > > this report. Thank you. > > > > > > Stay safe, > > > Piotr > > > > > > -- > > > Piotr Strzy?ewski > > > > > > > > >
