Hi Jordi,

Thanks for watching the presentation and for your comments.

Based on our recommendations, we are suggesting the following changes:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example of new validation procedure

1) APNIC initiates the validation automatically ONCE a year, sending ONE email 
to the 'abuse-mailbox' address. 
(We will consider deprecating the 'email' attribute so only one email address 
requires validation)

2) The email will be sent containing plain text only.

3) The email will contain the unique code required for the validation and may 
contain information about the procedure, a brief summary of this policy, etc.

4) The person in charge of the mailbox will be instructed to visit the APNIC 
website (eg. www.apnic.net/irt-validation) and paste the code received in their 
email. (MyAPNIC cannot be used since many abuse mailboxes are either customers 
of members or company staff who do not have MyAPNIC access).

5) The IRT validation page on the APNIC website will be designed in a way that 
it prevents the use of an automated process (for example, "CAPTCHA"). In 
addition, it will contain a text that confirms that the person performing the 
validation understands the procedure and the policy, that they regularly 
monitor the mailboxes, that measures are taken to solve reported cases of 
abuse, and that the abuse report receives a response, with a "checkbox" that 
must be accepted in order to proceed.

6) If the code is not entered within 15 days, the system will mark the IRT as 
"Invalid” in the APNIC Whois Database and an automatic reminder will be sent. 
If validation is still not completed after 30 days, MyAPNIC access will be 
restricted and APNIC staff will follow-up with the member using all contact 
methods available.

7) Once the validation has been resolved, the IRT will be marked as "Valid" and 
MyAPNIC access will be reinstated.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From the Secretariat's point of view - the intention is to make minor tweaks to 
the existing process to simplify the validation and reduce burden that we are 
putting on members. Most of the changes can be made as operational procedure; 
however the current policy text specifies that validation occurs every 6 
months, so we would need an amended proposal to change this timeframe. We want 
to keep this simple by using a fixed timeframe of once yearly as we are already 
starting to reach the goals that we have set out to achieve in this policy. 

Regarding the NIRs, they have reported the following statuses:

- CNNIC is almost ready to implement
- IDNIC have implemented but still tweaking
- JPNIC is working with JPOPF on the implementation
- TWNIC and VNNIC will implement by Q1 2021

We are currently in discussion with IRINN and KRNIC about their implementation 
plan.

We would love to hear from the rest of the community about these changes and 
work together in amending this policy.

Any questions or concerns, please let us know.


Regards,

_______________________________________________________
George Odagi
Internet Resource Analyst/Policy Support, APNIC
e: god...@apnic.net
p: +61 7 3858 3188
f: +61 7 3858 3199
www.apnic.net
_______________________________________________________
Join the conversation:   https://blog.apnic.net/


 









On 10/9/20, 5:57 pm, "sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net on behalf of JORDI 
PALET MARTINEZ" <sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net on behalf of 
jordi.pa...@consulintel.es> wrote:

    Hi George, all,

    I just looked at the presentation that you have done earlier today and have 
some inputs about possible ways to improve it.

    1. Slides 9-10
    1.1. About receiving spam
    The abuse mailbox should receive *all* the emails to be able to receive 
abuse reports about spam. If you filter emails that contain headers from spam, 
then you are ruining the purpose of the abuse-c. Clearly this could be 
improved, as an operational decision, by making some kind of automation, but in 
such way that ensures that only real spam is dropped. Note that the other RIRs 
are also using (at some point), validation links via the abuse-c email.

    1.2. About clicking links
    I provided an example procedure in the policy proposal to avoid this. I've 
copied this below my signature. See points 1-5. If that procedure is followed, 
I think it is obvious that you will avoid this problem. I missed to ensure 
during the previous implementation presentations, that you are following a 
procedure that avoids this problem. Of course, you can even avoid needing to 
send the validation link if you just say in the email with the code "you need 
to go to your MyAPNIC account to use this code" ... Maybe also an alternative 
is to use email certificates from APNIC.

    2. Slide 11
    2.1. About the validation cycle.
    In more recent versions of this policy, in other RIRs, I have included 
specific text so APNIC can accommodate both, the validation periods and the 
cycle validation. The idea is that you can do a slow start (which seems not to 
be needed in the case of APNIC due to the 87% validation success - 
congratulations!), but you can also adjust the timing depending on the staff 
available to escalating the validation, or to move from 6 months to 1 year once 
the "99%" of the contacts are valid, and if needed, for example, the contacts 
get bad, move again to 6 months or even 3 months to get them again on track.

    2.2. Deprecating IRT.
    The policy proposal included in the ADDITIONAL INFORMATION section:
    "a. Since this proposal is implemented, APNIC will publish the IRT also as 
abuse-c, in order to facilitate the search in whois, for the same information, 
regardless if looking for abuse-c or IRT. This is done in order to assimilate 
the IRT to the majority of the RIRs where it is abuse-c."

    So clearly, the idea was that we move from the IRT to abuse-c, so to align 
as much as possible all the 5 RIRs (in ARIN is POC, and AFRINIC is also IRT, 
but there is a policy proposal like this one, an in fact there are only a 
ridiculous fraction of IRT objects because is not mandatory right now).

    I've one question I've. What is the status of implementation at each NIR?

    Now, regarding the points that I've commented above, I will be happy to get 
additional inputs and send a policy proposal in a few days. I don't think we 
should do anything about 1.1. 1.2 and 2.2 should be addressed as part of the 
operational procedure by the staff. We can address 2.1. Something else?

    Now, a possible idea to improve this will be move the policy to make 
mandatory the use of XARF "eXtended Abuse Reporting Format" (RFC5965/RFC6692). 
There is already open source (and commercial tools) that allow it. This will 
resolve the problem 1.1 above and provide much better tools to the 
resource-holders to avoid manual monitoring as much as possible, automate the 
abuse processing, etc.

    Can we get some inputs about if this is perceived as interesting by the 
community?

    Maybe we can draft the policy proposal in such way that XARF can be 
optional at this stage, and later on, if there is a good adoption %, in 1-2 
years, move to mandatory?

    I will send a policy proposal to update this upon getting some inputs. I 
guess Aftab will be happy to join as well, and happy to get other people 
on-board!

    Regards,
    Jordi
    @jordipalet

     c. Example of the validation procedure.

    1) APNIC initiates the validation automatically, sending TWO consecutive 
emails to each of the mailboxes.

    2) These emails will be sent containing plain text only.

    3) The first email will contain the URL where the validation is to be 
performed ("validation.apnic.net") and may contain information about the 
procedure, a brief summary of this policy, etc.

    4) The second email will contain a unique alphanumeric validation code.

    5) The person in charge of the each of the mailboxes must go to the URL and 
paste the code received in the second email in the form.

    6) This URL must be designed in such a way that it prevents the use of an 
automated process (for example, "captcha"). In addition, it must contain a text 
that confirms that the person performing the validation understands the 
procedure and the policy, that they regularly monitor the mailboxes, that 
measures are taken to solve reported cases of abuse, and that the abuse report 
receives a response, with a "checkbox" that must be accepted in order to 
proceed.

    7) The alphanumeric code will only be valid for a maximum of fifteen days.

    8) If the code is not entered within that time, the system will mark the 
IRT as "temporarily invalid” and will send a reminder with another unique code 
and alert APNIC staff, so they can initiate a personalized follow-up with the 
LIR.

    9) If no reply is received confirming that the situation has been 
corrected, after an additional period of three business days, the IRT will be 
permanently marked as "invalid".

    10) Once the issue has been resolved, the validation process will be 
repeated automatically (items 1 to 7 above). If satisfactory, the IRT will be 
marked as "valid"; otherwise it will be considered in breach of the policy.




    **********************************************
    IPv4 is over
    Are you ready for the new Internet ?
    
https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theipv6company.com%2F&amp;data=02%7C01%7C%7C045169ef48104cb3480308d8555eff50%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637353214221906281&amp;sdata=censQD3CYsV3sxKX5ycaMFQeLODlx5bp8ljbNwTq1Pk%3D&amp;reserved=0
    The IPv6 Company

    This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.



    *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy         
  *
    _______________________________________________
    sig-policy mailing list
    sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
    
https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailman.apnic.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fsig-policy&amp;data=02%7C01%7C%7C045169ef48104cb3480308d8555eff50%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637353214221906281&amp;sdata=wqi7AqwZTvKAsXfqGSPXST%2B6yrIi7XSO2dnhmDT%2BBTg%3D&amp;reserved=0

*              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Reply via email to