Registration and validation of abuse contact

LAC-2018-5-v2 LAC-2018-5-v3 Vs
References:
New
Deleted
Modified
Authors

Name: Jordi Palet Martinez
Email: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
Organization: The IPv6 Company

Name: Jordi Palet Martinez
Email: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
Organization: The IPv6 Company

Summary

The current (ASN) policy is not clear regarding the obligation to register an abuse contact (abuse-c) or its specific fo
rmat, nor as to whether this applies to other whois records.
As a result, some LIRs may not have this contact information registered for their resources. In fact, there are even cas
es of LIRs that use a non-existent mailbox or one that is not actively monitored.
In practice, this contact becomes ineffective to report abuses and generally gives rise to security issues and costs for
the victims.
This proposal aims to solve the problem and ensure the existence of a proper abuse-c contact and the process for its uti
lization.

The current (ASN) policy is not clear regarding the obligation to register an abuse contact (abuse-c) or its specific fo
rmat, nor as to whether this applies to other whois records.
As a result, some organizations that have received resources from LACNIC may not have this contact information registere
d for their resources. There are even cases of LIRs/ISPs, end users or others that use a non-existent mailbox or one tha
t is not actively monitored.
In practice, this contact becomes ineffective to report abuses and generally gives rise to security issues and costs for
the victims.
This proposal aims to solve the problem by ensuring the existence of a proper abuse-c contact and a process for its util
ization.

Rationale (Describe the problem you intend to solve)

The Internet community is based on collaboration. In many cases, however, this is not enough and we all need to be able
to contact those LIRs which may be experiencing a problem in their networks and may not be aware of the situation.
This proposal creates a new section in the Policy Manual to solve this problem by means of a simple, periodic verificati
on, and establishes the basic rules for performing such verification and thus avoids unnecessary costs to third parties
who need to contact the persons responsible for solving the abuses of a specific network.
The proposal guarantees that the cost of processing the abuse falls on the LIR whose client is causing the abuse (and fr
om whom they receive financial compensation for the service), instead of falling on the victim, as would be the case if
they had to resort to the courts, thus avoiding costs (lawyers, solicitors, etc.) and saving time for both parties.
For this, the abuse-c attribute – which has so far only been referenced for the "aut-num" object – becomes mandatory in
the "inetnum" and "inetnum6" objects, as well as in any others that may be used in the future. This attribute is an abus
e contact, which must contain at least the "abuse-mailbox" attribute.

The Internet community is based on collaboration. In many cases, however, this is not enough and we need to be able to c
ontact those LIRs or other recipients of LACNIC resources that may be experiencing a problem in their networks but may n
ot be aware of the situation.
This proposal creates a new section in the Policy Manual to solve this problem by means of a simple, periodic verificati
on, and establishes the basic rules for performing such verification and thus avoids unnecessary costs to third parties
who need to contact the persons responsible for solving the abuses of a specific network.
The proposal guarantees that the cost of processing the abuse falls on the LIR whose client is causing the abuse (and fr
om whom they receive financial compensation for the service), instead of falling on the victim, as would be the case if
they had to resort to the courts, thus avoiding costs (lawyers, solicitors, etc.) and saving time for both parties.
In this case, the abuse-c attribute – which has so far only been referenced for the “aut-num” object – becomes mandatory
in the “inetnum” objects (for both IPv4 and IPv6), as well as in any others that may be used in the future. This attrib
ute is an abuse contact, which must contain at least the “abuse-mailbox” attribute.

Current text

Current text: N/A
New text:
12. Registration and validation of "abuse-c" and "abuse-mailbox"
12.1. Description of "abuse-c" and "abuse-mailbox"
All resources allocated by LACNIC must include a mandatory "abuse-c" contact attribute (abuse contact) in their correspo
nding WHOIS entry, with at least one valid, monitored and actively managed email inbox (abuse-mailbox) intended for rece
iving manual or automatic reports regarding abusive behavior, security issues, and the like.
The "abuse-mailbox" attribute must be available in an unrestricted way via whois, APIs and future techniques.
Considering the hierarchical nature of IP address objects, child objects of those directly distributed by LACNIC may be
covered by parent objects or they may have their own "abuse-c" attribute.
Following usual practices, other "e-mail" attributes may be included for other purposes.
12.2. About the "abuse-mailbox"
Emails sent to "abuse-mailbox" must require manual intervention by the recipient at some time, and may not be filtered,
as in certain cases this might prevent the reception of the abuse reports, for example a case of spam, as it would inclu
de the spam message itself or URLs or content usually classified as spam.
The "abuse-mailbox" may initially send an automatic reply, for example, assigning a ticket number, applying classificati
on procedures, requesting further information, etc. However, it may not require the use of a form, as this would imply t
hat each company that needs to report cases of abuse (a task that is typically automated) would be forced to develop a s
pecific interface for each case, which is neither feasible nor logical, as it would place the cost of processing the abu
se on those who submit the claim and are therefore victims of the abuse, instead of being paid by the those whose client
causes the abuse (and from whom they obtain income).
By way of information, it is worth noting that it is reasonable for the person reporting the abuse to do so from the sta
rt and in that first report, sending the logs, or a copy of the spam message (attaching an example of the spam email or
its full headers) or similar evidence proving the abuse. Likewise, it is reasonable to expect that the initial auto-repl
y email will specify that the claim will not be processed unless such evidence has been submitted, thus allowing the sen
der the opportunity to repeat the submission and include the pertinent evidence. This allows automatic reporting, for ex
ample, via fail2ban, SpamCop or others, keeping costs at a minimum for both parties involved.
12.3. Objectives of "abuse-c"/"abuse-mailbox" validation
The procedure, which is to be developed by LACNIC, must meet the following objectives:
1) A simple process that guarantees its functionality and allows the helpdesks that deals with abuse reports to verify t
hat validation requests actually come from LACNIC and not from third parties (which might involve security risks), avoid
ing, for example, a single "direct" URL for validation.
2) Avoid automated processing.
3) Confirm that the person performing the validation ensure that understands the procedure and the policy, that they reg
ularly monitor the "abuse-mailbox", that measures are taken, and that the abuse report receives a response.
4) Validation period no longer than two (2) business days.
5) If validation fails, escalate to the LIR and set a new validation period not to exceed three (3) business days.
(By way of example, a detailed procedure is included in this policy proposal under "Additional Information")
12.4. Validation of "abuse-c"/"abuse-mailbox"
LACNIC will validate compliance with the items above, both when the "abuse-c" and/or "abuse-mailbox" attributes are crea
ted or updated, as well as periodically, not less than once every three months, and whenever LACNIC sees fit.
At the discretion of LACNIC, in general or in specific cases (for example, for confirmation in cases of escalation under
12.5), LACNIC may use domains other than lacnic.*, and even modify the subject and body of the message, in order to per
form said validations more effectively.
Lack of compliance will imply a more exhaustive follow-up, in accordance with the relevant LACNIC policies / procedures,
especially "7.1. Resource recovery.”
12.5. Escalation to LACNIC
To avoid fraudulent behavior (for example, an "abuse-mailbox" that only replies to LACNIC's emails, or to messages with
a specific subject or content), or failure to comply with the remaining aspects of this policy (incorrect or lack of res
ponse to cases of abuse) and, therefore, to guarantee the quality of the services in the region with the resources alloc
ated by LACNIC, a mailbox will be available (for example, "escalado-abusos@lacnic.net"), to escalate such situations, th
us allowing for a re-validation (according to section 12.4 above) and even the intermediation by LACNIC and, where appro
priate, the application of the relevant policies/procedures, especially “7.1. Resource recovery.”

Current text: N/A
New text:
Note (not to be included in the Policy Manual): Current Section “12. Appendixes” would now be Section “A. Appendixes” an
d located at the end of the Manual. The entire Policy Manual would be updated to reflect this change of numbering. As th
e Manual “grows,” any new section added would not require any renumbering. Therefore, the text of this proposal would be
come Section 12.
12. Registration and validation of “abuse-c” and “abuse-mailbox”.
12.1. Description of “abuse-c” and “abuse-mailbox”
All resources allocated by LACNIC must include a mandatory “abuse-c” contact attribute (abuse contact) in their correspo
nding WHOIS entry, with at least one valid, monitored and actively managed email inbox (abuse-mailbox) intended for rece
iving manual or automatic reports regarding abusive behavior, security issues, and the like.
The “abuse-mailbox” attribute must be available in an unrestricted way via whois, APIs and future techniques.
Considering the hierarchical nature of IP address objects, child objects of those directly distributed by LACNIC may be
covered by parent objects, or they may have their own “abuse-c” attribute.
Following usual practices, other “e-mail” attributes may be included for other purposes.
12.2. About the “abuse-mailbox”
Emails sent to “abuse-mailbox” must require manual intervention by the recipient at some time, and may not be filtered,
as in certain cases this might prevent the reception of abuse reports, e.g. in case of spam, where the message would inc
lude the spam message itself or URLs or content usually classified as spam.
The “abuse-mailbox” may initially send an automatic reply, for example, assigning a ticket number, applying classificati
on procedures, requesting further information, etc. However, it may not require the use of a form, as this would imply t
hat each company that needs to report cases of abuse (a task that is typically automated) would be forced to develop a s
pecific interface for each case, which is neither feasible or logical, as it would place the cost of processing abuses o
n those who submit the claims and are therefore their victims, instead of being paid by the those whose client causes th
e abuse (and from whom they obtain income).
By way of information, it is worth noting that it is reasonable for the person reporting the abuse to do so from the sta
rt, sending in that first report the logs, or a copy of the spam message (attaching an example of the spam email or its
full headers) or similar evidence proving the abuse. Likewise, it is reasonable to expect that the initial auto-reply em
ail will specify that the claim will not be processed unless such evidence has been submitted, thus allowing the sender
the opportunity to repeat the submission and include the pertinent evidence. This allows automatic reporting, for exampl
e, via fail2ban, SpamCop or other reporting services, keeping costs at a minimum for both parties involved.
12.3. Objectives of “abuse-c”/”abuse-mailbox” validation
The procedure, which is to be developed by LACNIC, must meet the following objectives:
1) A simple process that guarantees its functionality and allows the helpdesks that deals with abuse reports to verif
y that validation requests actually come from LACNIC and not from third parties (which might involve security risks), av
oiding, for example, a single “direct” URL for validation.
2) Avoid automated processing.
3) Confirm that the person performing the validation understands the procedure and the policy, that they regularly mo
nitor the “abuse-mailbox”, that measures are taken, and that the abuse report receives a response.
4) “Initial” validation period not to exceed fifteen (15) days.
5) If validation fails, “escalate” to the recipient of the resources (LIR, end user, etc.) and set a new validation p
eriod not to exceed fifteen (15) days.
LACNIC may modify the “initial” and “escalated” validation periods if it sees fit, informing the community of the reason
s for doing so. For instance, these periods might be shortened once the initial validation of a high percentage of conta
cts has been completed, in which case the quality of the contacts would increase and response times in case of abuse wou
ld decrease.
(By way of example, a detailed procedure is included in this policy proposal under “Additional Information”)
12.4. Validation of “abuse-c”/”abuse-mailbox”
LACNIC will validate compliance with the items above, both when the “abuse-c” and/or “abuse-mailbox” attributes are crea
ted or updated, as well as periodically, not less than twice a year and whenever LACNIC sees fit.
This validation frequency may be modified by LACNIC if it sees fit, informing the community of the reasons for doing so.
For instance, a single validation might be carried out during the first year to make it easier to adapt to the policy,
after which the number of annual validations might gradually increase, perhaps even to a quarterly or monthly frequency,
to increase the quality of the contact information.
At the discretion of LACNIC, in general or in specific cases (for example, for confirmation in case of escalation under
12.5), LACNIC may use domains other than lacnic.*, and even modify the subject and body of the message, in order to perf
orm said validations more effectively.
Should an organization fail to comply, this will initially result in the blocking of “milacnic” for all the resources as
sociated with said organization, except for the purpose of updating the abuse-c/abuse-mailbox contacts, so that they can
be re-validated to allow the unblocking of “milacnic”.
LACNIC will perform a more exhaustive follow-up and, if the following automatic validation confirms that the non-complia
nce continues, will act in accordance with the relevant policies and procedures in force, especially “7.1. Resource reco
very.”
12.5. Escalation to LACNIC
To avoid fraudulent behavior (for example, an “abuse-mailbox” that only replies to LACNIC's emails, or to messages with
a specific subject or content) or failure to comply with the remaining aspects of this policy (incorrect or lack of resp
onse to case of abuse) and, therefore, to guarantee the quality of the services in the region with the resources allocat
ed by LACNIC, a mailbox will be available (for example, “escalado-abusos@lacnic.net”) to escalate such situations, thus
allowing LACNIC to trigger re-validation according to section 12.4 above or even intermediation by LACNIC and, where app
ropriate, the application of the relevant policies/procedures, especially “7.1. Resource recovery.”

New text

Current text: N/A
New text:
12. Registration and validation of "abuse-c" and "abuse-mailbox"
12.1. Description of "abuse-c" and "abuse-mailbox"
All resources allocated by LACNIC must include a mandatory "abuse-c" contact attribute (abuse contact) in their correspo
nding WHOIS entry, with at least one valid, monitored and actively managed email inbox (abuse-mailbox) intended for rece
iving manual or automatic reports regarding abusive behavior, security issues, and the like.
The "abuse-mailbox" attribute must be available in an unrestricted way via whois, APIs and future techniques.
Considering the hierarchical nature of IP address objects, child objects of those directly distributed by LACNIC may be
covered by parent objects or they may have their own "abuse-c" attribute.
Following usual practices, other "e-mail" attributes may be included for other purposes.
12.2. About the "abuse-mailbox"
Emails sent to "abuse-mailbox" must require manual intervention by the recipient at some time, and may not be filtered,
as in certain cases this might prevent the reception of the abuse reports, for example a case of spam, as it would inclu
de the spam message itself or URLs or content usually classified as spam.
The "abuse-mailbox" may initially send an automatic reply, for example, assigning a ticket number, applying classificati
on procedures, requesting further information, etc. However, it may not require the use of a form, as this would imply t
hat each company that needs to report cases of abuse (a task that is typically automated) would be forced to develop a s
pecific interface for each case, which is neither feasible nor logical, as it would place the cost of processing the abu
se on those who submit the claim and are therefore victims of the abuse, instead of being paid by the those whose client
causes the abuse (and from whom they obtain income).
By way of information, it is worth noting that it is reasonable for the person reporting the abuse to do so from the sta
rt and in that first report, sending the logs, or a copy of the spam message (attaching an example of the spam email or
its full headers) or similar evidence proving the abuse. Likewise, it is reasonable to expect that the initial auto-repl
y email will specify that the claim will not be processed unless such evidence has been submitted, thus allowing the sen
der the opportunity to repeat the submission and include the pertinent evidence. This allows automatic reporting, for ex
ample, via fail2ban, SpamCop or others, keeping costs at a minimum for both parties involved.
12.3. Objectives of "abuse-c"/"abuse-mailbox" validation
The procedure, which is to be developed by LACNIC, must meet the following objectives:
1) A simple process that guarantees its functionality and allows the helpdesks that deals with abuse reports to verify t
hat validation requests actually come from LACNIC and not from third parties (which might involve security risks), avoid
ing, for example, a single "direct" URL for validation.
2) Avoid automated processing.
3) Confirm that the person performing the validation ensure that understands the procedure and the policy, that they reg
ularly monitor the "abuse-mailbox", that measures are taken, and that the abuse report receives a response.
4) Validation period no longer than two (2) business days.
5) If validation fails, escalate to the LIR and set a new validation period not to exceed three (3) business days.
(By way of example, a detailed procedure is included in this policy proposal under "Additional Information")
12.4. Validation of "abuse-c"/"abuse-mailbox"
LACNIC will validate compliance with the items above, both when the "abuse-c" and/or "abuse-mailbox" attributes are crea
ted or updated, as well as periodically, not less than once every three months, and whenever LACNIC sees fit.
At the discretion of LACNIC, in general or in specific cases (for example, for confirmation in cases of escalation under
12.5), LACNIC may use domains other than lacnic.*, and even modify the subject and body of the message, in order to per
form said validations more effectively.
Lack of compliance will imply a more exhaustive follow-up, in accordance with the relevant LACNIC policies / procedures,
especially "7.1. Resource recovery.”
12.5. Escalation to LACNIC
To avoid fraudulent behavior (for example, an "abuse-mailbox" that only replies to LACNIC's emails, or to messages with
a specific subject or content), or failure to comply with the remaining aspects of this policy (incorrect or lack of res
ponse to cases of abuse) and, therefore, to guarantee the quality of the services in the region with the resources alloc
ated by LACNIC, a mailbox will be available (for example, "escalado-abusos@lacnic.net"), to escalate such situations, th
us allowing for a re-validation (according to section 12.4 above) and even the intermediation by LACNIC and, where appro
priate, the application of the relevant policies/procedures, especially “7.1. Resource recovery.”

Current text: N/A
New text:
Note (not to be included in the Policy Manual): Current Section “12. Appendixes” would now be Section “A. Appendixes” an
d located at the end of the Manual. The entire Policy Manual would be updated to reflect this change of numbering. As th
e Manual “grows,” any new section added would not require any renumbering. Therefore, the text of this proposal would be
come Section 12.
12. Registration and validation of “abuse-c” and “abuse-mailbox”.
12.1. Description of “abuse-c” and “abuse-mailbox”
All resources allocated by LACNIC must include a mandatory “abuse-c” contact attribute (abuse contact) in their correspo
nding WHOIS entry, with at least one valid, monitored and actively managed email inbox (abuse-mailbox) intended for rece
iving manual or automatic reports regarding abusive behavior, security issues, and the like.
The “abuse-mailbox” attribute must be available in an unrestricted way via whois, APIs and future techniques.
Considering the hierarchical nature of IP address objects, child objects of those directly distributed by LACNIC may be
covered by parent objects, or they may have their own “abuse-c” attribute.
Following usual practices, other “e-mail” attributes may be included for other purposes.
12.2. About the “abuse-mailbox”
Emails sent to “abuse-mailbox” must require manual intervention by the recipient at some time, and may not be filtered,
as in certain cases this might prevent the reception of abuse reports, e.g. in case of spam, where the message would inc
lude the spam message itself or URLs or content usually classified as spam.
The “abuse-mailbox” may initially send an automatic reply, for example, assigning a ticket number, applying classificati
on procedures, requesting further information, etc. However, it may not require the use of a form, as this would imply t
hat each company that needs to report cases of abuse (a task that is typically automated) would be forced to develop a s
pecific interface for each case, which is neither feasible or logical, as it would place the cost of processing abuses o
n those who submit the claims and are therefore their victims, instead of being paid by the those whose client causes th
e abuse (and from whom they obtain income).
By way of information, it is worth noting that it is reasonable for the person reporting the abuse to do so from the sta
rt, sending in that first report the logs, or a copy of the spam message (attaching an example of the spam email or its
full headers) or similar evidence proving the abuse. Likewise, it is reasonable to expect that the initial auto-reply em
ail will specify that the claim will not be processed unless such evidence has been submitted, thus allowing the sender
the opportunity to repeat the submission and include the pertinent evidence. This allows automatic reporting, for exampl
e, via fail2ban, SpamCop or other reporting services, keeping costs at a minimum for both parties involved.
12.3. Objectives of “abuse-c”/”abuse-mailbox” validation
The procedure, which is to be developed by LACNIC, must meet the following objectives:
1) A simple process that guarantees its functionality and allows the helpdesks that deals with abuse reports to verif
y that validation requests actually come from LACNIC and not from third parties (which might involve security risks), av
oiding, for example, a single “direct” URL for validation.
2) Avoid automated processing.
3) Confirm that the person performing the validation understands the procedure and the policy, that they regularly mo
nitor the “abuse-mailbox”, that measures are taken, and that the abuse report receives a response.
4) “Initial” validation period not to exceed fifteen (15) days.
5) If validation fails, “escalate” to the recipient of the resources (LIR, end user, etc.) and set a new validation p
eriod not to exceed fifteen (15) days.
LACNIC may modify the “initial” and “escalated” validation periods if it sees fit, informing the community of the reason
s for doing so. For instance, these periods might be shortened once the initial validation of a high percentage of conta
cts has been completed, in which case the quality of the contacts would increase and response times in case of abuse wou
ld decrease.
(By way of example, a detailed procedure is included in this policy proposal under “Additional Information”)
12.4. Validation of “abuse-c”/”abuse-mailbox”
LACNIC will validate compliance with the items above, both when the “abuse-c” and/or “abuse-mailbox” attributes are crea
ted or updated, as well as periodically, not less than twice a year and whenever LACNIC sees fit.
This validation frequency may be modified by LACNIC if it sees fit, informing the community of the reasons for doing so.
For instance, a single validation might be carried out during the first year to make it easier to adapt to the policy,
after which the number of annual validations might gradually increase, perhaps even to a quarterly or monthly frequency,
to increase the quality of the contact information.
At the discretion of LACNIC, in general or in specific cases (for example, for confirmation in case of escalation under
12.5), LACNIC may use domains other than lacnic.*, and even modify the subject and body of the message, in order to perf
orm said validations more effectively.
Should an organization fail to comply, this will initially result in the blocking of “milacnic” for all the resources as
sociated with said organization, except for the purpose of updating the abuse-c/abuse-mailbox contacts, so that they can
be re-validated to allow the unblocking of “milacnic”.
LACNIC will perform a more exhaustive follow-up and, if the following automatic validation confirms that the non-complia
nce continues, will act in accordance with the relevant policies and procedures in force, especially “7.1. Resource reco
very.”
12.5. Escalation to LACNIC
To avoid fraudulent behavior (for example, an “abuse-mailbox” that only replies to LACNIC's emails, or to messages with
a specific subject or content) or failure to comply with the remaining aspects of this policy (incorrect or lack of resp
onse to case of abuse) and, therefore, to guarantee the quality of the services in the region with the resources allocat
ed by LACNIC, a mailbox will be available (for example, “escalado-abusos@lacnic.net”) to escalate such situations, thus
allowing LACNIC to trigger re-validation according to section 12.4 above or even intermediation by LACNIC and, where app
ropriate, the application of the relevant policies/procedures, especially “7.1. Resource recovery.”

Additional information

Example of the validation procedure.
1) LACNIC initiates the validation automatically, sending TWO consecutive emails to the "abuse-mailbox".
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 ("validacion.lacnic.net") and may contai
n 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 "abuse-mailbox" 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 "abuse-mailbox", that measures are taken to solve reported cases of abuse, a
nd 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 two working days.
8) If the code is not entered within that time, the system will mark the "abuse-c" as "temporarily invalid” and will ale
rt LACNIC staff so that 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 busines
s days, the "abuse-c" will be permanently marked as "invalid".
10) The validation process will be repeated automatically (items 1 to 7 above). If satisfactory, the "abuse-c" will be m
arked as "valid"; otherwise it will be considered in breach of the policy.

Example of the validation procedure.
1) LACNIC automatically initiates the validation, sending TWO consecutive emails to the “abuse-mailbox”.
2) These emails will contain plain text only.
3) The first email will contain the URL where the validation is to be performed (“validacion.lacnic.net”) and may con
tain 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 “abuse-mailbox” must go to the URL and enter 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 an
d the policy, that they regularly monitor the “abuse-mailbox”, 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 be valid for a maximum of two (2) working days.
8) If the code is not entered within this time frame, the system will mark the “abuse-c” as “temporarily invalid” and
will alert LACNIC staff so that they can initiate a personalized follow-up with the resource recipient.
9) If no reply is received confirming that the situation has been corrected, after an additional period of three (3)
working days, the “abuse-c” will be permanently marked as “invalid”.
10) The validation process will be repeated automatically (items 1 to 7 above). If satisfactory, the “abuse-c” will b
e marked as “valid”; otherwise it will be considered in breach of the policy.

References

A similar proposal is under discussion in the RIPE region, though at the date on which this proposal was submitted it ha
d not yet reached consensus.

A similar proposal is under discussion in the RIPE region, though at the date on which this proposal was submitted it ha
d not yet reached consensus. It is a much simpler version, and a new version equivalent to this proposal has been presen
ted. In APNIC, a version equivalent to this proposal has reached consensus. In AfriNIC the same proposal has been presen
ted.