[OCCAID] Proposal for EINTAP

[James]

On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 05:24:27PM -0500, Miles Nordin wrote:
> >>>>> "mn" == Michael Nicks <nicksm at ioport.com> writes:
> >>>>> "sjc" == Scott J Clifford <clifford at cnacs.occaid.org> writes:
> 
> I guess I am way late in posting this.  I feel bad when I take time
> away from your technical activities making you write lengthy responses
> to stuff like this.  However among my friends, you guys get
> bad-mouthed about policy stuff every time your name comes up, so I
> think I need to go on-record.
> 
> Scott---thanks for the change to the EINTAP policy.  I'll live with it. :)

I guess it is important for everyone to look at each other's view point
and respect such before preemptively transforming a proposal into policy
(this is to Scott btw)

But anyways..

I see two problems in my observation.

1. Abuse issues within OCCAID placing workload on people operating such.
2. Fixing such problems with a policy can be considered operational hazard.
   And separating TLA space versus transit traffic doesn't seem to work
   properly in the DFZ due to asymetric routing and potential dangers
   that evolve when done by many.


I can respect Scott's point of view, and your point of view into this
issue. In my line of thinking, I don't think you (Miles) and your friends
are 'children' as indirectly classified so by linked to irc usage. In
addition, it is important that we all respect each other's responsibilities
instead of generalizing people based on previous experience or general
inconvenience caused by a few.

I think what would be ideal, is to form a method that works out between
the two parties here.

Obviously, the current policy component of EINTAP demanding each TAP to
revoke dns spam is too politically harsh as felt by a few people.

I think what could be better for the overall community however, is to
not set anti-dns as a policy, BUT do the following:

1. Each new downstream member, whether directly connected to OCCAID
or via EINTAP, *must* introduce itself to the mailing list, and be placed
on the 60-day trial membership period.

2. After 60 days of trial, if the member has not done all of the following:
a) network abuse
b) getting OCCAID DDoSed due to "hiding in IPv6 because it is dos safeheaven"
c) host adult or illegal content

Then membership is granted. If the new member has failed any one of the
above during its 60 day trial, he will be disconnected at the time of the
abuse. There shouldn't be policies about how the member uses reverse dns
capability, however if an abuse report is received by JTC that member is
causing offensive activities in IRC using dns-abuse, situation should be
investigated and appropriate response should be made, as being a good
netizen.

In addition, if an EINTAP in particular, feels that dns spam is
unacceptable, such EINTAP is certainly welcome to make rules and polices
as hard as completely blocking IRC protocol or however they see fit as
appropriate policy. However, all EINTAP connectivity policies should be
documented for new users to understand before signing up.

Note that I am not saying we should make what I just proposed here a
policy. But I wish to get opinions from both sides about how they feel
about my proposal I just laid out. I think this does solve some of the
issues both parties have on the table.

Thanks,
-J

-- 
James Jun                                            TowardEX Technologies, Inc.
Technical Lead                      Boston IPv4/IPv6 Web Hosting, Colocation and
james at towardex.com            Network design/consulting & configuration services
cell: 1(978)-394-2867           web: http://www.towardex.com , noc: www.twdx.net