[OCCAID] Proposal for EINTAP

[Tristan Santore]

James wrote:

>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
>
>  
>
Hi all,
following this for a last week or so, despite my objections to the
dnsspam rule, people seem to be
keeping on and on about this issue. Thesuggested change by James in the
EINTAP outline is a good solution in my oppinion.
My respects to James for keeping an adult approach to this issue and
defending for and against oppinions of people on this matter.
I would ask James to repost this proposal with a new heading so people
will actually see this proposed change, since it is not clear from the
RE response and people will quite likely flick through the RE mails. I
hope for James that this issue will be resolved through this change of
proposal, since I think he and the others got enough work to do with
running OCCAID as such. Keep up the very good work.

Please respect others oppinions. Like James does!!

Very kind regards,

Tristan

Sorry sent this directly to James and not the List, so here it is again! ;-D