[address-policy-wg] 2006-04 New Draft Document Published (Contact e-mail Address Requirements)

> The little disagreement here is that in my opinion the primary
> point of contact should by the "most down-strem" entity, with the
> NCC's Member contact to be used as an escalation path, if needed.

I agree that this is superior in practice but only
if that "most down-stream" contact is READY, WILLING
and ABLE to act upon problem reports. It would be wise
for a registration policy to allow and encourage the
assignees to register such a contact, but the policy
can only make it mandatory for LIRs to register such
a contact.

I think that if RIPE ever did make a sensible and workable
policy like this, then the LIRs would put some effort
into making sure that their customers have contacts
who are READY, WILLING and ABLE to act upon problem
reports. But they are closer to those customers and
will know where it makes sense to do this and where it
does not.

> The rational for this model is: the entity/role/group that is the
> NCC's member and is managing addres space may not be in aposition
> to get involved in operational or security aspects. This responsibility
> may rest with a third party, either within the same corporation or even
> somewhere else.

If RIPE is going to require a working abuse contact
then it should point to the group that has this responsibility,
not to the group that deals with address management.
That is why I stress that the abuse contact must be
READY, WILLING and ABLE to act upon problem reports.

--Michael Dillon