[anti-abuse-wg] Abuse Contact Information - Policy Proposal

> Is it acceptable for you if this is done when there is an IRT (and require
> it to have an IRT before 2013)?

I don't think you can 'require it to have an IRT by 2013', there are orphans and stale object, those will not magically will get an IRT attached. But we are getting into details where I think we first have to see where this proposal goes. I merely just pointed out there was a design oversight.

Now concerning the proposal, IMHO it won't solve any of the problems. You get less data, but still no guarantee it's there or it's correct. This does not add anything compared to the current model.

As a simple and alternative suggestion:

Make the abuse-mailbox atrribute mandatory for inetnum and inet6num

That was the original proposal at the start of the century when we introduced the abuse-mailbox stuff, by that time there was also a very lenghy discussion on IRT being an alternative. Please refer to the archives of the database working group for records on these discussions.

Marco
(as a private citizen)