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

Hello

> Also, I suspect that the requirement to add a reference to an IRT
> object when updating an inet(6)num will just result in fewer updates
> and an additional degradation in the quality of the registration and
> contact data provided. It is possible that I am wrong, so as a
> similar proposal has already been accepted by APNIC, perhaps this
> section of the proposal could be delayed until APNIC can present data
> showing the effect of this part of the policy on their data quality.

Just a few words to this. I know that this proposal is just the first of
a row of proposals that will lead to a more perfect system. ;-)

For example. I start working with the APNIC policy office on the so
called "frequent update request" proposal. This is a service APNIC
wanted to start, but wanted to have a feedback from their members,
that's why a proposal will be released.

This "frequent update request" proposal shall find a way how APNIC
(later AfriNIC and RIPE) can contact their members and requests
perodically (yearly) updates or verifications on all objects. This
proposal plans to solve problems like you and Marco Hogewoning mentioned.

The idea for this proposal is not new. .com registrars are already
having such mechanisms in place, and they work pretty well, as we have
heard.

At the end this first proposal shall just define a way where abuse
contact information has to be in future and how this has to be handled
with new ranges and with updates. The next proposal can find a way of
requesting frequent updates.

It's a step by step plan, but we should start somewhere. ;-)

Thanks for your comments.

Have all a nice RIPE-60 a good discussions tomorrow.

Tobias