[anti-abuse-wg] 2010-08 New Policy Proposal (Abuse contact

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 02:42:16PM +0100, Frank Gadegast wrote:

Hi Frank

> Cannot find any difference for that point in your proposal.
> Your proposal says nothing about the introduction of an mandatory
> abuse-mailbox-field into INETNUM objects.

Unfortunately you are mixing two things. My official 2010-10 proposal
and my question/proposal send as a discussion point to 2010-08 in my
email to this mailing list. Both proposals have nothing in common with
each other.

> Its just about the link to the sponsoring LIR or RIPE, what helps
> nothing to remove resources without a working contact.

This proposal has nothing to do with such ideas.

> Your "pro" is:
>   Another point of contact is known in case of any abuse.
>
> I bet there are LIRs that have no valid abuse contact either.
> And it does not help a lot to send abuse reports to RIPE NCC
> (maybe only to prove that the End User or LIR have no valid
>  abuse contact).
>
> Please make that point more clear.

Contractual relationship between End User and either LIR or RIPE NCC is
stong (since it is contractual). Moreover - some obligations of those
contracts are well known.

This kind of link could be used by LEA as a solid connection for
example.

Piotr

-- 
gucio -> Piotr Strzyżewski
E-mail: Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl