[anti-abuse-wg] Loop error in APNIC whois database

Hi Denis,

thanks for the clarification!

I do see 3 aspects here:

1. the registration is in the APNIC DB.
   While I do not see any problem at all, discussing abuse issues on the
   RIPE Community's anti-abuse mailing list, I am a bit hesitant to accept
   the potential implication that the RIPE community, or the RIPE NCC,
   should take the blame for something it/we do not have control of.

2. I was under the impression that in the RIPE DB, a reference to a person
   object was enforced, at the end of the food chain. If this is not the case
   right now, we MAY|SHOULD discuss the need for an amendment - but read on!

3. (violating my own item 1. :-) and) looking at the entry as quoted:
   there is the company's name, the postal address, an abuse@ email: and
   both a tel. and fax. number. So - what is the added benefit of a person's
   name (which could easily be Mr. Micky Mouse for the whois record :-)

The reason why I am nit-picking here is as follows: imho we should encourage
all parties to provide correct and useable information to get in contact if
and when there's a good reason for trying to.

Requiring, as a strict formality, to provide any and all particular pieces of
data and in a very strict format, potentially violating good reasons for not
identifying individual persons, may actually impede achievement of our goal.

Wilfried.

Denis Walker wrote:

> Dear Wilfried,
> 
> Putting aside the specific reason for looking up a contact in this case
> and look at the wider consequence for the RIPE Database. I thought we
> disallowed self referencing ROLE objects. But we only disallow creation
> of self referencing ROLEs using 'AUTO-' and circular references with
> ROLE A -> ROLE B -> ROLE A.
> 
> The way the rules are now, taken to an extreme, the entire RIPE Database
> could exist without a single 'real' PERSON listed. All number resources
> could be anonymised by referencing self referencing ROLE objects. All
> allocations, mandatory organisations for allocations, ASNs, PI
> resources, routing data could be set up so that no real person takes any
> responsibility for any resource, publicly.
> 
> Of course real people still need to sign contracts to become members and
> get resources, but from a public perspective everything can be totally
> anonymised as the rules are now.
> 
> Regards
> Denis Walker
> Business Analyst
> RIPE NCC Database Group
> 
> 
> On 28/08/2012 16:14, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:
> 
>> U.Mutlu wrote:
>>
>>> Because of errors in their DNS server I need to contact
>>> their tech-c, not their abuse dept.
>>
>>
>> I was under the impression that the contact for (technical) errors
>> regarding DNS zone configuration is to be found in the zone's SOA
>> record, as an RFC822 (or newer) field.
>>
>> And/or by way of the name registry and/or registrar.
>>
>> Where does the numbers registry information come into the picture?
>>
>> Wilfried
>>
>>
>