[anti-abuse-wg] the mandatory abuse field

lists at help.org wrote:
>   >Please supply a method instead of critizising the mandatory field ...
>
> Nothing wrong with a mandatory

Ah, there we are, more substance.

> field but you need to clean up the entire
> database first.

Why ?
The abuse-c will automatically lead to a cleanup.
The members will have to alter their objects, when
the abuse-c is mandatory, and surely a lot of them
will clean them up.
The members could receive some guidelines from the NCC,
when its there, like: "remove abuse information from
the remarks, remove iRT objects only used for an abuse
address aso ...

And how: how will you clean up the database ?
btw: this is a job for the db-wg ...

> individual fields and it all should be coordinated with all the RIR's.

Its a good idea and it should be IANAs work, but until then ?

> For instance I recently saw a record in ARIN that says:
>
> Address:        Private
> City:           Private
> StateProv:      NJ
> PostalCode:     99999
>
> The response from ARIN was:  "If you believe the information below is false, can you provide more detail regarding the information you believe is inaccurate and
> ARIN will research and take the appropriate action."  I pointed out the whole record was false and I never heard back and it was never fixed.  I don't see the point
> of making anything mandatory if this is how things are done.  Once these things get fixed I would agree with the mandatory field.

Why in that order ?
Please make this more clear.


Kind regards, Frank
--
PHADE Software - PowerWeb                       http://www.powerweb.de
Inh. Dipl.-Inform. Frank Gadegast             mailto:frank at powerweb.de
Schinkelstrasse 17                                fon: +49 33200 52920
14558 Nuthetal OT Rehbruecke, Germany             fax: +49 33200 52921
======================================================================