[anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01 upheld for 5/2016 version

Dear colleagues,

I want to formally confirm and underline my contributions to discussions
@RIPE72:
the slight softening of the newer version of proposal 2016-01
does not substantially resolve the concerns I raised in my objection
to the earlier version.
So I uphold my objection for the new version

	Subject: objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
	Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2016 19:38:10 +0100
	Message-id: <11461.1456684690 at x59.NIC.DTAG.DE>

  > I object to passing the policy as proposed.
  > There is no serious need for the policy,
  > and at this time and under current circumstance it would
  > actually be harmful.
  > I believe that the supposed good intentions would be better
  > served by other actions, and the policy focussing on enforcement
  > is ill advised.

For the verbose detailled arguments and suggestions I refer to that
old message.

I note that other parties have raised additional concerns - those may
fall under the "harmful" clause above, but I'm not going to argue in detail
on those.

Some of the discussion @RIPE72 did confirm what I wrote in the second
paragraph of my objection message - as an attempt at constructive
suggestions:
  > I understand that the current implementation of the RIPE database allows
  > legacy holders to enter abuse-c attributes for their legacy resources
  > ...
  > No PDP is needed to send friendly invitations to legacy holders to populate
  > their data objects with abuse-c information;
  > I'm sure asking the RIPE NCC to do this would not create an undue burden
  > or serious problem.

Sadly I did not notice any followup on this yet.

Thanks for your attention and consideration.
  Ruediger Volk