[anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01

On 3 Mar 2016, at 19:25, Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote:

>>> so the idea is we mandate that there be an abuse-c: so that there is an
>>> email address where we can send mail to which there will be no response?
>> 
>> The RIPE Database is full of email addresses. If I don't know which one 
>> is intended to receive abuse complaints by responsible network managers 
>> would you prefer I spam every email address I can find? That was the 
>> previous behaviour before we introduced abuse-c.
> 
> if the LIR does not want your shotgun blast, they can publish and
> abuse-c: and maybe you will use it instead.  or maybe you won't.
> 
>>> i am hesitant to mandate behavior beyond that necessary for the ncc
>>> to maintain accurate records of resource 'ownership'.  beyond that is
>>> me telling someone else how to run their network.
>> 
>> No it is telling someone to manage their networks in a responsible
>> manner.
> 
> where you define responsibility.  the ncc is not a regulator, it is a
> coordinator.  if you want to be told how to run your network by weenie
> vigilantes, go to arin.

Made my day:)

I think abuse c is about to clear the confusion which email sent abuse to, but of course whether the network responds to the abuse report it not, or even care to put an useful email there, are totally up to them, end of the day, it's their network and they the one responsible and running it.
> 
> randy
>