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

Hi,

On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 10:30:27AM +0000, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> Randy Bush 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?
> 
> you could just as easily make the same arguments about admin-c or tech-c.

But that's not half as botched as abuse-c:

(I do think that having well-defined abuse contacts are useful, but the
idea that the indirection has to go through an organization: object is
a computer scientists' idea on how the world has to work, and that 
annoys me enough to hate the whole abuse-c: stuff)

Hierarchical inheritance is great.  Put abuse-c: in your top-level inetnum,
and all is good.  Put it into your org if you *want*.  But if you have one
particular inetnum that wants a different abuse-c:, having to add a new
object to be able to do so is just...  *argh*

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20160303/0f1f0b1a/attachment.sig>