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

On Sat, 5 Mar 2016 11:50:06 +0000
"Sascha Luck [ml]" <dbwg at c4inet.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 09:00:27AM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
> >The relevant question for the PDP is "does 2016-01 help achieve
> >the goal of better combatting Internet abuse"?
> In its current implementation, abuse-c: is not only useless, it's
> potentially harmful.

> -Either abuse-c: is nothing but a convenience for ops, in which
> case it shouldn't be mandatory or
> -abuse-c: is an important part of registry documentation in which
> case the NCC should ensure that whatever information in there
> points to someone who *handles abuse*
> 
no. it is not up to the ncc to guarantee that the abuse-c "handles abuse" 

But very good point - maybe the ncc should ensure that
(important accounting) data is accurate.

> The latter would actually amount to NCC telling registries how to
> manage their network - they MUST have abuse-handlers and they

not at all. otherwise the same argument would also fit the requirement
to provide a physical address, a name, or, any data actually.

insisting that registries MUST have a name, an address, etc.

the rest of your post flows from your prior assumption

> MUST publish their contact data. Where does it say that in the
> contract and how would it be enforced towards ERX holders who
> don't *have* a contract?
> In either case, "We will put in any old email address we have in
> our records for your org unless you fill it in yourself" is not
> good enough.
> 
> rgds,
> Sascha Luck
>