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

Hi Sascha

On 05/03/2016 12:50, Sascha Luck [ml] 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.

Don't make emotive, vague comments like this....explain with facts.

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

I love it when people make comments like this without thinking the 
argument through. For an INETNUM object "admin-c:" and "tech-c:" are 
both mandatory. So they are both considered "an important part of 
registry documentation". So by your argument the NCC should ensure 
someone *handles administrative and technical issues*. How do you 
propose the NCC does that? When you work that one out they can apply the 
same principle to "abuse-c:". Problem solved...

cheers
denis

> 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
>