[anti-abuse-wg] 2016-01 Discussion Period Extended Until 21 June 2016 (Include Legacy Internet Resource Holders in the Abuse-c Policy)

Brian,

I beg to differ - the argument is on scope. Even if my comments apply to
abuse-c as a whole, they are still valid for the more narrow legacy
space, and I see no reason to impose a bad idea to more people for the
sake of uniformity. Especially not to a community that has been granted
extensive exemptions from RIPE policies. (this said, I also agree with
Sascha's concerns)

Best,
Gilles



On 26/05/16 09:43, Brian Nisbet wrote:
> Gilles,
> 
> Thanks for the contribution, but I would like to remind you and the
> community that abuse-c is a reality, that policy reached consensus some
> time ago!
> 
> Can we please frame the discussion on this policy in that context,
> rather than referring to points outside of that scope?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Brian
> 
> Brian Nisbet, Network Operations Manager
> HEAnet Limited, Ireland's Education and Research Network
> 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1
> Registered in Ireland, no 275301  tel: +35316609040
> web: http://www.heanet.ie/
> 
> Gilles Massen wrote on 25/05/2016 21:59:
>> Hi,
>>
>> While I do agree with the rationale in "It will benefit the entire
>> Internet community to have better quality abuse contact data", I don't
>> believe that the policy text provides any help towards that goal, quite
>> the contrary.
>>
>> Specifically: forcing people to add an abuse-c as a matter of ticking a
>> checkbox leads to not-working or ignored abuse email boxes. And I rather
>> have no abuse-c than an ignored one - it is a clear signal and leads to
>> much better use of a reporters time.
>>
>> Make sure that people need to make an informed choice by not providing
>> an abuse-c, but dot not force.
>>
>> So I keep opposing the policy.
>>
>> best,
>> Gilles Massen
>>
> 

-- 
Fondation RESTENA - DNS-LU
2, avenue de l'Université
LU-4365 Esch-sur-Alzette
tel: +352.4244091
fax: +352.422473