[anti-abuse-wg] Verification of abuse contact addresses ?

Fi Shing,

There's no need to complain if you are unhappy with the current policies!

The RIPE community follows an open and transparent process for making 
policies, which you can read about here:

https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies

Again, I encourage you to submit a policy proposal if you want your 
ideas to be adopted. Many people can and will help you with this.

But also again, I do not think that any proposal to "decommission" 
resources will be accepted by the community. But if you think that is 
what should be done then you need a proposal with some details that you 
can attempt to get consensus for.

Cheers,

--
Shane

On 12/03/2019 05.45, Fi Shing wrote:
> Why can't it be both?
> 
> 12.5% annual fee incurred daily, to a maximum of 7 days, with resources 
> being decommissioned if the abuse contact is not updated within that time.
> 
>     -------- Original Message --------
>     Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Verification of abuse contact addresses ?
>     From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg at tristatelogic.com
>     <mailto:rfg at tristatelogic.com>>
>     Date: Mon, March 11, 2019 12:26 pm
>     To: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net <mailto:anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net>
> 
> 
>     In message <9793c47c-2c44-47e3-033a-1d60ca4d33d2 at time-travellers.org
>     <mailto:9793c47c-2c44-47e3-033a-1d60ca4d33d2 at time-travellers.org>>,
>     Shane Kerr <shane at time-travellers.org
>     <mailto:shane at time-travellers.org>> wrote:
> 
>     >As far as I know there is nothing in any policy about decommissioning 
>     >resources. (I'm not even sure what that would mean in practice...)
>     >
>     >I don't think that such a proposal would get consensus in the RIPE 
>     >community, but I am often wrong so if you want this then please submit a 
>     >policy proposal. The RIPE NCC staff, the working group chairs, or some 
>     >friendly community member can help you with this.
> 
>     It might be interesting to float a proposal to tack on a small extra
>     annual registration fee... say, another 12.5% or something... applicable
>     to all respouces for which corrections to the contact info have not been
>     made.
> 
>     I agree that it would be politically problematic to outright kill
>     someone's
>     allocations, but making it just a little painful (if they are
>     screwing up)
>     might be helpful and productive.
> 
> 
>     Regards,
>     rfg
>