<html><body> At 10:42 31/07/2012 (UTC), Tobias Knecht wrote: > > So I'm really interested in hearing more reasons for your objection here > no matter if you are talking about the "abuse-c:" or the > "abuse-mailbox:" attribute. Just to make things clear about real consequences of mandatory abuse-c: 1. None of our customers have an abuse department or abuse contact (and often tech person). We will therefore bulk update the abuse-c with the value from the admin-c handle. With regards to emailharvesting, this will reveal all admin-c emails as it will bypass todays whois restriction. This is not a problem to us, but the proposal will effectively remove the whois restriction in these cases. The indirect consequences of this is uncertain to me. Unlimited abuse-c whois might not be a good idea. Obviously, people need to be contacted, and the only way to do that is to first retrieve their contact information. 2. The e-mail field in the role object (abuse-c requires a role object) is mandatory. We actually have customers that do not have an email address or haven't provided one (probably also dont want to provide one). In these cases, I guess the e-mail field will be populated with a bogus email address in the form "there.is.no@email.address" and perhaps insert remarks: with company URL instead etc. </body></html>