<html><body> At 11:15 02/08/2012 (UTC), Tobias Knecht wrote: >That could be an option. There is only one point I do not understand. We >are talking only about the direct allocations, which in my opinion >should all have an abuse address and handle their abuse. That is at >least my opinion. When you can't back up an email address requirement with any valid legal requirement it will just degrade the data accuracy in the ripe database. Should, perhaps, but it's not going to happen by making it mandatory. The abuse-c proposal itself is good since the database structure would improve. >As I understood Franks idea the resource holder would have to call >himself "non-responsive" and publish this information, which will >definitevely create problems in the future. Just thinking of blacklists >using this information and so on, so at the end the unresponsive will >add addresses that are deleting inbound messages. Which is of course not >good either, but we could even proof that an unresponsive ISPs has >accepted mail on his given address. This can be interesting in legal >situations like Frank explained as well. Accepting complaints through phone or a website doesn't mean you are non-responsive. However, I tend to get heavily irritated when the abusive company require me to register a user account using captcha, verify my email, logon and then submit the complaint throught their form. >On the long end I would rather like to see something like ARIN is doing >with wrong contact information. Tagging whois entries if the data that >is provided is not accurate and resource holders are not cooperative. I think you are misinformed about ARIN. They only require that the email you put in ARINs whois database must be able to accept email from ARIN. If you send an email to for example Googles email contact address you receive an auto reply with "Thank you for your email. However, it will not be read. Good bye.". </body></html>