<html><head></head><body><div class="yahoo-style-wrap" style="font-family:Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:16px;"><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><div><div>Colleagues</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>The policy proposal 2019-04 makes lots of references to resource holders, RIPE NCC members, LIRs and End Users. Only once does it mention 'customers of resource holders'. I get the feeling that where it refers to 'End Uses' it means PI resource holders. The argument for allowing the "abuse-c:" attribute to be added to resource objects (INET(6)NUM) was to facilitate end user customers, with assignments from member's allocations, to be able to handle their own abuse reports. Over time this could potentially add (tens of) thousands of additional abuse contacts to the database.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>I would like to see this issue specifically considered and addressed as part of the review of this policy proposal:</div><div>-How are these contacts going to be found in the RIPE Database?</div><div>-How much additional work load will this place on the RIPE NCC?</div><div>-Who is going to be held responsible for any failed End User abuse contact validations?</div><div>-Does it need a specific follow up procedure for the RIPE NCC as they will have to go through the resource holder?</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>cheers</div><div><br></div><div>denis</div><div><br></div><div>co-chair DB-WG</div></div><br></div></div></body></html>