[db-wg] RIPE abuse finder

Hi,

On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 11:16:53AM +0100, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 02:00:01PM +0100, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
> >> There is no misunderstanding here at all. If you remove a maintainer
> >> this just exposes the fact that indeed you do no longer consider
> >> yourself responsible for maintaining these person objects. If no-one
> >> else puts on their maintainer and assumes responsibility the object
> >> is just unmaintained. But as long as a mnt-by: exists the assumption
> >> has to be that the maintainer is indeed responsible to maintain the
> >> data and indeed also for maintaining abuse contact information.
> >> Note well that the mnt-by: attribute gives the maintainer the
> >> authority to make changes.
> > 
> > Yes - I feel responsible to update that person: object, if need arises.
> 
> There seems to be a need for an abuse-mailbox for this person object or their resources ...... ;-)
> I would not be surprised that you may also very well be the person that we will have to ask for an an abuse-c soon ...

I would consider this spammy behaviour and be very upset.

> > This is what I'm objecting to.
> 
> We as a community have to maintain an accurate registry. the first
> responsibility for this is with the "maintainers". 

For the appropriate objects.  If you find our maintainer on any inetnum
or inet6num object involved in whatever needs to be clarified, we're here.

If you find our maintainer on a person object and have questions regarding
*that person* object, like "I sent a mail to that person and it bounced,
and his phone number isn't working either, do you have a working contact",
I'm also happy to help.

But I do not accept implied responsibility by ill-designed tools trawling
along all possible cross-connects in the database to be able to return
"something", instead of having to answer "we're sorry we could not find
an abuse contact".

> Abuse contact
> information is a part of that because there is a need for it from
> users of the registry. We have policies in place to improve that
> significantly, but we cannot just halt everything until they are
> fully implemented. It would be very very bad if we as a community
> are perceived to be unable to maintain an accurate registry and to
> answer legitimate user queries. All sorts of entropy of the could
> arise from that, above all that of the regulatory kind.

I fully agree with the goal.  But your interpretation is alienating folks
that would be otherwise happy to work with you to reach the goal.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 306 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/attachments/20130318/3f643f2c/attachment.sig>