[db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01

On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 11:46:45AM +0100, denis wrote:

> In these days of political interest in how the internet is 'managed' the 
> RIRs need to do more than 'just maintain an accurate registry'. The 

indeed. The community should be careful to maintain and improve the
credibility and legitimacy of its policy development process.
``Extra constitutional'' activity (imposing "abuse" handling procedures
camouflaged as syntax changes to database objects) and retroactive
changes to policy without an exceptional justification both aren't
helpful.

2016-01 claims "Better data quality", which is not backed with arguments.
2016-01 claims "More accurate data for abuse contact", which is not
        supported by arguments or evidence/precedent.

> internet is a crucial part of modern life. Abuse is considered to be a 
> serious problem. What you are saying is that you don't give a dam about 
> abuse and are not interested in being part of the management of abuse. 

The alleged correctness of data does not imply a "right to response" (cf ripe-563),
and rightfully so.  Therefore the claims that refusal to add abuse-c
would imply refusal to deal with abuse reports are pointless, since
the sheer presence of the attribute does not imply anything, either.

Also, I have not heard Rüdiger (or anyone else) claim they would not
want to even add abuse-c - it's making this policy mandatory what is
being contested.  ripe-639 re-establishes the 'special role' of
legacy resources as exempt from policy changes:

	Any existing or future RIPE policy referring to resources shall not apply
	to legacy resources unless the policy explicitly includes legacy resources in its scope.

Now, if that was simply a matter of a boilerplate in any future policy
(xxx shall also apply to legacy resources), this clause would not make
the slightest sense.  Consequently, a special consideration is needed.
2016-01 simply refers to inconsistency (obviously a simple consequence
of ripe-639 and thus not exceptional) and "better data quality" - without
justification.  No indication is given of any harm caused by legacy
resources currently not subject to ripe-563.  ripe-563/ripe-639
do not preclude use of abuse-c for legacy resources, either.

All in all, I understand the motivation behind 2016-01, but the reasoning
is far too poor to justify proceeding with the proposal.

-Peter