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

Hi there:

> On 5 Mar 2016, at 11:54, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com> wrote:
> 
> On 05/03/2016, 09:53, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of h.lu at anytimechinese.com" <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net on behalf of h.lu at anytimechinese.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> Hi
>> 
>> I fail to understand how spammer are legal in certain country  has to do with my reasoning or logic.
>> 
>> The argument is about if there is managing position for community to take, my answer is no, we are not law enforcement and  we only do book keeping, we don't tell people what to do, if they want to be good guy, great, if they don't care about spam or any abuse so to say, ok, it's their call.
> 
> 
> Who? A LIR or an assignee?
> 
> Considering the IPv4 space is such a valuable resource now I’d happily argue that if you do a bad job of managing it then maybe you shouldn’t have it

Whoever using it.

I don't think you should have it or not are based on abuse handing, otherwise you can take all IPs from some telecoms:)


> 
> 
>> Making things mandatory with no real enforcing power are just not working.
> 
> That’s more of a chicken and egg argument.
> 
> The issue that abuse-C resolves is the provision of a consistent and thus parseable contact point for abuse issues.
> 
> Of course if there was a way to get abuse contacts to be more responsive then everyone would be happier (or unhappier .. ).
> 
Before that there is a field called abuse:


>> 
>> So make logic simple to understand, if the abuse is serious as crime, you don't need abuse c to get the right person(law enforcement has much better way than ripe db), if it is not serious as crime, if the op cares, with or without abuse c they will have their abuse contact there, and will deal with it. For ops don't care, with or without abuse c, they still don't care.
> 
> The issue isn’t that simple. Prior to the introduction of abuse-c people would try to contact whatever contact they could find.
> 
> 
Again, before that there is "abuse:"
>> So you can put up an extra line ask people to fill, but I don't think it makes much difference.
> 
> 
Lastly, again, I sent the first message was to against the argument about managing internet part in which I strongly disagree, abuse c or not, I don't strong opinion against it, nor do I have strong feeling to support it, I just dislike the medatory  part and doubt its usefulness.
> 
> --
> Mr Michele Neylon
> Blacknight Solutions
> Hosting, Colocation & Domains
> http://www.blacknight.host/
> http://blog.blacknight.com/
> http://ceo.hosting/
> Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
> -------------------------------
> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845