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

On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 11:29:11AM +0100, denis wrote:
>>In its current implementation, abuse-c: is not only useless, it's
>>potentially harmful.

>Don't make emotive, vague comments like this....explain with
>facts.

As it is implemented now, for existing resources, if a LIR
does not set the abuse-c:, the NCC will create an object for it,
using whatever contact data they happen to have around for the
LIR. 
This is not improving the data quality of the ripedb and it is
potentially directing the attention of every "concerned citizen"
with an email account and potentially even that of law
enforcement towards people whose business it simply isn't to
handle abuse.

>I love it when people make comments like this without thinking
>the argument through. For an INETNUM object "admin-c:" and
>"tech-c:" are both mandatory. So they are both considered "an
>important part of registry documentation". So by your argument
>the NCC should ensure someone *handles administrative and
>technical issues*. How do you propose the NCC does that? When
>you work that one out they can apply the same principle to
>"abuse-c:". Problem solved...

So maybe admin-c: and tech-c: are just conveniences and 
shouldn't be mandatory either. It would be preferrable to a
proliferation of contact objects, all mandatory, and it would be
preferrable to having this data but it being mostly bullshit. 

rgds,
Sascha Luck