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

Hi Denis,

> What you are really saying here is that you are willing to accept that
> many network managers don't want to handle abuse complaints. So make it
> optional and let them leave it blank.

As a community we have to accept that, whether we like it or not. The
only way to force someone (unless you come from the 'shoot first, ask
questions later' fraction) is via the legal system.

> As a community are we willing to accept that many networks simply don't
> want to handle abuse complaints? Or do we want it mandatory and then as
> a next stage tackle these black holes with devnull.

Let's extrapolate that line of thought, from the point of view of the
one wanting to ignore reports (which is, btw, not the same as ignoring
abuse...):

- I need abuse-c? fine: devnull at example.com
- oh, it has to exist? abuse@<lir.eu>, FWD to /dev/null
- and now I have to answer? auto-reply is cheap.
- human answer? Wally, please take care of that.

And with each step the life of the *reporter* becomes more frustrating.
Again, as a reporter I prefer no data (which is also data...) over wrong
data any time.

So the only part that might deserve attention is the people that is not
aware of the abuse-c. Lobby them, inform them, harass them until they
make a choice, whatever it is. And then respect the choice.

best,
Gilles

-- 
Fondation RESTENA - DNS-LU
2, avenue de l'Université
LU-4365 Esch-sur-Alzette
tel: +352.4244091
fax: +352.422473