<html> <head> <meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <tt>Hi Gert</tt> <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 02/11/2016 11:02, Gert Doering wrote: </div> <blockquote cite="mid:20161102100258.GR79185@Space.Net" type="cite"> <pre wrap="">Hi, On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 10:53:35AM +0100, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">I would propose to fix this and add an abuse-c to resource objects that would be "more specific" than the org abuse-c and overrides it. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> Please! The need to add extra org objects just to delegate abuse handling to other teams for specific networks has annoyed me from day one of abuse-c:, to the extent that I've just not done so. To repeat that: the current approach is so annoying that people that are *willing* to provide better abuse contact data shy away from doing so, because "why bother".</pre> </blockquote> As co author of the current abuse-c I have been saying for years that I agree with you. There are problems that were not foreseen with the original design. Adding abuse-c to the resource objects is one way to fix it, but there are also other (better/worse) options. These have been discussed several times but no one ever agrees or makes a decision. It is like the out of region ROUTE objects. We keep having the same discussion, consider the same options and never make a decision. Maybe it is a task for the new chairs of the DB WG to bring some of these issues to a conclusion. cheers denis <blockquote cite="mid:20161102100258.GR79185@Space.Net" type="cite"> <pre wrap=""> Gert Doering -- speaking as a LIR tech-c and abuse-c </pre> </blockquote> </body> </html>