[anti-abuse-wg] 2010-08 New Policy Proposal (Abuse contact
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2010-08 New Policy Proposal (Abuse contact
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Request if Informations
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Piotr Strzyzewski
Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl
Fri Nov 12 14:54:45 CET 2010
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 02:42:16PM +0100, Frank Gadegast wrote: Hi Frank > Cannot find any difference for that point in your proposal. > Your proposal says nothing about the introduction of an mandatory > abuse-mailbox-field into INETNUM objects. Unfortunately you are mixing two things. My official 2010-10 proposal and my question/proposal send as a discussion point to 2010-08 in my email to this mailing list. Both proposals have nothing in common with each other. > Its just about the link to the sponsoring LIR or RIPE, what helps > nothing to remove resources without a working contact. This proposal has nothing to do with such ideas. > Your "pro" is: > Another point of contact is known in case of any abuse. > > I bet there are LIRs that have no valid abuse contact either. > And it does not help a lot to send abuse reports to RIPE NCC > (maybe only to prove that the End User or LIR have no valid > abuse contact). > > Please make that point more clear. Contractual relationship between End User and either LIR or RIPE NCC is stong (since it is contractual). Moreover - some obligations of those contracts are well known. This kind of link could be used by LEA as a solid connection for example. Piotr -- gucio -> Piotr Strzyżewski E-mail: Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2010-08 New Policy Proposal (Abuse contact
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Request if Informations
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]