Re: [address-policy-wg] 2006-04 New Draft Document Published (Contact e-mail Address Requirements)

[Hank Nussbacher hank@localhost]

At 03:19 PM 30-10-06 +0000, Michael.Dillon@localhost wrote:

> But the policy has a larger problem. It attempts to
> place a stricter requirement on every organization
> which has received an assignment from a RIPE member.
> In this way it places a requirement on virtually
> every organization, commercial and non-commercial,
> which exists within our society. I do not believe
> that this is justified and I do not believe that
> most organizations have any real role to play in
> preventing spam or correcting network operational
> issues.
>
> The real issue here is that current RIPE policies
> allow RIPE members to wash their hands of all
> network operational issues associated with the
> addresses which they have assigned to other
> organizations.
Allow me to disagree.  As someone who regularly sends out emails to contact 
info as located in the various whois databases, I would rate the RIPE info 
at #1, followed by RADB, APNIC, ARIN and last being LACNIC (no feedback yet 
from AFRNIC).  Some of you may have received these emails over the past 5 
years about leaking private ASNs which is sent to all emails I find in 
whois.  I find the RIPE data to be accurate and comprehensive and light 
years ahead of the data inside LACNIC.  I also find the people contacted 
inside RIPE respond far quicker than those in ARIN (APNIC is even better 
than ARIN in that respect).
So before complaining about RIPE data, best to bring the rest of the world 
up to the level that RIPE maintains.
Regards,
Hank Nussbacher
http://www.interall.co.il