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

Hi Gert

I published some ideas almost 2 years ago on how we could improve abuse-c
https://labs.ripe.net/Members/denis/suggestions-for-improving-abuse-handling

I am not saying these are a perfect solution either, but no one was 
interested in discussing ways forward...

...dare I also say this clumsiness is partly due to the data model 
'design'....which no one wants to discuss either.

cheers
denis

On 03/03/2016 11:38, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 10:30:27AM +0000, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>> Randy Bush wrote:
>>> so the idea is we mandate that there be an abuse-c: so that there is an
>>> email address where we can send mail to which there will be no response?
>>
>> you could just as easily make the same arguments about admin-c or tech-c.
>
> But that's not half as botched as abuse-c:
>
> (I do think that having well-defined abuse contacts are useful, but the
> idea that the indirection has to go through an organization: object is
> a computer scientists' idea on how the world has to work, and that
> annoys me enough to hate the whole abuse-c: stuff)
>
> Hierarchical inheritance is great.  Put abuse-c: in your top-level inetnum,
> and all is good.  Put it into your org if you *want*.  But if you have one
> particular inetnum that wants a different abuse-c:, having to add a new
> object to be able to do so is just...  *argh*
>
> Gert Doering
>          -- NetMaster
>