[anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
denis
ripedenis at yahoo.co.uk
Mon Mar 7 11:29:11 CET 2016
Hi Sascha On 05/03/2016 12:50, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: > On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 09:00:27AM +0100, Gert Doering wrote: > >> The relevant question for the PDP is "does 2016-01 help achieve >> the goal of better combatting Internet abuse"? > > In its current implementation, abuse-c: is not only useless, it's > potentially harmful. Don't make emotive, vague comments like this....explain with facts. > > -Either abuse-c: is nothing but a convenience for ops, in which > case it shouldn't be mandatory or > -abuse-c: is an important part of registry documentation in which > case the NCC should ensure that whatever information in there > points to someone who *handles abuse* > > The latter would actually amount to NCC telling registries how to > manage their network - they MUST have abuse-handlers and they > MUST publish their contact data. I love it when people make comments like this without thinking the argument through. For an INETNUM object "admin-c:" and "tech-c:" are both mandatory. So they are both considered "an important part of registry documentation". So by your argument the NCC should ensure someone *handles administrative and technical issues*. How do you propose the NCC does that? When you work that one out they can apply the same principle to "abuse-c:". Problem solved... cheers denis > Where does it say that in the > contract and how would it be enforced towards ERX holders who > don't *have* a contract? > > In either case, "We will put in any old email address we have in > our records for your org unless you fill it in yourself" is not > good enough. > > rgds, > Sascha Luck >
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]