[anti-abuse-wg] Verification of abuse contact addresses ?
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Verification of abuse contact addresses ?
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Verification of abuse contact addresses ?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Ronald F. Guilmette
rfg at tristatelogic.com
Mon Mar 11 02:26:45 CET 2019
In message <9793c47c-2c44-47e3-033a-1d60ca4d33d2 at time-travellers.org>, Shane Kerr <shane at time-travellers.org> wrote: >As far as I know there is nothing in any policy about decommissioning >resources. (I'm not even sure what that would mean in practice...) > >I don't think that such a proposal would get consensus in the RIPE >community, but I am often wrong so if you want this then please submit a >policy proposal. The RIPE NCC staff, the working group chairs, or some >friendly community member can help you with this. It might be interesting to float a proposal to tack on a small extra annual registration fee... say, another 12.5% or something... applicable to all respouces for which corrections to the contact info have not been made. I agree that it would be politically problematic to outright kill someone's allocations, but making it just a little painful (if they are screwing up) might be helpful and productive. Regards, rfg
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Verification of abuse contact addresses ?
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Verification of abuse contact addresses ?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]