Brian, Any obligation to complete abuse-c without incurring an obligation to keep the communication channel open and running makes no sense. It is wasting time.
Regards, Ángel ________________________________________ De: anti-abuse-wg [anti-abuse-wg-boun...@ripe.net] en nombre de Brian Nisbet [brian.nis...@heanet.ie] Enviado el: jueves, 26 de mayo de 2016 9:43 Para: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Asunto: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2016-01 Discussion Period Extended Until 21 June 2016 (Include Legacy Internet Resource Holders in the Abuse-c Policy) Gilles, Thanks for the contribution, but I would like to remind you and the community that abuse-c is a reality, that policy reached consensus some time ago! Can we please frame the discussion on this policy in that context, rather than referring to points outside of that scope? Thanks, Brian Brian Nisbet, Network Operations Manager HEAnet Limited, Ireland's Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1 Registered in Ireland, no 275301 tel: +35316609040 web: http://www.heanet.ie/ Gilles Massen wrote on 25/05/2016 21:59: > Hi, > > While I do agree with the rationale in "It will benefit the entire > Internet community to have better quality abuse contact data", I don't > believe that the policy text provides any help towards that goal, quite > the contrary. > > Specifically: forcing people to add an abuse-c as a matter of ticking a > checkbox leads to not-working or ignored abuse email boxes. And I rather > have no abuse-c than an ignored one - it is a clear signal and leads to > much better use of a reporters time. > > Make sure that people need to make an informed choice by not providing > an abuse-c, but dot not force. > > So I keep opposing the policy. > > best, > Gilles Massen >
