> The goal of this proposal is to give the RIPE NCC a mandate to > regularly validate "abuse-c:" information and to follow up in cases > where contact information is found to be invalid.
which states: > b. Arguments opposing the proposal [...] > If organisations are not cooperative, the RIPE NCC ultimately has the > possibility to close their RIPE NCC membership and deregister their > Internet number resources. The most serious problem with this proposal is that it's saying: "make sure your abuse-c mailbox is working and if it isn't, this proposal is explicitly threatening that the RIPE NCC can take your numbering resources away". This is a highly aggressive approach and I don't think this is a viable or appropriate way of handling stewardship of IP numbering resources, and particularly not from a monopoly organisation. Useful abuse management is far more than tickbox compliance with having your abuse-c mailbox connected up to an autoresponder. A working abuse-c mailbox is great, but mandating this requirement in this way is going to turn the abuse-c mechanism into a window-dressing exercise which can be satisfied by an autoresponder. On this basis I don't support this proposal. Why didn't the authors just talk to the RIPE NCC and ask them to include abuse-c validation in the Assisted Registry Check? This seems like a far less heavy-handed option than creating a policy proposal. It also involves better quality community outreach, and without the threat of aggression implicit in proposal 2017-02. Nick
