Hi,
> Where in the proposed policy does it say that RIPE is going to de-register anyone?
Right at the end it does mention closure of memberships:
>b. Arguments opposing the proposal
>
>The proposal would result in increased workload for RIPE NCC, especially when following up on unresponsive abuse contact >information.
>If organisations are not cooperative, the RIPE NCC ultimately has the possibility to close their RIPE NCC membership and deregister >their Internet number resources.
This is already somewhat in the procedure of the NCC in the form of unresponsiveness of an LIR, I don't believe that any active LIRs have ever been closed due to this though:
There are some other issues that arises from this policy proposal.
Numbers are more what matters here.
The abuse-c is not only registered on LIR's Org Objects, but by some other type of organisations as well.
The total amount of unique abuse-c is around 77K.
We have ~16K LIRs soon to be 17K.
That leaves ~60k abuse-c spread on OTHER type of organisation objects.
How many sponsored end-user organisation holding PI/ASN are there?
How many organisation objects were created to delegate the responsibility of the abuse-c to the actual assignments/sub-allocation etc..?
What about Legacy space, which comes in two flavours nowadays, signed up with NCC or not, how to handle each case?
And lastly, out of region ASNs that may have added the abuse-c to their org object in the RIPE Database?
Who would be responsible for verifying what?
RIPE NCC verifies the LIR abuse-mailbox , seems logical?
But then we have sponsored resources such as PI and ASNs, Legacy that have a contract with the NCC, Legacy without contract, and possibly out of region ASNs.
Too many unknowns.
I must oppose the current form of this policy proposal.