I still have some serious concerns about this proposal. I wonder how this might have an effect on the conduit role of (transit)-networks. And if the RIPE NCC will be requested to report (by the community or by legal court actions) or will be held liable in some way shape or form for the accurate information in case a resource holder will end up in a court case because they are not responsive on abuse complains. As a community we should tread carefully if we want to push the RIPE NCC in the middle of those kind of legal cases or want it to be held accountable on that. Especially in case of Copyright complaints for instance. The RIPE NCC is having agreements / contracts with all resource holders for ownership via End-User Agreements or LIR agreements, however in case of acting on operational topics like abuse handling, that SHOULD NOT be a part of it. Having a working method of abuse handling is a task of the resource holder themselves. If they decide to not act on or not have a valid abuse contact, it is their own responsibility. With all subsequent consequences. The RIPE NCC provides a datamodel in the RIPE DB to populate the field, but it should not get involved in validation of the information. The amount of work involved in validating just that specific field with no guarantee on or added value on actual responsiveness after it is validated, is a waste of community funds. Because those who want to respond on abuse complaints are already having working abuse contacts and those who don't, still won't. I fear that this task will be more or similar resource consuming than implementing 2007-01 .. ( Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC ) Especially since it is stated that this should be done on a yearly basis. So in the end, it looks like expensive window dressing which might open up the RIPE NCC with a legal liability. However novel the intent is of authors. I would strongly advice against this. Regards, Erik Bais