Shane Kerr wrote:
Frank,
It's not inconceivable that the RIPE NCC could implement manual checks. (I think APNIC actually already has staff that follow up to correct contact information.) If these were done only when a problem is reported it could be hundreds of checks per year, not thousands; probably an extra 2 or 3 staff, so only increasing the RIPE NCC's operating budget by a few percent.
Im not talking about manual checks, those are automatic checks. All checks I described are automatic checks, the last once are only a bit more complicated to implement. You can start with the oldest objects and run these tests in a couple of days over the whole db. If a automatic test fails, simply mail the customer email address (that is known only by the NCC) and the mantainer (if there is one) and the address in the changed-by field (well there IS one) and wait ... the NCC could send a reminder a week later and if nothing happens, a big notice could be shown, when the LIR logs into the LIR portal next time.
Such a policy wouldn't satisfy people concerned with intentional abuse, but it is a necessary step.
Thats what I mean, start with the easy things.
Personally I support both automated methods of checking contact
So thats a +1 ?
information (like you propose) and manual methods of checking and updating contact information. I'm not sure how easy it would be to get consensus though. :)
Well, there is no harm to the members, its just reminders. I would love to know, if one of my objects has a not working email address. Kind regards, Frank
-- Shane
-- Mit freundlichen Gruessen, -- PHADE Software - PowerWeb http://www.powerweb.de Inh. Dipl.-Inform. Frank Gadegast mailto:frank@powerweb.de Schinkelstrasse 17 fon: +49 33200 52920 14558 Nuthetal OT Rehbruecke, Germany fax: +49 33200 52921 ======================================================================