On Sat, 5 Mar 2016 11:50:06 +0000 "Sascha Luck [ml]" <dbwg@c4inet.net> wrote:
The relevant question for the PDP is "does 2016-01 help achieve the goal of better combatting Internet abuse"? In its current implementation, abuse-c: is not only useless, it's
On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 09:00:27AM +0100, Gert Doering wrote: potentially harmful.
-Either abuse-c: is nothing but a convenience for ops, in which case it shouldn't be mandatory or -abuse-c: is an important part of registry documentation in which case the NCC should ensure that whatever information in there points to someone who *handles abuse*
no. it is not up to the ncc to guarantee that the abuse-c "handles abuse" But very good point - maybe the ncc should ensure that (important accounting) data is accurate.
The latter would actually amount to NCC telling registries how to manage their network - they MUST have abuse-handlers and they
not at all. otherwise the same argument would also fit the requirement to provide a physical address, a name, or, any data actually. insisting that registries MUST have a name, an address, etc. the rest of your post flows from your prior assumption
MUST publish their contact data. Where does it say that in the contract and how would it be enforced towards ERX holders who don't *have* a contract? In either case, "We will put in any old email address we have in our records for your org unless you fill it in yourself" is not good enough.
rgds, Sascha Luck