I hate to be a stickler for process (god forbid!) but I'm guessing that either prop-79 needs to be withdrawn, or replaced with a proposal that covers your request below (or both)..
Hi there,
IRT object has never been formally introduced to the APNIC community,
hence the absence of any reference to it on our public website. There
was an invitation in 2003 to discuss it in APNIC meetings, but the
interest was pretty low at that time.
Having said that, APNIC whois which is based on RIPE's whois software
has a built-in support for IRT objects.
We currently have 0 (none) irt object registered in APNIC database.
APNIC secretariat is following this discussion closely and will, as
usual, implement what the community decides.
Lets make it mandatory with a mandatory abuse-mailbox field. So this is
nothing that could not been implemented in a short period. And nobody
will be hurt. That way the actions that has to be taken is really small
and we can concentrate on data accuracy.
That way we would as well fix the things mentioned by me. Flexibility,
because there is a dedicated abuse contact object. In a combination of
deleting abuse-mailbox in all other objects than IRT and deleting all
trouble fields, the single point of contact and a good cleanup of the
whois database.
Thanks,
Tobias
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
