> I have yet to see a reason to agree to this proposal in current form, if > theare are no mechanisms to make sure that the data field > > a) won't get populated by existing members > b) won't get updated and validated on a regular basis. > > If the (b) is part of the policy, then I am all for it. > > This actually brings up the question why is there no effort to validate > whois information, and as Mark Foster pointed out - those of us with > .com domains seems to get that on a regular interval.. I don't see a > reason it can't be the same for IP/ASN resources. I think it would ake sense to start another proposal, that looks for a yearly update request or something similar. But Where is the sense of putting it to this proposal for abuse-c and leaving out the admin-c and tech-c. If there is so much unity about this. Let's start this proposal as soon as possible. Thanks, Tobias
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature