> Hi, > > 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. > I agree with Gaurab. There's little evidence to show that people keep their admin-c and tech-c details up to date - an abuse-c will simply follow the same path unless there is a mechanism to update and validate it. Some sites are diligent about processing email to <abuse at xxxx dot yyy>, others for whatever reason effectively route such mail to /dev/null. Having a compulsory field won't change that. If/when we get to the stage where an IP address resource has a signed certificate which allows it to be routed and this has an annual renewal then APNIC might have some lever which coerced resource holders into doing the right thing. Until then they don't have much leverage.