Re: [sig-policy] prop-079: Abuse contact information (abuse-c)
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 but I'm guessing that either prop-79 needs to be withdrawn, or replaced with a proposal that covers your request below (or both)..
On 02/02/2010, at 5:24 PM, Tobias Knecht wrote:
> 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.
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net