sorry for the delayed answer. The APNIC Secretariat is working on a revised version of the policy. This will be published soon. Thanks, Tobias Terry Manderson schrieb: > Tobias, > > 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 but I'm guessing that either prop-79 needs to be withdrawn, or replaced with a proposal that covers your request below (or both).. > > Cheers > Terry > > 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. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Tobias >> >> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * >> _______________________________________________ >> sig-policy mailing list >> sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net >> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature