![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/2041cdaf7dd3b3bffdba2996694df63f.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Fi Shing, There's no need to complain if you are unhappy with the current policies! The RIPE community follows an open and transparent process for making policies, which you can read about here: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies Again, I encourage you to submit a policy proposal if you want your ideas to be adopted. Many people can and will help you with this. But also again, I do not think that any proposal to "decommission" resources will be accepted by the community. But if you think that is what should be done then you need a proposal with some details that you can attempt to get consensus for. Cheers, -- Shane On 12/03/2019 05.45, Fi Shing wrote:
Why can't it be both?
12.5% annual fee incurred daily, to a maximum of 7 days, with resources being decommissioned if the abuse contact is not updated within that time.
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Verification of abuse contact addresses ? From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@tristatelogic.com <mailto:rfg@tristatelogic.com>> Date: Mon, March 11, 2019 12:26 pm To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net <mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net>
In message <9793c47c-2c44-47e3-033a-1d60ca4d33d2@time-travellers.org <mailto:9793c47c-2c44-47e3-033a-1d60ca4d33d2@time-travellers.org>>, Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org <mailto:shane@time-travellers.org>> wrote:
>As far as I know there is nothing in any policy about decommissioning >resources. (I'm not even sure what that would mean in practice...) > >I don't think that such a proposal would get consensus in the RIPE >community, but I am often wrong so if you want this then please submit a >policy proposal. The RIPE NCC staff, the working group chairs, or some >friendly community member can help you with this.
It might be interesting to float a proposal to tack on a small extra annual registration fee... say, another 12.5% or something... applicable to all respouces for which corrections to the contact info have not been made.
I agree that it would be politically problematic to outright kill someone's allocations, but making it just a little painful (if they are screwing up) might be helpful and productive.
Regards, rfg