As a rough indication of the impact, how many ASNs are going to be affected by this move? Has any study been made on the number of ASNs with such invalid contact information in abuse-c, and are they concentrated anywhere in particular such as on specific ISPs?
If the objections to this proposal were not made on philosophical grounds, and made with loud protestations that the impact on RIPE NCC staffing resources would be too great, without actually making such assessments and seeing the data on who would actually be negatively impacted by this proposal ..
TL;DR – what data do we have available?
--srs
From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Andreas Worbs <anw@artfiles.de>
Organization: Artfiles New Media GmbH
Date: Wednesday, 13 September 2017 at 3:52 PM
To: <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net>
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02 New Policy Proposal (Regular abuse-c Validation)
I support this proposal, it's a good step in the right direction. Valid contact (incl abuse-c) information is necessary for such a database.
Also a validation of the abuse-c should be made with the resource registration for new resources.
Furthermore i don't know why some guys think a resource will be deregistered right after the resource is tagged as invalid. The proposal is obviuos
In cases where the “abuse-mailbox:” contact attribute is invalid, the RIPE NCC will follow up with the resource holder and attempt to correct the issue.
So there are some more steps before it will be deregistered, so cool down.
Am 07.09.17 um 13:59 schrieb Marco Schmidt: