Hi Denis, thanks for the clarification! I do see 3 aspects here: 1. the registration is in the APNIC DB. While I do not see any problem at all, discussing abuse issues on the RIPE Community's anti-abuse mailing list, I am a bit hesitant to accept the potential implication that the RIPE community, or the RIPE NCC, should take the blame for something it/we do not have control of. 2. I was under the impression that in the RIPE DB, a reference to a person object was enforced, at the end of the food chain. If this is not the case right now, we MAY|SHOULD discuss the need for an amendment - but read on! 3. (violating my own item 1. :-) and) looking at the entry as quoted: there is the company's name, the postal address, an abuse@ email: and both a tel. and fax. number. So - what is the added benefit of a person's name (which could easily be Mr. Micky Mouse for the whois record :-) The reason why I am nit-picking here is as follows: imho we should encourage all parties to provide correct and useable information to get in contact if and when there's a good reason for trying to. Requiring, as a strict formality, to provide any and all particular pieces of data and in a very strict format, potentially violating good reasons for not identifying individual persons, may actually impede achievement of our goal. Wilfried. Denis Walker wrote:
Dear Wilfried,
Putting aside the specific reason for looking up a contact in this case and look at the wider consequence for the RIPE Database. I thought we disallowed self referencing ROLE objects. But we only disallow creation of self referencing ROLEs using 'AUTO-' and circular references with ROLE A -> ROLE B -> ROLE A.
The way the rules are now, taken to an extreme, the entire RIPE Database could exist without a single 'real' PERSON listed. All number resources could be anonymised by referencing self referencing ROLE objects. All allocations, mandatory organisations for allocations, ASNs, PI resources, routing data could be set up so that no real person takes any responsibility for any resource, publicly.
Of course real people still need to sign contracts to become members and get resources, but from a public perspective everything can be totally anonymised as the rules are now.
Regards Denis Walker Business Analyst RIPE NCC Database Group
On 28/08/2012 16:14, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:
U.Mutlu wrote:
Because of errors in their DNS server I need to contact their tech-c, not their abuse dept.
I was under the impression that the contact for (technical) errors regarding DNS zone configuration is to be found in the zone's SOA record, as an RFC822 (or newer) field.
And/or by way of the name registry and/or registrar.
Where does the numbers registry information come into the picture?
Wilfried