RIPE should be relying on its LIRs to reach out to customers with incomplete whois records, and possibly also collecting information on how many allocations with totally fake addresses (maildrops, empty lots) are made by a single LIR. Especially for /17 and larger, or /16 and larger netblocks.

On Saturday, April 7, 2012, Joe St Sauver wrote:

Florian commented:

#I looked at "Incorrect contact information in the RIPE Database", and
#"I confirm that I have reported the incorrect information to all of
#the contacts listed in the relevant object" is a required checkbox.
#
#This seems to require that complainants try postal addresses, phone
#and fax numbers before reporting errors in email addresses. Is this
#really your goal? Isn't this a step backwards?

I agree.

>From my POV, each data element should be treated independently. The
existence of a valid FAX number, for example, should not offset or
eliminate the importance (or the reportability) of working to correct
an invalid/non-deliverable email address.

Similarly, having found an invalid field in the whois, the reporter's
"responsibility" should be considered discharged upon their identifying
and reporting that data to RIPE. They should not be expected to exhaust
all potential contact methods, or to make multiple attempts to the
broken contact channel, or to hypothetically attempt to visit the
listed address in person, :-), just in order to be eligible to report
a problem with data of record.

The goal should be correcting potentially bad data, not making it hard
to report bad data or shifting work back upon public spirited community
volunteers.

Regards,

Joe