The goal of this proposal is to give the RIPE NCC a mandate to regularly validate "abuse-c:" information and to follow up in cases where contact information is found to be invalid.

which states:

b. Arguments opposing the proposal [...] If organisations are not cooperative, the RIPE NCC ultimately has the possibility to close their RIPE NCC membership and deregister their Internet number resources.

The most serious problem with this proposal is that it's saying: "make sure your abuse-c mailbox is working and if it isn't, this proposal is explicitly threatening that the RIPE NCC can take your numbering resources away". This is a highly aggressive approach and I don't think this is a viable or appropriate way of handling stewardship of IP numbering resources, and particularly not from a monopoly organisation. Useful abuse management is far more than tickbox compliance with having your abuse-c mailbox connected up to an autoresponder. A working abuse-c mailbox is great, but mandating this requirement in this way is going to turn the abuse-c mechanism into a window-dressing exercise which can be satisfied by an autoresponder. On this basis I don't support this proposal. Why didn't the authors just talk to the RIPE NCC and ask them to include abuse-c validation in the Assisted Registry Check? This seems like a far less heavy-handed option than creating a policy proposal. It also involves better quality community outreach, and without the threat of aggression implicit in proposal 2017-02. Nick