Hi Niall

What i am saying IS an argument to support my opinion. AFAIK adding abuse-c was the only time we've added a mandatory attribute in the last 10+ years. One where we subsequently required all resource holders to make changes to their data. We made a statement that all resources must reference an email where abuse reports can be sent. 

What we are suggesting now is that we add another mandatory attribute/value. One where we will subsequently require all resource holders to make changes to their data. We are making a statement that all resources  must reference an email where details of technical issues can be sent. 

It is exactly the same situation. We know that many resource holders don't follow all the individual working groups. Some of them may still follow policy announcements so they can comply with policy. 

We have in the past removed mandatory attributes. We have done this several times. The RIPE NCC did a mass update across the database to remove them. We did not force resource holders to make changes to their data. 

You have three problems here. Making people aware of the need to change their data. Pointing them to the authority to force this change on them. Getting them to take action. 

NWIs were introduced to offer a lightweight process to make simple technical changes to the database operation and usage. Policy is where you lay down the rules that all resource holders must comply with. 

From whatever angle you look at this, requiring all resource holders to provide an email address where details of technical issues can be sent is a policy change. 

Anyway, I've made my point. Now it's up to the handful of people who follow this mailing list to decide, or ignore. Good luck. Which ever way you go, you will need it. 

Cheers

Denis