On 05/03/2016, 09:53, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of h.lu@anytimechinese.com" <anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net on behalf of h.lu@anytimechinese.com> wrote:
Hi
I fail to understand how spammer are legal in certain country has to do with my reasoning or logic.
The argument is about if there is managing position for community to take, my answer is no, we are not law enforcement and we only do book keeping, we don't tell people what to do, if they want to be good guy, great, if they don't care about spam or any abuse so to say, ok, it's their call.
Who? A LIR or an assignee? Considering the IPv4 space is such a valuable resource now I’d happily argue that if you do a bad job of managing it then maybe you shouldn’t have it
Making things mandatory with no real enforcing power are just not working.
That’s more of a chicken and egg argument. The issue that abuse-C resolves is the provision of a consistent and thus parseable contact point for abuse issues. Of course if there was a way to get abuse contacts to be more responsive then everyone would be happier (or unhappier .. ).
So make logic simple to understand, if the abuse is serious as crime, you don't need abuse c to get the right person(law enforcement has much better way than ripe db), if it is not serious as crime, if the op cares, with or without abuse c they will have their abuse contact there, and will deal with it. For ops don't care, with or without abuse c, they still don't care.
The issue isn’t that simple. Prior to the introduction of abuse-c people would try to contact whatever contact they could find.
So you can put up an extra line ask people to fill, but I don't think it makes much difference.
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://ceo.hosting/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845