Colleagues We have taken into account the comments made in recent weeks and propose the following as the final draft of a problem statement. If there are no more comments on this then the co-chairs accept this as NWI-7 and we will move onto phase 2 and start to look at possible solutions to the defined problems. cheersDenisco-chair DB-WG Problem statement on "abuse-c:" implementation: =============================================== It is currently not possible to specify alternative abuse contacts for different resources in the RIPE Database held by different parts of the same organisation. It is currently not reasonably possible to specify alternative abuse contacts for resources in the RIPE Database assigned to organisations other than the parent oganisation. In many circumstances these organisations are customers of the parent organization. The lower organization wishes to handle the abuse separate from the parent organization. The current mechanism is considered by some people to be over complicated when it has to be set up manually. Others believe it is simple to implement using the API and available libraries. Others question the need for double indirection for abuse-c. This point may come down to a question of raw data manipulation vs tooled information management. After the introduction of "abuse-c", the "abuse-mailbox:" attribute in the PERSON, MNTNER, ORGANISATION and IRT objects was intended to be deprecated. This cleanup was never done and the old data causes confusion to users manually searching the database. After the introduction of "abuse-c", the implementation of the 'person' keyword did not get updated.