[anti-abuse-wg] central whois

Dear Colleagues,

One of the changes that was made with the introduction of the "abuse-c:" 
attribute was to make "admin-c:" and "tech-c:" optional attributes on 
the ROLE object. The specific purpose of this was to allow abuse contact 
information to be strictly a 'role' and not force references to real 
people with personal details. The intention of "abuse-c:" is to clearly 
and simply document business contact information for a department where 
abuse can be reported. Even if that department is an individual, it does 
not need to be personal data.

Regards
Denis Walker
Business Analyst
RIPE NCC Database Team


On 20/06/2013 16:15, Frank Gadegast wrote:
> Benedikt Stockebrand wrote:
>> Hi Frank and list,
>>
>> Frank Gadegast <ripe-anti-spam-wg at powerweb.de> writes:
>>
>>> but an end user would never us a whois service and play with options
>>> ...
>>
>> I won't bother you with the entirety of a rather scary story, but I've
>> had a colleague listed as admin-c for a large dial-in address pool.  One
>> day he received a death threat by some end user who assumed him to be
>> responsible for something someone has done using one of these addresses
>> (details over a beer at the next RIPE meeting if you press me).
>
> Sad, but how can you submit a death threat to a role persons (object) ?
>
>> If you make looking up the admin-c for an address as easy as some people
>
> No, not the admin-c, the abuse contact email addresses, that are
> already published ...
>
>> here like, this will lead to a significant-to-unbearable extra burden on
>> the people listed as admin-c; the result is rather likely that admin-c's
>> will have no option but to resort to rather heavy automated filtering.
>> I have significant doubt that this is in any way helpful.
>
> Only the abuse email address published by the ISPs or resource holder
> will be available.
> Its up to every resource holder to publish, what he thinks whats accurate.
> Usally a role address like abuse at sitename.de or so ...
>
>
> Kind regards, Frank
>
>> So please, try to find some sort of balance here.  Evacuating an office
>> until the police arrive isn't something you---or your management---want
>> to happen more often than can be helped.
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>>      Benedikt
>>
>
>
>