[db-wg] RIPE abuse finder

On 06.03.2013, at 14:46 , Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 02:00:01PM +0100, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
>> There is no misunderstanding here at all. If you remove a maintainer
>> this just exposes the fact that indeed you do no longer consider
>> yourself responsible for maintaining these person objects. If no-one
>> else puts on their maintainer and assumes responsibility the object
>> is just unmaintained. But as long as a mnt-by: exists the assumption
>> has to be that the maintainer is indeed responsible to maintain the
>> data and indeed also for maintaining abuse contact information.
>> Note well that the mnt-by: attribute gives the maintainer the
>> authority to make changes.
> 
> Yes - I feel responsible to update that person: object, if need arises.

There seems to be a need for an abuse-mailbox for this person object or their resources ...... ;-)
I would not be surprised that you may also very well be the person that we will have to ask for an an abuse-c soon ...

> 
> You are constructing a responsibility to handle network abuse coming
> from an inetnum: that happens to reference this person: object from this
> (which whould be logical to assume for the the mntner of an *inetnum:* 
> object).

We do not. You know exactly where the "delete" key is. Of course it would be better if you forwarded the message to the person whose object you feel responsible to maintain.

I am the first to agree that we need to communicate the "quality" of the information we provide. That is why we included a "star rating" in RIPEstat. This needs further optimisation sure ...

> This is what I'm objecting to.

We as a community have to maintain an accurate registry. the first responsibility for this is with the "maintainers". Abuse contact information is a part of that because there is a need for it from users of the registry. We have policies in place to improve that significantly, but we cannot just halt everything until they are fully implemented. It would be very very bad if we as a community are perceived to be unable to maintain an accurate registry and to answer legitimate user queries. All sorts of entropy of the could arise from that, above all that of the regulatory kind.


> 
> Gert Doering
>        -- NetMaster
> -- 
> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
> 
> SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
> D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
> Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279