<html><head></head><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:Helvetica Neue-Light, Helvetica Neue Light, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, Sans-Serif;font-size:16px"><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1454000860178_16211"><span>Hi Gilles</span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1454000860178_16301"><br><span></span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1454000860178_16300"><span id="yui_3_16_0_1_1454000860178_16299">Yes it is possible to do this. I know I keep saying this and I know no one wants to even talk about it but the current data model does impose some limitations. However, even with these limitations it is all about how you perceive certain objects functions. An organisation that holds resources must have an ORGANISATION object if they are not legacy resources and may have one if they are legacy resources. There is nothing stopping that organisation creating multiple ORGANISATION objects and using them to represent departments within the same organisation or representing some sub characteristic of the organisation. Whatever it represents can be made clear in "descr:" and "remarks:" attributes within the other ORGANISATION objects. These ORGANISATION objects can be referenced from any more specific INETNUM object and contain an "abuse-c:" attribute.</span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1454000860178_16399"><br><span id="yui_3_16_0_1_1454000860178_16299"></span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1454000860178_16418" dir="ltr"><span id="yui_3_16_0_1_1454000860178_16299">I know this is a bit clumsy, but it IS easy to do and can be clearly documented and can accommodate any arrangement of abuse handling you wish to represent.</span></div><div dir="ltr"><br><span id="yui_3_16_0_1_1454000860178_16299"></span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1454000860178_16428" dir="ltr"><span id="yui_3_16_0_1_1454000860178_16299">cheers</span></div><div dir="ltr"><span id="yui_3_16_0_1_1454000860178_16299">denis</span></div><br> <div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1454000860178_16224" class="qtdSeparateBR"><br><br></div><div style="display: block;" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1454000860178_16232" class="yahoo_quoted"> <div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1454000860178_16231" style="font-family: Helvetica Neue-Light, Helvetica Neue Light, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, Sans-Serif; font-size: 16px;"> <div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1454000860178_16230" style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, Sans-Serif; font-size: 16px;"> <div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1454000860178_16229" dir="ltr"> <font id="yui_3_16_0_1_1454000860178_16233" face="Arial" size="2"> <hr size="1"> <b><span style="font-weight:bold;">From:</span></b> Gilles Massen <gilles.massen@restena.lu><br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net <br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Thursday, 28 January 2016, 19:18<br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2016-01 New Policy Proposal (Include Legacy Internet Resource Holders in the Abuse-c Policy)<br> </font> </div> <div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1454000860178_16234" class="y_msg_container"><br>Hello,<br clear="none"><br clear="none">Since the rationale mentions the "better quality of abuse contact data",<br clear="none">I'd like to point out that it is still not possible to have a different<br clear="none">abuse-c for different inetnums, if they belong to the same ORG. The<br clear="none">impossibility to have a "more specific" is the ONLY thing that prevents<br clear="none">me to have accurate abuse contact data for our LEGACY addresses, not the<br clear="none">absence of a specific policy.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">regards,<br clear="none">Gilles<div class="yqt4013647432" id="yqtfd64295"><br clear="none"><br clear="none"><br clear="none"><br clear="none"><br clear="none"></div><br><br></div> </div> </div> </div></div></body></html>