RIPE NCC · RIR Watchdog
Start here for the proposal-by-proposal record: what changed, why it mattered, who argued for what, how positions evolved, what was decided, and where the evidence still has gaps.
Source facts
Who actually shaped the debate?
BTW Analysis
RIPE policy proposal 2010-08, “Abuse contact information,” introduced on 8 November 2010, had one supplied version, 1.0. It proposed mandatory IRT references in inetnum, inet6num and aut-num database objects, a mandatory abuse-mailbox field in IRT objects, no new abuse-mailbox fields outside IRT objects, and deletion of existing such fields outside IRT objects by the end of 2012. The proposal was withdrawn on 10 May 2011; the supplied record shows no adoption through this proposal.
The proposal sought to make abuse contacts easier to find by standardizing where the RIPE Database would hold them. That potential discoverability and consistency came with a trade-off: resource holders would have to create and maintain IRT objects, and publication-format choice would be reduced. These are the proposal’s stated rationale and requirements, not evidence that the benefits or burdens were realized.
The recorded outcome is withdrawal, not adoption. The supplied snapshot records zero discussion messages and no stance histories, so it cannot establish what participants argued, whether there was consensus, or why the proposal was withdrawn. The proposal’s own supporting and opposing sections should not be mistaken for a record of participant debate.
The participation snapshot records zero messages and zero discussion participants, alongside one formal actor and one total participant. Message-share and concentration values are zero because there are no captured messages; they do not show broad or evenly distributed participation. This snapshot does not establish that only one person or organization took part in the wider process.
If adopted as written, the proposal would have shifted discretion over abuse-contact publication toward a mandatory database structure: covered objects would need IRT references, and abuse-mailbox data would be consolidated in IRT objects. That is a proposed registry-layer administrative mandate. Because the proposal was withdrawn, the record does not show that this change took effect through 2010-08, nor does it support stronger claims about enforcement or broader institutional power.
Loading
Partial
Earliest captured: Jun 30, 1992
Latest captured: Nov 12, 2026
