On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 12:05:28AM +0000, ripede...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
the sponsoring LIR should be restricted to an LIR in the same
geographical/political/language area as the end user resource
holder. Otherwise it could render the whole notion of an LIR
validating their sponsored user's data pointless.
IANAL, but I can't imagine that such a rule would even be legal
under EU legislation. Common Market, remember?
Considering that the Internet doesn't recognise any borders or
political blocs, this is one of the more outlandish suggestions
even for this forum.
Interesting point about the creation of this ORGANISATION
object. It touches on an issue I have been trying to raise for a
number of years. But I am almost universally shouted down by
most of the vocal members of the RIPE community whenever I
mention it. Even though many less vocal members have privately
Ah, "the majority agrees with me in email"
Sascha Caveat - ???we are not the [xyz] police??? .. in this
case, ???the document police??? .. a fine old trope, that.
I didn't actually write this, your quoting appears to be broken.
Sander "I personally think that someone holding resources should
at least be identifiable in the DB,"
I absolutely agree, but also anyone who partly manages any
aspect of a resource should be identifiable.
No. Just NO. I am, frankly, flabbergasted at this mindset:
1) All resource holders are presumed to be bad actors and all of
their data must be kept in a database, their correctness to be
strictly enforced.
2) It's no problem making this data available, for free, to every
Tom, Dick & Harry with an internet connection. The very idea that
someone might use this data for nefarious purposes is obviously
farcical.
There is a need to be able to reach a resource holder to notify
them of abuse coming from their network (the abuse-c) or
technical problems (the tech-c). There is NO need to have the
street address and phone number of every *person* "who partly
manages any aspect of a resource" in a public database, just to
satisfy the curiosity of some curtain-twitcher or give actual
criminals some data for ID theft purposes.
community and talks with the WG chairs. In the end, when the
RIPE NCC thinks it has worked out the best way to achieve the
policy, they present the final implementation plan with
timelines to the mailing list. If and when consensus is reached
on the implementation, the RIPE NCC will go ahead and do the
work.
For completeness' sake, if the policy leads to changes in the
members' contract or the Terms & Conditions, a membership vote at
the GM is also required for implementation.
rgds,
Sascha Luck
