[address-policy-wg] Post Ident / Post Brief
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Post Ident / Post Brief
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Post Ident / Post Brief
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Daniel Roesen
dr at cluenet.de
Tue Feb 25 23:37:59 CET 2014
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 07:55:58PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote: > Well. Since this is procedures and not policy, we have no formal > authority over this - OTOH, I think I'm not alone when I have the feeling > that this exceeds the requirements of the policy by far. +1 > For normal end users, the policy requires "a contract with a sponsoring > LIR", and I think it should be fully sufficient to leave questions of > identity validation for natural persons to the LIR in question. Like > "I know this person personally, I'm fine with doing business with him", > that should be good enough for the NCC as well - after all, the whole > idea of the "sponsoring LIR" construct is that the NCC has a trusted > intermediate, and the end user does not have to deal with the NCC. Strong ACK. Unfortunately, as far as I can see, NCC doesn't trust the RIPE membership to vouch for their customer's identities. And as far as I'm being told, there are a good number of examples that actually fuel NCC's distrust. Nevertheless, I think the current Due Dilligence process is far overreaching. Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Post Ident / Post Brief
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Post Ident / Post Brief
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]