[address-policy-wg] 2022-02 New Policy Proposal (Remove mandatory IPv4 PA assignment registration in the RIPE Database)

Hi Jan,

On Mon, 24 Oct 2022 at 04:44, Jan Ingvoldstad <frettled at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 1:02 PM Leo Vegoda <leo at vegoda.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Oct 2022 at 03:50, Jan Ingvoldstad <frettled at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Does this approach rely on the registered user knowing about their
>> network and Internet connection? What happens when everything was
>> installed by an external contractor?
>
> I'm sorry, I don't understand. What does who installed a network have to do with this?
>
> You get in touch with an abuse contact, which is supposed to be whoever is responsible for handling abuse complaints for a network address.
>
> If a contractor's email address is somehow in there, then the contractor should know that their email address is listed as abuse contact, and when someone gets in touch about abusive content/behaviour hosted at A.B.C.D, either do something about it, or forward to the correct contact point.
>
> The same goes for any other scenario.

I am trying to understand the difference between an assignment that
lists a company name but has all the contact information pointing at
the LIR and just relying on the contact data in the allocation. Is
there any difference?

>> As I read the proposal, it is intended to allow LIRs to prune the
>> records they believe do not add value. It would enable discretion,
>> rather than blind obedience. Is that a negative? If so, why?
>
>
> This is putting the cart before the horse. The proposal should argue why this is a positive.

You are right. The obligation is on the proposal. But it is often
helpful to look at the complete picture when evaluating a proposal.

Kind regards,

Leo Vegoda, Address Policy WG co-chair