[anti-abuse-wg] WHOIS (AS204224)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] WHOIS (AS204224)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] WHOIS (AS204224)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Ronald F. Guilmette
rfg at tristatelogic.com
Tue Nov 10 02:52:10 CET 2015
In message <m2twovfghn.wl-Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie>, "Niall O'Reilly" <niall.oreilly at ucd.ie> wrote: >On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 00:40:52 +0000, >Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: >> >> While I do feel that the tripartite nature of the contracts in question >> is in fact self-evident, I can only agree that my opinion on this point >> is not informed by either a law degree, a "bar card" (as we say here >> in this country), nor even with a personal perusal of any of the >> contracts at issue. > > Thank you for confirming my belief that you've been guessing, and > that your guesses form the basis for your assertion that the "nature > of the contracts in question is [...] self-evident." I never claimed to be a laywer. Are you making such a claim for yourself? In any case, that's all irrelevant, and actually, this entire sub-thread is really just a meaningless digression from the essential point, which is that RIPE NCC can be and should be doing _something_ to insure the reliability of its data. It is beyond dispute, I believe, that there is absolutely nothing in either law or contracts that would prohibit it from doing so. If you mean to suggest otherwise, please do elaborate. Regards, rfg
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] WHOIS (AS204224)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] WHOIS (AS204224)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]