[anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
denis
ripedenis at yahoo.co.uk
Thu Mar 3 23:18:03 CET 2016
On 03/03/2016 23:13, Randy Bush wrote: >> No. It needs to contain accurate records of who has been delegated >> responsibility for that (admin-c / org). >> >> abuse-c is a way to ease finding the *right* contacts instead of always >> having to write paper mail to the company CEO - and that makes sense, >> but it's a convenience to operators (as is tech-c), and in no means >> required for the function as registry. >> >> Which might conincide with the fact that the paperwork you sign when >> opening a LIR has no field for abuse-c... > > bingo > > i suspect this may derive from the ncc mixing the registration data with > the irr data in a single whois hell. newer folk seem to think they are > the same. ...whilst the older folk are creating a new hell by clinging to the past and burying their heads in the sand... cheers denis > > randy >
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]