[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 ]
Randy Bush
randy at psg.com
Thu Mar 3 23:13:06 CET 2016
> 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. 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 ]