[db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
denis
ripedenis at yahoo.co.uk
Thu Mar 3 11:40:55 CET 2016
On 03/03/2016 11:32, Randy Bush wrote: >>> so the idea is we mandate that there be an abuse-c: so that there is an >>> email address where we can send mail to which there will be no response? >> >> you could just as easily make the same arguments about admin-c or tech-c. > > no. being able to contact them is necessary for the ncc to maintain the > registry. It is not necessary to have either an admin-c or tech-c for the NCC to maintain the registry. The NCC has it's own internal details of how to contact resource holders. The admin-c and tech-c are a convenience for other network managers to contact each other. So even you are now confused over what is operationally useful and what is for registry accuracy. cheers denis > > randy >
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]