Hi Jan, On Mon, 24 Oct 2022 at 04:44, Jan Ingvoldstad <frettled@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 1:02 PM Leo Vegoda <leo@vegoda.org> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2022 at 03:50, Jan Ingvoldstad <frettled@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