On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 07:55:58PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
Well. Since this is procedures and not policy, we have no formal authority over this - OTOH, I think I'm not alone when I have the feeling that this exceeds the requirements of the policy by far.
+1
For normal end users, the policy requires "a contract with a sponsoring LIR", and I think it should be fully sufficient to leave questions of identity validation for natural persons to the LIR in question. Like "I know this person personally, I'm fine with doing business with him", that should be good enough for the NCC as well - after all, the whole idea of the "sponsoring LIR" construct is that the NCC has a trusted intermediate, and the end user does not have to deal with the NCC.
Strong ACK. Unfortunately, as far as I can see, NCC doesn't trust the RIPE membership to vouch for their customer's identities. And as far as I'm being told, there are a good number of examples that actually fuel NCC's distrust. Nevertheless, I think the current Due Dilligence process is far overreaching. Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0