-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Emilio Madaio wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-452,"Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region", is now available for discussion.
You can find the full proposal at:
http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-10.html
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> before 10 December 2010.
Regards
Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
Can anybody explain why they feel this should not be done for allocation objects (i.e PA) as well? I think this is completely crazy that we dont have this already and would love to know what kind of misconceived ideas about privacy may have gone into excluding this data in the first place. Dave.
- -- David Freedman Group Network Engineering david.freedman@uk.clara.net Tel +44 (0) 20 7685 8000 Claranet Group 21 Southampton Row London - WC1B 5HA - UK http://www.claranet.com Company Registration: 3152737 - Place of registration: England All the information contained within this electronic message from Claranet Ltd is covered by the disclaimer at http://www.claranet.co.uk/disclaimer -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkzdONgACgkQtFWeqpgEZrLpTACgunEAjVbsHVf8A/uv64MXaBYs G2AAoKfA47vazLJdJ5g4yfX4VDf+LrHr =kG5I -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----