Hello all, It's good to see so much discussion. Just to clarify something, the admin-c can be a role object. This is something that was decided 1 or 2 RIPE meetings ago. The latest release of the database code supports this fully now. When you do a recursive look-up of an inetnum object you will now see any role objects that were referenced in the admin-c attribute (in the past you would only see role objects referenced in tech-c but not admin-c). I will wait until the end of the week for responses, and then try to summarize the views here and come up with a suggestion. Kind regards, Paula Caslav RIPE NCC
If my memory serves me right the requirement for the asmin-c to be on site was primarily intended to make sure that the person belonged to the organisation using the resource concerned and not a consultant or contractor. I think it is perfectly reasonable to drop the 'on site' requirement and replace it with 'belongs to the organisatin using the resource' (address space in this context). Also I'd like to clarify the expectations of an admin contact and why it is different rom the tech contact. The tech contact is the contact for all operational aspects of the resource mentioned. They will be contacted if there is a technical or operational issue to be addressed. The admin contact is the one who is administratively responsible for the use of the resource. They will be contacted if there is a clearly administrative issue or *if any technical issue cannot be resolved with the tech-c*. So the ecpectation is that the admin-c is somewhat higher in the management chain of the organisation than the tech-c, or if the tech-c is not in the same organisation the admin-c can influence their contractors. It is an escalation contact. This is a very useful thing to have. That is why it is required and it should remain so. Also it should be the contact for issues that may lead to legal actions or some such. Daniel
participants (2)
-
Daniel Karrenberg -
Paula Caslav