-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 17.10.2012 23:31, Sascha Luck wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:12:43AM -1000, Randy Bush wrote:
the LIR and the NCC may not be responsible for the abuse. but they are responsible for accurate and open publication of the information about who is responsible for the PI range.
Yes. If some LIR does not do that, contact the NCC. That is its function, it knows who sponsors the PI, and it has the powers to "convince" a LIR to keep its information current. Spam from self-appointed internet cops I can, as a LIR-contact, do without.
rgds, Sascha Luck
What I don't understand now: where is the need for the PI-owner to stay more or less anonymous and the NCC over three edges to follow up on that.. Just to keep a LIR's customers secret can't be the main argument - or again - is unfair - as if I remember policies right, as LIR with PA I have to tell in DB my customer.. Michael -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlB/JHwACgkQaWRHV2kMuAJ3LQCgl0gR3viab9vzkGhA/3eUkhlR 4eYAoIcX7PirTsH5hO3k8oMkuU9WIlt0 =jiBQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----