[address-policy-wg] Post Ident / Post Brief

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 at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0