[address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

I'll be short as I'm assisting an interesting presentation ;)

What I meant is that it's not "right" to be a contact person for them since
I'm not the one making decisions. I'm an interface and I should be able to
represent, help, interact but I feel by not allowing this, we're going too
far with the "contact person" trick (solution).

Ciprian

On Monday, October 24, 2016, Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl> wrote:

> Hi Ciprian,
>
> > Actually there were cases where we did like that, being put as a contact
> for the LIR. I don't think this should be the solution as it doesn't seem
> adequate at least. There were also cases where we would have to "speak" on
> behalf of both parties so it would be awkward if not unprofessional to be a
> contact person for both sides.
>
> This sentence does not parse. You have to speak on behalf of parties but
> you cannot be a contact person for them? That doesn't make sense. If you
> feel that is awkward or unprofessional to speak on behalf of both then
> don't. Get a separate broker that represents the other party. But in what
> you wrote above you contradict yourself.
>
> > From our experience the need is just to "translate" (figurative and not)
> the messages between NCC and LIRs. It is a situation we meet often and I
> think it should be addressed in a clear procedural way. I don't agree with
> using tricks.
>
> This is not a trick. If you can speak on behalf of an LIR then you are a
> contact and should be registered as such.
>
> Cheers,
> Sander
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20161024/31f30a30/attachment.html>