[address-policy-wg] [Ext] Policies and Guidelines for Assignments for Network Infrastructure and End User Networks

Hi Leo,

Just to make it 100% clear for me: do you mean to say that you support my
proposal No. 2?

пн, 5 нояб. 2018 г., 23:12 Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda at icann.org>:

> Hi,
>
> Töma Gavrichenkov wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > When an End User has a network using public address space this
> > > _must_ be registered separately with the contact details of the End
> > > User. Where the End User is an individual rather than an
> > > organisation, the contact information of the service provider may
> > > be substituted for the End Users.
>
> [...]
>
> > All in all, RIPE-708 6.2 is a perfect example of an imperfect
> > policy, too strict and too vague at the same time. Which is bad,
> > because a) some ISPs would just prefer to ignore it, no matter
> > the "must", and would be paying less attention to other "musts"
> > they would encounter in other policy documents, b) those ISPs
> > who would choose to be responsible about RIPE DB usage risk
> > losing customers and wouldn't be able to defend their attitude
> > against the customers, let alone courts, based on the RIPE DB
> > policy.
>
> Over 20 years ago, the ISP at which I worked had a number of customers
> with home networks using public IP address space. The ISP placed its own
> contact information in the RIPE Whois Database with a comment that the
> address space was assigned to an individual customer.
>
> If I remember correctly this was done for two key reasons:
>
> 1. RIPE policy does not override the law of the land.
> 2. There was very little value in placing those customers' contact details
> in the RIPE Whois Database because they were network users and not network
> administrators. The ISP's NOC staff had skills, tools, processes, and
> training and were in a much stronger position to provide meaningful
> assistance to anyone with a genuine reason to make contact about the
> administration of one of those customer networks.
>
> As I remember, the RIPE NCC was happy with the rationale back then. While
> the specific wording of RIPE policy might have changed somewhat in the last
> 20 years, I don't think the intent has.
>
> The contact details of the End User do not have to mean their personal
> phone number or e-mail address. And if they do not have the skills, tools,
> processes, and training to provide meaningful assistance to anyone with a
> genuine reason to make contact about a specific network, providing a
> personal phone number or e-mail address is arguably unhelpful.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Leo Vegoda
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20181106/6753602b/attachment.html>