<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/></head><body style="font-family:Geneva,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); ">Dear </span>Sergey<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); ">,</span><br />
<br />
I agree with Sergey. Every time when we have any troubles with PI-networks - we are receiving answer that end-user fully responsible for this IPs and LIR can't do anything with this resources. So doesn't make sense to show who is sponsoring LIR.<br />
<br />
--<br />
Kind regards,<br />
Alexey Ivanov<br />
LeaderTelecom B.V. Team<br />
<br />
<br />
15.10.2012 21:52 - Sergey Myasoedov написал(а):<br />
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4.0pt" type="cite">
<br />
I also disagree with the statement 'detect and react'. Sponsoring LIR is not<br />
responsible<br />
for the PI network and often does not provide any kind of IP connectivity.<br />
<br />
There is an existence of valid PI contacts listed as one of criteria for PI<br />
assignment.<br />
And this is enough.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Monday, October 15, 2012, 5:27:26 PM, you wrote:<br />
<br />
SL> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 04:23:56PM +0200, Richard Hartmann wrote:<br />
>>This could help curb, or at least detect and react to, abuse once IPv4<br />
>>PI is hopefully allowed once again.<br />
SL> That is exactly why I strongly oppose this proposal. Publishing the<br />
SL> sponsoring LIR for a PI assignment creates an appearance of<br />
SL> responsibility on the part of the sposoring LIR, for the actions of the<br />
SL> PI assignee, *that does not exist*.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
--<br />
Sergey<br />
<br />
</div>
</body></html>