[anti-abuse-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2010-10 New Policy Proposal (Adding reference to sponsoring LIR in inetnum, inet6num and aut-num objects)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Emilio Madaio wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
> 
> A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-452,"Contractual Requirements
> for Provider Independent Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service
> Region", is now available for discussion.
> 
> 
> You can find the full proposal at:
> 
>     http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-10.html
> 
> We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to
> <anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net> before 10 December 2010.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Emilio Madaio
> Policy Development Officer
> RIPE NCC
> 

Can anybody explain why they feel this should not be done for allocation
objects (i.e PA) as well? I think this is completely crazy that we dont
have this already and would love to know what kind of misconceived ideas
about privacy may have gone into excluding this data in the first place.

Dave.


> 


- --

David Freedman
Group Network Engineering

david.freedman at uk.clara.net
Tel +44 (0) 20 7685 8000

Claranet Group
21 Southampton Row
London - WC1B 5HA - UK
http://www.claranet.com

Company Registration: 3152737 - Place of registration: England

All the information contained within this electronic message from
Claranet Ltd is covered by the disclaimer at
http://www.claranet.co.uk/disclaimer
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkzdONgACgkQtFWeqpgEZrLpTACgunEAjVbsHVf8A/uv64MXaBYs
G2AAoKfA47vazLJdJ5g4yfX4VDf+LrHr
=kG5I
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----