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

* James Blessing:

> So what happens to 'orphaned' resources? Are RIPE NCC the 'sponsoring'
> LIR in this circumstance?

If the end user has got a direct contract with RIPE NCC, RIPE NCC
should be listed.

If the resource is truly orphaned, it should be recovered and
eventually reused.

> Does the NCC have the resources to deal with the increased level of
> avuse complaints that may be targeted at them with this change?

I suppose the yearly fee for the direct end-user contract would still
cover these costs.  If not, the fee could be adjusted.

> Who would be responsible for maintaining the relationship, the
> sponsoring LIR or the End user?

The field makes only sense if it is maintained by RIPE NCC and cannot
be edited directly by LIRs nor end users.

RIPE NCC could import the appropriate subset of its billing database
into the WHOIS database, as far as I understand it.

> Does this have an implication for mnt objects?

I don't think so.

-- 
Florian Weimer                <fweimer at bfk.de>
BFK edv-consulting GmbH       http://www.bfk.de/
Kriegsstraße 100              tel: +49-721-96201-1
D-76133 Karlsruhe             fax: +49-721-96201-99