This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net/
[anti-abuse-wg] WHOIS (AS204224)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] WHOIS (AS204224)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] WHOIS (AS204224)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sascha Luck [ml]
aawg at c4inet.net
Fri Nov 6 23:44:53 CET 2015
On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 11:38:52PM +0100, Sander Steffann wrote: > >But the RIPE NCC isn't an official party in that contract. The >contract is between end user and LIR. Well... Considering that such a contract must be submitted to, and approved by, the RIPE NCC (or it will not result in the assignment of resources); I'm of the opinion that a court might well see the NCC as a party. It has never been tested though (and neither has the NCC data protection policy) and my view doesn't seem to be shared by many... rgds, Sascha Luck
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] WHOIS (AS204224)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] WHOIS (AS204224)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]