[anti-abuse-wg] WHOIS (AS204224)

In message <m2twovfghn.wl-Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie>, 
"Niall O'Reilly" <niall.oreilly at ucd.ie> wrote:

>On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 00:40:52 +0000,
>Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>>
>> While I do feel that the tripartite nature of the contracts in question
>> is in fact self-evident, I can only agree that my opinion on this point
>> is not informed by either a law degree, a "bar card" (as we say here
>> in this country), nor even with a personal perusal of any of the
>> contracts at issue.
>
>  Thank you for confirming my belief that you've been guessing, and
>  that your guesses form the basis for your assertion that the "nature
>  of the contracts in question is [...] self-evident."

I never claimed to be a laywer.  Are you making such a claim for
yourself?

In any case, that's all irrelevant, and actually, this entire sub-thread
is really just a meaningless digression from the essential point, which
is that RIPE NCC can be and should be doing _something_ to insure the
reliability of its data.  It is beyond dispute, I believe, that there
is absolutely nothing in either law or contracts that would prohibit
it from doing so.  If you mean to suggest otherwise, please do elaborate.


Regards,
rfg