[db-wg] Re: [enum-wg] Proposal for new org-type

Per Heldal wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-10-04 at 09:47 +0200, Antoin Verschuren wrote:
> [snip]
>> I can see a reason for the term "REGISTRY" if RIPE intends to expand
>> heir services to more than IP network services, and doesn't feel to
>> create a long list of different marketing terms for different
>> organisations. I work for a ccTLD registry that is not an LIR, and
>> even though that is a clear Internet registry function like IANA,
>> RIR or LIR, RIPE currently does not supply a service for that
>> function that requires an entry in the DB. 
>> 
>> Conclusion:
>> I can live with ENUM-REGISTRY, REGISTRY, OTHER or no org-type at all.
>> I cannot live with the org-type NON-REGISTRY.
>> 
>> My prefference would be the ENUM-REGISTRY org-type.
> 
> 
> This proposal is taking things out of context. The word REGISTRY in
> RIPE-terms means an IP-address registry. Nothing more, nothing less.
> That your organisation is categorised as NON-REGISTRY by RIPE doesn't
> mean that RIPE does not acknowledge your role as a registry in some
> other context, just that you're not an ip-addr registry. Should the
> database contain exceptions for all kinds of registries which happen
> to deal with something else than ip-addresses?

That's why we changed the proposal to change the NON-REGISTRY into
OTHER.

Antoin Verschuren

Technical Advisor
Policy & Business Development
SIDN
Utrechtseweg 310
PO Box 5022
6802 EA Arnhem
The Netherlands

T +31 26 3525510
F +31 26 3525505
M +31 6 23368970
E antoin.verschuren at sidn.nl
W http://www.sidn.nl/