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/[email protected]/
[db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nick Hilliard
nick at inex.ie
Mon Mar 7 16:06:19 CET 2016
Randy Bush wrote: > NCC, to run the registry, do you need/want more than admin and tech? to run a registry, all you need is a billing address. Check out the IEEE OUI database. Their web page is great: http://standards-oui.ieee.org/ The internet community accepted a very long time ago indeed that it would be useful to have extra information in the RIR registries, beyond the baseline admin-c and tech-c, neither of which is strictly necessary. On a wholly unrelated issue, abuse happens on the Internet. When it does, people feel the need to be able to communicate with the people who have an management interest in the address blocks implicated in the abuse. In the absence of an abuse contact mailbox attached to address registration data, can you make some constructive suggestions about how a recipient of internet abuse can get in contact with the people who manage the address block and who, by implication, are likely to have some form of contractual relationship with whoever is instigating the abuse? Nick
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]