[lir-wg] Problems with route object update

>> We recommend that End Users maintain their PI inetnum themselves if they
>> want to do so. However, they are free to have their provider maintain it
>> for them if they want that, instead.
>
>Yes, I understand, the problem is if the LIR decides not to inform the
>customer of this option,

  This sounds like a business relation (ethics?) issue,
  rather than a registry or database issue.

>but if it was not an option for the LIR to be
>maintainer of the customers PI assignment (end user mandatory maintainer) it
>would solve the problem.

  2 problems here:

  - the LIR has to "donate" its resources to apply for the PI block with
    the NCC. So there may be a reason (in some cases) for protecting the
    object with the LIR's maintainer;

  - in our case (for customers with legacy addresses) we have an agreement
    in place to jointly manage and protect the inetnum objects. Some may
    even choose to have us do that as a service.
    For that reason, blocking this would be undesirable from my point of
    view.

  Wilfried.
 _________________________________:_____________________________________
  Wilfried Woeber                 : e-mail: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at
  UniVie Computer Center - ACOnet : Tel: +43 1 4277 - 140 33
  Universitaetsstrasse 7          : Fax: +43 1 4277 - 9 140
  A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe  : RIPE-DB: WW144, PGP keyID 0xF0ACB369
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~