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/members-discuss@ripe.net/
[members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple LIR Accounts - Please Discuss
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple LIR Accounts - Please Discuss
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple LIR Accounts - Please Discuss
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sascha Luck [ml]
ripe-md at c4inet.net
Thu Feb 11 17:34:25 CET 2016
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 05:25:09PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote: >Thus, I think the NCC should not permit single entities to open >up multiple LIRs to weasel around policy restrictions. That I could get behind, because this offence, as stated, requires two facts to be true: a) an entity opens another LIR AND b) it does so in order to circumvent policy So, opening another LIR would require the NCC to ascertain motive before it approves the second LIR and *that* I could live with. For instance, someone trying to open $lots_of_lirs in a short time frame would be strong circumstantial evidence that they are up to no good... rgds, SAscha Luck
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple LIR Accounts - Please Discuss
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple LIR Accounts - Please Discuss
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]