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] About transfer policies
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] About transfer policies
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] About transfer policies
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Dmitry P
head at global-data-networks.com
Tue Mar 3 16:49:20 CET 2020
I think what you are telling is out of the context of this issue. Me being a valid person or not in signing the documents is not in question and it is a proven fact because the extracts given by ministry of justice have a unique number that could be accessed and verified online any time by anyone. There are also a lot of resources that facilitate verifying any company information such as this one https://youcontrol.com.ua/en/catalog/company_details/40508891/ so I believe what you said is a little bit out of topic. The RIPE's issue with our extract is different and I believe I've described it very well in my first email. On 3/3/20 2:02 PM, Terrence Koeman wrote: > Well, *you* say that you meet the requirement that a valid person is signing the documents, but RIPE is not convinced. And it's RIPE that needs to be convinced before it becomes a fact to them in regards of their policy. That there is some unconnected fact of the matter is irrelevant. > > If your logic worked I could just send in no documents at all and say "why is it my problem that RIPE doesn't know the content of the documents?" >
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] About transfer policies
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] About transfer policies
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]