[ncc-services-wg] [policy-announce] 2012-08 New Policy Proposal (Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources)

2012-10-16 00:42, Sascha Luck skrev:
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 11:12:21PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>> On 15/10/2012 20:38, Sascha Luck wrote:
>>
>> I don't think that the sky is going to fall, or that the policy is
>> going to cause sinister attacks to occur with chilling effects. In
>> fact, I can't see even a single black helicopter.
>
> Well, you're thinking wrong - such (attempted) attacks have already
> happened against the NCC, including one that is currently pending
> judicial review. While the NCC may well be able to fend these off, I'm
> not convinced that all LIRs have the resources or the willingness.

First. I'm in favor of this proposal if the sponsoring LIR is clearly 
stated in the resource. Would it be to much to ask if the record in the 
db would reflect the relationship between sponsering LIR and the object 
maintainer? It could be as lightweight as "databasehelper-mnt" or 
something more suitable.

Secondly. We have done this for a number of years now, but in a slightly 
different way. We are transparent with our resources in RIPE. I would 
say that the sky will not fall down. At least not in Sweden. We get 
about 0.8% "DMCA take down requests" or similar in proportion to the 
number of assignment resources in the RIPE database that we have. We 
just have to politely respond to them and explain the situation. I think 
the average "take down" requester does not know how things work for the 
RIR/LIR. I can see a problem in a country where the law is in favor of 
"take down" requester. At least in Sweden, we see this much like 
National Land Survey. They have the responsibility for registering 
property, but not the operational responsibility for what happens there. 
If this is a problem for the RIPE region at large, I think we have to 
consider the proposal again. If not, see the first paragraph.


/Bengt Gorden