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

On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:20:53PM +0200, Michael Markstaller wrote:
>Who is it then?
>
>Sorry, thats a little unfair..
>We as LIR and me as CTO have to be responsible for our resources.
>Lets say it a little drastic: If someone asks me for a /24 to spam the
>world, I'd tell him I won't do this as I'm responsible what happens
>there. Point.

They are not *your* resources, they are Provider-Independent. You can,
of course, write in your PI contract what you want, but not all of us
want to play internet police for some PI space we may not even route.

>But would it be ok to tell: "Well, hmm, get a PI don't tell anybody
>it's from me and push out your shit over another provider so they just
>don't call up me?"
>Don't think so..

Yes, in the case of a politically controversial website or something
like that (think mohammed videos or such) this may be the *only* way for
someone to get PI and I'd like to keep it like that.

>
>> That, the sponsoring LIR *IS* responsible for since 2007-01, so
>> any non-contactable PI holders should be shut down when the next
>> payday comes around at the latest. Also the NCC can shutdown LIRs
>> for incorrect information, I assume that to include PI
>> information.
>
>I don't see this to happen but I maybe wrong..

The shutdown clause is in the Service Agreement (albeit as a last resort
if a LIR is uncooperative in the case of incorrect data)

rgds,
Sascha Luck