[ncc-services-wg] legacy holders paying for registration services and 2012-07v2

Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 27/02/2013 14:12, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> 
>>so will this be enough to satisfy legal due diligence
> 
> 
> ... for e.g. certification.

If we take a step back and try to model the tree/mesh of responsibility on
the operational reality, and install a structure with CA and RA(s), then,
imho, YES.

> Nick

But the question regarding "legal due diligence" may be asked the other way
'round, too: we've got a holder and user of a resource, and someone (an RIR)
questions the rightfulness (is this an engl. word?), then wouldn't it be
"fair" for that party to come up with the "documentation", from a legal pov?

I know that this is sort of "funny", from an abuse/security perspective. But,
what I want to achieve and argue for, is to decouple the registration service
from the operational (ab)use aspects.

The Registry does have a clear mandate for the former, but not really for the
latter.

Wilfried.