Hi Jan, On Mon, 24 Oct 2022 at 04:44, Jan Ingvoldstad <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 1:02 PM Leo Vegoda <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Mon, 24 Oct 2022 at 03:50, Jan Ingvoldstad <[email protected]> wrote: >> Does this approach rely on the registered user knowing about their >> network and Internet connection? What happens when everything was >> installed by an external contractor? > > I'm sorry, I don't understand. What does who installed a network have to do > with this? > > You get in touch with an abuse contact, which is supposed to be whoever is > responsible for handling abuse complaints for a network address. > > If a contractor's email address is somehow in there, then the contractor > should know that their email address is listed as abuse contact, and when > someone gets in touch about abusive content/behaviour hosted at A.B.C.D, > either do something about it, or forward to the correct contact point. > > The same goes for any other scenario.
I am trying to understand the difference between an assignment that lists a company name but has all the contact information pointing at the LIR and just relying on the contact data in the allocation. Is there any difference? >> As I read the proposal, it is intended to allow LIRs to prune the >> records they believe do not add value. It would enable discretion, >> rather than blind obedience. Is that a negative? If so, why? > > > This is putting the cart before the horse. The proposal should argue why this > is a positive. You are right. The obligation is on the proposal. But it is often helpful to look at the complete picture when evaluating a proposal. Kind regards, Leo Vegoda, Address Policy WG co-chair -- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg
