Hi Ciprian, > Actually there were cases where we did like that, being put as a contact for > the LIR. I don't think this should be the solution as it doesn't seem > adequate at least. There were also cases where we would have to "speak" on > behalf of both parties so it would be awkward if not unprofessional to be a > contact person for both sides.
This sentence does not parse. You have to speak on behalf of parties but you cannot be a contact person for them? That doesn't make sense. If you feel that is awkward or unprofessional to speak on behalf of both then don't. Get a separate broker that represents the other party. But in what you wrote above you contradict yourself. > From our experience the need is just to "translate" (figurative and not) the > messages between NCC and LIRs. It is a situation we meet often and I think it > should be addressed in a clear procedural way. I don't agree with using > tricks. This is not a trick. If you can speak on behalf of an LIR then you are a contact and should be registered as such. Cheers, Sander
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
