I'll be short as I'm assisting an interesting presentation ;) What I meant is that it's not "right" to be a contact person for them since I'm not the one making decisions. I'm an interface and I should be able to represent, help, interact but I feel by not allowing this, we're going too far with the "contact person" trick (solution).
Ciprian On Monday, October 24, 2016, Sander Steffann <san...@steffann.nl> wrote: > 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 > >
