On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 11:52:06 +0100 Gert Doering <g...@space.net> wrote: > Hi, > On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 10:53:55AM +0200, ox wrote: > > To answer the question though: This proposal does make the world a > > better place. > > If a resource holder wishes to be allocated scarce public resources > > such a resource holder should also be responsible about the > > operations of such scarce public resources. > In which way, exactly, would this proposal have an effect to achieve > this goal (a goal that I share, to state it explicitly)? > I maintain the position that those that do care can be reached today, > and those that do not care will find ways to fulfill the letter of > the policy, and not change their ways. > So, to repeat Malcolm's position: if we introduce new work for the > NCC and the LIRs, does it improve things enough to be the right thing > to do? > (As a side note, we recently were contacted by the NCC because one of > our 'sponsoring LIR' customers had changed their primary domain and > forgot to update their contact details in the RIPE DB, thus, making > them unreachable. Someone noticed, complained to the NCC, the NCC > contacted the sponsoring LIR, and contact details were corrected. > Things seem to work today where people care...) > simply because it does not really stop a determined thief from stealing your car, should we stop installing locks on car doors?
the "new work" that you are talking about is establishing that submitted data is accurate. in the RIR case, this is paramount anyway and for LIR, submit real and updated data oh, and do not use: mickeymo...@example.com - if you want public resources, is not unreasonable at all. Yes, you are quite correct. (I agree completely) you have those who care and those who do not. And yes, those that do not care will find ways around it. But having some sort of policy is a start, even though what we are actually ending up with is not much at all and even then there are those that think even having a watery (watered down, toothless, etc) policy is a future threat. in practice there exists a problem and it is a real problem, so my view is simply 'baby steps' - so, of course this means that Sascha is also correct as there are people (like me) who will in the future argue for even more... - but to now use this compromise of those that want more with those that want nothing - as an actual reason to object, is ludicrous and frankly objectionable in itself. (and should not be taken into consideration as any real objection anyway) Regards Andre
