Hi Owen,

On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 2:52 PM Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote:

> Aftab, I think you misread the proposed language.
> First, neither the current version nor the proposed version refer to
> members at all, but to the actions of the APNIC, NIRs, and ISPs. The one
> change I think should be made there is to replace ISPs with LIRs since not
> all LIRs are technically ISPs, though that is certainly the most common
> case.

I agree with your first point, I did misread the language slightly :) so no
argument on that. But LIR will further confuse people as within APNIC
region we don't use this term as in RIPE NCC to replace it with every

> As to your “not limited to” or “services related to resources”, I fail to
> see how that is not addressed by the proposed “…and related services”.

The whole argument in the last meeting started because it states "Address
Resource" and whether this is the right platform to discuss something
related to whois or any other topic. I am in favor of making it more
generic rather putting specific words.

> I support the language proposed by Sumon whether or not he chooses to take
> my NIR suggestion.
> Owen
*              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
sig-policy mailing list

Reply via email to