[ncc-services-wg] legacy holders paying for registration services and 2012-07v2
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] legacy holders paying for registration services and 2012-07v2
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] legacy holders paying for registration services and 2012-07v2
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Daniel Stolpe
stolpe at resilans.se
Wed Feb 27 15:36:01 CET 2013
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013, Wilfried Woeber wrote: > Nick Hilliard wrote: >> On 27/02/2013 14:12, Nick Hilliard wrote: >> >>> so will this be enough to satisfy legal due diligence >> >> >> ... for e.g. certification. > > If we take a step back and try to model the tree/mesh of responsibility on > the operational reality, and install a structure with CA and RA(s), then, > imho, YES. > >> Nick > > But the question regarding "legal due diligence" may be asked the other way > 'round, too: we've got a holder and user of a resource, and someone (an RIR) > questions the rightfulness (is this an engl. word?), then wouldn't it be > "fair" for that party to come up with the "documentation", from a legal pov? > > I know that this is sort of "funny", from an abuse/security perspective. But, > what I want to achieve and argue for, is to decouple the registration service > from the operational (ab)use aspects. > > The Registry does have a clear mandate for the former, but not really for the > latter. > > Wilfried. Well put Wilfried. I agree. Regards, Daniel Stolpe _________________________________________________________________________________ Daniel Stolpe Tel: 08 - 688 11 81 stolpe at resilans.se Resilans AB Fax: 08 - 55 00 21 63 http://www.resilans.se/ Box 13 054 556741-1193 103 02 Stockholm
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] legacy holders paying for registration services and 2012-07v2
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] legacy holders paying for registration services and 2012-07v2
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]