I don’t believe the proposal offers enough benefit to be worth what implementation would likely
cost.
First, I am sincerely hoping that CGN is an extremely temporary situation. I’m not sure
it should be worth the effort to recode the registry to support it.
Second, I’m wondering if there’s any real advantage to having this level of detail on
residential subscribers that don’t even get full addresses, since we don’t really tend
to have it for single-address subscribers now.
IMHO, best to just let each ISP keep this information for themselves as the relevant contact
for abuse and such is usually the ISP and not the residential user anyway.
Owen
Dear Colleagues,
And, here is prop-115. No comment has not been made for this proposal.
If reached consensus, it may needs significant change for whois database.
I just reviewed implementation impact assessment by the Secretariat,
and it says it might take more than 6 months.
I think same thing will happen for whois database of each NIRs.
And if your company have a system linked with APNIC/NIR whois database, it will be impacted also.
As Chair, I'm always very neutral for each proposal, including prop-115.
However, I would like to emphasis prop-115 should be discussed more widely as it has wide impact.
It is very appreciated if you will express your views.
Regards,
Masato Yamanishi, Policy SIG Chair (Acting)
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.nethttp://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy