[Internal-cg] Consultation Comments

[Alissa Cooper]

On Aug 6, 2015, at 11:33 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net> wrote:

> "If you do not mention an organisation your comment will be treated as
> coming from an individual. If you mention the organisation your comment
> will be treated as coming from the organization."

Is this not obvious on its face? I mean, what other interpretation could we have of a blank organization field?

Alissa

> 
> Anything else is too much open for interpretation.
> 
> Daniel
> 
> On 6.08.15 20:26 , Martin Boyle wrote:
>> I note that of the 10 comments received to date only two have completed
>> the “organisation” field.  Am I the only one to be concerned by this
>> lack of identification?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Could we adjust the form to make this field compulsory?  (It could be
>> completed as “individual” as the first submission has done.)  Or should
>> we warn that those who do not complete the organisation field will be
>> deemed to be filing personal comments?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I’m ok with people indicating:
>> 
>> ·         Individual
>> 
>> ·         Organisation nnn, but personal input
>> 
>> ·         Organisation input
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I am particularly concerned by an input from “community representative”
>> which gives no indication of origins.  I am afraid I instinctively
>> discount such input – perhaps unfairly.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> But perhaps my sore throat is making me particularly curmudgeonly this
>> evening.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Martin
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org