What I meant is that it's not "right" to be a contact person for them since I'm not the one making decisions. I'm an interface and I should be able to represent, help, interact but I feel by not allowing this, we're going too far with the "contact person" trick (solution).

On Monday, October 24, 2016, Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> wrote:

Hi Ciprian,

> Actually there were cases where we did like that, being put as a contact for the LIR. I don't think this should be the solution as it doesn't seem adequate at least. There were also cases where we would have to "speak" on behalf of both parties so it would be awkward if not unprofessional to be a contact person for both sides.

This sentence does not parse. You have to speak on behalf of parties but you cannot be a contact person for them? That doesn't make sense. If you feel that is awkward or unprofessional to speak on behalf of both then don't. Get a separate broker that represents the other party. But in what you wrote above you contradict yourself.

> From our experience the need is just to "translate" (figurative and not) the messages between NCC and LIRs. It is a situation we meet often and I think it should be addressed in a clear procedural way. I don't agree with using tricks.

This is not a trick. If you can speak on behalf of an LIR then you are a contact and should be registered as such.

Cheers,
Sander