Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
-
To: Frederic frederic@localhost, Jeroen Massar jeroen@localhost
-
From: Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda@localhost
-
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 05:53:49 -0700
-
Accept-language: en-US
-
Acceptlanguage: en-US
-
Cc: Ian Meikle <Ian.Meikle@localhost, "address-policy-wg@localhost" address-policy-wg@localhost
On 09/04/2008 06:23, "Frederic" frederic@localhost wrote:
[...]
> Today if i justify to receive a PI, i have it without any Contractual
> Obligation.
Can you please explain why you are concerned about contractual obligations?
The current system is slightly ambiguous and it could be argued that this
places registrants in a risky situation. The RIPE NCC could act
capriciously, or make a mistake, and revoke an assignment. The (now ex)
registrant would be at a disadvantage when they sought redress.
I personally think the scenario described above is very unlikely but
nonetheless, it is a possibility.
In my opinion, introducing contracts is as much about protecting the
registrant as it is about protecting the RIPE NCC and the community of
network operators.
Regards,
Leo Vegoda
|
you are here: RIPE -> RIPE Maillists > Archives
