[address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
frederic at placenet.org
frederic at placenet.org
Tue Apr 8 19:42:25 CEST 2008
> > > address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net wrote on 08/04/2008 16:29:22: > >> Frederic <frederic at placenet.org> >> Sent by: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net >> >> 08/04/08 16:29 >> >> To >> >> Ian.Meikle at nominet.org.uk >> >> cc >> >> address-policy-wg at ripe.net >> >> Subject >> >> Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct >> Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) >> >> Le mardi 08 avril 2008 à 16:09 +0100, Ian.Meikle at nominet.org.uk a >> écrit : >> > > Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda at icann.org> >> > > Sent by: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net >> > > >> > > 08/04/08 13:29 >> > > >> > > To >> > > >> > > Frederic <frederic at placenet.org>, Shane Kerr > <shane at time-travellers.org> >> > > >> > > cc >> > > >> > > Max Tulyev <president at ukraine.su>, "address-policy-wg at ripe.net" >> > > <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> >> > > >> > > Subject >> > > >> > > Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct >> > > Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) >> > > >> > > Hi Frederic, >> > > >> > > On 08/04/2008 03:58, "Frederic" <frederic at placenet.org> wrote: >> > > >> > > [...] >> > > >> > > > why is broken ? because Ripe do not implement relation between PI >> > holder >> > > > thru Database information. >> > > > >> > > > Dead PI is like Dead Domain name. >> > > >> > > This is a fairly good analogy. My understanding of domain names is > that >> > they >> > > are normally delegated according to a contract with a registry or >> > registrar. >> > > If the contract ends the delegation is removed. >> > > >> > There is a thriving market in 'dead' domain names. Several of our >> > registrars base their business models around buying them and reviving > them. >> > For this to work they need to have a contract with us, and they need >> to > pay >> > a fee per domain name. >> > >> > However, the leverage we have is that the contract on a domain name is > time >> > limited, with on option to renew. >> >> >> it is not true for all domain. and the "not for all" is important. >> >> that why we do not support : contract for all RESSOURCE. let choice by >> change MUST by MAY. >> >> > Can you provide a counter example? > counter exemple for ? domain ? .st .nf or .eu.org. all are free. Free because 1$ some time is huge. no contract because everybody is not hijacker and all idea may be possible. bst regards. Frederic > Ian >
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]