[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 ]
Leo Vegoda
leo.vegoda at icann.org
Wed Apr 9 14:53:49 CEST 2008
On 09/04/2008 06:23, "Frederic" <frederic at placenet.org> 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
- 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 ]