[address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Leo Vegoda
leo.vegoda at icann.org
Wed Jan 16 19:16:18 CET 2008
On 16 Jan 2008, at 18:56, Florian Weimer wrote: > * michael dillon: > >> - No PI assignments via LIRs. LIRs only manage PA IPv6. >> - special membership in RIPE with an annual fee for PI holders > > How do you handle lack of payment? Reuse the prefix? That seems > like a > bad idea to me. If this is a bad idea... > I would also see a mandate to keep current address information, > including legal details (register of companies number etc.) in the > WHOIS > database. RIPE NCC will investigate cases if proof is presented that > something is wrong in the database (bouncing email, non-working phone > number, bouncing snail mail, lack of matching entry in the register of > companies). ... then what is the enforcement mechanism here? You've just defined a system where the RIPE NCC will guarantee the uniqueness of address space for a one-time fee *and* allow registrants to remain anonymous after the first 12 months. I can see a definite market for something like this. Regards, Leo
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]