[address-policy-wg] Update on ALLOCATED PI/UNSPECIFIED
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Update on ALLOCATED PI/UNSPECIFIED
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Update on ALLOCATED PI/UNSPECIFIED
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Leo Vegoda
leo.vegoda at icann.org
Thu Aug 4 18:33:48 CEST 2016
Hi Gert, Gert Doering wrote: [...] > Right now, there are two different shades of "PI colour" - "real PI" > and "not really real PI". The first shade has the full obligations and > protection of 2007-01 - namely, a contractual relationship (via a > sponsoring LIR) with the NCC that clearly identifies who has "rights" > to that prefix. The other shade is also labeled "PI", but whether or > not contracts exist, and who is the legitimate holder, is less well > defined. Can you please expand on this? What are the risks that registrants of "not really real PI" face? Andrea's slide included a bullet stating that: "Many LIRs do not have contact with ASSIGNED PI customers anymore" Should I understand that to mean that there is a risk the LIR could take back the assignment? Kind regards, Leo Vegoda -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 4968 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160804/f69b60a0/attachment.p7s>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Update on ALLOCATED PI/UNSPECIFIED
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Update on ALLOCATED PI/UNSPECIFIED
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]