Bad wording.

Dear Joshua,

Indeed we are reworking our drafts at the moment in order to find a better way 
of addressing this issue. This one in particular.

I agree with you that we need to find a better way of wording this.

However, this particular issue has been thoroughly discussed on this maillist 
and the RIPE NCC does not intend to change any policies without consensus 
within the community. I sent a mail out earlier this year to the lir-wg, 
stating that we would bring this feedback to the other RIRs and also gather 
their input.

We did attend the APRICOT meeting last week where this issue was further 
discussed with representatives from all three RIRs present. We will shortly 
bring these conclusion to the LIR working group in order to move forward and 
reach a decision.

Kind regards,

Nurani Nimpuno
Registration Service Manager
RIPE NCC



 Joshua Goodall <joshua at ip.versatel.net> writes:
 * 
 * One of my colleagues recently received the following in reply to a 141:
 * 
 * "If your customer still uses HTTP/1.0, we need a confirmation that he will
 * return the addresses whenever a new policy set by the the LIR-working
 * group requires so."
 * 
 * Now this is often discussed, I know. The rightness of using HTTP/1.1
 * cannot be doubted.
 * 
 * However this wording is awful, because it sounds like the RIPE NCC is
 * dictating. In fact in this instance I was asked about the legal
 * possibilities of what they saw as a "restraint of trade".
 * 
 * Clearly, if clients respond like that, a better wording is required. Is
 * the NCC considering it? Or should this list aim to standardise it?
 * 
 * Regards,
 * 
 * Joshua
 * 
 * -- 
 * Joshua Goodall
 * IP Systems Development Team Leader            Tel: +31 20 711 3200
 * SpeedPort, Global Network                     Mob: +31 6 2859 3949
 * Infrastructure for the Internet Revolution    http://www.speedport.net/
 * 
 *