[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 07:11, "Frederic" <frederic at placenet.org> wrote:

[...]

>> Is your opposition to this proposal based on the size of the fee or are you
>> opposed to there being any fees at all?
>>
>
> 1) first i talk about domain for the way to check if is still alive: you
> receive one mail, two.... before is deleting. and you pay where you want
> your domain, you have a lot of choice.

This seems to be a procedural rather than a policy matter.

> About fees:
> When a real work is done , is normal to pay for is work. (and the amount
> is equal to the effort and time to made this work...).
>
>
> About:
> IANA -> RIPE NCC -> LIR -> PI recipient
> and may be
> IANA -> RIPE NCC -> PI recipient
>
> the probleme (and is a political problem) is to have choice.
>
> We support to have contractual link with the compagny that you decide
> for PI.
>
> request must be free (and free of tax ;).

That's not for us to decide. Fees are determined by the RIPE NCC membership,
not the Address Policy WG.

> In our non profit company, we talk about Ipv6. and we "do not
> understand" why assignement are different that Ipv4. why is not possible
> when you have Ipv4-Pi to request right now Ipv6-PI.
>
> "do not understand" = we understand the process, the ripe policy etc...
> but we do not understand why Pa assignement are available, not PI. (the
> answer was : we must go to policy proposal mailing list of ripe ;)

That's a different policy proposal than this one (2007-01). IPv6 PI
assignments are proposed in 2006-01 and 2008-01.

Regards,

Leo Vegoda