[address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)

> Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda at icann.org>
> Sent by: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net
>
> 08/04/08 13:29
>
> To
>
> Frederic <frederic at placenet.org>, Shane Kerr <shane at time-travellers.org>
>
> cc
>
> Max Tulyev <president at ukraine.su>, "address-policy-wg at ripe.net"
> <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
>
> Subject
>
> Re: [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 03:58, "Frederic" <frederic at placenet.org> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > why is broken ? because Ripe do not implement relation between PI
holder
> > thru Database information.
> >
> > Dead PI is like Dead Domain name.
>
> This is a fairly good analogy. My understanding of domain names is that
they
> are normally delegated according to a contract with a registry or
registrar.
> If the contract ends the delegation is removed.
>
There is a thriving market in 'dead' domain names. Several of our
registrars base their business models around buying them and reviving them.
For this to work they need to have a contract with us, and they need to pay
a fee per domain name.

However, the leverage we have is that the contract on a domain name is time
limited, with on option to renew. If they do not renew then we remove the
domain name from DNS. There is then a time lag before the domain is
released back into the market. In other words, we control service, so we
can enforce the contract. The NCC does not have a similar lever.

Regards,

Ian

Regards,

Ian