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

Le mardi 08 avril 2008 à 16:09 +0100, Ian.Meikle at nominet.org.uk a
écrit :
> > 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.


it is not true for all domain.  and the "not for all" is important.

that why we do not support : contract for all RESSOURCE.  let choice by
change MUST by MAY.


bst regards.
Frederic


>  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
>