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

address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net wrote on 08/04/2008 16:29:22:

> Frederic <frederic at placenet.org>
> Sent by: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net
>
> 08/04/08 16:29
>
> To
>
> Ian.Meikle at nominet.org.uk
>
> cc
>
> 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)
>
> 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.
>
>
Can you provide a counter example?

Ian