[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?
>

counter exemple for ?  domain ?

.st  .nf  or .eu.org. all are free.

Free because 1$ some time is huge. no contract because everybody is not
hijacker and all idea may be possible.

bst regards.
Frederic


> Ian
>