This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] On use of the word "sold" (was: 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers))
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] On use of the word "sold" (was: 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers))
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] On use of the word "sold" (was: 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers))
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet
Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at
Sat Apr 7 03:14:13 CEST 2012
Sascha Lenz wrote: > [...] I only remember the > ERX transfer project right now, which was a one-timer (IMHO), Correct, the goal was to rectify some artefacts, caused by (Internet-)History and to move the registration data to the "correct" one of the 3 RIRs. The process was managed collectively by the RIRs, thus not on a voluntary basis of a particular resource holder. And, there was no financial implication (in the sense of being compensated or charged). > but as usual i may be 100% wrong) I guess not in this case :-) Wilfried
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] On use of the word "sold" (was: 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers))
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] On use of the word "sold" (was: 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers))
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]