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] Update on ALLOCATED PI/UNSPECIFIED
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Update on ALLOCATED PI/UNSPECIFIED
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Update on ALLOCATED PI/UNSPECIFIED
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Leo Vegoda
leo.vegoda at icann.org
Thu Aug 4 18:33:48 CEST 2016
Hi Gert, Gert Doering wrote: [...] > Right now, there are two different shades of "PI colour" - "real PI" > and "not really real PI". The first shade has the full obligations and > protection of 2007-01 - namely, a contractual relationship (via a > sponsoring LIR) with the NCC that clearly identifies who has "rights" > to that prefix. The other shade is also labeled "PI", but whether or > not contracts exist, and who is the legitimate holder, is less well > defined. Can you please expand on this? What are the risks that registrants of "not really real PI" face? Andrea's slide included a bullet stating that: "Many LIRs do not have contact with ASSIGNED PI customers anymore" Should I understand that to mean that there is a risk the LIR could take back the assignment? Kind regards, Leo Vegoda -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 4968 bytes Desc: not available URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160804/f69b60a0/attachment.p7s>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Update on ALLOCATED PI/UNSPECIFIED
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Update on ALLOCATED PI/UNSPECIFIED
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]