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]/
[members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Dariusz Margas
dariusz.margas at netregistry.com.au
Fri Jun 19 00:27:24 CEST 2009
On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: > point remains: there is -no- legal basis on which to bill existing PI > customers or on wich to force them to engage in a new contract, besides the already > fulfilled contract to "register ip space" for them, its quite close to > blackmail if the "threat" includes to remove their allocations if they > dont enter into a new recurring-payment contract (even if the lir would > pay for it and not charge the customer, the customer still has to enter > into a new contract, with which they potentially could have issues. Is there any law basis to say that such block has ben assigned forever? I don't see it that way. Law is being changed every day. Any law can be changed so why not allocation policy? Is it different then, say, acts governing banks? If you fulfill current requirements for anything ATM (say to be a bank) then you can do this thing (say you can be a bank). Next year you may need to fulfill different requirements to persist. That's it. Regards Dariusz Margas
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]