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/ncc-services-wg@ripe.net/
[ncc-services-wg] Re: [dns-wg] Re: dnsmon / .org
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Re: [dns-wg] Re: dnsmon / .org
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Re: [dns-wg] Re: dnsmon / .org
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
David Kessens
david at iprg.nokia.com
Wed Sep 10 23:46:25 CEST 2003
Daniel, On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 03:50:01PM +0200, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > > I could write a reply rant about the individual points in your rant but > the main difference of opinion we have is about the mission of the RIPE NCC. > This mission is broader than just being a RIR: While I would like to agree with you, I don't think it is all that simple. To me it sounds like this whole discussion is avoiding the real problem: The RIPE NCC's RIR function is a monopoly. People who need addresses cannot go anywhere else. They have the option to become a LIR and pay for all it's services or choose not to receive any ip addresses at all. Sooner or later this is going to draw unwanted attention from authorities. Isn't it better to take preventive action now and make sure that the monopoly function is sufficiently separate of the other activities of the NCC in order to avoid this kind of problems ?!? David K. ---
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Re: [dns-wg] Re: dnsmon / .org
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Re: [dns-wg] Re: dnsmon / .org
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]