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]/
[ncc-services-wg] legacy holders paying for registration services and 2012-07v2
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] legacy holders paying for registration services and 2012-07v2
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] legacy holders paying for registration services and 2012-07v2
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nick Hilliard
nick at foobar.org
Wed Feb 27 15:29:08 CET 2013
On 27/02/2013 14:27, Wilfried Woeber wrote: > But the question regarding "legal due diligence" may be asked the other way > 'round, too: we've got a holder and user of a resource, and someone (an RIR) > questions the rightfulness (is this an engl. word?), then wouldn't it be > "fair" for that party to come up with the "documentation", from a legal pov? I don't know the answer to these questions. Probably the RIPE NCC will need to get a legal opinion on this, which might happen in the review stage of the PDP. Nick
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] legacy holders paying for registration services and 2012-07v2
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] legacy holders paying for registration services and 2012-07v2
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]