On Mar 12, 2008, at 10:55 AM, Sander Steffann wrote:
Hi,
Op 12 mrt 2008, om 10:40 heeft Hank Nussbacher het volgende geschreven:
If the RIPE (and other RIR) documentation on IP allocation where to be clear on these type of matters, these issues would not reach court.
Unfortunately I don't know if this is ERX, PA or PI space. I think that for PA and PI space the policy is clear enough. PA space stays with the LIR, and PI can not be assigned to other organisations. The policy even states that a contract is required between the LIR and the end-user to make clear that the end-user is required to return the address space when they leave the LIR.
I just hope that the judge respects the RIPE policies.
Knowing some of the background, this is messy. Some observations: - the original holder is bankrupt, so it seems the standard service agremeent, article 8.x applies, which means closure. - the merger/closure procdure makes a difference between wether or not the closing registry will keep providing connectivity, seems this is not the case (otherwise it wouldn't be a problem) - 10.2 of the service agreement states that all conflicts should be resolved using the arbitration procedure Can somebody from th NCC maybe respond on this, seems to me the judge will be out of it's jurisdiction by accepting this case as at least one party (and mybe the other) signed for ripe-321. Grtx, MarcoH