Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda@icann.org> Sent by: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net
08/04/08 13:29
To
Frederic <frederic@placenet.org>, Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org>
cc
Max Tulyev <president@ukraine.su>, "address-policy-wg@ripe.net" <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>
Subject
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
Hi Frederic,
On 08/04/2008 03:58, "Frederic" <frederic@placenet.org> wrote:
[...]
why is broken ? because Ripe do not implement relation between PI holder thru Database information.
Dead PI is like Dead Domain name.
This is a fairly good analogy. My understanding of domain names is that they are normally delegated according to a contract with a registry or registrar. If the contract ends the delegation is removed.
There is a thriving market in 'dead' domain names. Several of our registrars base their business models around buying them and reviving them. For this to work they need to have a contract with us, and they need to pay a fee per domain name. However, the leverage we have is that the contract on a domain name is time limited, with on option to renew. If they do not renew then we remove the domain name from DNS. There is then a time lag before the domain is released back into the market. In other words, we control service, so we can enforce the contract. The NCC does not have a similar lever. Regards, Ian Regards, Ian
Le mardi 08 avril 2008 à 16:09 +0100, Ian.Meikle@nominet.org.uk a écrit :
Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda@icann.org> Sent by: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net
08/04/08 13:29
To
Frederic <frederic@placenet.org>, Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org>
cc
Max Tulyev <president@ukraine.su>, "address-policy-wg@ripe.net" <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>
Subject
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
Hi Frederic,
On 08/04/2008 03:58, "Frederic" <frederic@placenet.org> wrote:
[...]
why is broken ? because Ripe do not implement relation between PI holder thru Database information.
Dead PI is like Dead Domain name.
This is a fairly good analogy. My understanding of domain names is that they are normally delegated according to a contract with a registry or registrar. If the contract ends the delegation is removed.
There is a thriving market in 'dead' domain names. Several of our registrars base their business models around buying them and reviving them. For this to work they need to have a contract with us, and they need to pay a fee per domain name.
However, the leverage we have is that the contract on a domain name is time limited, with on option to renew.
it is not true for all domain. and the "not for all" is important. that why we do not support : contract for all RESSOURCE. let choice by change MUST by MAY. bst regards. Frederic
If they do not renew then we remove the domain name from DNS. There is then a time lag before the domain is released back into the market. In other words, we control service, so we can enforce the contract. The NCC does not have a similar lever.
Regards,
Ian
Regards,
Ian
address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net wrote on 08/04/2008 16:29:22:
Frederic <frederic@placenet.org> Sent by: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net
08/04/08 16:29
To
Ian.Meikle@nominet.org.uk
cc
address-policy-wg@ripe.net
Subject
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
Le mardi 08 avril 2008 à 16:09 +0100, Ian.Meikle@nominet.org.uk a écrit :
Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda@icann.org> Sent by: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net
08/04/08 13:29
To
Frederic <frederic@placenet.org>, Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org>
cc
Max Tulyev <president@ukraine.su>, "address-policy-wg@ripe.net" <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>
Subject
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
Hi Frederic,
On 08/04/2008 03:58, "Frederic" <frederic@placenet.org> wrote:
[...]
why is broken ? because Ripe do not implement relation between PI holder thru Database information.
Dead PI is like Dead Domain name.
This is a fairly good analogy. My understanding of domain names is that they are normally delegated according to a contract with a registry or registrar. If the contract ends the delegation is removed.
There is a thriving market in 'dead' domain names. Several of our registrars base their business models around buying them and reviving them. For this to work they need to have a contract with us, and they need to pay a fee per domain name.
However, the leverage we have is that the contract on a domain name is time limited, with on option to renew.
it is not true for all domain. and the "not for all" is important.
that why we do not support : contract for all RESSOURCE. let choice by change MUST by MAY.
Can you provide a counter example? Ian
participants (2)
-
Frederic -
Ian.Meikle＠nominet.org.uk