Dear Joshua, Indeed we are reworking our drafts at the moment in order to find a better way of addressing this issue. This one in particular. I agree with you that we need to find a better way of wording this. However, this particular issue has been thoroughly discussed on this maillist and the RIPE NCC does not intend to change any policies without consensus within the community. I sent a mail out earlier this year to the lir-wg, stating that we would bring this feedback to the other RIRs and also gather their input. We did attend the APRICOT meeting last week where this issue was further discussed with representatives from all three RIRs present. We will shortly bring these conclusion to the LIR working group in order to move forward and reach a decision. Kind regards, Nurani Nimpuno Registration Service Manager RIPE NCC Joshua Goodall <joshua@ip.versatel.net> writes: * * One of my colleagues recently received the following in reply to a 141: * * "If your customer still uses HTTP/1.0, we need a confirmation that he will * return the addresses whenever a new policy set by the the LIR-working * group requires so." * * Now this is often discussed, I know. The rightness of using HTTP/1.1 * cannot be doubted. * * However this wording is awful, because it sounds like the RIPE NCC is * dictating. In fact in this instance I was asked about the legal * possibilities of what they saw as a "restraint of trade". * * Clearly, if clients respond like that, a better wording is required. Is * the NCC considering it? Or should this list aim to standardise it? * * Regards, * * Joshua * * -- * Joshua Goodall * IP Systems Development Team Leader Tel: +31 20 711 3200 * SpeedPort, Global Network Mob: +31 6 2859 3949 * Infrastructure for the Internet Revolution http://www.speedport.net/ * *