After all, this is also an operational/business discussion, not a technical one.
- Alain.
On Feb 5, 2004, at 10:07 PM, Christian Huitema wrote:
From what I have read so far, the monetary payment appears to be one of the weakest point of the proposal. I suggest that the monetary consideration in the draft be removed, and that the precise method used to implement the registration be left to the registry. Specifically, I suggest in section " 3.2.1 Centrally Assigned Global IDs" to replace the phrase:
- One time non-refundable allocation fee per allocation that is affordable by a broad spectrum of end users when considered globally.
By:
- Allocation on a permanent basis, without any need for renewal and without any procedure for de-allocation.
rder to keep overhead low.
By a more neutral:
The allocation service should include sufficient provisions to avoid
hoarding of numbers. This can be accomplished by various ways, e.g.,
requiring an exchange of documents, a verbal contact, or a proof that
the request is on behalf of a human rather than a machine. The service may charge a small fee in order to cover its costs, but the fee should be low enough to not create a barrier to anyone needing one. The precise mechanisms should be decided by the registration authority.
Doing these edits will clearly express our intent, without dictating how
the registration service chooses to operate. For all we know, we may
find a volunteer who runs the service for free.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
