[address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2014072901004581] 2014-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Allow IPv4 PI transfer [...]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Membership fee at these times doesn't in any case correlate with
ammount of address resources held by each LIR. Conversely, fees were
simplified.

- From APWG perspective, I *support* this proposal. It doesn't change
almost anything in practice - as new IPv4 PI aren't assigned, this
just affects existing assignments.

With regards,
Daniel


On 4.8.2014 11:46, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 11:26:59AM +0200, Andrzej Dopiera??a
> wrote:
>> "the best" is simple structure. For example - every lir who give
>> ip for others - pay 1600e, every pi owner who use ip for
>> infrastructure pay 50e (like now) - every ip owner (independly pi
>> or pa) pay the same amound of money for every ip which have
> 
> As said before, APWG has very little influence on the charging
> scheme.
> 
> So please keep prices out of this discussion here - charging scheme
> and RIPE fees can be discussed on the ripe-members list.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> Gert Doering -- APWG chair
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iEYEARECAAYFAlPfbGcACgkQ0m6yQqKjWoJoAgCfbkg+0rfky7vca9FMDNYzzp7e
ZZ8An1UGqAFWdZqyNnatvYM+qa9TNHNp
=yQF1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----