This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[members-discuss] [address-policy-wg] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016 Discussion
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016 Discussion
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [address-policy-wg] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016 Discussion
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nigel Titley
nigel at titley.com
Sat Jan 24 23:53:52 CET 2015
Sergey On 22/01/15 23:36, sergey myasoedov wrote: > Nigel, Sander, > > I would rather prefer option 2: > >> 2. The Board could take a two-step approach to the Charging Scheme. In >> May, members would vote on individual issues such as charging for ASNs. >> The result of the voting would then be used to create a Charging Scheme >> that would be voted on in the usual way by members at the November GM. > This approach is more balanced as for me and it allows to produce the charging scheme > proposal that is better reflect the expectation of members. > > By the way, does the Board have any financial appraisal of proposed amendment of the > Charging Scheme? Not entirely sure I understand what you mean here. We always, of course, do a financial appraisal of any action, including the charging scheme. Nigel
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016 Discussion
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [address-policy-wg] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016 Discussion
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]