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] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sascha Luck [ml]
ripe-md at c4inet.net
Tue Mar 24 18:00:18 CET 2015
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 04:04:07PM +0100, Sander Steffann wrote: >Hi, > >> Could you clarify what policy you are referring to? > >The 2007-01 policy proposal that introduced it for all independent resources: IPv4, IPv6 and ASNs. 2007-01 called for a charge for PI resources, in the case of ASNs, the Board has decided - and the membership has voted for some years now - to set this charge at zero. I don't want a situation where policy determines the charges the members have to pay. This should always be a decision of the board and the membership. rgds, Sascha Luck
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]