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/members-discuss@ripe.net/
[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 ]
Sander Steffann
sander at steffann.nl
Tue Mar 24 21:32:38 CET 2015
Hi, Yes, the idea was that we couldn't set any specific fee. But the intention was that there would be *some* fee... Cheers, Sander > Op 24 mrt. 2015 om 21:09 heeft Piotr Strzyzewski <Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl> het volgende geschreven: > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 04:04:07PM +0100, Sander Steffann wrote: >>> 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. > > From the https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-01 > > "Any specific details of possible fees for such End Users are also out > the scope of this proposal. This needs to be developed by the RIPE NCC > Board in the same manner that LIR fees are proposed and developed." > > Piotr > > -- > gucio -> Piotr Strzyżewski > E-mail: Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl
- 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 ]