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] [comms] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [comms] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [comms] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Max Tulyev
maxtul at netassist.ua
Tue Feb 16 16:02:19 CET 2016
On 16.02.16 14:46, Thomas Mangin wrote: > 1. Is the activity of members opening additional LIR accounts a > problem that must be prevented? > > It is. The RIPE NCC policies should be written in a way which is > beneficial to its community. It is NOT. The problem is not a secondary LIR account itself, but an additional /22 allocated to same company. So quick way is to change policy and say every *COMPANY* should receive one /22, not every *LIR*. P.S. By the way, if there are several LIR accounts binded to one company, how many votes do that company have at General Meeting?
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [comms] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [comms] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]