<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> <meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"> <title>Re: [members-discuss] Sign-up fee for additional LIR account</title> <style></style><![if mso 9]><style>p.MsoNormal {margin-left:3.75pt;} </style><![endif]> </head> <body bgcolor="white" lang="EN-GB" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:3.75pt;margin-right:3.75pt;margin-bottom:3.75pt"> <div class="WordSection1"> I also agree something needs to be done. Has stated previously, I can see why Ripe are trying to enforce a /22 with an new LR accounts, However this does not resolve the issue that ripe made this rule in the first place to ensure everyone has a equal share.<o:p></o:p> I really think ripe needs to address the issue and remove the IP Transfer Service and offer it as a case by case bases only for merging LR accounts.<o:p></o:p> Why not have a policy if a LR is no longer meeting the requirements that the IP address space was given then they must be returned.<o:p></o:p> For example, if larger space then say a /22 goes unused for more then 12 months then its assumed its no longer required and then has to be returned back RIPE so can be allocated to other LRs who do need the additional space.<o:p></o:p> What really annoys me and I have said this before, we get quoted $8 per IP Address via the transfer service now on a /22 that would be £6202.71<o:p></o:p> Some LR’s seem to have very large unused address space which they are trying to make huge profits for. This should NOT be allowed. Return back to RIPE is the best option and is fair to everyone.<o:p></o:p> Then if a LR needs more than a /22 and can show why it’s needed can then be approved.<o:p></o:p> This is why ripe is down to the last /8 due to poor resource management.<o:p></o:p> This needs to be investigated.<o:p></o:p> Regards<o:p></o:p> Dave<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <div> <div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm"> From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Sergiu IANCIUC Sent: 21 July 2016 17:14 To: Ping IP <pingip.network@gmail.com> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Sign-up fee for additional LIR account<o:p></o:p> </div> </div> <o:p> </o:p> salut Ping,<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> agree with you, the additional LIR account have to be 50% from the first sign-up<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Best Regards,<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> -<o:p></o:p> Sergiu IANCIUC<o:p></o:p> SC ITNS.NET SRL<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> MD-2068, Moldova<o:p></o:p> or. Chisinau, str. Miron Costin 3/1<o:p></o:p> tel.: +373 22 877 877<o:p></o:p> fax : +373 22 44 11 73<o:p></o:p> mobile: +373 690 22 111<o:p></o:p> url: <a href="http://www.itns.md">http://www.itns.md</a><o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Save a tree... Don't print this email unless you have to...<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Thursday, July 21, 2016, 7:08:02 PM, you wrote:<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <div> <table class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellpadding="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td width="2" valign="top" style="width:1.5pt;background:blue;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt"> </td> <td width="1680" valign="top" style="width:1260.0pt;background:white;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt"> Hello,<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> A recent change has been made in the Billing and Fee Schedule 2016 , regarding the following sentence: "Members are charged a one-time sign-up fee of EUR 2,000 (two thousand euro) for each new LIR account."<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I'd like to discuss why an existing LIR member has to pay the sign-up fee again? As a new small LIR I'm paying a high price for a /22 IPv4. I think it's disproportionately to charge the sign-up fee again from an existing LIR member who is requesting an additional LIR account. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I'd like to suggest to remove the one-time sign-up fee of EUR 2,000 for each additional LIR account. Or at least lower the sign-up fee to an acceptable rate.<o:p></o:p> I'm not talking about the sign-up fee for a new LIR member, but about the sign-up fee for an additional LIR account.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Thanks for discussing this subject.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Best regards,<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Abdelouahed Haitoute<o:p></o:p> Ping IP network<o:p></o:p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <o:p> </o:p> </div> </div> </body> </html>