[Apwg-ipv6-papi] Presentation: It was a hard discussion

[Sander Steffann]

Hi,

> Thank you all. It was a hard discussion for you.
>  
> One point from my side (discussion was too fast to interrupt it):
> Why don't remove PI only, if an organisation want addresses, it has to be RIPE member. So, we could go ahead with policy proposal but remove Sub-Allocation/End Site/and so on definition. Based on last year decision, costs to be a RIPE member sank. Not for everyone, but mostly, it would be a way.

The big problem would be that the cost for current PI holders would become 15x as high, and I don't think we should do that...

Cheers,
Sander