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] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Martin List-Petersen
martin at airwire.ie
Fri Jun 19 18:10:32 CEST 2009
Tonnerre Lombard wrote: > That's perfectly fine with me (except that I think exceptions should be > made for organizations like SwissIX). I am merely suggesting that there > are going to be problems with the fact that these fees are also > going to be applied to existing assignments, and that "IP addresses are > not property" may not be the opinion a judge chooses to share. > > As I said before, the RIPE NCC is no legislative power. > > But I guess there really is no need to debate that, it's more like a > "sit back and watch" situation. No, actually, I think you are making a perfect point, that IXP ressources maybe should be excempt. But again, this could be raised as a proposal in the address working group and then pushed through as a seperate policy or addendum to 2007-01. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]