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] [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 16:07:02 CET 2015
Hi, > Yes, I was a bit surprised to read this. I remeber the discussion to be more about wether you should get a limited number for free or not, but also of course that it is not up to Adress Policy WG to adjust the charing scheme. I was not talking about a proposed policy, I was talking about the 2007-01 proposal that was accepted years ago. It doesn't mandate a specific fee per resources resource but it does say it should be there for garbage collection etc. Cheers, Sander
- 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 ]