[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 21:32:38 CET 2015
Hi, Yes, the idea was that we couldn't set any specific fee. But the intention was that there would be *some* fee... Cheers, Sander > Op 24 mrt. 2015 om 21:09 heeft Piotr Strzyzewski <Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl> het volgende geschreven: > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 04:04:07PM +0100, Sander Steffann wrote: >>> Could you clarify what policy you are referring to? >> >> The 2007-01 policy proposal that introduced it for all independent resources: IPv4, IPv6 and ASNs. > > From the https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-01 > > "Any specific details of possible fees for such End Users are also out > the scope of this proposal. This needs to be developed by the RIPE NCC > Board in the same manner that LIR fees are proposed and developed." > > Piotr > > -- > gucio -> Piotr Strzyżewski > E-mail: Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl
- 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 ]