[members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
rob.golding at astutium.com
rob.golding at astutium.com
Thu Dec 12 16:24:08 CET 2013
> Really, the RIPE membership fees should be based mostly on "the share > of limited resources that your LIR uses", > if a LIR has a /8 allocated > that is 1/23th of the whole address space available from RIPE; thus > should pay alone 1/23th of the budget of RIPE But that 1 entry in a database isn't 1/23rd of the cost of running the behemoth that RIPE has become. A *nominal* membership fee and a pay-per-db-object would be fairer. If your concern is over the amount you pay RIPE, then put up a proposal to get rid of soem of the extraneous 'projects' and other spending, so it gets back to just doing, only doing and exactly doing what it was created for - managing a db of a list of resources. If your concern is over the amount of IP addresses you can get access to - you're 10 years too late Ipv4 has run out. Get over it. Rob
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]