On Tue, 21 Jun 2016, Sander Steffann wrote:
We are always very careful with linking policy to charging. We tried that in the past and usually ran into some issues. If, however, the RIPE NCC would adapt the charging scheme in this way then it would probably make some policy proposals less relevant :)
Ok, thanks for the clarification. I think this is however something that makes things a lot harder. It's like trying to do sports with your hands tied behind your back. Yes, you can probably get things done but it's a lot harder and usually results in a lot more work. Well, can't we at least take that idea to the current policy proposals, that we don't talk about "LIRs who have received a post-exhaustion /22" but instead talking about "LIRs containing..." What's happened in the past is less interesting than current situation? -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se