- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

Objection to Group 2 Proposals – Impact on Small Internet Providers in Ukraine
by Олена Кушнір 26 Feb '26

26 Feb '26

Dear Members of the Working Group, I would like to express my strong objection to the proposals listed under *Group 2: Possible Additional Fees, Discounts and Incentives*, especially the proposal to increase the "PI assignment fee to EUR 1,000". There are approximately 4,000 Internet providers in Ukraine, most of which are sponsored by around 300 LIRs. These small providers form the backbone of the country’s Internet connectivity. If the PI assignment fee is increased from EUR 75 to EUR 1,000, these costs will inevitably be passed on to small providers. For many of them, especially under wartime conditions, such a fee would be unaffordable. Ukraine is currently in the midst of a full-scale war. Many small ISPs: * repair damaged networks, * operate during power outages, * invest in generators and batteries, * support schools, hospitals, and local authorities, * work with very limited financial margins. An additional fee from EUR 1,000 would represent a serious financial shock and could force many small ISPs to cease operations. Connectivity in Ukraine depends primarily on small local ISPs rather than large national operators. Weakening them means weakening the resilience of Ukraine's entire network and society. I would also like to remind the Working Group that Ukraine is ranked among the "Top-10 countries worldwide in terms of network resilience", precisely because of its highly diversified ISP market. This decentralised structure has proven to be a key factor in maintaining connectivity during wartime. Any measure that financially pressures small providers risks undermining this resilience model. For these reasons, I believe that this proposal will seriously harm the market for small Internet providers in Ukraine and should not be put to a vote at all in its current situation. Thank you for considering this feedback. Best regards, Olena Kushnir

1 0

Conflict between National M&A Laws and RIPE NCC's "Personal Membership" interpretation
by support＠c1vhosting.it 25 Feb '26

25 Feb '26

Dear RIPE Community, I am writing to bring to your attention a critical legal and operational impasse we are currently facing with RIPE NCC. We believe this situation exposes a systemic flaw in how RIPE NCC handles corporate reorganizations for SMEs, effectively paralyzing business operations and forcing members into legal paradoxes. I am sharing this to understand if other members have faced similar barriers and to urge the Executive Board to review policies that currently clash with European corporate laws. Our company, Lumanex S.r.l., is the legal successor of the LIR business branch previously operated by the sole proprietorship "Cinzia Tocci" (LIR: it.c1vdi). The business was transferred via a formal Public Notarial Deed (Conferimento d'Azienda) in February 2025. This is a standard M&A transaction where an SME evolves from a sole proprietorship into a limited liability company. We promptly notified RIPE NCC, requesting the update of the Member’s registered details to reflect the legal succession. RIPE NCC Legal Department has formally refused the update, stating the following: They acknowledge that under Italian Law (Art. 2558 of the Civil Code), Lumanex S.r.l. succeeds ope legis (by operation of law) to all ongoing B2B contractual relationships related to the business. However, they argue that under Dutch Law (Art. 2:34 of the Dutch Civil Code), the "membership of an association is personal". Therefore, they refuse to recognize the LIR membership as an instrumental business asset, treating it instead as an untransferable personal tie to the original physical person. RIPE NCC’s proposed "solution" is that we must open a completely new LIR (paying duplicate membership fees) and transfer the resources, but opening a new LIR is not only financially punitive but technically disastrous, as some of the resources were acquired recently via policy transfers, so they are subject to RIPE NCC’s 24 months transfer block. We are physically unable to move our resources to a new LIR until 2027. Because RIPE NCC refuses to update our current LIR name and VAT ID, we are now trapped in a devastating operational deadlock: We currently have urgent AS Number requests pending for our clients. The RIPE NCC invoice cannot be paid because the header is incorrect (the paradox: all the company data, including name and address, is updated, except the VAT number) RIPE NCC Registration Services is explicitly asking us to sign the End User Assignment Agreements using the name of the defunct sole proprietorship ("Cinzia Tocci") instead of the actual legal operator (Lumanex S.r.l.). Under Italian law, signing a contract using a defunct or incorrect legal entity name constitutes a false declaration (falso in atto pubblico/privato). If we refuse to commit this illegality, RIPE NCC refuses to assign the ASNs. As of today, because of this administrative deadlock, we are unable to fulfill our contractual obligations. Our clients are now officially requesting full refunds due to the delays in ASN assignments. RIPE NCC's insistence on applying a strict "personal membership" interpretation to a B2B technical infrastructure contract is causing direct, severe financial and reputational damage to an SME. Questions for the Community and the Board: Does the RIPE NCC membership exist to protect the technical stability of the registry, or is it a "personal club" that ignores mandatory national succession laws when a business evolves? How can RIPE NCC demand that members keep their registry data accurate, while simultaneously forcing a member to sign End User Agreements under a legally inactive name? Is the 24 months transfer block policy unintentionally weaponized to prevent SMEs from executing legitimate corporate restructurings? We have already escalated this to the Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) regarding the abuse of a dominant position, as RIPE NCC is the sole provider of these essential resources and is using its monopoly to prevent a legitimate business from operating. We urge the Executive Board to intervene, align internal procedures with substantive corporate laws, and provide an immediate operational workaround to prevent further financial damage to our company and our clients. Thank you for your time and any insights you may have. Sincerely, Luca Marini CEO, Lumanex S.r.l.

1 0

Charging Scheme Model Consultation: Phase 2 - comments
by AlbHost SH.P.K 10 Feb '26

10 Feb '26

Dear colleagues, I would like to explicitly support Michal’s position, in particular regarding the proposed discounts for educational institutions, and add an important practical aspect to this discussion. Many universities and similar institutions received extremely large IPv4 allocations in the past—often /16 or even multiple /16 blocks. In a significant number of cases, only a very small fraction of these resources (sometimes just one to three /24s) is actually used for their own operational needs today. At the same time, it is publicly observable that IPv4 address space originating from such legacy allocations is being sold or transferred on the open market via platforms such as *ipv4.global*, at fully commercial prices (currently on the order of ~30 EUR per IPv4 address). This is not speculation; it is an established and RIPE-compliant transfer market. In this context, granting fee reductions to organisations that: - hold vast historical IPv4 resources, - use only a minimal portion of them operationally, and - monetise the remainder at market prices, is difficult to justify from a fairness perspective. If educational institutions are to benefit from discounted RIPE fees, this should at minimum be conditional upon the substantial return of unused IPv4 address space to the free pool. Without such a mechanism, the proposed model effectively rewards address hoarding while shifting the financial burden onto smaller commercial LIRs, start-ups, and non-profit-adjacent organisations that must both pay full RIPE fees and acquire IPv4 addresses at full market cost. Absent meaningful IPv4 reclamation, fee discounts for organisations already in possession of disproportionately large legacy allocations appear inequitable and inconsistent with the stated principles of efficient and fair resource distribution. Kind regards, Mentor L. -- *Sinqerisht / Sincerely,* AlbHost [image: Logo] <https://www.albahost.net/> AlbHost SH.P.K. Besim Beka p.n. 50000 Gjakovë, Kosovë. NIPT/VAT ID: 811442657 T: +383900501502 E: info(a)albahost.net W*: *wWw.AlbaHost.Net <http://www.albahost.net/> [image: Facebook icon] <https://www.facebook.com/albanianhosting> [image: Twitter icon] <https://twitter.com/albahost> [image: Instagram icon] <https://www.instagram.com/albahost_vpn/> [image: Banner] Përmbajtja e këtij emaili është konfidenciale dhe ka për qëllim marrësin e specifikuar vetëm në mesazh. Ndalohet rreptësisht shpërndarja e ndonjë pjese të këtij mesazhi me ndonjë palë të tretë, pa pëlqimin me shkrim të dërguesit. Nëse e keni marrë këtë mesazh gabimisht, ju lutemi përgjigjuni këtij mesazhi dhe ndiqni me fshirjen e tij, në mënyrë që të sigurohemi që një gabim i tillë të mos ndodhë në të ardhmen. The content of this email is confidential and intended for the recipient specified in message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this message with any third party, without a written consent of the sender. If you received this message by mistake, please reply to this message and follow with its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake does not occur in the future.

9 13

Re: [ncc-announce] [News] Phase 2 of the Charging Scheme Model Consultation
by Fabien SCHENKELS 09 Feb '26

09 Feb '26

Dear all, I would like to share an additional perspective as a small individual LIR, a RIPE NCC member since 2016, operated and funded as a natural person, with a single LIR and a deliberately limited set of resources (one IPv4 prefix, two ASNs and one IPv6 prefix). I am neither a commercial ISP, nor a multi-LIR operator, nor involved in the IPv4 transfer market. For this type of profile, moving towards a member-based charging model can clearly make sense and could potentially reduce the annual burden. From that perspective, the general direction appears positive. That said, I would like to highlight an aspect that is often less visible. For a small individual member with modest and stable resource needs, maintaining an LIR represents a very significant cumulative cost over time. In my own case, this amounts to close to EUR 20,000 over roughly ten years, with no realistic option for a gradual exit or value recovery once resource needs no longer evolve. In this context, the introduction of multiple separate charges (waiting list, allocations, transfers, additional ASNs, etc.) risks re-introducing complexity and unpredictability, whereas many small members primarily value long-term stability. I also share the concerns raised by others regarding PI pricing and certain categorical discounts, which could have disproportionate effects or create unintended incentives. In summary, as a small technical and individual LIR, I am supportive of an evolution of the charging model if it genuinely reduces the burden for smaller members, while preserving simplicity, predictability and neutrality. Kind regards, Fabien Schenkels > Le 2 févr. 2026 à 12:24, Simon-Jan Haytink <simonjh(a)ripe.net> a écrit : > > Dear RIPE NCC members, > > Thank you for your feedback on Phase 1 of the charging scheme model. > > During the six week consultation period, members shared feedback via the members-discuss mailing list and we also heard from members directly. Thank you to everyone who took part and helped inform the next stage of this work. We are now analysing the feedback to identify where the models can be refined. > > *Phase 2: Separate Charges* > > We are now launching Phase 2 of the consultation, which focuses on separate charges. In this phase, we are asking for feedback on two groups of additional charges: > > Group 1: Charges based on task force recommendations > Group 2: Possible other charges, discounts and incentives > > You can find charges and detailed explanations of each charge at: > https://www.ripe.net/s/charging-scheme-model-consultation-phase-2/ > > Important: Please note that this is the consultation phase, and we are looking for your opinion on which charges make sense and would be acceptable for members. No charges or figures are set in stone - we need your input before we make a final draft charging scheme that we can bring to the Executive Board for its consideration in March. In parallel, we are carrying out impact analyses to determine what changes would need to be made to our systems in order to accommodate new types of charges, and whether they would be possible to implement for 2027 or need to be phased in over multiple years. We plan to publish the impact analysis when proposing the draft charging scheme for members to vote on in April. > > Phase 2 will run until the week of 16 February 2026. Your input is essential for shaping the Charging Scheme proposal which will be presented to the membership for a vote at the May 2026 General Meeting. > > Please share your comments, questions, and suggestions on the Members Discuss mailing list. > > *Next Steps: Phase 3* > > Following Phase 2, we will use feedback from both phases to revise the proposal before publishing a combined draft covering the annual membership fee and separate charges. > > We are also developing an online calculator to accompany Phase 3, using the final draft model figures and the additional charges proposed during Phase 2. > > We expect to publish both a complete charging scheme draft, an impact analysis and the calculator at the beginning of April 2026. > > Kind regards, > > Simon-Jan Haytink > Chief Financial Officer > RIPE NCC > > ----- > To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/ncc-announce.ripe.net/ > As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. > More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/

1 0

Re: [ncc-announce] [News] Phase 2 of the Charging Scheme Model Consultation
by Clement Cavadore 06 Feb '26

06 Feb '26

Dear Simon, all... Excuse me, but... *whaaaat am I reading ?!?!* Are you trying to shock your membership with some crazy options, in order to better have an acceptance on your category-based models ? Where has the fairness spirit gone ? Here are my comments: On group 1: Regarding the new member signup fees: I honestly don't care wether it's 1000 or 1500€, but it should be the same, IMHO, be it an additionnal member or not. IPv4 waiting list signup fees: Errr... why ? If you pay a membership signup fee, it should be enough. IPv4 allocation fee: Same comment. Then if you really think about billing stuffs as a waiting list and allocation fee, then, just bill all those fees as a sign-up fee, just don't play with words... I am not opposed to merger and acquisition fee, as it's additionnal paperwork for NCC. Transfer fee: on the two ends ? what's the deal ? Maybe in incoming, as it's paperwork based on the buyer's needs. Legacy registry update fee: Why not, as they do not have any contractual relationship. I think that ARIN does not allow updates on out of contract relationships, do they ? PI/ASN fees should not change IMHO. On groupe 2: PI fee at 1k€: ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND ?! So, having lets say two PI and an ASN (ex: non-commercial IXP, for example) would lead to ~2k€ fee? this is a nonsence.... Alternative registry fee update: 1.5k€ ? Well, legacy would just stay legacy, and the DB would remain outdated... Discount for educationnal or lower income: Well, fairness is totally gone. Please, reconsider your options. Nothing is acceptable there. You cannot continue that way. I have seen way better suggestions (for example ALexis Hanicotte's suggestion on 20th january), that your phase2 suggestions. Maybe you should reconsider your 40M budget aswell. You cannot just continue to raise your member's fee (while protecting big players). If you just think it might be at risk with higher members, maybe we should introduce a policy restraining inter-rir transfers for big inetnums (incoming or outgoing, lets still be fair). Kind regards, Clément Cavadore On Mon, 2026-02-02 at 12:24 +0100, Simon-Jan Haytink wrote: > > Dear RIPE NCC members, > > Thank you for your feedback on Phase 1 of the charging scheme model. > > During the six week consultation period, members shared feedback via > the members-discuss mailing list and we also heard from members > directly. Thank you to everyone who took part and helped inform the > next stage of this work. We are now analysing the feedback to > identify where the models can be refined. > > *Phase 2: Separate Charges* > > We are now launching Phase 2 of the consultation, which focuses on > separate charges. In this phase, we are asking for feedback on two > groups of additional charges: > > Group 1: Charges based on task force recommendations > Group 2: Possible other charges, discounts and incentives > > You can find charges and detailed explanations of each charge at: > https://www.ripe.net/s/charging-scheme-model-consultation-phase-2/ > > Important: Please note that this is the consultation phase, and we > are looking for your opinion on which charges make sense and would be > acceptable for members. No charges or figures are set in stone - we > need your input before we make a final draft charging scheme that we > can bring to the Executive Board for its consideration in March. In > parallel, we are carrying out impact analyses to determine what > changes would need to be made to our systems in order to accommodate > new types of charges, and whether they would be possible to implement > for 2027 or need to be phased in over multiple years. We plan to > publish the impact analysis when proposing the draft charging scheme > for members to vote on in April. > > Phase 2 will run until the week of 16 February 2026. Your input is > essential for shaping the Charging Scheme proposal which will be > presented to the membership for a vote at the May 2026 General > Meeting. > > Please share your comments, questions, and suggestions on the > Members Discuss mailing list. > > *Next Steps: Phase 3* > > Following Phase 2, we will use feedback from both phases to revise > the proposal before publishing a combined draft covering the annual > membership fee and separate charges. > > We are also developing an online calculator to accompany Phase 3, > using the final draft model figures and the additional charges > proposed during Phase 2. > > We expect to publish both a complete charging scheme draft, an > impact analysis and the calculator at the beginning of April 2026. > > Kind regards, > > Simon-Jan Haytink > Chief Financial Officer > RIPE NCC > > ----- > To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription > options, please visit: > https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/ncc-announce.ripe.net/ > As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account > with the email matching your subscription before you can change your > settings. > More details at: > https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/

9 12

Charging Scheme Model Consultation: Phase 2 - comments
by Michal Krajčírovič 02 Feb '26

02 Feb '26

Dear colleagues, I would like to open a discussion in connection with the email delivered today (Charging Scheme Model Consultation: Phase 2). To be honest at the outset: I usually try to ignore matters around RIPE, pay the annual fee, and not pay much attention to it, as the whole thing strikes me as absurd. This time, however, I feel compelled to respond. I make no secret of my opinion that the current RIR model is, in 2026, obsolete. IPv4 address space has been exhausted (which is, incidentally, the fault of the RIRs themselves, who in the past often allocated IP addresses inefficiently while collecting millions for their operations), IPv6 is (according to everyone) “infinite,” and ASNs are, and most likely always will be, sufficient in number. I therefore respectfully ask whether we truly need an organization with an annual budget of EUR 40 million to serve approximately 20,000 active LIRs. *** Regarding the new scheme itself, I have several objections and uncertainties. New Member Sign-up Fee – RIPE signs identical contracts with all members, which it undoubtedly generates based on the provided information. Concluding the contract involves verifying the entity, signing the agreement, and activating the account. What on earth costs an incredible EUR 1,000 here? I assume RIPE is a non-profit organization, so this is not meant as “super business.” In my view, the trend should be the exact opposite: that “anyone” can set up their own LIR, obtain genuinely their own IPv6 addresses, under conditions that are closer to cost-based. Who on earth would want—on top of a large annual fee—to also pay EUR 1,000? Additional LIR Account Fee – this apparently assumes that there are entities that have or want multiple LIRs. Those I know solved this by setting up another company (which, incidentally, costs significantly less to establish than EUR 500). Perhaps RIPE has different data, but I believe these accounts were created solely to gain access to IPv4 while it was still available. That no longer interests anyone today. IPv4 Waiting List Sign-up Fee – sorry, but is this meant seriously? Yes, I certainly welcome the “separation” of the sign-up fee (which RIPE already has as one of the highest among all RIRs) and IPv4. Given that the plan mentions no transitional provisions, I assume that those already on the waiting list will remain there, meaning that those who pay will simply join the queue behind them. All this in a situation where we all know that the chance of actually receiving IPv4 addresses asymptotically approaches zero (or they might receive them in several years). In reality, this is a bet on speculation, because if they need the addresses, they must buy them elsewhere anyway—or is someone supposed to wait ~3 years with a project? I consider the Merger and Acquisition Fee to be unlawful. Let’s be frank about why RIPE has it: there are people who have 20 LIRs across 20 companies (through which they acquired IPv4 in the past before it ran out—congratulations), they pay 20× the annual fee, and there is concern that they might merge those companies into one. RIPE, however, ignores the basic legal principles of mergers, whose core is universal succession of the dissolving companies to the successor entity. This is the same type of succession as, for example, inheritance, where a son inherits his father’s house. It is not a “sale” or a “transfer”—the new entity steps into the relationships of the original one as if it had never ceased to exist. A procedure whereby, after such a “transfer,” resources cannot be transferred for several years, or where a fee is charged for a change in records (when that transfer occurred by operation of law under the legislation of any EU Member State—and I assume the same applies outside the EU), is contrary to the law. Moreover, as a consequence of a merger (where, for example, an entity that currently holds resources ceases to exist), no other situation can legally arise than that everything passes to the successor entity. There cannot be a “non-transfer” because someone failed to pay a fee. That simply cannot happen legally. *** In conclusion, I disagree with the discount for educational institutions. RIPE members also include various organizations close to, for example, non-profits, start-up entrepreneurs, etc., who must pay the full fees. Educational institutions are generously funded by the state, have many employees, often enormous budgets, and the fees discussed here are, compared to small companies with just a few people, entirely negligible for them. *** Unfortunately (or fortunately), I will not change RIPE (or the RIR system as a whole), nor the overall policy of how these organizations operate. I do hope, however, that my thoughts will contribute to reflection among other members. Michal Krajcirovic

1 0

Re: My thoughts about the proposed Charging Scheme Models A and B (2027–2031)
by Akayo 20 Jan '26

20 Jan '26

Hi Ben! Of course I do agree that "whale customers" are not a good idea as well since this would put the independency of the RIPE NCC on risk. However, even if we would use a way more balanced category based model, we are still miles away from such a risk because I was not speaking about millions or even hundreds of thousands of fees for the largest LIRs. But it simply doesn't make much sense if the largest LIRs pay a few thousand EUR per year while even small LIRs pay a few thousand EUR per year as well. --Kayo

3 2

My thoughts about the proposed Charging Scheme Models A and B (2027–2031)
by Akayo 19 Jan '26

19 Jan '26

Dear colleagues, though I'm a few weeks too late I want to wish you a Happy New Year! As far as I understand there are currently two proposed models for the RIPE NCC charging scheme for the period 2027–2031. Model A is category based where Model B is formula based. Here are my thoughts: 1. I do not support Model B for the simple reason that I think a formula based model is too complicated and therefore intransparent. Members should be able to immediately see (on paper, not being required to use a calculator) how many fees they are required to pay. 2. I support keeping the flat fee model (only) in case the fees are not increased. If the flat fee is increased all few years due to higher costs, I do not support it any more because it will be a financial burden for smaller LIRs. For instance, I think it would be a imposition for smaller LIRs to pay €3,000 per year one day. The hosting business is not getting easier—it's getting harder. 3. If a category based scheme is used, I think many categories are better than less categories. The current Model A has 21 categories (counting the €500 category in case the LIR has no resources at all) which is good. However, I think Model A is extremely unfair: 4. First, from what I can see, the largest single allocation is IPv4 /10 and there is not a single IPv4 /8 or even /9 allocation. So it is doubtful that even the largest LIRs will fall into the uppermost categories. That means there are categories which from the beginning on will never be relevant. 5. Also there is a big gap between the smallest and the largest LIRs. That means that the vast majority of fees continue to be paid by the smallest, small and medium-sized LIRs whereas the large and largest LIRs still contribute only a small amount (in relative terms). For instance, I own about an IPv4 /19 equivalent (= 32 x /24s). With this new model, my fees are increased from €1,800 to €3,080 which is quite much. If I would have an IPv4 /13 equivalent I would not be a sole trader but own a large company. I would not have 32 x /24s but 2,048 x /24s which is 64 times as much—but with this new model I would only pay €6,488. And if I would have an IPv4 /10, which is equivalent to 16,384 (sixteen thousand) IPv4 /24s I would only pay €8,503 though I would have 512 times as much space. This is not fair. And there is no simple middle course. If the stated goal is to make the scheme more fair then the larger and largest LIRs unfortunately need to pay way more because they are the only group which is not fee sensitive. It makes (almost) no difference for them whereas it does make a huge difference for us. Thank you for your time. --Kayo

3 3

Re: Minor issues in Sponsoring LIR Agreement
by Maria Stafyla 15 Jan '26

15 Jan '26

Hi Antonis, all Thank you for your email. We will review the template agreement in the coming period and make improvements where necessary. Kind regards, Maria Stafyla Specialist Legal Counsel RIPE NCC ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Antonis Chariton < <https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/members-discuss-unmoderated@ripe.net…> daknob(a)daknob.net> To: members-discuss(a)ripe.net Cc: Bcc: Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2026 20:36:20 +0100 Subject: Minor issues in Sponsoring LIR Agreement Hello everyone and happy new year! I was reading the Sponsoring LIR Agreement over at https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-management/number-resourc… and I wanted to point out two minor issues: 1) Typo in Article 1 Definitions (Independent Internet Number Resources): “IPv6)” should be “IPv6” 2) Correction in Article 1 Definitions (Reverse DNS Delegation): "and ipv6.arpa (IPv6).” - the correct zone is ip6.arpa I think we should fix them, but I’m sending this here in case anyone considers these important enough to amend their contracts :) Antonis <https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/members-discuss-unmoderated@ripe.net…>

1 0

No Resource Transfers Allowed in January?
by Patterson, Richard (Senior IP Architect) 14 Jan '26

14 Jan '26

Hi Members, We've hit a kafkaesque bug with the RIPE NCC's policies, and I was wondering if anyone else has run into it? We've had a resource transfer request blocked until the 2026 membership fees are all paid up, the 2026 membership fees for which the invoices have not yet been generated or sent out yet......... This requirement is not specified in the Transfer Policy, but it is mentioned in the 2026 Billing Procedure. Do we think this requirement—effectively restricting transfers during the month of January—is sane and I just need to be more patient, or does it require a policy update or maybe just for a bit of common sense to be applied when requests are processed? -Rich Information in this email including any attachments may be privileged, confidential and is intended exclusively for the addressee. The views expressed may not be official policy, but the personal views of the originator. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete it from your system. You should not reproduce, distribute, store, retransmit, use or disclose its contents to anyone. Please note we reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communication through our internal and external networks. SKY and the SKY marks are trademarks of Sky Limited and Sky International AG and are used under licence. Sky UK Limited (Registration No. 2906991), Sky-In-Home Service Limited (Registration No. 2067075), Sky Subscribers Services Limited (Registration No. 2340150) and Sky CP Limited (Registration No. 9513259) are direct or indirect subsidiaries of Sky Limited (Registration No. 2247735). All of the companies mentioned in this paragraph are incorporated in England and Wales and share the same registered office at Grant Way, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7 5QD

4 5