Honestly, this discussion keeps coming back on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on.

Please read the list archive. There was a very very very _very_ lengthy discussion around this subject.

Just read from A to Z before you start exactly the same discussion 3 months later. Nothing changed that justifies it.

Thanks!

With Kind Regards,

Dominik Nowacki

Clouvider Limited is a limited company registered in England and Wales. Registered number: 08750969. Registered office: 88 Wood Street, London, United Kingdom, EC2V 7RS. Please note that Clouvider Limited may monitor email traffic data and also the content of email for the purposes of security and staff training. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the intended recipient. If you do not believe you are the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify abuse@clouvider.net of this e-mail immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Clouvider Limited nor any of its employees therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.

On 21 Jul 2016, at 18:06, David Benwell <dave@it-communicationsltd.co.uk> wrote:

Let’s look at why ripe are limiting LR’s to a final /22

1. To ensure new members get a fair share of resources from the last /8 ?

If the above is correct then the ability to register additional LR’s for the sole reason to get additional /22 could be seen to abuse the very reason why ripe put the limit in the first place.

This does not protect resources but makes ripe a lot more money.

Why have a rule in place then allow loop holes. You might had not bothered limiting LR’s to a /22 just charge XXX for an additional /22 if that is the true reason why ripe came out with the rule.

From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Jonathan Nguyen
Sent: 21 July 2016 17:59
To: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Sign-up fee for additional LIR account

If you can't afford the measly few thousand euros for another LIR, perhaps you shouldn't be an LIR in the first place. I would keep prices as they are.

Jonny

On Thursday, July 21, 2016, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:

Hi,

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 06:08:02PM +0200, Ping IP wrote:
> I'm not talking about the sign-up fee for a new LIR member, but about
> the sign-up fee for an additional LIR account.

I think the sign-up fee being equal for all sorts of LIR accounts is
a very good thing, and the total amount is reasonable.

So, NCC, please leave things as they are.

Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

Jonathan "Jon" Nguyen

Owner, Nguyen Web Company

c: +1 (603) 952-7740

www.nguyenwebcompany.net

Email communications are confidential and intended for direct recipients and/or their authorized affiliate and/or personnel. As a disclaimer, emails received to jnguyen@nguyenwebcompany.net may be archived and/or made accessible to Nguyen Web Company administrators.

----
If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss
mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page:
https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/

Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.