On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN < ripe-wgs@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:
Remco,
As you may know, the "multiple LIRs" is for the moment least expensive way of getting around the "one /22" restriction. Combined withe the removal of "need checking", this very much looks like selling /22 to anybody willing to pay a sign-up and at least one year of membership.
This may not have been intentional, but it looks to me as a first step to "turning commercial".
With your proposal, while the idea was to discourage the "multiple LIR" practice, I have very serious doubts that it will happen this way. Given the current market price (which is only the most important show-stopper, but not the only one), with your proposal it would take about 5 years of membership to get at a similar level. With all that money going to the NCC. IF the NCC really whishes to keep its not-for-profit status, this will result in reduced membership, one reduced membership for older LIRs, but several memberships for the LIRs in "desperate need" (mostly small new ones).
I don't find your response clarifying in the least. You seem to be confused about what constitutes non-profit and what constitutes for-profit or "commercial". Making _a_ profit does not automatically make you a for-profit/commercial enterprise. -- Jan