On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN < [email protected]> 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
