[anti-abuse-wg] Abuse Report ignored. What to do as next?

Hi,

On Thu, Nov 02, 2023 at 09:19:13AM +0000, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
> That?s a massive over simplification of what happened.
> 
> The NCC proposed a number of charging schemes which *included* charges per ASN. The proposal was rejected by the majority of the members who voted because the changes would have cost a lot of us significantly more than what we currently pay. The charge per ASN was only one of multiple elements in the proposal ? to characterise it that the members rejected charging per ASN is very misleading.

I wasn't talking about the previous AGM but about the one where the
pre-existing ASN charges got abandoned.

Talking about the *last* meeting, I think most of the members are just
not very good at math... introducing a charge for ASN *with a given total
budget* would have *lowered* the overall bill for most members, holding
only 1 or 2 ASNs (redistributing the overall budget differently).

But "nah, can't have extra costs!!!!".

Yes, a few would have had to pay way more, but I think that's legitimate -
if your business is "doling out ASNs to end customers", you'd better have
"oh, it might cost money at some point" in your contracts - and in that
case, the extra costs directly go to the end customers wanting the ASN.

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

SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20231102/01969355/attachment.sig>