This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net/
[anti-abuse-wg] Abuse Report ignored. What to do as next?
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Abuse Report ignored. What to do as next?
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Abuse Report ignored. What to do as next?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Michele Neylon - Blacknight
michele at blacknight.com
Thu Nov 2 10:29:52 CET 2023
Gert The ASN cost for us would have had practically no impact – we only have two and I suspect we’re getting rid of one at some point. However the other costs that the charging schemes suggested would have cost us thousands – and that simply wasn’t acceptable Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 I have sent this email at a time that is convenient for me. I do not expect you to respond to it outside of your usual working hours. On 02/11/2023, 10:28, "Gert Doering" <gert at space.net> wrote: 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20231102/d5f9ee07/attachment-0001.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Abuse Report ignored. What to do as next?
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Abuse Report ignored. What to do as next?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]