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/[email protected]/
[members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Martin List-Petersen
martin at airwire.ie
Fri Jun 19 00:15:18 CEST 2009
Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: > as for your "not making 50 euros a year" remark: > > its potentially possible for a natural person to obtain pi space and an AS > number for his home network (provided he has that many equipment to > cover the minimum announcable space of /24 ofcourse), we as a LIR would > not object to registering such, neither does RIPE. > > profitability does not come into question. > > LIRs distribute IP space according to -need- not to -profitability- > > also, customers of a LIR usually have agreed to pay the -registration- > fees of the LIR, in some cases they may have paid nothing at all > > (associations, home users, etc) in case the LIR was like "oh we can well > cover this without going up a catagory in the scoring algorithm". > > also, PI allocations on IPv4 are usually pretty small anyway and not worth > "recovery" as opposed to some old PRE-RIR blocks which are also assigned > to ripe, held by some larger organisations, which are usually not even > routed on the internet or severely firewalled. > > point remains: there is -no- legal basis on which to bill existing PI > customers or on wich to force them to engage in a new contract, besides the already > fulfilled contract to "register ip space" for them, its quite close to > blackmail if the "threat" includes to remove their allocations if they > dont enter into a new recurring-payment contract (even if the lir would > pay for it and not charge the customer, the customer still has to enter > into a new contract, with which they potentially could have issues. Please read http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-452.html . This is a result of work done by RIPE members, not the RIPE NCC. Every LIR is a RIPE member. The RIPE NCC is not a for profit organisation and it has to report to the RIPE membership. If the revenue from the PI charges generate so much income, that they make a huge profit, that'll mean that the LIR charges go down, it's as simple as that. Charging for PI is what has been proposed to force unused ressources to be returned, this is a draft, if you don't like it, you might want to vote against this or maybe participate in a workgroup to come up with a better proposal. At the end of the day, the membership has to approve or disapprove this. That is at least my understanding. So you might want to show up, when it gets voted for or against. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]