AW: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010

Hi @All,

I've just digged through the mails happened during night with the list and would like to place some (more or less general) questions instead of replying to bunch of mails.

1) Charging Scheme

The Charging Scheme 2009 counted PI and ASN for end-users the same way like any other allocation to a lir. So at most the lir's category might be raised. I suppose most widespread understanding is that the membership fee is mainly raised to cover administrative work done by the NCC. 

Where's the continuing work with PI/ASN that's different - even more - than with an allocation?
Why's that going to be changed? I didn't see any rationale behind it being published up to now by the NCC.

2) Discussion and votes at RIPE meetings and GM's

Someone's asked about Proxy and Internet Votes. Proxy Votes are possible - meaning you can transfer your vote to someone else - in before of a metting. Once I've been responded in sense of 'if you don't attend and don't arrange for a Proxy you're silently agreeing'. Despite missing the discussion and in-meeting changes or clarifications I've to proxy my vote to some other lir possibly eben being a competitor. But a few times already I missed a concrete agenda well in advance (a minor couple of weeks isn't 'well in advance' being possibly months after annoucement of the meeting). Taking into account the Policy Development Process with the different WG's which are discussed and decided by the according mailing lists I wonder why attention to a GM is effectively *required* to participate. The votes could be collected online via the LIR-Portal afterwards (after anybody had a chance to review the minutes from the meeting).

So: How's the procedure for voting defined? Maybe it should be changed to allow for fair and equal participation?

3) 2007-01

I just took a quick look again at 2007-01 in the archive.

Regarding the contractual requirements it only states in the 'Contractual Requirements' *DRAFT*:

Notice that the resource holder is obliged to pay an annual fee to the LIR for the resources 

A clear statement that the resources will return by default to the RIPE NCC if 
- The resource holder cannot be contacted 
- The annual fee to the LIR is not paid 

Read the first and last line again. Where does it say the End-User has to pay to the *RIR*?

How does NCC come up with this requirement then?

Taking a look into RIPE-452 it's also saying 'LIR', not *RIR* in regards to the payment.

4) progress on 2007-01 implementation

And finally just a comment by me on the general way this is handled: A TOTAL MESS...

Supposedly someone handling a project on job like this might have to go and look for a new employer.

Where's an overview across all phases of the implementation?
Where's the (communicated) timeline for the complete project in advance?
Where're the (as far as possible) finalized documents, requirements and to-do's of the implementation?

Each time a new announcement is sent it's a new bit of 2007-01 and a new surprise. Imho the approval of 2007-01 turns out to be a wildcard for NCC to implement severe changes partially years afterwards.

Complaining in March about incomplete information, somewhat hidden documents and time between information and deadline being to short I was told (in meaning): '2007-01 was accepted 2008, why now complain when 2 or 3 weeks in advance in March implementation starts? You could have worked out the End-User contract with the legals since approval of 2007-01'.

I ask again in this discussion:
WHEN have the contractual requirements been published?
WHEN has the sample agreement been published?

Btw: the sample still isn't linked anywhere on www.ripe.net, or wasn't I simply unable to find the third menu on a fifth-level page?



Up to now all I see from 2007-01 is a lot of hassle, additional administrative burdens, open questions, even legal problems might still arise (still didn't dig into it).

Sorry getting quite off-topic here - but this discussions seems to turn out to a general regarding implementation of 2007-01. So maybe someone serious answer to a few points...


regards,

Marcus

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engineering IP Services

Versatel West GmbH

Unterste-Wilms-Strasse 29
D-44143 Dortmund

Fon: +49-(0)231-399-4486 | Fax: +49-(0)231-399-4491
marcus.gerdon at versatel.de | www.versatel.de

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Dortmund | Registergericht: Dortmund HRB 21738 
Geschäftsführer: Marc Lützenkirchen, Dr. Hai Cheng, Dr. Max Padberg, Peter Schindler
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 AS8881 / AS8638 / AS13270 | MG3031-RIPE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net 
> [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Matteo Abrile
> Gesendet: Freitag, 19. Juni 2009 08:37
> An: Hank Nussbacher; Martin List-Petersen
> Cc: Sven Olaf Kamphuis; Sven Olaf Kamphuis; members-discuss at ripe.net
> Betreff: R: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010
> 
> Please remove from this list m.abrile at itelsi.com
> 
> Thank you
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Matteo Abrile
> 
> Itelsi Tigullio Srl
> Via G. Casaregis 50/12 - 16129 Genova
> Tel. 0109845320 Fax. 0109845321
> mail: m.abrile at itelsi.com
> 
> -----Messaggio originale-----
> Da: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net 
> [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] Per conto di Hank Nussbacher
> Inviato: venerdì 19 giugno 2009 8.43
> A: Martin List-Petersen
> Cc: Sven Olaf Kamphuis; Sven Olaf Kamphuis; members-discuss at ripe.net
> Oggetto: Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010
> 
> On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Martin List-Petersen wrote:
> 
> > Anyhow, this whole matter was also already raised at the GM.
> 
> And who ever heard that 50 LIR members vote on behalf of 5000 
> (as was at 
> the last GM)?  Why can't proxy voting or Internet voting be 
> allowed?  Why 
> does a non-profit LIR have to travel to the GM in order to 
> discuss this 
> and to be able to vote?
> 
> -Hank
> 
>