[members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010

On 19 Jun 2009, at 11:38, Thomas Mangin wrote:

> Hi,
>
>> Once it has been agreed in principal that we RIPE should start  
>> charging for an assignment, it is then possible for "the few" who  
>> are able to make it to these RIPE jollies^Wmeetings all over Europe  
>> and steer the policies then do so to their best interests.
>
> RIPE policies are proposed and voted by the membership, it can not  
> get any more democratic than that !

Yes, but generally it would seem that they're discussed at the GM and  
not in open forums such as this .... tbh other than a comment asking  
for a sample contract a few months ago (which I've still not seen, so  
haven't looked into this further until this thread started) I've not  
seen any discussion on this proposal

> If you do not like them: VOTE - you do not have to be at the meeting  
> to send a proxy, and I do not say this as I am in favor of charing  
> for PI space (I am neutral on the point) - I say it as it is how  
> working members organisation stay alive.

If I knew what we were voting on, and could find a company/member I  
trusted to proxy my vote in the way I wished it to be cast, then I would

I'd be happier voting based on the minutes of the meeting through the  
LIR portal however ... and even happier if I can watch a stream of the  
whole proceedings on the basis it is difficult for me to get to any of  
these events



>
>> We've seen this recently with Nominet in the UK where by they now  
>> have 2 tiers of access, and it is no longer a "level playing field"  
>> for all members .. you have members, and you have "elite" members
>
> I am in the UK, I am Nominet member as well. I went to Nominet  
> Manchester consultation and to the best of my knowledge what you are  
> saying is totally wrong. The board has currently no say on pricing,  
> it is one of the point under discussion and any change in this  
> direction will need to be voted.

This isn't the place for this discussion, but I refer to the  
implementation of DAC/EPP/Whois2/etc where we were told we would have  
to pay an additional £400 for access on top of our membership fee  
owing to the policy of having "preferred" access or similar ...

In the end we worked around it, but I'm also concerned about  
discussions I've heard about having weighted voting based on the  
number of domains you have registered through Nominet ... being a  
member should entitle you to 1 vote per membership .. not 1 vote per  
domain you register .. then anyone can "buy" the policy making process  
if they have enough money

>
> Feel free to ask nom-steer for a long discussion on the matter  
> should you not want to take my word for it (and you have no reason  
> to do).

One day ... when I have enough staff, and enough spare time ... but  
not before I've had some sleep and a holiday!

:)


>
> Regards,
>
> Thomas Mangin
> Technical Director
> --
> Exa Networks Limited - http://www.exa-networks.co.uk/
> Company No. 04922037 - VAT no. 829 1565 09
> 27-29 Mill Field Road, BD16 1PY, UK
> Phone: +44 (0) 845 145 1234 - Fax: +44 (0) 1274 567646
>
>
>> And sadly it is a precedent ... EUR50 this year .... EUR500 the  
>> year after ... EUR5000 the year after that ??
>>
>> Once it has been agreed in principal that we RIPE should start  
>> charging for an assignment, it is then possible for "the few" who  
>> are able to make it to these RIPE jollies^Wmeetings all over Europe  
>> and steer the policies then do so to their best interests.
>>
>> We've seen this recently with Nominet in the UK where by they now  
>> have 2 tiers of access, and it is no longer a "level playing field"  
>> for all members .. you have members, and you have "elite" members
>>
>> I totally agree that RIPE have been needlessly steering everyone  
>> into becoming an LIR when they only need a small assignment, and  
>> this has lead to a waste of IP allocations .. however my  
>> understanding is that this policy isn't designed to limit PA space  
>> assignments anyway ... it is designed to make PI harder to obtain,  
>> thus steering yet more people into the LIR route (whether they need  
>> to be an LIR or not) ...
>>
>> How many LIRs find RIPE referring customers to them because they  
>> needed an assignment?  Few I suspect - they all either get told "go  
>> find one from this list" or otherwise "become an LIR" and pay the  
>> small LIR fee.
>>
>> Maybe its just me only seeing the glass as half full?
>>
>> Jon
>>
>> On 19 Jun 2009, at 09:16, Heidrich Attila wrote:
>>
>>> I think you do.
>>>
>>> Consider the domain registration. The registrator is kinda "service
>>> provider" whether it serves any kind of access/hosting/content/DNS  
>>> or
>>> whatever, and the end user is the only "independent" user of the  
>>> named
>>> resource - but not owner.
>>>
>>> I think this is very similar to the PI assignments. In Hungary  
>>> this is
>>> normal the regitrstor having a one time enrollment feer, a yearly  
>>> fee
>>> (well, this contains registration fees for the whole amount), and
>>> per-transaction fees after all new registration, transfers, and
>>> prolongals.
>>>
>>> I do not think EUR50 to be so big problem, but we are an ISP, so  
>>> this is
>>> quite normal for us to have the customer pay after allocating  
>>> resources
>>> of any kind.
>>>
>>> Attila
>>>
>>> -----Eredeti üzenet-----
>>>
>>>> Not every LIR is an ISP, a lot of them are. If you assign PI to  
>>>> somebody
>>>> else, you have a provider/enduser relationship. That makes you a  
>>>> service
>>>> provider of some sort. Be it internet, content or hosting.
>>>
>>> no, you dont.
>>>
>>> the customer usually asks to just register ip space and an AS  
>>> number which
>>> he then announces himself to transits of -his- choice.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --------------
>>> Ezen uzenet kizarolag a cimzettjenek szol es olyan bizalmas jellegu
>>> informaciokat tartalmazhat, amelyek feltarasat jogszabaly vagy  
>>> szerzodes
>>> tiltja. Amennyiben a jelen uzenetet On teves kezbesites folytan  
>>> kapta,
>>> kerjuk haladektalanul ertesitsen bennunket es az uzenetet annak
>>> csatolmanyaival egyutt torolje. Amennyiben On nem cimzettje a jelen
>>> uzenetnek, annak es mellekleteinek elolvasasa, masolasa,  
>>> tovabbitasa, vagy
>>> barmely celbol torteno felhasznalasa szigoruan tilos.  
>>> Megjegyezzuk, hogy az
>>> e-mail utjan torteno kozlesek nem garantaljak az elkuldott uzenetek
>>> bizalmas jellegenek es teljessegenek megorzeset, valamint az  
>>> uzenetek
>>> megfelelo kezbesiteset. A fentieken tulmenoen, a Hungarian  
>>> Telephone and
>>> Cable Corp., annak kapcsolt vallalkozasai, illetve az altaluk  
>>> megbizott
>>> harmadik felek a jelen e-mail cimrol kuldott, vagy arra erkezo  
>>> barmely
>>> uzenetet ellenorizhetnek, lemasolhatnak, felhasznalhatnak vagy  
>>> harmadik fel
>>> reszere tovabbithatnak.
>>>
>>> This message is intended exclusively for its addressee and may  
>>> contain
>>> confidential information protected from disclosure by law or  
>>> contract. If
>>> you have received this message in error, please immediately notify  
>>> us and
>>> delete it together with its attachments. If you are not an  
>>> addressee of
>>> this message, reading, copying, distribution or use for any  
>>> purpose of the
>>> contents of this message or its attachments is strictly forbidden.
>>> Additionally, please note that communication by email guarantees  
>>> neither
>>> the confidentiality nor the completeness or proper receipt of the  
>>> messages
>>> sent. Furthermore, Hungarian Telephone and Cable Corp., its  
>>> affiliates and
>>> third parties retained by them may monitor, copy, use or forward  
>>> to third
>>> parties any outgoing messages from and incoming messages to this  
>>> email
>>> address.
>>>
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3898 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20090619/42809fb7/attachment.p7s>