[members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees

Hi

Thanks for everybody's reply, I didn't expect so many replies:)

I think the best solution to solve the problem that large amount of
companies holding huge amount of address--is not making Ripe a police force
to check everybody's usage, Ripe NCC shouldn't be doing that as well as
don't have the autherlization to do so.

A very simple solution would be, let the companies using more address to
pay---that can really help reduce their willingness to hold address while
they are not using it. In the real world, many goverment input very high
property taxes are the same reason.

If people have to pay to hold, they normally will be more open to
discussion the transfer.

Therefore it will reduce the IP transfer costs in the near future as well,
which will be a great news for companies really need IPs.

With regards.

Lu

On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:42 PM, William Weber <
ripe-members-discussion at edisglobal.com> wrote:

> Hello All,
>
> Yes, this - unlike APNIC and iirc ARIN which are normal for-profit
> companys (if they really make one is not the point).
> Also, RIPE *should* not judge who are the good guys, not only for mandate
> reasons but also because this would not be neutral.
>
> --
> William
> EDIS GmbH
>
>
> Am 14.02.2012 um 13:06 schrieb Simon Talbot:
>
> I can’t believe this whole bizarre conversation is starting up again.
> Remember, RIPE is not a regulator, or a commercial entity. It is a not for
> profit organisation owned by its members, us. It can only raise the funds
> that are required to fund its operations plus a small amount for reserves.
> It is not in a position to make pious judgements on who are the “Good Guys”
> or operate punitive pricing schemes, that is simply not RIPE’s mandate.***
> *
> ** **
> Simon****
> ** **
> Simon Talbot
> Chief Engineer
> Net Solutions Europe****
> T: 020 3161 6001****
> F: 020 3161 6011****
> www.nse.co.uk****
> ** **
> ** **
> *From:* members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:
> members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] *On Behalf Of *LeaderTelecom Ltd.
> *Sent:* 14 February 2012 11:52 AM
> *To:* Ben Fitzgerald-O'Connor
> *Cc:* members-discuss at ripe.net; Ulf Kieber; Cenk Keylan
> *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012021401001516] A Whim about
> next year's fees****
> ** **
>
> >IMHO, Smaller ISP’s can take the initiative with the move to IPV6
> perhaps – we all need to
> > build momentum and start to deploy IPV6 in a big way, and to put in
> place 6to4 gateways
> > and other such infrastructure to allow clients connected on IPV6  to
> access the whole
> > Internet.
>
> More simple way - price for IPv4 will grow extremly fast during this and
> next year. When price for IPv4 will be more than price of migration to IPv6
> - many operators will switch from IPv4 to IPv6. After that cost of IPv4
> will goes down very fast. It will be second "Tulip fever".
>
> --
> Alexey Ivanov
> General Director
> LeaderTelecom Ltd****
> --
>
> При ответе сохраняйте [Ticket#2012021401001516] в теме письма.
>
> -- ****
> С уважением,****
> Алексей Иванов  ****
> Генеральный директор ООО "ЛидерТелеком"****
>  ****
> Тел.: 8(495)778-98-51
>  ****
> URL: http://www.InstantSSL.su/ - SSL-сертификаты Comodo
> URL:  http://verisign.su/ - SSL-сертификаты Verisign****
> URL: http://www.HostingConsult.ru/ - Лицензии связи, IP-адреса и AS****
>
>
> 14.02.2012 15:09 - Ben Fitzgerald-O'Connor написал(а):****
> Hi All,
>
> IMHO, Smaller ISP’s can take the initiative with the move to IPV6 perhaps
> – we all need to build momentum and start to deploy IPV6 in a big way, and
> to put in place 6to4 gateways and other such infrastructure to allow
> clients connected on IPV6  to access the whole Internet.
>
> In many ways smaller ISPs have an advantage over the big ISPs who will
> have huge amounts of work to do in moving from 4 to 6. In marketing we all
> also need to stop worrying about running out of IPV4 addresses and start to
> plan and put in IPV6 addresses. Clients should want to move to IPV6 – once
>  moved across, then this work is done for the next 20 years or so. It has
> to be done, so we may as well get going and promote IPV6 as the ‘New
> Internet’ which it is.
>
> New networks should start on IPV6 – this way they can be ahead of the
> curve from the start and have a little pain now in learning new ways of
> doing things but they save a lot of work later by doing this.
>
> IPV4 addresses are worth a lot now but in time they will be obsolete as
> IPV6 becomes mainstream and we all need to work to make that happen.
> Replacing old IPV4 only equipment with new equipment that supports IPV6
> fully is a great sales opportunity. We need to grasp the nettle and move
> ahead on this.
>
> Regards
> Ben
>  ****
> *From:* members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:
> members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] *On Behalf Of *Cenk Keylan
> *Sent:* 14 February 2012 09:57
> *To:* Ulf Kieber; members-discuss at ripe.net
> *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees****
>
> Hi Ulf,
>
> As IP4 is limited resource sure it must have a fee, else how will the new
> commers can access to the IP4 while the large ISP’s have millions of unused
> IP addresses which they have got from Ripe years ago. As a simple argument,
> we have an ISP in Turkey which even their license is taken back and they
> have 100K times more IP addresses then we have and nobody is asking tem to
> give the IP addresses back and they are keeping the IP4 block as the fee
> they pay for membership  is not important then the IP4 block they are
> keeping in hand.
>
> Have a nice day,
>
> Cenk Keylan
>  ****
> <image001.jpg>****
> *3C1B Telekomünikasyon ve Internet Hizmetleri*****
> Tepe Prime Plaza B101, Eskişehir Yolu 9.km No:266****
> 06800 Çankaya Ankara Turkiye****
> Tel****
> : +90-312-988-0000****
> Direkt****
> : +90-312-988-1015****
> Faks****
> : +90-312-241-2888****
> http://www.3c1b.com****
> info at 3c1b.com****
>
>
>
>  ****
> *From:* members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net
> [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] *On Behalf Of *Ulf Kieber
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 14, 2012 11:47 AM
> *To:* members-discuss at ripe.net
> *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees****
>
> Have a look at
> http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/faq/faq-general-resources
>                 “IP addresses are a shared public resource and are not
> for sale.”
>
> The fee you pay is not a fee for IP addresses, but a fee for supplied
> registration services by the RIPE NCC.****
>
> Please also remember that by making an IP address an accountable
> ressources and sticking a price tag onto it, taxability in the Netherlands
> will change, yielding an approx. 25% increase in taxes (and fees).
>
> Since I’m a little bit fed up with this discussion now I hereby request to
> make the fee a real membership fee for the RIPE association; one member,
> one fee; budget divided by the number of members.
>
> Best regards,
> *Ulf Kieber*
> Head of NOC
> green.ch AG****
>  ****
> *From:* members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net
> [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] *On Behalf Of *KOSMOZZ - Info
> *Sent:* Montag, 13. Februar 2012 19:26
> *To:* Lu Heng; members-discuss at ripe.net
> *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees****
>
> Hi Lu,
>
> I was thinking the same.  Why shouldn’t we all be billed for the amount we
> are using and may’be pay a fee for the amount that has been reserved and
> not used?
> I’ll take this with me to the Taskforce currently brainstorming on Billing
> matters.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Filip Herman
> filip at kosmozz.be
>
> *KOS**MOZZ* -- http://www.kosmozz.be
> | Member of Internet Service Providers Belgium (http://www.ispa.be)
>
>
>
> *Van:* members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net
> [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] *Namens *Lu Heng
> *Verzonden:* maandag 13 februari 2012 18:44
> *Aan:* members-discuss at ripe.net
> *Onderwerp:* [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees
>
> Hi Colleagues:****
>  ****
> Just had a whim about next year's membership fees, since Ripe will almost
> certain running out this year, why shouldn't we divided the membership fees
> as the percentage of the total recourse we have?(mostly IPv4)****
>  ****
> The total amount of Ripe's IPv4 is known, and by end of this year, the
> total amount of each LIR's IPv4 is known as well.****
>  ****
> So why should we just simpy do a math as LIR total amount
> address(L)/Ripe's total amount of address(R)*100%*Ripe's total
> need(TN)=Lir's yearly contribution(C)****
>  ****
> So make the format simple:****
>  ****
> C=(L/R*100%)*TN****
>  ****
> Then I think it is "real fair". And as calculate the member fee based on
> the share of member in the organization's recourse's, it doesn't imply as
> "selling IP" rumor which has been the main reason we have categories rather
> than real fair solutions.****
>  ****
> How you think, my colleagues, and this is just my 2 cents thought.****
>  ****
> --
> --
> Kind regards.
> Lu
>
> This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above.
> It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or
> otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use
> of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the
> intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received
> this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and
> e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this
> message and including the text of the transmission received.****
> ----
> If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss
> mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the
> general page:
> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
>
> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From
> here, you can add or remove addresses.
>
>
>
> ----
> If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss
> mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the
> general page:
> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
>
> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From
> here, you can add or remove addresses.
>



-- 
This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It
may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise
protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this
transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended
addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission
in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at
the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the
text of the transmission received.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20120214/b2187823/attachment.html>