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] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] is the self-assessment model really a good idea?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Lu Heng
h.lu at anytimechinese.com
Mon Jul 9 17:36:17 CEST 2012
Hi Thanks for reply. On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 5:30 PM, Nigel Titley <nigel at titley.com> wrote: > On 09/07/2012 15:52, Erik Bais wrote: >> Hi Nigel, E-board& TF, >> >> Thanks for the update. >> >> I'm real happy to see some kind of normalization in the fees and agree that most of the LIR's would probably normalize into the Regular category. >> >> Question that I have is what would be the criteria between changing from / to Small, Regular or Large. >> Is it only based on self-selection and peer review or could someone be somewhat pushed into the right bucket? > For the first year it will be derived from your existing category, after > that it is self selection. >> >> What would happen for instance if everyone (apart from a few) would select Small for instance? >> I understand that it is noble to think that everyone would select their own correct bucket ... but what if they don't? > > If they don't (and if everyone chooses Small for example) then the > charge is equal for everyone. "Real" Small members will end up paying > more than they should, "Real" Large members will end up paying less and > the majority of regular members will end up paying roughly what they > would be anyway. Sounds to me it will end up that way, Moral hazard will come into play. But if it ends up this way, why would we need this long paper anyway, because we can replace it by one line. equally divided by member numbers. If in term of pure cost assumption, this proposal with single line should get passed.(people paying average fee will not object, and the large guys will support it, and only small guys will object it in which they will become minority in this case). If the entire charging proposal end up simply with this single line...I don't know if this will be good for all. > > Nigel > > ---- > 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. -- -- 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.
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] is the self-assessment model really a good idea?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]