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/members-discuss@ripe.net/
[members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Thomas Mangin
thomas.mangin at exa-networks.co.uk
Tue Jul 24 20:18:23 CEST 2012
On 24 Jul 2012, at 18:04, Gert Doering wrote: > - The Charging Scheme should not be based on IPv4 resources >> >> This point is absolutely NOT agreed upon. There is no general consensus on it. It cannot be stated as a fact. A large part of the members think quite the opposite: the charging scheme should be mostly based on IPv4 resources allocated to each LIR. > > The "large part of the members" being... 3 voices out of several thousand? A minority of LIR are actively involved in RIPE's governance currently. Members tend to only awake when you tell them they will have to pay more or they can not get what they used to get for free.. To make my point : this is my first post, .. Hi everyone :) I am assuming that IPv6 will continue to take longer than we all want to become the de-facto address family of the internet. For the moment, this is still were we are. If the reality of the internet is a world where IPv4s become a financial asset, and can be used for financial gain between LIR/organisation, it would be fair (as a membership organisation is about fairness) to have a price which reflect the value of the asset owed by every members. I know LIR do not own their IP space but if they are allowed to trade/rent it, I see little difference. Not doing so would give incumbent a commercial advantage and provide them no incentive to return the IPv4 they own (which could be used by newcomers/startups) and/or migrate to IPv6. I would welcome policies which would increase the price of owning IPv4 year over year. As a side comment, I have the felling that in a per such world , I would pay more to RIPE than I pay now... so I am not asking for it to try to save some money. Thinking aloud, should RIPE propose several options every year instead of one. This would surely reduce the debate as everyone would have a chance to vote for their preferred pricing model. ( It may be a can of worm, It may not be possible - I am not familiar with RIPE's governance .... ) Thomas Mangin Exa Networks
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]