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] 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 ]
Andrea Cocito
andrea.cocito at ifom.eu
Wed Jul 25 09:29:20 CEST 2012
On Jul 25, 2012, at 9:22 AM, hostmaster at freethought-internet.co.uk wrote: > The scoring units increase with the number of IP addresses in an allocation, so someone with a /20 allocated in 2012 has a score double that of someone with a /21 allocated in 2012 (40 and 20 respectively). There is a clear emphasis on the size of resources allocated. Hard to confront facts with misinformation :) Facts remain: - The charging scheme has always been based on resource usage without affecting the non-profit status - A lot of people thinks that the way to go should be to base it MORE on the resource usage - The current proposal goes in the opposite direction, will make small LIRs pay more and large LIRs pay even less - The tax thing is misinformation and is being used as an excuse. Is there a way in RIPE rules so that a group of LIRs can prepare a different proposal and ask for it to be voted upon ? Regards, A.
- 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 ]