[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 ]
Carlos Friacas
cfriacas at fccn.pt
Fri Jul 27 10:54:34 CEST 2012
Please see inline. On Thu, 26 Jul 2012, Sascha Luck wrote: > On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 07:18:23PM +0100, Thomas Mangin wrote: >> 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 > > The original 2012 proposal wasn't so bad actually, it just had a few > ugly warts which is why I and a lot of others rejected it. > > So as not to be accused of just moaning and no solutions, how is this > for a proposal? > > -Categories as before, possibly based on the Nov 2011 proposal. > -sane category boundaries so that end-users and new LIRs will usually > fall into the smallest category. > > -*No* double charging of Independent Resources. Either set a charge per > or use them for category calgulation, not both. Personally, I fall on > the side of a charge per resource as using PI/ASN for category > calculation is impossible to do fairly. > > -No "aging" of resources for category calculation. I've never understood > what makes a prefix allocated in 1999 different from one allocated in > 2009 anyway. For IPv6 that would be farcical anyway. this benefits early adopters, no doubt. maybe most of people driving policies are early adopters -- it wouldn't be a surprise for me. but between 1999 and 2009 there is a difference of 10 years' fees. maybe this is a "bonus discount" for having paid previous fees and keep using the space? maybe someone on the list could explain what was the original rationale/argument for this... > -The "setup fee" has to go or be drastically reduced. Nobody can tell > me it is EUR 2k worth of work to set up a new customer. If it actually *member*... ;-) > *is*, now is a good time to change that ineffective practice. > Drop the free meeting tickets, if that makes a difference. Nobody uses > them. Of the 10 tickets that the 5 LIRs that I do work for were entitled > to, not one was used. i would personally agree with that, but i guess the NCC should have more precise numbers about it. > -I'd argue that this should only include (and fund!) registry, training, > K-root and rDNS service. Members who want RPKI, USB sticks or any other > service can fund those via separate service fees. agree. Regards, Carlos > > rgds, > Sascha Luck > > > > > > > >> .... ) >> >> Thomas Mangin Exa Networks >> >> >> ---- 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. >
- 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 ]