[members-discuss] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016

Hi,

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 04:10:12PM -0500, Lars-Johan Liman wrote:
> And moving the marker to or from the end of the
> scale is not a policy decision.

There I differ (and obviously the board does so, too).

Having a yearly recurring price on resources, namely independent resources
that are covered by policy proposal 2007-01, is an instrument that affects
"garbage collection" of unused resources ("if I do not need this AS number
anymore, why should I bother to pay something for it every year?" - it 
does not particularily matter if this is 5 EUR or 100 EUR, it is "I have 
to bother").

"Zero" is not "the same as an arbitrary small number".

The address policy working group achieved consensus on this, and the board
and AGM implemented the charging scheme accordingly, with a per-unit price
on PI assignments and AS numbers.  Then the charging scheme was changed
to waive the price on AS numbers, without a mandate from the community.
I am aware that the AGM can just do so (as the community has no formal
mandate on charging and AGM decisions), but *now* coming up with "we don't
want to change it *back* because it would be making policy" has a funny 
smell...

Gert Doering
        -- speaking as a paying member and as a part of the community
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20150324/1545cca0/attachment.sig>