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] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
James Blessing
James.Blessing at keycom.co.uk
Tue Sep 13 13:59:11 CEST 2016
On 13/09/2016, 12:15, "members-discuss on behalf of Nigel Titley" <members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net on behalf of nigel at titley.com> wrote: > The Executive Board therefore proposes to discuss this issue at the > upcoming GM. We ask that prior to the GM the membership discusses this > issue on <members-discuss at ripe.net>, keeping the discussion focused on > whether or not the "one LIR-one fee" model is the best model for RIPE > NCC charging schemes and, if not, what the alternative should be. Hi, The idea of a per LIR fee only seems to be (in principle) a good idea and one that I believe that should be retained by RIPE. However, there are a number of reasons to move to move to a system where 80% (a number plucked from the air) of the costs are made up from *all* members and the remainder made up based on the impact of individual members on the operational costs maintaining RIPE. How you calculate these costs would of course depend on a number of different factors and I can see different members proposing things to their own benefit (and therefore the detriment of others) without reference to a single “goal”. I therefore propose that the remaining costs apportions are focused on two separate goals “accuracy of the database” and “conservation of scarce resource” if a proposal does not fit within *both* of these goals then it should be rejected as being not in the interest of the wider community. If we, as a community, cannot achieve changes that meet both these goals then I suggest we stay with the status quo. Thx J -- James Blessing CTO M: +44(0)7989 039 476 E: james.blessing at keycom.co.uk ________________________________ Email Disclaimer: This email transmission is intended for the named addressee(s) only. Its contents are private and confidential and should not be read, copied or disclosed by any other person. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please delete the message and any copies of it and telephone the sender or email them by return. Although Relish Networks plc believes that this message and any attachments are free of any viruses or other defects which may affect a computer, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is free of viruses and other defects. Relish Networks plc does not accept any responsibility for any loss or damage arising in any way from its receipt or use. This email disclaimer is for all Relish Networks plc companies (Company registration number 03921568) whose registered office is at 20-22 Bedford Row, London, WC1R 4JS. Please consider the Environment before printing this email.
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]