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 ]
Sascha Luck [ml]
ripe-md at c4inet.net
Thu Sep 15 14:02:39 CEST 2016
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 12:15:44PM +0100, Nigel Titley wrote: >- The Charging Scheme model that is decided upon should be applicable >for several years. >- There should be stable fees per member. >- A small number of members should not pay most of the membership fees. out of interest, how would a CS that charges members according to the amount of resources affect a return of excess reserves, were that to happen again? Would the amount to be returned have to be calculated proportionally to the membership fee of the individual member or would the return be the same for everyone like the last time - which amounts to a redistribution from larger to smaller members? Kind Regards, Sascha Luck
- 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 ]