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 ]
Dickinson, Ian
Ian.Dickinson at sky.uk
Mon Sep 19 18:14:53 CEST 2016
Tom Lehtinen wrote: > RIPE NCC is currently the only RIR that is not charging differentiated > fees depending on LIR size. And is quite enlightened in that regard IMHO. > We all know that IPv4 addresses are shared resources and that we are > running out of available resources. Effectively, we have already run out. ...snip... > One way of safeguarding the number resources is to make sure that they > are used efficiently. One way of making sure that the resources are used > efficiently is to associate a cost with holding the resource. I would have thought the cost of acquiring resources on the secondary market (or conversely, the cash available to you by selling surplus, if any) would be sufficient to drive any organisation towards efficiency. That was one of the drivers behind the "No Need" policy changes iirc. ...snip... > Anyway, I believe that implementing a charge that is based on the size > of the IPv4 resource allocation is fair and it would line up with RIPE > NCC's goal of safeguarding the resources. Whether implementing a cost > like the proposed €250/year per /24 or a fee based on categories such as > the other RIRs are imposing, the model needs to be changed. I disagree. I'd rather the costs were distributed based on the costs of providing service to LIRs, which the current charging scheme seems to do quite well, subject to closing loopholes when someone tries to game the system. Ian Information in this email including any attachments may be privileged, confidential and is intended exclusively for the addressee. The views expressed may not be official policy, but the personal views of the originator. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete it from your system. You should not reproduce, distribute, store, retransmit, use or disclose its contents to anyone. Please note we reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communication through our internal and external networks. SKY and the SKY marks are trademarks of Sky plc and Sky International AG and are used under licence. Sky UK Limited (Registration No. 2906991), Sky-In-Home Service Limited (Registration No. 2067075) and Sky Subscribers Services Limited (Registration No. 2340150) are direct or indirect subsidiaries of Sky plc (Registration No. 2247735). All of the companies mentioned in this paragraph are incorporated in England and Wales and share the same registered office at Grant Way, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7 5QD.
- 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 ]