[members-discuss] RIPE forces us to pay the bill unfairly

Thank you Tim!
Regards,Christian Lutzner 


Von meinem Samsung Galaxy Smartphone gesendet.
-------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------Von: Tim Armstrong <t.armstrong at nerdalize.com> Datum: 24.07.18  15:33  (GMT+03:00) An: Dmitry Kohmanyuk <dk at hostmaster.ua> Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net Betreff: Re: [members-discuss] RIPE forces us to pay the bill unfairly 
This is really a question for the NCC, not the members-discuss mailing list.
The policy was drafted, presented, voted on and accepted a while ago now. It is now up to the NCC to enforce it, and based on my understanding of it they seem to be doing that quite well and to the letter.So here is a suggestion for all those who are confused as the the NCC's actions:Read the policy,Ask the NCC about their interpretation,Then if you actually disagree with the policy, and want to change it come back to the members-discuss (or appropriate WG) with a proposal.
Now can we please stop this time wasting thread, because it really does appear to be going around in never ending loops because people simply haven't read the policy.
My apologies if this is a bit rude or blunt,
Tim.

On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 1:45 PM, Dmitry Kohmanyuk <dk at hostmaster.ua> wrote:
On Jul 24, 2018, at 13:45, Denis Fondras <ripe at liopen.fr> wrote:

> 

>> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 01:23:52PM +0300, Alexey Sirmays wrote:

>> Guys, they are talking not about "each LIR involved in the transfer/closure", they are talking about extra period of the payment for the LIR. (Q1)

>> 

> 

> That was the "full annual service fee" part that you missed :)



Please explain the meaning of word annual here. Let’s say I open LIR account April 4th, 2018. Which period annual fee covers, a year starting 2018.04.04 or 2018 calendar year?



The meaning of word “annual” is “occurring once per year.” So in my example the fee (annual) would be until 2019.04.04 (exclusive). So, in case of quarterly invoice it would cover 2019.Q1, not 2018.Q1, right?



To other people commenting about how bad it is to open additional LIRs to usurp scarce IPv4 addresses:



The company wanted to transfer IPv6 block. They also had no intention to close the LIR.



Perhaps the fair policy would be to only affect the LIR the transfers or closures refer to, not all LIRs held by entity. Also, perhaps it would be better to allow transfer and not closure, so a resource-less LIR account would be required to be kept and paid for if the owner chooses to transfer its resources immediately after opening.



Those must be policy changes then. Anybody feels like it is a good idea?



> 

>>> Вторник, 24 июля 2018, 7:24 UTC от Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl>:

>>> 

>>> Hi,

>>> 

>>>>> That should indeed not be a problem. I wonder what the reasoning is behind

>>>>> the decision.

>>>>> 

>>>> 

>>>> It's just this part from the policy:

>>>> 

>>>> "A member must pay the full annual service fee for each LIR account(s) held before they can transfer resources or close their LIR account(s)."

>>>> 

>>>> Maybe it would make sense to change this to "each LIR involved in the transfer/closure", but right now it's just using the policy adopted by the community.

>>> 

>>> Well spotted, thanks!

>>> Sander



We should know whether that phrasing predates GM voting decision which “legalized” multiple LIR accounts. 



_______________________________________________

members-discuss mailing list

members-discuss at ripe.net

https://mailman.ripe.net/

Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/t.armstrong%40nerdalize.com




-- 

Tim Armstrong
Dark Lord of Network Operations
+31 6 175 444 72

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20180724/ab5c927c/attachment.html>