[members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Paul Lewis
paul.lewis at fr89.uk
Fri Apr 14 17:27:40 CEST 2023
I'd like to also say that I think the idea of having model A based on the number of resources used, instead of fixed categories, would be better. It would help encourage unused resources to be transferred or returned. --- Regards, Paul Lewis. On 2023-04-13 19:02, cowmedia.de wrote: > Hi Simon, > > by reading this email and checking the calculator again I have the > feeling > that the "listening to the members" as you say was not happening. A > majority > of the members want a usage based charging scheme (as per the > discussions on > this mailing list) and this is completely not reflected. Just adding > some > more categories with the highest still only arround 10K is not > sufficient. > > Also what I do not understand is that my personal account with more or > less > one of the lowest resources you can get is already in Category 2?!? > > I can just repeat what I have already done: > > It should be billed by real resources used and directly calculated not > within categories > Smaller LIRs should pay less and bigger LIRs should pay more > It is important that there is an incentive to get rid of unused > resources > and bring them back, this is only possible when you pay for every > resource > separate, otherwise no-one will take care. > > I think this 3 models are not ready for vote and need to be revised. > Also Model 3 I completely do not understand. Why should someone pay for > transfers? This just means changes are going on and something happens. > Why > these companies should then pay more? The "bad" companies are the ones > that > do not implement IPv6 and their development just stall so nothing > happens. > > Michael > >> On Apr 12, 2023, at 09:45, Simon-Jan Haytink <simonjh at ripe.net> wrote: >> >> Dear RIPE NCC members, >> >> I want to thank all those who contributed to the consultation so far >> on > the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 and the model we should use for the > coming > years. > >> We can now share three draft models that we developed based on input >> from > the members on the Members Discuss mailing list and in the Charging > Scheme > Open House, as well as from the discussions at the recent Executive > Board > Meeting. > >> The result is that we are proposing three draft charging scheme >> models: > one category-based and two that are based on the previous "one LIR > account, > one fee" model. We hope to receive feedback on these models by 19 April > so > the Executive Board can propose the final versions on 26 April. The > members > will then vote on those three models at the upcoming General Meeting on > 24-26 May. > >> The three models all aim to fulfil a budget that is roughly the same >> as > 2023 plus general cost increases including inflation, so EUR 42-45 > million. > By doing this, we can ensure that we can meet the potential budgetary > requirements for 2024 while retaining the option for members to > redistribute > any excess contributions should we receive excess funds. The Activity > Plan > and Budget will be discussed with members this coming Autumn. > >> The three models are available to review at: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/cha > rging-scheme-2024-consultation > >> We also provide an updated calculator where members can see for >> themselves > how much they might pay under the draft > models:https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/new > -calculator-charging-scheme-2024.xlsx > >> To summarise the main features of the three models: >> >> Model A - Category Model >> >> This model has ten categories to provide greater granularity. It also > charges separately for independent and legacy resources in exactly the > same > way as in previous years. Additionally, a separate 50 EUR ASN > assignment fee > has been added. Both separately charged resources do not contribute to > the > category scores. This means there is no double charging and no specific > charging for transfers or administrative work carried out by the RIPE > NCC. > There is a New /24 IPv4 administration fee to ensure there is a > financial > consequence to joining the IPv4 Waiting List. The fee would be payable > upon > receipt of the /24, and members joining the waiting list who do not > have an > eligible LIR account, would pay the new LIR sign-up fee to open a new > LIR > account and join the waiting list. > >> With this model, approximately 68% of members would pay less than the > current annual fee, with the remaining 32% paying more. > >> The discussion with members helped us to see that a category-based >> model > would receive significant support from members if the version was > simplified. Should members see the need to charge for other elements, > then > that can be incorporated into the category model in the coming years. > Any > such additional charges could potentially then reduce the fees per > category. > >> Model B - Price increase and ASN fee >> >> This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there >> is a > price increase of EUR 150 and a 50 EUR ASN fee to ensure we can meet > our > budgetary requirements while retaining the option for members to > redistribute any excess contribution should we receive excess funds. > >> Model C - Transfer fee and ASN fee >> >> This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there >> is a > charge of EUR 1,000 per transfer to be paid by the receiving party and > a 50 > EUR ASN fee to ensure we can meet our budgetary requirements while > retaining > the option for members to redistribute any excess contribution should > we > receive excess funds. > >> Further information on the charging scheme models is provided at: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/cha > rging-scheme-2024-consultation/ > >> The RIPE NCC Executive Board believes that a category-based model is >> the > best option to help address uncertainty that might be caused by > consolidation with multiple LIRs and to provide greater flexibility and > fairness in how we charge members in the coming years. > >> On 26 April, the final versions of the charging schemes that members >> will > vote on will be published for the members to consider and discuss. If > you > have comments on the draft charging schemes, we therefore ask you to > comment > on the members-discuss mailing list by 19 April so we have time to > incorporate any feedback if necessary. > >> Importantly, we ask all members to register for the RIPE NCC General > Meeting where the final decision will be in your hands. Register to > participate and vote at: > >> https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active >> >> Simon-Jan Haytink >> Chief Financial Officer >> RIPE NCC > > _______________________________________________ > members-discuss mailing list > members-discuss at ripe.net > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/info%40cowmedia.de > _______________________________________________ > members-discuss mailing list > members-discuss at ripe.net > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/paul.lewis%40fr89.uk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20230414/22ed7303/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]