[members-discuss] Charging Scheme Models 2024
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Charging Scheme Models 2024
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Charging Scheme Models 2024
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
claudiu.foleanu at thorpanel.com
claudiu.foleanu at thorpanel.com
Tue Apr 18 08:35:05 CEST 2023
Hello, They are doing the join and wait at the current prices! Regards, Claudiu Foleanu April 17, 2023 7:36 PM, "Alexander Norman" <alexander at adminor.net> wrote: > Hello, > > Has anyone considered that model A carries the risk of subsidizing the IP traders joining the > waiting list? > Potentially this will enable IP traders to register and maintain many LIRs with lower upfront > (1250EUR) and recurring cost (250EUR) base membership fee for those without allocations. > > Essentially allowing malicious actors to game the waiting list system by maintaining many LIRs and > possibly impact the democratic voting system since LIRs get the same vote weight even if they pay > less. > > I believe, having a low entry level such as this will risk an exodus of IP holders and ranges to > other regions where there is a lower fees while also incurring substantially higher costs for > longterm RIPE members. > > Best regards > Adminor AB > Alexander Norman > > -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- > Från: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net> För Brandon Butterworth > Skickat: Thursday, 13 April 2023 18:06 > Till: Akayo <ripe at akayo.eu> > Kopia: members-discuss at ripe.net > Ämne: Re: [members-discuss] Charging Scheme Models 2024 > > On Wed Apr 12, 2023 at 10:43:41PM +0200, Akayo wrote: > >> Today we received the email of 12th April 2023 about the RIPE NCC >> charging scheme models A, B and C for 2024. Of course we used the >> calculator to find out how much we would be required to pay in future >> for option A. > > It feels like we're being gamed here but I don't know why. > > RIPE run this calculation for billing each year, it seems a needless distraction to have everyone > run it themselves when they could send us the results for each option. > > Similarly they can work out which is the best option for each LIR and total them up to figure which > would win the vote if particpation was even. > > All this though is distracting from the fundamental issue of having expanded/become more costly on > the back of new LIRs mining the last IP block, mostly for profit it seems as we're now facing them > selling up. > > The priority should be to agree what we want to spend and then how we want to split it up. I was > fine letting RIPE make up a budget while the previous cost models were not expensive, now it looks > to become expensive I'm no longer happy with that. > > I think the best option is to use current model, which is least worst as we've all been paying it > for some years, apply RPI increase, then let RIPE determine how to live within it. Then we don't > have all try and determine a viable business model for something we don't really know much detail > of. > > brandon > > _______________________________________________ > 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/alexander%40adminor.net > _______________________________________________ > 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/claudiu.foleanu%40thorpanel.com
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Charging Scheme Models 2024
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Charging Scheme Models 2024
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]