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/[email protected]/
[members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Asta S.
eisina at yahoo.com
Tue Mar 28 20:33:40 CEST 2023
Current waiting list que is 18-24 months. Paying X k (Hans mentioned something about 20% off the market price) after 2 years in waiting list doesn't even make sense because it will be cheaper and more productive to buy resources in an open market and start using resources straight away compared to this scheme offered by RIPE. Also, Hans Peter during open house mentioned that RIPE is not selling or leasing resources, but this would mean that RIPE will be the first RIR to actually start selling resources. On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 15:37, Sebastien Brossier<sebastien at brossier.org> wrote: My thoughts after the open house: - I am still in favour of a category-based model. A cheap base membership fee will encourage diversity and help gain new members in the coming years. Whereas the current model will lead to fewer and fewer members sharing the bill. - The M&A fee should be low. A high fee would discourage members from updating their details, which would go against the core mission of the RIPE NCC. - A high fee might be understandable for IPv4 transfers in the current context, but unfair for ASN and IPv6 transfers ("pay up or renumber"). - I like the 10 category model (alternative 4), because the price per IPv4 address remains low for everyone. - Independent resources should have either a separate fee, or a category system. Not both, it makes no sense. It might be more reasonable to just keep the separate fee (for all independent resources, including ASN), for stability. - If we really want to change how independent resources are charged, I think it would be nice to have all sponsored users join as members, and count all IP resources in IPv4/IPv6 categories. But that would imply a huge workload for the RIPE NCC. - In favour of a X kEUR fee to get a new /24 IPv4 from the waiting list. We can't ignore the market. Kind regards, Sébastien Brossier _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss at ripe.net https://mailman.ripe.net/ Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/eisina%40yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20230328/e9752301/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]