[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 ]
J Pawlus
Jerzy.Pawlus at cyf-kr.edu.pl
Thu May 4 15:21:52 CEST 2023
> What makes the pay per category model "A" as proposed impossible for me to vote for is it penalizes all long standing lirs. > When I started working with Ripe you signed up completed the forms and a /19 was allocated, more if you could demonstrate need but /19 was default. > You then requested an AS. > Run out came along and you could get a last /22 together with your v6 allocation. > So that adds up to a /19, /22, AS and /32(or /29) > That should be the bare minimum for small as it is what any long standing lir has with Ripe, yet they would now find themselves in category 6 at the high end of the scale. > It does not mean they have more revenues than a lir started in say 2018 with much less IP resources, just that they started first. > Note that I am not talking about the company I work for, we have more resources than those stated above, but I know several companies that fit into the category. > > > Brian > +1. This is very good point. Best regards, Jerzy Pawlus
- 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 ]