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/members-discuss@ripe.net/
[members-discuss] Response from Board on Charging Scheme Comments
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Response from Board on Charging Scheme Comments
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Response from Board on Charging Scheme Comments
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
sdy at a-n-t.ru
sdy at a-n-t.ru
Fri Apr 12 11:15:32 CEST 2024
And again... The Categories scheme can only work well if you don't have a shortage of resources. New categories will only permanently approve the "slavery" of LIRs on IPv4 for little money for the old "masters". This is a dead-end development path for NCC. It is necessary to charge an equal fee from each member for each scarce resource for its "fast" movement (for example, a land tax per square meter). Unlike the model with categories, where moving a small part of the resources does not mean anything to the owners' wallet. > Le Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 10:32:45PM +0200, Ondrej Filip [feela at network.cz] > a écrit: > (...) >> >> Let me also address the point of the fee structure and alternative >> suggestions raised by several of you. I understand and sympathise with >> the >> idea that the current fee structure means that the majority of the >> budget is >> covered by small members while larger and richer companies pay a minor >> part. >> This concept was approved a long time ago and the board unsuccessfully >> tried >> to propose changes. > > A long time ago, RIPE members composition was probably different, and > expenses also. > The only "proposal" to change the fee calculation was about categories > that did not fit anybody, neither small LIRs nor large ones. > >> We are very open to discuss this topic again and again, >> but so far there is no solid model on the table. But we hear you and we >> will >> continue this discussion with you. > > RIPE financial people could quite easily elaborate a model with a base > member fee, operations fees for those that require administrative > handling ( LIR creation, assignements, etc. ), and a flat linear > ressource fee, including legacy, with a weight towards most scarce ones > (ipv4 and ASN) > Add in this a multi-year plan for reducing costs, such a internalizing > tasks currently handled by consultants (which is already on the go, if I > understand reports correctly). > > > > -- > Dominique Rousseau > Neuronnexion, Prestataire Internet & Intranet > 6 rue des Hautes cornes - 80000 Amiens > tel: 03 22 71 61 90 - fax: 03 22 71 61 99 - http://www.neuronnexion.coop > > _______________________________________________ > members-discuss mailing list > members-discuss at ripe.net > https://mailman.ripe.net/ > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/sdy%40a-n-t.ru > ----------------------------- С уважением Сербулов Дмитрий ООО "Альфа Нет Телеком" +7(498)785-8-000 раб. +7(495)940-92-11 доп. +7(925)518-10-69 сот.
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Response from Board on Charging Scheme Comments
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Response from Board on Charging Scheme Comments
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]