[members-discuss] [comms-circle] Re: Re: Re: [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals

Most of land ISP (like a kyivstar) doesnt provide static public IP and 
in most situations provide NAT.

My offering was being is proportional fee by resources.

All LIR must pay in RIPE budget amount proportional of share of used 
resources.

If RIPE doesnt want proportional - they why small LIR must pay same as 
large ISP?

On 12.04.2024 15:49, Evgeniy Brodskiy wrote:
> Confidential/Конфіденційно
> 
> Each LIR has an equal right to receive any unallocated resources.
> The problem is that you want to take away resources that someone else is using.
> Why another LIR should disconnect its clients for you and deprive them of access to the Internet is completely unclear.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net> On Behalf Of ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED
> Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 6:01 PM
> To: ivaylo <ivaylo at bglans.net>; Fergal Cunningham <fergalc at ripe.net>
> Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [comms-circle] Re: Re: Re: [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
> 
> Agree!
> 
> If member fee is same - then resources also must be same.
> 
> On 12.04.2024 14:02, ivaylo wrote:
>>
>>>  From IANA documents signed and agreed from RIPE:
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ---
>> 4) Neutrality and impartiality in relation to all interested parties,
>> and particularly the LIRs
>>
>> All organisations that receive service from the new RIR must be
>> treated equally. The policies and guidelines proposed and implemented
>> by the RIR need to ensure fair distribution of resources, and
>> impartial treatment of the members/requestors.
>>
>> The new RIR should be established as an independent, not-for-profit
>> and open membership association.
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----
>>
>> As some of you mentioned bigger part of the members are "happy" with
>> the current charging scheme. Also seems we can not agree for charging
>> scheme based on resources the member hold. Then logicaly we have an other option:
>>
>> Let then RIPE do same with the resources ! Allocate absolutely equal
>> number of resources to each of the LIR members ! Because there is
>> shortage for IPV4, deallocate them from members who hold more ! For
>> IPV6 just release new networks for simplification. For 32 bit ASNs
>> give the current holders 1 year to free them, and then redistribute
>> again equal number to each LIR.
>>
>> To avoid disruption of the internet work, during the
>> deallocation/allocation keep the IRR and ROA object same. And then
>> separate we LIRs will make each to each contracts.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ivaylo Josifov
>> VarnaIX / Varteh LTD
>> +359 52 969393
>> Varna, Bulgaria
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 12 Apr 2024, Fergal Cunningham wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Dear Sebastien,
>>>
>>>
>>> The charging scheme is adopted by the General Meeting upon proposal
>>> of the Executive Board. The Executive Board proposes a charging
>>> scheme and is responsible for the adoption of the budget and the
>>> activity plan of the organisation, so it is their responsibility to
>>> propose a charging scheme to collect the budget for the execution of
>>> this activity plan.
>>>
>>>
>>> For the execution of the activity plan of 2025 the board proposed
>>> multiple options for covering the estimated budget. Contrary to other
>>> years, this time the current charging scheme cannot cover the
>>> necessary expenses. It would be damaging for the organisation to
>>> propose a resolution that would result in maintaining the current
>>> charging scheme and thus a much smaller income. The board has no
>>> obligation to put forward a resolution that may result in maintaining
>>> the current charging scheme. It does have an obligation to put
>>> forward resolutions for the benefit of the organisation.
>>>
>>>
>>> So in short, the proposal would be completely valid.
>>>
>>>
>>> All the best,
>>>
>>> Fergal
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 12:09?PM Sebastien Brossier
>>> <sebastien at brossier.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>        On 12/04/2024 10:56, Gert Doering wrote:
>>>        > On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 09:59:37AM +0200, Sebastien Brossier
>>>        wrote:
>>>        >> Correct, but the question is: is it ok for the option to
>>>        reject the proposed
>>>        >> resolution to be missing ?
>>>        >
>>>        > This option would take away the necessary resources for the
>>>        NCC to do
>>>        > what they presented at the autumn AGM.? So, yes, this would
>>> be a
>>>        very
>>>        > poor choice.
>>>        >
>>>        > The question is not "if" this is the budget, the question is
>>>        "how can
>>>        > the costs for this budget be distributed?".? So "no!" can not
>>> be
>>>        a valid
>>>        > choice for that question.
>>>
>>>        Hi,
>>>
>>>        I agree that a rejection is not desirable and would put the NCC
>>>        in a
>>>        difficult situation. All voting options should result in the
>>>        same budget.
>>>
>>>        I'm not asking if it is desirable, but if it is *legal* to
>>>        remove the
>>>        choice to reject a proposal.
>>>        I think it is better to ask the question now, rather than take
>>>        the risk
>>>        of seeing someone challenge the vote result later.
>>>
>>>
>>>        Regards,
>>>        Sebastien Brossier
>>>
>>>        _______________________________________________
>>>        members-discuss mailing list
>>>        members-discuss at ripe.net
>>>
>>> https://lis/
>>> ts.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvg
>>> eniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Cf0a8de7a34784444617308dc5b020df9%7Cf8f
>>> 9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638485311585894231%7CUnknown%
>>> 7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJ
>>> XVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=LGjDpiVkpy%2Be22c%2F81aLPPur%2BAJzHTXL
>>> Kb84lJZitnQ%3D&reserved=0
>>>
>>> Unsubscribe:http://https/
>>> %3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fripen
>>> cc-management%25254&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C
>>> f0a8de7a34784444617308dc5b020df9%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7
>>> C0%7C0%7C638485311585904363%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwM
>>> DAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=
>>> AFoj0tjM9koRoJw0JVV6oeDGAZzvxUKqC6XuMsuBZqY%3D&reserved=0
>>>
>>>        0ripe.net
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> members-discuss mailing list
>> members-discuss at ripe.net
>> https://list/
>> s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvgen
>> iy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Cf0a8de7a34784444617308dc5b020df9%7Cf8f9bd
>> 573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638485311585910766%7CUnknown%7CTW
>> FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6
>> Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=cGGZ6o56Z8bJvv41fZ3hSquUIhVjKBgm7MSqJQo2Uf8%
>> 3D&reserved=0
>> Unsubscribe:
>> https://list/
>> s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fadmin%2540roskomnad
>> zor.io&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Cf0a8de7a347844
>> 44617308dc5b020df9%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638485
>> 311585916842%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luM
>> zIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Sux6kJ%2Bv9dDxPPr
>> iP8vovAbQibXR815mpwAS4e0e6Z8%3D&reserved=0
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> members-discuss mailing list
> members-discuss at ripe.net
> https://mailman.ripe.net/
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/evgeniy.brodskiy%40kyivstar.net
>