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

My ripe is hacked

Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
________________________________
From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net> on behalf of ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED <admin at roskomnadzor.io>
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 6:00:32 PM
To: ivaylo <ivaylo at bglans.net>; Fergal Cunningham <fergalc at ripe.net>
Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net <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://mailman.ripe.net/
>>
>> Unsubscribe:https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ripencc-management%4
>>
>>       0ripe.net
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> members-discuss mailing list
> members-discuss at ripe.net
> https://mailman.ripe.net/
> Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/admin%40roskomnadzor.io
>
>
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
members-discuss mailing list
members-discuss at ripe.net
https://mailman.ripe.net/
Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ahmad.fakih%40smartnetworkslb.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20240413/fdfdc384/attachment.html>