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] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sebastien Brossier
sebastien at brossier.org
Tue Apr 16 16:46:18 CEST 2024
If the largest LIRs pay too much, they might prefer to send lawyers instead of their payment, or use their financial leverage to influence decisions. How much is too much ? I don't know. I'm just assuming it's okay if their fee stays below 100k EUR. The Bit_Factor could be increased a little bit, but that wouldn't radically change things anyway. Sebastien Brossier On 16/04/2024 16:20, Petru Bunea wrote: > This is NOT a good example. In this example we see how a /22 allocation > pays 1094 EUR per year, which is close to 1 EUR / 1 IP / Year, and a /8 > allocation pays 48.000 EUR, which is 0.003 EURO / 1 IP / Year, which is > 333 times less expensive. So tell me again how this is a good example.
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]