[members-discuss] [comms-circle] Re: Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)

Dear Murat,

That's correct. Any proposals regarding the Charging Scheme are meant to
come from the Executive Board.

Best regards,
Fergal

On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 5:42 PM <m.terzioglu at prebits.de> wrote:

> Dear Fergal,
>
>
>
>
>
> So we dont have now the possibility to offer new proposals for charging
> scheme here:
> https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/member-proposals/ and we
> cant either offer any proposal for not chosing any offered options, right?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards
>
> *Murat TERZIOGLU*
> *PREB**IT**S*
>
>
>
> Bochumer Str. 20
>
> 44866 Bochum
>
> Deutschland
>
>
>
> Telefon: 0234/58825994
>
> Telefax: 0234/58825995
>
>
>
> www.prebits.de
>
> info at prebits.de
>
>
>
> USt-ID: DE315418902
>
>
>
>
>
> *Von:* members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net> *Im Auftrag von
> *Fergal Cunningham
> *Gesendet:* Montag, 22. April 2024 16:58
> *An:* members-discuss at ripe.net
> *Betreff:* Re: [members-discuss] [comms-circle] Re: Charging scheme 2025
> proposal (logarithmic)
>
>
>
> Dear Dmytro,
>
> Making resolutions on the charging scheme for next year is solely the
> responsibility of the Executive Board. Proposing different versions is not
> possible. Please see also the mail I sent on Friday:
>
> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/2024-April/005454.html
>
> Best regards,
> Fergal
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 1:44 PM Dmitry Kohmanyuk via members-discuss <
> members-discuss at ripe.net> wrote:
>
> On 22 Apr 2024, at 13:03, Sebastien Brossier <sebastien at brossier.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > On 20/04/2024 11:44, Claudius Zingerli wrote:
> >> I think IPv6 allocations larger than /29 aren't very common. Your
> proposal again puts too much load on smaller LIRs.
> > I generated this alternate simulation to address the concerns of those
> with IPv6 /29 and a very small amount of IPv4, but it is indeed worse for
> everyone else. Billing IPv6 in a fair way is not easy when 90% of LIRs are
> in the same category.
> >
> > Honestly, I prefer my initial proposal. Or James A.T. Rice's proposal if
> we're not going to charge for IPv6 at the moment.
>
> Hi Sebastien,
>
>
> I am examining formulas which involve a fixed price, as well as charges
> for both IPv4 and IPv6, and wondering if there is anyone who can help
> calculate the impact of merging LIRs or moving addresses on these
> (obviously not exactly.)
>
> Additionally, I have a question about whether membership is able to
> propose any version to these charges for voting, subject to a signature
> threshold, or if it is solely the board's responsibility.
>
> -- dk@
>
> _______________________________________________
> members-discuss mailing list
> members-discuss at ripe.net
> https://mailman.ripe.net/
> Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ripencc-management%40ripe.net
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20240422/d674cd8b/attachment.html>