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] [comms-circle] Re: Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [comms-circle] Re: Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [comms-circle] Re: Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
sdy at a-n-t.ru
sdy at a-n-t.ru
Mon Apr 22 20:35:44 CEST 2024
Hi, all. Don't worry, don't hurry. If we want to change something it is need to do it step by step. Now, at first it is need to decide what kind of scheme types we want in 2026 year: 1. One equal payment. 2. Category payment. 3. Payment for each resources. It is need to vote on it. After it is need to plan budget and payments size for 2026. I like <3>. > So, Executive Board will be continue to offering "same like" charging > schemes and no way to offer something new? Even with 400 votes? > > On 22.04.2024 16:27, Fergal Cunningham wrote: >> 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 >> <mailto: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 <http://www.prebits.de/>____ >> >> info at prebits.de <mailto:info at prebits.de>____ >> >> __ __ >> >> USt-ID: DE315418902____ >> >> __ __ >> >> __ __ >> >> *Von:*members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net >> <mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net>> *Im Auftrag von *Fergal >> Cunningham >> *Gesendet:* Montag, 22. April 2024 16:58 >> *An:* members-discuss at ripe.net <mailto: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 <mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net>> >> wrote:____ >> >> On 22 Apr 2024, at 13:03, Sebastien Brossier >> <sebastien at brossier.org <mailto: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 <mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net> >> https://mailman.ripe.net/ >> Unsubscribe: >> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ripencc-management%40ripe.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/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] [comms-circle] Re: Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [comms-circle] Re: Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]