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

Hi Pavel,

As I mentioned in my previous email, certain agenda items may only be
proposed by the Executive Board. The Articles of Association indicate the
following items:
- The adoption of the Charging Scheme with respect to the coming financial
year (Art. 15.4.b)
- The adoption of amendments to the Standard Service Agreement (Art. 15.5.c)
- The approval of new arbiters and/or dismissal of current arbiters and/or
adoption of amendments to the arbitration procedure (Art 15.5.d)

https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/2024-April/005454.html
Best regards,
Fergal

On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 9:31 PM Pavel Odintsov <ripe at pavel-odintsov.com>
wrote:

> Hello, Fergal!
>
> Thank you very much for providing feedback and clarifying this point.
>
> I'm not sure that I clearly understand reasons about inability to alter
> this specific proposal.
>
> In current https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-818/ articles of
> association I can see section 15.6:
>
> 15.6 On the application In Writing of a group of Members who are jointly
> entitled to cast at least two percent (2%) of the total number of possible
> votes, other subjects will be added to the agenda. Such an application,
> accompanied by the verbatim text of the resolutions proposed by the said
> Members, shall have to be sent to the Executive Board at least two weeks
> before the Meeting.
>
> The Executive Board shall immediately send the verbatim text of the
> resolutions proposed by the said Members to all the Members of the
> Association.
>
> I do not see any limitations about types of proposals here.
>
> Can you clarify why we have these constraints?
>
> Thank you!
>
> On Monday, 22 April 2024 at 15:57, Fergal Cunningham <fergalc at ripe.net>
> wrote:
>
> 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/20240423/556f6e99/attachment-0001.html>