[members-discuss] GM topic

Hi,

On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 03:09:30PM +0200, Patrick Velder wrote:
> Apart from that, the membership said "no" twice to ASN fees. Introducing
> them through the back door is not fair and will probably fail a 3rd time.
> Please accept the fact that the community does not want ASN fees.

We had ASN fees, and they disappeared through a less-than-transparent
process.  The AP WG has clearly voiced a need for an ASN reclaim mechanism
that is more cost efficient than "hostmasters calling up members on a
regular basis and asking 'is this still in use?'" - and a yearly fee,
trivially affordable but annoying enough to question yourself(!) "do I
still need that?" is working nicely.

So it's up there for a vote again - and this has nothing to do with
"backdoor".  It's one option.  It will *lower* the fee for all members
that have 0 or 1 ASN, and members that hand out ASNs like they are free
should have had this in their financial plannings.  Our sponsoring LIR
contracts all have the clause "and we charge whatever RIPE asks us for,
plus a handling fee"...

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard,
                                           Ingo Lalla, Karin Schuler
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20240430/d313b985/attachment.sig>