<html><head><style id="axi-htmleditor-style" type="text/css">p { margin: 0px; }</style></head><body dir="" style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Source Sans Pro", sans-serif; background-image: none; background-repeat: repeat; background-attachment: fixed;">Large Telco's are currently very concerned about fairness as seen in the discussion on the nettax/fairshare proposal.<div>We could assume they would therefor be OK with paying their fair dues to RIPE ...<br><div class="x-axi-signature"><br></div><div class="x-axi-signature"></sarcasm off><br><div class="x-axi-signature" style="; font-size: 10pt; font-family: " source="" sans="" pro",="" sans-serif;"="">-- <div>IDGARA | Alex de Joode | alex@idgara.nl | +31651108221 <br></div></div></div><br>On Mon, 13-03-2023 16h 11min, ripe-ncc-members-discuss@itns.md wrote:<br><blockquote style="margin-left: 10px; padding-left: 10px; border-left: 1px solid #ccc;"><div>The issue is not a bigger budget. If such companies as Orange, T-Mobile, MTC and many other big players will pay a fair membership tax based on the resources they hold, micro LIR (I don't know if the mean and sense of an LIR can even to be imposed to such a LIR that holds 256 ipv4 addresses, they even cannot make assignments) will have to pay much less.</div><div> </div><div>The only fair model ==> LIR FEE = RIPE NCC BUDGET x ~1.1 / RIPE NCC managed ipv4 x all LIR Allocations/Assignments.</div><div> </div><div><div>If the community will not change the charging scheme to such a model, it will be clear that somebody is protecting big players.</div></div><div> </div><div>best,</div><div>Sergiu</div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div><div>13.03.2023, 10:58, "Alarig Le Lay via members-discuss" <members-discuss@ripe.net>:</div><blockquote><p><axiquotedmarker></axiquotedmarker>Hi,<br><br>On Tue 07 Mar 2023 11:02:02 GMT, Kaj Niemi wrote:</p><blockquote> An obvious option would be to reduce budgeted RIPE NCC expenditure to<br> the level of forecasted revenue. This is what most normal companies,<br> without assured funding, must do.</blockquote><p><br>I totally agree. If we look at the Draft Activity Plan and Budget 2023<br><a href="https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/october-2022/documentation-and-archive/draft-ripe-ncc-activity-plan-and-budget-2023" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="redir.hsp?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.net%2Fparticipate%2Fmeetings%2Fgm%2Fmeetings%2Foctober-2022%2Fdocumentation-and-archive%2Fdraft-ripe-ncc-activity-plan-and-budget-2023" target="_blank">https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/october-2022/documentation-and-archive/draft-ripe-ncc-activity-plan-and-budget-2023</a><br>Right in the summary it’s written “Other factors affecting our budget<br>include high inflation and costs related to major projects planned for<br>2023, especially our planned migration of some services to the cloud”<br>So, if the budget is scarce, why continue such project in the first<br>place?<br><br>With that being the first justification of the budget, it’s not<br>sufficient to increase the members participation for me.<br> </p>--<br>Alarig<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>members-discuss mailing list<br><a href="mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net" rel="noopener noreferrer">members-discuss@ripe.net</a><br><a href="https://mailman.ripe.net/" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="redir.hsp?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss" target="_blank">https://mailman.ripe.net/</a><br>Unsubscribe: <a href="https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ripe-ncc-members-discuss%40itns.md" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="redir.hsp?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fripe-ncc-members-discuss%2540itns.md" target="_blank">https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ripe-ncc-members-discuss%40itns.md</a></blockquote></blockquote></div></body></html>