<!DOCTYPE html><html><head><title></title><style type="text/css">p.MsoNormal,p.MsoNoSpacing{margin:0}</style></head><body><div style="font-family:Arial;">my dear members and the NCC board and management, <br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">during the discussion in the RIPE members' Telegram chat (unofficial!) I have proposed to have a "latecomer" discount for those LIRs that do not have any IPv4 allocations. So the wording can be:<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">"For the members who do not have IPv4 allocated resources for all of 2025, the annual fee would be reduced by 500 EUR." (Of course, the amount is just a suggestion, and I expect NCC financial leadership to have precise numbers on hand that would be appropriate.)</div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">As it was repeatedly stated on this mailing list, everyone who came to join NCC past run out does not have any IPv4 resources unless they pay (quite high) market rental or transfer fees or have received /24 from the waiting list. Their membership, while charged equally, does not have an equal benefit of access to legacy internet, also known as IPv4.<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">My company would not benefit from such a proposal as we use both an initial /21 and a "final" /22 allocation.<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">I would like to ask our director or registry officer what is the total count of pure IPv6 LIRs (with or without IPv4 PI.)<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">While the board is considering increasing the cost of AS numbers and/or PI resources, the members are not all paying the same fees, so it seems fair that those with zero IPv4 resources do have a (perhaps token) discount.<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">-- dk@ (ready for all the ticket emails already)</div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div>On Wed, 10 Apr 2024, at 16:38, Fergal Cunningham wrote:<br></div><blockquote type="cite" id="qt" style=""><div dir="ltr"><div>Dear Martin,<br></div><div><br></div><div>The Executive Board decided on these draft options
at its meeting on 25th of March. So now the Board and management will
follow the feedback on the draft proposal on the list. They will decide
by 24 April if these will be the final options to vote on at the GM or
if they want to make amendments. So essentially the decision on what
gets voted on at the GM is made by the Board. You can see the minutes
from that meeting here (section 3.3 on the Charging Scheme):<br></div><div><a href="https://www.ripe.net/about-us/executive-board/minutes/2024/174th-executive-board-meeting-minutes/">https://www.ripe.net/about-us/executive-board/minutes/2024/174th-executive-board-meeting-minutes/</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>And
it's worth mentioning that this list is for members to discuss the
issues while we and the board will listen. But we will of course reply
and provide information to address the points raised if at all possible.<br></div><div><br></div><div>All the best,<br></div><div>Fergal<br></div></div></blockquote><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div></body></html>