<html> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> </head> <body> <div dir="ltr"> <div dir="ltr">My ripe is hacked</div> <div id="ms-outlook-mobile-signature"> <div> </div> Get <a href="https://aka.ms/o0ukef">Outlook for iOS</a></div> </div> <hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%" tabindex="-1"> <div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr">From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED <admin@roskomnadzor.io> Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 6:00:32 PM To: ivaylo <ivaylo@bglans.net>; Fergal Cunningham <fergalc@ripe.net> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [comms-circle] Re: Re: Re: [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals <div> </div> </div> <div class="BodyFragment"> <div class="PlainText">Agree! If member fee is same - then resources also must be same. On 12.04.2024 14:02, ivaylo wrote: > >> From IANA documents signed and agreed from RIPE: > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 4) Neutrality and impartiality in relation to all interested parties, > and particularly the LIRs > > All organisations that receive service from the new RIR must be treated > equally. The policies and guidelines proposed and implemented by the RIR > need to ensure fair distribution of resources, and impartial treatment > of the members/requestors. > > The new RIR should be established as an independent, not-for-profit and > open membership association. > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > As some of you mentioned bigger part of the members are "happy" with the > current charging scheme. Also seems we can not agree for charging scheme > based on resources the member hold. Then logicaly we have an other option: > > Let then RIPE do same with the resources ! Allocate absolutely equal > number of resources to each of the LIR members ! Because there is > shortage for IPV4, deallocate them from members who hold more ! For IPV6 > just release new networks for simplification. For 32 bit ASNs give the > current holders 1 year to free them, and then redistribute again equal > number to each LIR. > > To avoid disruption of the internet work, during the > deallocation/allocation keep the IRR and ROA object same. And then > separate we LIRs will make each to each contracts. > > > > Ivaylo Josifov > VarnaIX / Varteh LTD > +359 52 969393 > Varna, Bulgaria > > > On Fri, 12 Apr 2024, Fergal Cunningham wrote: > >> >> Dear Sebastien, >> >> >> The charging scheme is adopted by the General Meeting upon proposal of >> the >> Executive Board. The Executive Board proposes a charging scheme and is >> responsible for the adoption of the budget and the activity plan of the >> organisation, so it is their responsibility to propose a charging >> scheme to >> collect the budget for the execution of this activity plan. >> >> >> For the execution of the activity plan of 2025 the board proposed >> multiple >> options for covering the estimated budget. Contrary to other years, this >> time the current charging scheme cannot cover the necessary expenses. It >> would be damaging for the organisation to propose a resolution that would >> result in maintaining the current charging scheme and thus a much smaller >> income. The board has no obligation to put forward a resolution that may >> result in maintaining the current charging scheme. It does have an >> obligation to put forward resolutions for the benefit of the >> organisation. >> >> >> So in short, the proposal would be completely valid. >> >> >> All the best, >> >> Fergal >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 12:09?PM Sebastien Brossier >> <sebastien@brossier.org> >> wrote: >> On 12/04/2024 10:56, Gert Doering wrote: >> > On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 09:59:37AM +0200, Sebastien Brossier >> wrote: >> >> Correct, but the question is: is it ok for the option to >> reject the proposed >> >> resolution to be missing ? >> > >> > This option would take away the necessary resources for the >> NCC to do >> > what they presented at the autumn AGM.? So, yes, this would be a >> very >> > poor choice. >> > >> > The question is not "if" this is the budget, the question is >> "how can >> > the costs for this budget be distributed?".? So "no!" can not be >> a valid >> > choice for that question. >> >> Hi, >> >> I agree that a rejection is not desirable and would put the NCC >> in a >> difficult situation. All voting options should result in the >> same budget. >> >> I'm not asking if it is desirable, but if it is *legal* to >> remove the >> choice to reject a proposal. >> I think it is better to ask the question now, rather than take >> the risk >> of seeing someone challenge the vote result later. >> >> >> Regards, >> Sebastien Brossier >> >> _______________________________________________ >> members-discuss mailing list >> members-discuss@ripe.net >> <a href="https://mailman.ripe.net/">https://mailman.ripe.net/</a> >> >> Unsubscribe:https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ripencc-management%4 >> >> 0ripe.net >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > members-discuss mailing list > members-discuss@ripe.net > <a href="https://mailman.ripe.net/">https://mailman.ripe.net/</a> > Unsubscribe: > <a href="https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/admin%40roskomnadzor.io"> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/admin%40roskomnadzor.io</a> > > > > > _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net <a href="https://mailman.ripe.net/">https://mailman.ripe.net/</a> Unsubscribe: <a href="https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ahmad.fakih%40smartnetworkslb.net"> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ahmad.fakih%40smartnetworkslb.net</a> </div> </div> </body> </html>