<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> <meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"> <style></style> </head> <body lang="DE" link="blue" vlink="purple"> <div class="WordSection1"> RIPE had a category based model, too.<o:p></o:p> The members (we all together) voted (multiple times) to replace it by a flat fee.<o:p></o:p> Please accept this decision.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> If you want to be constructive:<o:p></o:p> <![if !supportLists]>- <![endif]>bring your input into the upcoming discussion about the action plan in order to reduce the expenses. Cutting funding without cutting costs will never go, that’s not even an option.<o:p></o:p> <![if !supportLists]>- <![endif]>bring your input into the upcoming discussion about the charging scheme in order to find a new definition of fairness. A new model takes time to evaluate the consequences, for this year, it’s too late.<o:p></o:p> <![if !supportLists]>- <![endif]>use IPv6 and NAT wherever you can in order to live with the IPv4 space you have. You can’t rewrite history and redistribute existing allocations. You can’t get fresh IPv4 addresses, because there are none.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> For IPv4, it’s over. There is no action, which gives you IPv4 space for free via RIPE.<o:p></o:p> Please accept this fact.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4.0pt"> <div> <div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm"> Von: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> Im Auftrag von Mentor Leniqi via members-discuss Gesendet: Donnerstag, 16. Mai 2024 10:47 An: Clement Cavadore <ccavadore@vedege.net> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Betreff: Re: [members-discuss] How can I vote against Charging Scheme A, B and C<o:p></o:p> </div> </div> <o:p> </o:p> <div> Clement, there is no such thing as "big lirs will move out" each RIR has a policy that would prevent using the resource in other region/RIR. ARIN, APNIC and other RIRs have such model long ago charged per resource holder, and i wonder how many LIRs from mentioned RIRs moved to RIPE ;)<o:p></o:p> </div> <o:p> </o:p> <div> <div> On Thu, 16 May 2024, 10:41 Clement Cavadore via members-discuss, <<a href="mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net">members-discuss@ripe.net</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p> </div> <blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm"> Hello all, For what it's worth, and to be clear: I voted against the proposed category-based model last year. But not against its principle. I strongly support the idea of a category-based model, but I also strongly support the idea of "if you are a big player, you should support the NCC's expense more than smaller structures". But I did vote against because of its limitation on bigger categories. It's a equality vs equity topic. And, yes, the most easy way to do it can be related to resources holding. Big LIRs won't cancel their membership. And if RIPE community (and/or NCC) is afraid that the resources would be transfered to another RIR for economic reasons, then, we still could limit RIR-to-RIR resources transfer. Regards, Clément Cavadore _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list <a href="mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net" target="_blank">members-discuss@ripe.net</a> <a href="https://mailman.ripe.net/" target="_blank">https://mailman.ripe.net/</a> Unsubscribe: <a href="https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/mentor.leniqi%40albahost.net" target="_blank"> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/mentor.leniqi%40albahost.net</a><o:p></o:p> </blockquote> </div> </div> </div> </body> </html>