[members-discuss] Response from Board on Charging Scheme Comments
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Response from Board on Charging Scheme Comments
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Response from Board on Charging Scheme Comments
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
sdy at a-n-t.ru
sdy at a-n-t.ru
Fri Apr 12 11:15:32 CEST 2024
And again... The Categories scheme can only work well if you don't have a shortage of resources. New categories will only permanently approve the "slavery" of LIRs on IPv4 for little money for the old "masters". This is a dead-end development path for NCC. It is necessary to charge an equal fee from each member for each scarce resource for its "fast" movement (for example, a land tax per square meter). Unlike the model with categories, where moving a small part of the resources does not mean anything to the owners' wallet. > Le Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 10:32:45PM +0200, Ondrej Filip [feela at network.cz] > a écrit: > (...) >> >> Let me also address the point of the fee structure and alternative >> suggestions raised by several of you. I understand and sympathise with >> the >> idea that the current fee structure means that the majority of the >> budget is >> covered by small members while larger and richer companies pay a minor >> part. >> This concept was approved a long time ago and the board unsuccessfully >> tried >> to propose changes. > > A long time ago, RIPE members composition was probably different, and > expenses also. > The only "proposal" to change the fee calculation was about categories > that did not fit anybody, neither small LIRs nor large ones. > >> We are very open to discuss this topic again and again, >> but so far there is no solid model on the table. But we hear you and we >> will >> continue this discussion with you. > > RIPE financial people could quite easily elaborate a model with a base > member fee, operations fees for those that require administrative > handling ( LIR creation, assignements, etc. ), and a flat linear > ressource fee, including legacy, with a weight towards most scarce ones > (ipv4 and ASN) > Add in this a multi-year plan for reducing costs, such a internalizing > tasks currently handled by consultants (which is already on the go, if I > understand reports correctly). > > > > -- > Dominique Rousseau > Neuronnexion, Prestataire Internet & Intranet > 6 rue des Hautes cornes - 80000 Amiens > tel: 03 22 71 61 90 - fax: 03 22 71 61 99 - http://www.neuronnexion.coop > > _______________________________________________ > members-discuss mailing list > members-discuss at ripe.net > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/sdy%40a-n-t.ru > ----------------------------- С уважением Сербулов Дмитрий ООО "Альфа Нет Телеком" +7(498)785-8-000 раб. +7(495)940-92-11 доп. +7(925)518-10-69 сот.
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Response from Board on Charging Scheme Comments
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Response from Board on Charging Scheme Comments
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]