[members-discuss] [comms-circle] Re: Re: Re: [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals

Moreover, its doesnt mean if someone have a large amount of resources - 
then it must return it. No.

Large ISP as LIR can split resources across multiple LIR and not 
overflow limit.

As result - 1 LIR account can handle up to fixed amount of resources. If 
you need more - pay for additonal LIR account.


On 12.04.2024 15:49, Evgeniy Brodskiy wrote:
> Confidential/Конфіденційно
> 
> Each LIR has an equal right to receive any unallocated resources.
> The problem is that you want to take away resources that someone else is using.
> Why another LIR should disconnect its clients for you and deprive them of access to the Internet is completely unclear.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net> On Behalf Of ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED
> Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 6:01 PM
> To: ivaylo <ivaylo at bglans.net>; Fergal Cunningham <fergalc at ripe.net>
> Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [comms-circle] Re: Re: Re: [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
> 
> 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 at 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 at ripe.net
>>>
>>> https://lis/
>>> ts.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvg
>>> eniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Cf0a8de7a34784444617308dc5b020df9%7Cf8f
>>> 9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638485311585894231%7CUnknown%
>>> 7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJ
>>> XVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=LGjDpiVkpy%2Be22c%2F81aLPPur%2BAJzHTXL
>>> Kb84lJZitnQ%3D&reserved=0
>>>
>>> Unsubscribe:http://https/
>>> %3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fripen
>>> cc-management%25254&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C
>>> f0a8de7a34784444617308dc5b020df9%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7
>>> C0%7C0%7C638485311585904363%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwM
>>> DAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=
>>> AFoj0tjM9koRoJw0JVV6oeDGAZzvxUKqC6XuMsuBZqY%3D&reserved=0
>>>
>>>        0ripe.net
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> members-discuss mailing list
>> members-discuss at ripe.net
>> https://list/
>> s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvgen
>> iy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Cf0a8de7a34784444617308dc5b020df9%7Cf8f9bd
>> 573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638485311585910766%7CUnknown%7CTW
>> FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6
>> Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=cGGZ6o56Z8bJvv41fZ3hSquUIhVjKBgm7MSqJQo2Uf8%
>> 3D&reserved=0
>> Unsubscribe:
>> https://list/
>> s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fadmin%2540roskomnad
>> zor.io&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Cf0a8de7a347844
>> 44617308dc5b020df9%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638485
>> 311585916842%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luM
>> zIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Sux6kJ%2Bv9dDxPPr
>> iP8vovAbQibXR815mpwAS4e0e6Z8%3D&reserved=0
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/evgeniy.brodskiy%40kyivstar.net
>