[members-discuss] [comms-circle] Re: Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [comms-circle] Re: Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [comms-circle] Re: Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Fergal Cunningham
fergalc at ripe.net
Mon Apr 22 18:27:57 CEST 2024
Dear Murat, That's correct. Any proposals regarding the Charging Scheme are meant to come from the Executive Board. Best regards, Fergal On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 5:42 PM <m.terzioglu at prebits.de> wrote: > Dear Fergal, > > > > > > So we dont have now the possibility to offer new proposals for charging > scheme here: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/member-proposals/ and we > cant either offer any proposal for not chosing any offered options, right? > > > > > > > > -- > Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards > > *Murat TERZIOGLU* > *PREB**IT**S* > > > > Bochumer Str. 20 > > 44866 Bochum > > Deutschland > > > > Telefon: 0234/58825994 > > Telefax: 0234/58825995 > > > > www.prebits.de > > info at prebits.de > > > > USt-ID: DE315418902 > > > > > > *Von:* members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net> *Im Auftrag von > *Fergal Cunningham > *Gesendet:* Montag, 22. April 2024 16:58 > *An:* members-discuss at ripe.net > *Betreff:* Re: [members-discuss] [comms-circle] Re: Charging scheme 2025 > proposal (logarithmic) > > > > Dear Dmytro, > > Making resolutions on the charging scheme for next year is solely the > responsibility of the Executive Board. Proposing different versions is not > possible. Please see also the mail I sent on Friday: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/2024-April/005454.html > > Best regards, > Fergal > > > > On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 1:44 PM Dmitry Kohmanyuk via members-discuss < > members-discuss at ripe.net> wrote: > > On 22 Apr 2024, at 13:03, Sebastien Brossier <sebastien at brossier.org> > wrote: > > > > On 20/04/2024 11:44, Claudius Zingerli wrote: > >> I think IPv6 allocations larger than /29 aren't very common. Your > proposal again puts too much load on smaller LIRs. > > I generated this alternate simulation to address the concerns of those > with IPv6 /29 and a very small amount of IPv4, but it is indeed worse for > everyone else. Billing IPv6 in a fair way is not easy when 90% of LIRs are > in the same category. > > > > Honestly, I prefer my initial proposal. Or James A.T. Rice's proposal if > we're not going to charge for IPv6 at the moment. > > Hi Sebastien, > > > I am examining formulas which involve a fixed price, as well as charges > for both IPv4 and IPv6, and wondering if there is anyone who can help > calculate the impact of merging LIRs or moving addresses on these > (obviously not exactly.) > > Additionally, I have a question about whether membership is able to > propose any version to these charges for voting, subject to a signature > threshold, or if it is solely the board's responsibility. > > -- dk@ > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ripencc-management%40ripe.net > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20240422/d674cd8b/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [comms-circle] Re: Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [comms-circle] Re: Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]