[members-discuss] [comms-circle] Re: Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)

Hello, Fergal!

Thank you very much for providing feedback and clarifying this point.

I'm not sure that I clearly understand reasons about inability to alter this specific proposal.

In current https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-818/ articles of association I can see section 15.6:

15.6 On the application In Writing of a group of Members who are jointly entitled to cast at least two percent (2%) of the total number of possible votes, other subjects will be added to the agenda. Such an application, accompanied by the verbatim text of the resolutions proposed by the said Members, shall have to be sent to the Executive Board at least two weeks before the Meeting.

The Executive Board shall immediately send the verbatim text of the resolutions proposed by the said Members to all the Members of the Association.

I do not see any limitations about types of proposals here.

Can you clarify why we have these constraints?
Thank you!

On Monday, 22 April 2024 at 15:57, Fergal Cunningham <fergalc at ripe.net> wrote:

> 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/20240422/51a7f686/attachment-0001.html>