[members-discuss] GM topic

Hi Gert

 > The AP WG has clearly voiced a need for an ASN reclaim mechanism

I agree that a small fee would solve this problem. On the other hand, I 
don't understand why ASNs should be more expensive than IPv4 or IPv6 
allocations.

If we could agree on "Fees for sponsored ASNs" my answer would be yes, 
since there is more work involved (like ID check) compared to an 
assignment to a LIR.

Best regards
Patrick


On 30.04.24 20:21, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 03:09:30PM +0200, Patrick Velder wrote:
>> Apart from that, the membership said "no" twice to ASN fees. Introducing
>> them through the back door is not fair and will probably fail a 3rd time.
>> Please accept the fact that the community does not want ASN fees.
> We had ASN fees, and they disappeared through a less-than-transparent
> process.  The AP WG has clearly voiced a need for an ASN reclaim mechanism
> that is more cost efficient than "hostmasters calling up members on a
> regular basis and asking 'is this still in use?'" - and a yearly fee,
> trivially affordable but annoying enough to question yourself(!) "do I
> still need that?" is working nicely.
>
> So it's up there for a vote again - and this has nothing to do with
> "backdoor".  It's one option.  It will *lower* the fee for all members
> that have 0 or 1 ASN, and members that hand out ASNs like they are free
> should have had this in their financial plannings.  Our sponsoring LIR
> contracts all have the clause "and we charge whatever RIPE asks us for,
> plus a handling fee"...
>
> Gert Doering
>          -- NetMaster