[members-discuss] How can I vote against Charging Scheme A, B and C

Hello Lutz, hello again everyone,

A few points on what is written below and other comments

a) There is a false sentiment of choice with this A,B,C as I was saying 
it this morning. This A,B,C choice is exaclty the same and should be 
renamed A, A' and A".

It's even not a question of is it fair or not it's a question about 
charging models. I see the same comments I saw last year.

So an alternative choice should be =>> paying price depending on how 
many IPv4 you use, regardless if it's per IP or something else with 
different levels (group small, group medium, group big).

The probleme here is that there is NO ALTERNATIVE CHOICE. The 2024 
charging scheme that I would refer as A, A' and A" are the same !

b) The executive board took too much energy/time/money to produce these 
3 x 2024 charging models and everyone seem to loose their time too.

It's either RIPE is wasting too much money/time to produce similar 
charging scheme OR these charging scheme have been produced in a matter 
of minutes and in that case it's not serious.

c) Regarding the fairness, I have seen in my own eyes many companies 
that have a lot of IPv4 (tens of class B), they absolutely don't care 
about optimising their IPv4 usage and have very fragmented IPv4 
allocation.

 From a financial point of view they don't even know what they're paying 
for. They receive the bill and they pay it.

So I don't think it's normal these who don't make effort pay almost 
nothing per IP while small LIR members pay much more in comparison.

These companies would have two choices:

- Pay for what they use and for what they waste

- Release what they don't use in order to pay less.

But I'm more focused on a) here, you want the members to vote then give 
different options, not similar once. I feel like this vote is a false 
democracy vote.

Regards

Le 2024-05-16 11:05, Lutz Donnerhacke a écrit :

> RIPE had a category based model, too.
> 
> The members (we all together) voted (multiple times) to replace it by a 
> flat fee.
> 
> Please accept this decision.
> 
> If you want to be constructive:
> 
> -          bring your input into the upcoming discussion about the 
> action plan in order to reduce the expenses.
> Cutting funding without cutting costs will never go, that's not even an 
> option.
> 
> -          bring your input into the upcoming discussion about the 
> charging scheme in order to find a new definition of fairness.
> A new model takes time to evaluate the consequences, for this year, 
> it's too late.
> 
> -          use IPv6 and NAT wherever you can in order to live with the 
> IPv4 space you have.
> You can't rewrite history and redistribute existing allocations. You 
> can't get fresh IPv4 addresses, because there are none.
> 
> For IPv4, it's over. There is no action, which gives you IPv4 space for 
> free via RIPE.
> 
> Please accept this fact.
> 
> Von: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net> Im Auftrag von 
> Mentor Leniqi via members-discuss
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 16. Mai 2024 10:47
> An: Clement Cavadore <ccavadore at vedege.net>
> Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net
> Betreff: Re: [members-discuss] How can I vote against Charging Scheme 
> A, B and C
> 
> Clement, there is no such thing as "big lirs will move out" each RIR 
> has a policy that would prevent using the resource in other region/RIR. 
> ARIN, APNIC and other RIRs have such model long ago charged per 
> resource holder, and i wonder how many LIRs from mentioned RIRs moved 
> to RIPE ;)
> 
> On Thu, 16 May 2024, 10:41 Clement Cavadore via members-discuss, 
> <members-discuss at ripe.net> wrote:
> 
>> Hello all,
>> 
>> For what it's worth, and to be clear: I voted against the proposed
>> category-based model last year. But not against its principle.
>> 
>> I strongly support the idea of a category-based model, but I also
>> strongly support the idea of "if you are a big player, you should
>> support the NCC's expense more than smaller structures". But I did 
>> vote
>> against because of its limitation on bigger categories. It's a 
>> equality
>> vs equity topic.
>> 
>> And, yes, the most easy way to do it can be related to resources
>> holding. Big LIRs won't cancel their membership. And if RIPE community
>> (and/or NCC) is afraid that the resources would be transfered to
>> another RIR for economic reasons, then, we still could limit 
>> RIR-to-RIR
>> resources transfer.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Clément Cavadore
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/mentor.leniqi%40albahost.net 
>> [1]
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/mjirari%40expertinet.fr

-- 
Mikael Jirari
Certified Network Expert
Tel : +33 6 82 45 45 21
Email : mjirari at expertinet.fr

*********************************
This message and any attachments (the "message") are confidential and 
intended solely for the addressees.
Any unauthorised use or dissemination is prohibited.
Messages are susceptible to alteration.
Expertinet shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or 
falsified.
If you are not the intended addressee of this message, please cancel it 
immediately and inform the sender.
********************************

Links:
------
[1] 
https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/mentor.leniqi%40albahost.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20240516/af4cfa73/attachment-0001.html>