<html> <head> <meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <div class="moz-cite-prefix">Floris, I don't think anyone disagrees about coming up with a realistic pricing discussion. My problem is, no one has yet to step up, and provide a well thought out plan to discuss. It's always been off the cuff whining for the most part because Jimmy's dog is bigger than my dog but they don't sell big dogs anymore! So honestly, until someone produces such a plan, I do agree this thread is a bit of a waste of time. The smaller holders can complain all they want, but spend some time, put together an actual proposal and then let people provide input on that. On 09/27/2016 06:45 AM, Floris Bos wrote: </div> <blockquote cite="mid:6266afa8-962d-b5d9-dd39-07d9ff2fa876@je-eigen-domein.nl" type="cite"> <meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv="Content-Type"> <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 09/26/2016 11:58 PM, Tim Armstrong wrote: </div> <blockquote cite="mid:CAJi5Lfi2pE-3-t-+=hRMezDUawS2iBxFxWMn36DpoOyxzPCJ7Q@mail.gmail.com" type="cite"> On 26 Sep 2016 11:32 p.m., "Radu-Adrian Feurdean" <<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:ripe-ncc@radu-adrian.feurdean.net">ripe-ncc@radu-adrian.feurdean.net</a>> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016, at 19:35, Brandon Butterworth wrote: > > A lot of land is owned by people who got it very cheap long ago. Try > > taking it off them (Ok RIPE region covers countries where you in > > In most countries you pay taxes for the land you have. The more you > have, the more takes you pay. > Someone having 100m2 of land does not pay the same as one that has > 100000m2 of land. RIPE NCC is not a government it is an association. You still pay tax to your government for property, which technically means legacy resource holders should declare it in their taxes (but that is aside from RIPE NCC which has no right to those resources). </blockquote> Not sure if the comparison with taxes is all that far off. Keep in mind that while the land may be owned by the holders, the NCCs do are providing services to it. Maybe the legacy holders didn't ask for that database entry, but I do think they do like to have things like reverse DNS delegation. By comparison, if you own land, you typically also get services provided to you, in exchange for council tax. In many countries they have differentiated fees for that, based on the size of your household or value of your house. And arguing that your great grandfather bought that giant mansion long ago when land was still cheap, and the tax was flat rate will not get you far. Nor will the fact that you already had an outhouse before you were connected to the city's sewerage system, and were a pioneer in that field, will give you any discount. And while there may be good reasons to continue to provide existing non-LIR legacy holders with free services, does that automatically mean new holders of sold legacy space should be provided with them free of charge as well? <blockquote cite="mid:CAJi5Lfi2pE-3-t-+=hRMezDUawS2iBxFxWMn36DpoOyxzPCJ7Q@mail.gmail.com" type="cite"> > > You can sell yours at the same price to others if you didn't need it > > This is why the scammers are creating lots of new LIRs. They think > > it's fair that it's so cheap to get from RIPE vs market price and > > will love it when you make it even cheaper for them > > What entitles you to call "scammer" someone that chooses to pay less > lots of money "one shot" for something that others got for free ? No one called you a scammer, they stated that people that use loopholes to get around community set policy are. > > Oh, by the way, do "scammers" include those that get IP space by > registering LIRs on different companies with same contact info and > strikingly similar names ? > (sorry, couldn't resist). </blockquote> But are those new LIRs, or rather older LIRs that used those different entities in the past, under older policy? Note that it is apparently not necessary for new LIRs to have a different legal entity to register a second LIR. RIPE seems to advertise the possibility to do so in bright neon lights: <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.ripe.net/participate/member-support/info/faqs/faq-joining">https://www.ripe.net/participate/member-support/info/faqs/faq-joining</a> == Can I open additional LIR accounts? Yes, it is possible for a legal entity to open additional LIR accounts and request one /22 IPv4 allocation for that account. == So don't blame all scams on newcomers, if it involves multiple entities, it might as well be an older one. <blockquote type="cite">Continuing this conversation beyond the four day mark costs us all time, which also costs money</blockquote> I do not think the feeling that the current fee scheme is unfair to smaller members (both old and new) will go away soon. Even if we stop talking about it now, if it is not addressed the issue will pop up again sooner or later. Like I mentioned before the smaller LIRs are already the majority right now (68% has up to /20 total space), and that number will only increase in the next few years. Wouldn't it be better if we could agree on a realistic modest price differentiation now, and take some steam of the issue? Rather than it dragging on, and you risking more drastic increases will be proposed and approved in the future? Yours sincerely, Floris Bos <fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset> <pre wrap="">---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/">https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/</a> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.</pre> </blockquote> </body> </html>