<div dir="ltr"><div>Hi.</div><div> </div>Charging for *any* resource, especially ASNs, is just plain stupid. It's not like it costs anything to take care of the resources.<div> </div><div>Personally I'm in favour of option A, perhaps lower it by 100-200€/yr for first 1-2 years for startups and such.</div><div> </div><div>Regards,</div><div>Sebastian</div></div> <div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 7:55 PM Nico Schottelius <<a href="mailto:info@ungleich.ch" target="_blank">info@ungleich.ch</a>> wrote: </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> Hello, I think the point that is most "wrong" in this charging scheme is that IPv6 resources are treated the same as IPv4. This is a) not in relation to scarcity and b) does not give any motivation for IPv6 deployements. I suggest that either any IPv6 resource is for free or that "up to" some amount of IPv6 resources it stays free and even after that the increase should be lower than IPv4. That said, I agree with Alex that if the objective is to support smaller ISPs, it should be charged on volume, not number. My counter proposal to B would be -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Same base fee as option B - All IPv6 resources are free - Charge x per 256 IPv4 addresses - Charge y per ASN, after the 5th ASN -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The key x would have to be determined by RIPE and could be derived from the current allocations such that the new membership fee sum = the current sum. For the key y I don't have a good estimate at the moment, but 50 Euro/y does not sound unreasonable. Also most LIRs will never exceed the included number of ASNs. Best, Nico Alexandru Doszlop <<a href="mailto:alexandru.doszlop@netprotect.ro" target="_blank">alexandru.doszlop@netprotect.ro</a>> writes: > Hello, > > I just read the email regarding the charging scheme for 2020 option B. > Are you kidding me? > Are you really naming it "volume based billing"? > > Let's say one isp has only one /12 ipv4 PA. It will pay 1150 euro + 50 euro. > The other LIR that wants to help small companies and has 50 /24 assignments, will pay 1150 + 50*50=3650 euro. > All new lirs that receive smaller than /22 assignments will pay more than than the big isp. > Where is the volume here? > > Unbelievable... > > Regards, > Alex > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Gwen van Berne <<a href="mailto:gvanberne@ripe.net" target="_blank">gvanberne@ripe.net</a>> > Date: Apr 17, 2019 18:08 > Subject: [ncc-announce] [GM] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Two Options to Vote On > To: <a href="mailto:ncc-announce@ripe.net" target="_blank">ncc-announce@ripe.net</a> > Cc: > > Dear colleagues, > > Members will vote on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 at the General > Meeting from 22-24 May. In response to requests from members, the > Executive Board is proposing two charging scheme options that the > members can choose from at the GM. > > An overview of the two options is also available that explains the two > models in more detail. The overview and the two charging schemes are > available at: > <a href="https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2019/supporting-documents" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2019/supporting-documents</a> > > In short, the options that members will choose between are: > > Option A: The RIPE NCC will maintain the existing charging scheme, > according to which members pay an annual fee of EUR 1,400 plus an extra > EUR 50 per independent number resource assignment. > > Option B: The RIPE NCC will switch to a new volume-based, per > registration charging scheme. This would involve lowering the annual fee > to EUR 1,150 whilst broadening the applicability of the separate EUR 50 > charge to all number registrations held by the member. See the full list > of registrations that would be charged in the document. > > The existing sign-up fee of EUR 2,000 will apply to both options. > > We encourage members to discuss the options on the Member Discuss > mailing list at <<a href="mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net" target="_blank">members-discuss@ripe.net</a>>. The Executive Board and the > RIPE NCC Management will follow discussions closely ahead of the GM. > > If you have not yet registered for the GM, we strongly encourage you to > do so and make sure you have your say on which of two distinct charging > scheme options should be adopted in May. Full participation and voting > options are available for all members. You can register now via the LIR > Portal at: > <a href="https://www.ripe.net/s/gm-registration-may-2019" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.ripe.net/s/gm-registration-may-2019</a> > > All details on the GM, including the draft agenda, are available from: > <a href="https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2019/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2019/</a> > > Kind regards, > > Gwen van Berne > Chief Financial Officer > RIPE NCC -- Your Swiss, Open Source and IPv6 Virtual Machine. Now on <a href="http://www.datacenterlight.ch" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.datacenterlight.ch</a>. _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list <a href="mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net" target="_blank">members-discuss@ripe.net</a> <a href="https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss</a> Unsubscribe: <a href="https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/malek%40malek.li" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/malek%40malek.li</a> </blockquote></div>