Hi, On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 04:38:48PM +0200, Sander Steffann wrote:
The intricacies with "one /44 for 15 sites = 1 or 16 charging units?" etc. came up over the years... so giving clear guidance to the NCC on what is to be considered "a chargeable assignment according to the charging scheme" is definitely a worthy goal.
While I generally agree, I am still not sure whether that should be part of the assignment policy, or a separate document.
I have to chime in here. Anything dictating charging scheme behaviour is out of scope for this working group. And I???m saying that with both APWG chair and RIPE NCC board experience in mind :)
It is, but APWG *can* signal what we think is a reasonable way to cover costs and/or provide incentives the way we want them. Of course the NCC board and members decide, and sometimes this leads to big amount of frustration... but we (APWG) still shouldn't just say "we do not care" :-)
So, what I would suggest: - this working group shouldn???t define any charging related things in the policy text - however, the RIPE NCC board and staff do look at the rationale behind discussions and consensus in the WG - that rationale may be taken on board by the Charging Scheme Task Force 2024 - which may influence their output - which will be taken seriously by the RIPE NCC board - which may result in certain charging scheme proposals - on which the RIPE NCC membership then has to vote
Agree. We can't put hard numbers anywhere, we can just suggest what we think would be a good approach to achieve "some desired outcome", and give compelling reasoning for that ;-) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Ingo Lalla, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279