Hi, On Thu, Nov 02, 2023 at 09:19:13AM +0000, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
That?s a massive over simplification of what happened.
The NCC proposed a number of charging schemes which *included* charges per ASN. The proposal was rejected by the majority of the members who voted because the changes would have cost a lot of us significantly more than what we currently pay. The charge per ASN was only one of multiple elements in the proposal ? to characterise it that the members rejected charging per ASN is very misleading.
I wasn't talking about the previous AGM but about the one where the pre-existing ASN charges got abandoned. Talking about the *last* meeting, I think most of the members are just not very good at math... introducing a charge for ASN *with a given total budget* would have *lowered* the overall bill for most members, holding only 1 or 2 ASNs (redistributing the overall budget differently). But "nah, can't have extra costs!!!!". Yes, a few would have had to pay way more, but I think that's legitimate - if your business is "doling out ASNs to end customers", you'd better have "oh, it might cost money at some point" in your contracts - and in that case, the extra costs directly go to the end customers wanting the ASN. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279