December 2018 - members-discuss

LIR’s billing issues with RIPE NCC, need support
by Juri 28 Jan '19

28 Jan '19

Dear RIPE NCC Members i.e. LIR! RIPE77 meeting is over but some questions still active and I want to bring them up for discussion. This is long-read, but please read it, it’s important. I work at ISP company and work a lot of with RIPE NCC as well as for LIR management and registrations. I want RIPE NCC become better for all LIRs and try to participate. For long time I face with RIPE NCC strange billing issues, and I feel not comfortable with them. I run ISP company and I understand how to manage customers and how usually billing for services of the IT company should work. I will try to split different issues in different emails. First I want to say that I tried to find an answer for my question from Finance department of the RIPE NCC, I spent a time for that and I found that it was not correct place for that. I was forwarded to RIPE NCC Board for such discussion. I wrote my experience at RIPE77 Meeting to the Board and got feedback that the ideas and facts I explained to them should be discussed in Members-Discuss list because they are not described in Policies. So that’s my try to do that. Let me show you several simple billing issues. They will be related to companies who pays much more than other companies to RIPE NCC. These are Multi LIR companies. Yes, everybody knows that company may have several LIR accounts at RIPE NCC if company pays membership and setup fees. This is quite normal and a lot of companies use this ability. Let’s start. What kind of issues do we have. Let me explain most important of them. 1) If a company want to do anything (transfer a part or merge with your existing company) with one of your LIRs RIPE NCC will ask you to pay till the end of the year for all LIRs. This is not fear and not correct because RIPE NCC really doesn’t give a LIR service for that companies. 2) Let’s say you just opened in December new one LIR for your company (and paid fees for the last 4th part of the year + setup fees) and want to do something with other LIR resources on account of the same company. RIPE NCC will ask to pay full year for LIR that were opened just in current year. What we have? You just get service for last part of the year but you should pay for membership for LIR for the time that it was not existed. This is insane for IT company to overcharge members for the past time. 3) If one company merge another one - they get still limitations for keeping several LIRs for several years. Such things should not happen. It was not so sometime before but now that happens. What I see? RIPE NCC overcharge LIRs. Why? It was not so some amount of time ago. RIPE NCC didn’t care about that, but they changed it without any discussion with members. Now I want to answer for Important question for those members who wish to start telling me about something else.... I will give you an answer here. All RIPE NCC members have the limit for changes/transfers and etc as 2 years (24 month) of hold time. If this time should be changed - it’s a way to Policy development process. Everybody believe that expenses for having extra LIR should be for 2 years (24 month), let’s say this is what we have and this delay is written in RIPE NCC documents. If we want to discuss this time - it's other one discussion. In real life this 2 years means 3 years (and usually *N). LIRs have to pay extra membership fees for (3-4 years)*N of LIRs, but not for 2 years as it should be. I find this unfair for LIRs. I want all LIRs have clear billing and pay for services/membership that we have really consumed. This is normal and correct to have clear and good billing. What do I suggest? I suggest RIPE NCC do correct accounting for each LIR for the time this LIR instance exists. If LIR has annual billing - then RIPE NCC should use it. If LIR selected quarterly billing - RIPE NCC show use. But RIPE NCC should not overcharge LIRs for the time they didn't give any services for LIR instance. Please support me and reply to this email. Or write your opinion. I believe RIPE NCC should work better for LIRs. Your voice is important. Juri ------------ NTX DataCenter/Hosting +7 (499) 346-76-29

20 23

billing problem on multiple lir accounts.
by Goriweb LLC 09 Jan '19

09 Jan '19

hi we have multiple accounts. one account is going to be closed by december 2018, and we are trying to transfer /22 to another account. ripe says, WE HAVE TO PAY FOR ALL ACCOUNTS FOR 2018 its huge mistake. for example: you have; uk.company 04-04-2016 uk.company1 05-05-2018 uk.company2 06-06-2018 uk.company3 07-07-2018 and you wanted to transfer /22 from uk.company to uk.company3 ripe wants payments for uk.company1 and uk.company2 as well. ticket ids: #138277, #137978 who will help me solve this problem? they allowed us to create multiple accounts to prevent manipulations on votes, then trying to charge more. they are replying tickets 1 day later.

17 19

M&A procedure
by IPLab 19 Dec '18

19 Dec '18

6 6

Policy violation
by Marco Schmidt 18 Dec '18

18 Dec '18

Dear Aleksey and all, We would like to clarify the situation because the policy refers to transfers between RIPE NCC members and not transfers between the LIR accounts that members might hold. A member may hold multiple LIR accounts. Regarding the section that you refer to in the procedure, please see the mail that was sent to the NCC Announce mailing list in October: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ncc-announce/2018-October/001286.ht… This message explains how the RIPE NCC processes transfers of IPv4 address space or 16-bit ASNs due to a merger, acquisition or any other change in business structure. We hope this clarifies that no policy violation has taken place. A merger or acquisition is possible at any time and must take place following the processes outlined in the email. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Officer RIPE NCC

2 1

Change of conditions
by Aleksey Bulgakov 17 Dec '18

17 Dec '18

Dear all. I would like to ask you one question. If one company open account in June 2018, but respected executive board decides to implement restrictions in September - should the company to apply this restrictions? I mean the document https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-709#transfer35 -- ---------- Best regards, Alexey Bulgakov

9 9

Re: [members-discuss] [exec-board] Change of conditions
by Rob Golding 17 Dec '18

17 Dec '18

> Curious about the statement that Companies House don't maintain records > of M&A activity. Surely they maintain a record of the controlling interest for > all UK companies They do, however whilst for most companies that's "correct" at least once a year (we hope), in the majority of M&As there are no changes at companies house as the original "org" is no longer required/wanted - Directors/owners/shareholders details do get updated where they want to continue that "brand" but that's sub-10% of company acquisitions, the bulk of M&A activity in the LTD space (rather than PLC space) is "asset" rather than "share" based [with about 1/3rd being where the liquidators sell off the assets , or goodwill/brand or whatever] So the statement is correct in general terms, that nothing appears at companies house As to whether you can "infer" it (as some of us do when regular buyers take over companies we're following) ... > If it is on record that A is now a PSC with >50% voting/equity of B then an > acquisition has taken place No it means A has 50% of the equity, that’s very different to an acquisition, although can be indicative of takeover - the ability to vote on a resolution and the running of a company are very different things > and if B and C notify their PSCs are the same then > a merger between B & C has taken place. It means nothing of the sort. Being listed as the same PSC on multiple companies absolutely does not mean in any way they have merged. IP Cortex own corporate structure being a good example of why this doesn’t mean what you're saying - 2 separate legal entities despite same PSCs/Shareholders - not Merged, not Acquired, just "similarly owned" > My understanding is that for many things RIPE want a (virtual) piece of paper > that certifies X is true, rather than a process for verifying in a public database > that X is true I think the idea of formalising what can be used where public-database doesn't contain the data is good overall, but exactly how you do that I am not sure - I can see lots of ways to not do it effectively though :) Rob --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

2 1

Re.: Policy violation
by FreeData 14 Dec '18

14 Dec '18

1 0

Policy violation
by Николай Давыденко 14 Dec '18

14 Dec '18

1 0

Policy violation
by FreeData 14 Dec '18

14 Dec '18

1 0

Policy violation
by FreeData 14 Dec '18

14 Dec '18

1 0