- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

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

Re: [members-discuss] Billing scheme
by Tobias Weinfeld 09 Jan '19

09 Jan '19

Dear colleagues, the removement of the ability of a quarterly or half-annually billing scheme is in my opinion a bad move. Unfortunately I have no data prior to 1998, but at least since this year it was already possible for LIRs to choose from a quarterly, half-annually or annually charging scheme. It simplified and still simplifies the process for newcomers to become LIR. Altough the fees were higher than today we break here with a tradition that lasted more than 20 years (!). This change will decrease the amount of reminders, yes, but it also will decrease the amount of newcomers, small companies or even technical interested natural persons which plan to become LIR at RIPE. Furthermore the last subnets of the IPv4 pool, which is already quite scarce, won't go anymore to many newcomers, it will possibly go more to companies which already have enough means to buy IPv4 from the market. Those who have more financial opportunities can easily create multiple LIR accounts because they anyway pay annually as usual, so those who are affected are newcomers and small companies. I am strict against this change. It was an important simplification and I see no real reason for removing it after more than 20 years because in a few years when the pool is exhausted also the aforementioned heavy burden will be extenuated. Especially when it comes to IPv6 the next years it should be easily possible for newcomers to become LIR; because it is and should be a membership and not an investment. I also want to criticize that this was announced on a Friday, three days before Christmas, only about one month (now two months) the invoices for Q1/Y2019 will be sent and after expiration of the termination deadline of 15th December 2018. In my opinion, RIPE NCC is one of the fairest and liberal RIR - but that change isn't fair, it is more than astonishing.

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] billing problem on multiple lir accounts.
by Azer Karyagdy 08 Jan '19

08 Jan '19

Hello, Please note that depend from country it should be yearly payment + local taxes. For Russia it is now 20% VAT. And this VAT, depend from way of how business was registered in tax ministry may not to be returned. This might crash new small business or at least make their expenses to be unacceptable. With last terms about aquistion and join businesses it is also make hard way to get our from business. This may increase percent of died RIPE LIR's because beginners could not transfer their ip's could not sell it to another company or join with someone who can support their customers within 2 (or even 3 years). So RIPE will need sent invoices to collectors or get back ip's from such LIR's without any payments. RIPE can say why beginners do not use good business plan but remember that many new business die within first few years. Best Regards Azer ----- Исходное сообщение ----- > * Alexander Buzaev <buzaev.weecomi(a)ukr.net> [2019-01-08 08:22]: > > Dear Sebastian, > > I am not happy with this decision. This is too large a one-time > > fee. Especially for our country. > > Hi Alexander, > > that might be, but you're not "many members". As for a too large > one-time fee, the paragraph adressed this: > > The Executive Board supported the implementation of an enhanced > billing cycle and instructs the RIPE NCC Management to implement a > yearly billing process, including payment options for members with > cash flow limitations. > > You should ask the RIPE NCC what the available payment options are in > your case. > > Regards > > Sebastian > > _______________________________________________ > members-discuss mailing list > members-discuss(a)ripe.net > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/azer%40karyagdy.com >

2 2

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