- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010
by Sven Olaf Kamphuis 19 Jun '09

19 Jun '09

still, a democratic organisation that blackmails people is still conducting a crime. -- Sven Olaf Kamphuis CB3ROB DataServices Phone: +31/87-8747479 Skype: CB3ROB MSN: sven(a)cb3rob.net C.V.: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cb3rob Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Thomas Mangin wrote: > Hi, > > > Once it has been agreed in principal that we RIPE should start > > charging for an assignment, it is then possible for "the few" who > > are able to make it to these RIPE jollies^Wmeetings all over Europe > > and steer the policies then do so to their best interests. > > RIPE policies are proposed and voted by the membership, it can not get > any more democratic than that ! > If you do not like them: VOTE - you do not have to be at the meeting > to send a proxy, and I do not say this as I am in favor of charing for > PI space (I am neutral on the point) - I say it as it is how working > members organisation stay alive. > > > We've seen this recently with Nominet in the UK where by they now > > have 2 tiers of access, and it is no longer a "level playing field" > > for all members .. you have members, and you have "elite" members > > I am in the UK, I am Nominet member as well. I went to Nominet > Manchester consultation and to the best of my knowledge what you are > saying is totally wrong. The board has currently no say on pricing, it > is one of the point under discussion and any change in this direction > will need to be voted. > > Feel free to ask nom-steer for a long discussion on the matter should > you not want to take my word for it (and you have no reason to do). > > Regards, > > Thomas Mangin > Technical Director > -- > Exa Networks Limited - http://www.exa-networks.co.uk/ > Company No. 04922037 - VAT no. 829 1565 09 > 27-29 Mill Field Road, BD16 1PY, UK > Phone: +44 (0) 845 145 1234 - Fax: +44 (0) 1274 567646 > > > > And sadly it is a precedent ... EUR50 this year .... EUR500 the year > > after ... EUR5000 the year after that ?? > > > > Once it has been agreed in principal that we RIPE should start > > charging for an assignment, it is then possible for "the few" who > > are able to make it to these RIPE jollies^Wmeetings all over Europe > > and steer the policies then do so to their best interests. > > > > We've seen this recently with Nominet in the UK where by they now > > have 2 tiers of access, and it is no longer a "level playing field" > > for all members .. you have members, and you have "elite" members > > > > I totally agree that RIPE have been needlessly steering everyone > > into becoming an LIR when they only need a small assignment, and > > this has lead to a waste of IP allocations .. however my > > understanding is that this policy isn't designed to limit PA space > > assignments anyway ... it is designed to make PI harder to obtain, > > thus steering yet more people into the LIR route (whether they need > > to be an LIR or not) ... > > > > How many LIRs find RIPE referring customers to them because they > > needed an assignment? Few I suspect - they all either get told "go > > find one from this list" or otherwise "become an LIR" and pay the > > small LIR fee. > > > > Maybe its just me only seeing the glass as half full? > > > > Jon > > > > On 19 Jun 2009, at 09:16, Heidrich Attila wrote: > > > >> I think you do. > >> > >> Consider the domain registration. The registrator is kinda "service > >> provider" whether it serves any kind of access/hosting/content/DNS or > >> whatever, and the end user is the only "independent" user of the > >> named > >> resource - but not owner. > >> > >> I think this is very similar to the PI assignments. In Hungary this > >> is > >> normal the regitrstor having a one time enrollment feer, a yearly fee > >> (well, this contains registration fees for the whole amount), and > >> per-transaction fees after all new registration, transfers, and > >> prolongals. > >> > >> I do not think EUR50 to be so big problem, but we are an ISP, so > >> this is > >> quite normal for us to have the customer pay after allocating > >> resources > >> of any kind. > >> > >> Attila > >> > >> -----Eredeti üzenet----- > >> > >>> Not every LIR is an ISP, a lot of them are. If you assign PI to > >>> somebody > >>> else, you have a provider/enduser relationship. That makes you a > >>> service > >>> provider of some sort. Be it internet, content or hosting. > >> > >> no, you dont. > >> > >> the customer usually asks to just register ip space and an AS > >> number which > >> he then announces himself to transits of -his- choice. > >> > >> > >> > >> -------------- > >> Ezen uzenet kizarolag a cimzettjenek szol es olyan bizalmas jellegu > >> informaciokat tartalmazhat, amelyek feltarasat jogszabaly vagy > >> szerzodes > >> tiltja. Amennyiben a jelen uzenetet On teves kezbesites folytan > >> kapta, > >> kerjuk haladektalanul ertesitsen bennunket es az uzenetet annak > >> csatolmanyaival egyutt torolje. Amennyiben On nem cimzettje a jelen > >> uzenetnek, annak es mellekleteinek elolvasasa, masolasa, > >> tovabbitasa, vagy > >> barmely celbol torteno felhasznalasa szigoruan tilos. Megjegyezzuk, > >> hogy az > >> e-mail utjan torteno kozlesek nem garantaljak az elkuldott uzenetek > >> bizalmas jellegenek es teljessegenek megorzeset, valamint az uzenetek > >> megfelelo kezbesiteset. A fentieken tulmenoen, a Hungarian > >> Telephone and > >> Cable Corp., annak kapcsolt vallalkozasai, illetve az altaluk > >> megbizott > >> harmadik felek a jelen e-mail cimrol kuldott, vagy arra erkezo > >> barmely > >> uzenetet ellenorizhetnek, lemasolhatnak, felhasznalhatnak vagy > >> harmadik fel > >> reszere tovabbithatnak. > >> > >> This message is intended exclusively for its addressee and may > >> contain > >> confidential information protected from disclosure by law or > >> contract. If > >> you have received this message in error, please immediately notify > >> us and > >> delete it together with its attachments. If you are not an > >> addressee of > >> this message, reading, copying, distribution or use for any purpose > >> of the > >> contents of this message or its attachments is strictly forbidden. > >> Additionally, please note that communication by email guarantees > >> neither > >> the confidentiality nor the completeness or proper receipt of the > >> messages > >> sent. Furthermore, Hungarian Telephone and Cable Corp., its > >> affiliates and > >> third parties retained by them may monitor, copy, use or forward to > >> third > >> parties any outgoing messages from and incoming messages to this > >> email > >> address. > >> > > > > > > > X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "limited" > X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "ripe.net" >

1 0

AW: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010
by Marcus.Gerdon 19 Jun '09

19 Jun '09

Hi @All, I've just digged through the mails happened during night with the list and would like to place some (more or less general) questions instead of replying to bunch of mails. 1) Charging Scheme The Charging Scheme 2009 counted PI and ASN for end-users the same way like any other allocation to a lir. So at most the lir's category might be raised. I suppose most widespread understanding is that the membership fee is mainly raised to cover administrative work done by the NCC. Where's the continuing work with PI/ASN that's different - even more - than with an allocation? Why's that going to be changed? I didn't see any rationale behind it being published up to now by the NCC. 2) Discussion and votes at RIPE meetings and GM's Someone's asked about Proxy and Internet Votes. Proxy Votes are possible - meaning you can transfer your vote to someone else - in before of a metting. Once I've been responded in sense of 'if you don't attend and don't arrange for a Proxy you're silently agreeing'. Despite missing the discussion and in-meeting changes or clarifications I've to proxy my vote to some other lir possibly eben being a competitor. But a few times already I missed a concrete agenda well in advance (a minor couple of weeks isn't 'well in advance' being possibly months after annoucement of the meeting). Taking into account the Policy Development Process with the different WG's which are discussed and decided by the according mailing lists I wonder why attention to a GM is effectively *required* to participate. The votes could be collected online via the LIR-Portal afterwards (after anybody had a chance to review the minutes from the meeting). So: How's the procedure for voting defined? Maybe it should be changed to allow for fair and equal participation? 3) 2007-01 I just took a quick look again at 2007-01 in the archive. Regarding the contractual requirements it only states in the 'Contractual Requirements' *DRAFT*: Notice that the resource holder is obliged to pay an annual fee to the LIR for the resources A clear statement that the resources will return by default to the RIPE NCC if - The resource holder cannot be contacted - The annual fee to the LIR is not paid Read the first and last line again. Where does it say the End-User has to pay to the *RIR*? How does NCC come up with this requirement then? Taking a look into RIPE-452 it's also saying 'LIR', not *RIR* in regards to the payment. 4) progress on 2007-01 implementation And finally just a comment by me on the general way this is handled: A TOTAL MESS... Supposedly someone handling a project on job like this might have to go and look for a new employer. Where's an overview across all phases of the implementation? Where's the (communicated) timeline for the complete project in advance? Where're the (as far as possible) finalized documents, requirements and to-do's of the implementation? Each time a new announcement is sent it's a new bit of 2007-01 and a new surprise. Imho the approval of 2007-01 turns out to be a wildcard for NCC to implement severe changes partially years afterwards. Complaining in March about incomplete information, somewhat hidden documents and time between information and deadline being to short I was told (in meaning): '2007-01 was accepted 2008, why now complain when 2 or 3 weeks in advance in March implementation starts? You could have worked out the End-User contract with the legals since approval of 2007-01'. I ask again in this discussion: WHEN have the contractual requirements been published? WHEN has the sample agreement been published? Btw: the sample still isn't linked anywhere on www.ripe.net, or wasn't I simply unable to find the third menu on a fifth-level page? Up to now all I see from 2007-01 is a lot of hassle, additional administrative burdens, open questions, even legal problems might still arise (still didn't dig into it). Sorry getting quite off-topic here - but this discussions seems to turn out to a general regarding implementation of 2007-01. So maybe someone serious answer to a few points... regards, Marcus ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Engineering IP Services Versatel West GmbH Unterste-Wilms-Strasse 29 D-44143 Dortmund Fon: +49-(0)231-399-4486 | Fax: +49-(0)231-399-4491 marcus.gerdon(a)versatel.de | www.versatel.de Sitz der Gesellschaft: Dortmund | Registergericht: Dortmund HRB 21738 Geschäftsführer: Marc Lützenkirchen, Dr. Hai Cheng, Dr. Max Padberg, Peter Schindler ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AS8881 / AS8638 / AS13270 | MG3031-RIPE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: members-discuss-admin(a)ripe.net > [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Matteo Abrile > Gesendet: Freitag, 19. Juni 2009 08:37 > An: Hank Nussbacher; Martin List-Petersen > Cc: Sven Olaf Kamphuis; Sven Olaf Kamphuis; members-discuss(a)ripe.net > Betreff: R: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 > > Please remove from this list m.abrile(a)itelsi.com > > Thank you > > -------------------------------------------------------- > Matteo Abrile > > Itelsi Tigullio Srl > Via G. Casaregis 50/12 - 16129 Genova > Tel. 0109845320 Fax. 0109845321 > mail: m.abrile(a)itelsi.com > > -----Messaggio originale----- > Da: members-discuss-admin(a)ripe.net > [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net] Per conto di Hank Nussbacher > Inviato: venerdì 19 giugno 2009 8.43 > A: Martin List-Petersen > Cc: Sven Olaf Kamphuis; Sven Olaf Kamphuis; members-discuss(a)ripe.net > Oggetto: Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 > > On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Martin List-Petersen wrote: > > > Anyhow, this whole matter was also already raised at the GM. > > And who ever heard that 50 LIR members vote on behalf of 5000 > (as was at > the last GM)? Why can't proxy voting or Internet voting be > allowed? Why > does a non-profit LIR have to travel to the GM in order to > discuss this > and to be able to vote? > > -Hank > >

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010
by Sven Olaf Kamphuis 19 Jun '09

19 Jun '09

still, a democratic organisation that blackmails people is still conducting a crime. -- Sven Olaf Kamphuis CB3ROB DataServices Phone: +31/87-8747479 Skype: CB3ROB MSN: sven(a)cb3rob.net C.V.: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cb3rob Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Thomas Mangin wrote: > Hi, > > > Once it has been agreed in principal that we RIPE should start > > charging for an assignment, it is then possible for "the few" who > > are able to make it to these RIPE jollies^Wmeetings all over Europe > > and steer the policies then do so to their best interests. > > RIPE policies are proposed and voted by the membership, it can not get > any more democratic than that ! > If you do not like them: VOTE - you do not have to be at the meeting > to send a proxy, and I do not say this as I am in favor of charing for > PI space (I am neutral on the point) - I say it as it is how working > members organisation stay alive. > > > We've seen this recently with Nominet in the UK where by they now > > have 2 tiers of access, and it is no longer a "level playing field" > > for all members .. you have members, and you have "elite" members > > I am in the UK, I am Nominet member as well. I went to Nominet > Manchester consultation and to the best of my knowledge what you are > saying is totally wrong. The board has currently no say on pricing, it > is one of the point under discussion and any change in this direction > will need to be voted. > > Feel free to ask nom-steer for a long discussion on the matter should > you not want to take my word for it (and you have no reason to do). > > Regards, > > Thomas Mangin > Technical Director > -- > Exa Networks Limited - http://www.exa-networks.co.uk/ > Company No. 04922037 - VAT no. 829 1565 09 > 27-29 Mill Field Road, BD16 1PY, UK > Phone: +44 (0) 845 145 1234 - Fax: +44 (0) 1274 567646 > > > > And sadly it is a precedent ... EUR50 this year .... EUR500 the year > > after ... EUR5000 the year after that ?? > > > > Once it has been agreed in principal that we RIPE should start > > charging for an assignment, it is then possible for "the few" who > > are able to make it to these RIPE jollies^Wmeetings all over Europe > > and steer the policies then do so to their best interests. > > > > We've seen this recently with Nominet in the UK where by they now > > have 2 tiers of access, and it is no longer a "level playing field" > > for all members .. you have members, and you have "elite" members > > > > I totally agree that RIPE have been needlessly steering everyone > > into becoming an LIR when they only need a small assignment, and > > this has lead to a waste of IP allocations .. however my > > understanding is that this policy isn't designed to limit PA space > > assignments anyway ... it is designed to make PI harder to obtain, > > thus steering yet more people into the LIR route (whether they need > > to be an LIR or not) ... > > > > How many LIRs find RIPE referring customers to them because they > > needed an assignment? Few I suspect - they all either get told "go > > find one from this list" or otherwise "become an LIR" and pay the > > small LIR fee. > > > > Maybe its just me only seeing the glass as half full? > > > > Jon > > > > On 19 Jun 2009, at 09:16, Heidrich Attila wrote: > > > >> I think you do. > >> > >> Consider the domain registration. The registrator is kinda "service > >> provider" whether it serves any kind of access/hosting/content/DNS or > >> whatever, and the end user is the only "independent" user of the > >> named > >> resource - but not owner. > >> > >> I think this is very similar to the PI assignments. In Hungary this > >> is > >> normal the regitrstor having a one time enrollment feer, a yearly fee > >> (well, this contains registration fees for the whole amount), and > >> per-transaction fees after all new registration, transfers, and > >> prolongals. > >> > >> I do not think EUR50 to be so big problem, but we are an ISP, so > >> this is > >> quite normal for us to have the customer pay after allocating > >> resources > >> of any kind. > >> > >> Attila > >> > >> -----Eredeti üzenet----- > >> > >>> Not every LIR is an ISP, a lot of them are. If you assign PI to > >>> somebody > >>> else, you have a provider/enduser relationship. That makes you a > >>> service > >>> provider of some sort. Be it internet, content or hosting. > >> > >> no, you dont. > >> > >> the customer usually asks to just register ip space and an AS > >> number which > >> he then announces himself to transits of -his- choice. > >> > >> > >> > >> -------------- > >> Ezen uzenet kizarolag a cimzettjenek szol es olyan bizalmas jellegu > >> informaciokat tartalmazhat, amelyek feltarasat jogszabaly vagy > >> szerzodes > >> tiltja. Amennyiben a jelen uzenetet On teves kezbesites folytan > >> kapta, > >> kerjuk haladektalanul ertesitsen bennunket es az uzenetet annak > >> csatolmanyaival egyutt torolje. Amennyiben On nem cimzettje a jelen > >> uzenetnek, annak es mellekleteinek elolvasasa, masolasa, > >> tovabbitasa, vagy > >> barmely celbol torteno felhasznalasa szigoruan tilos. Megjegyezzuk, > >> hogy az > >> e-mail utjan torteno kozlesek nem garantaljak az elkuldott uzenetek > >> bizalmas jellegenek es teljessegenek megorzeset, valamint az uzenetek > >> megfelelo kezbesiteset. A fentieken tulmenoen, a Hungarian > >> Telephone and > >> Cable Corp., annak kapcsolt vallalkozasai, illetve az altaluk > >> megbizott > >> harmadik felek a jelen e-mail cimrol kuldott, vagy arra erkezo > >> barmely > >> uzenetet ellenorizhetnek, lemasolhatnak, felhasznalhatnak vagy > >> harmadik fel > >> reszere tovabbithatnak. > >> > >> This message is intended exclusively for its addressee and may > >> contain > >> confidential information protected from disclosure by law or > >> contract. If > >> you have received this message in error, please immediately notify > >> us and > >> delete it together with its attachments. If you are not an > >> addressee of > >> this message, reading, copying, distribution or use for any purpose > >> of the > >> contents of this message or its attachments is strictly forbidden. > >> Additionally, please note that communication by email guarantees > >> neither > >> the confidentiality nor the completeness or proper receipt of the > >> messages > >> sent. Furthermore, Hungarian Telephone and Cable Corp., its > >> affiliates and > >> third parties retained by them may monitor, copy, use or forward to > >> third > >> parties any outgoing messages from and incoming messages to this > >> email > >> address. > >> > > > > > > > X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "limited" > X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "ripe.net" >

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010
by Martin List-Petersen 19 Jun '09

19 Jun '09

Jon Morby wrote: > And sadly it is a precedent ... EUR50 this year .... EUR500 the year > after ... EUR5000 the year after that ?? You don't seem to have read the whole discussion. The RIPE NCC is not for profit. It's a cost-covering run operation and has to report to the board and the membership. If the PI fee's go up and generate so much revenue, the LIR fee's will have to got down. It's as simple as that, because at the end of the day, they are not allowed to turn out an overly huge profit. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968

2 1

AW: [members-discuss] Please STOP to spam / list removal requests
by Niels Dettenbach 19 Jun '09

19 Jun '09

> -- Quote -- > This is an email for all "Ripe Members"... > > Pleae use "members-discuss@ripe. > net" only for important question!!! Sorry, but this discussion is related to the lists topic and - as the current traffic on this list let assume - seems to be "important" for many RIPE members. This is not an announcement only list - so this is not Spam. just btw: Who decides what is "important" or not for RIPE members? Are you able to recommend a better list or place for this RIPE member related topic? > ...please remove xxx(a)yyy.tld from this list ... You have the option to unsubscribe this list in your RIPE portal account or if you are not interested just in this thread just filter it (i.e. by subject or id) out i.e. into your /dev/null. Best regards, Niels. --- Niels Dettenbach ND2000-RIPE Skyway.net - Gesellschaft fuer satellitengestuetzte Internet Kommunikation mbH http://www.skyway.net --- Syndicat IT&Internet http://www.syndicat.com

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 (fwd)
by Sven Olaf Kamphuis 19 Jun '09

19 Jun '09

> It's not charging retroactively. Retroactively charging for the PI space > would be sending invoices out for every year from '92 to to date, which > is not happening. > > What is happening that the price has changed from 0 to 50 EUR/year > (well, the draft price). mind you that PI registrants never agreed to any contract that allows "price changes" and that "choosing" to have their allocations removeed instead of either paying a LIR, with whom they would usually have an agreement that only covers a one time payment, or several thousand euros to ripe directly, OR GIVE UP THEIR ALLOCATIONS and therefore cause significant damage to their business :P is pure blackmail. you cant first tell someone "sure we will register ip sppace for your company, please pay 2500 euros which covers our work and the first 2 years in which potentially our ripe-score could be affected by this registration (PI and AS numbers only count for 2 years in the score), and then go "oops, now you have to either pay a few 1000 to ripe OR a few hundred to us (most customers have as numberrs AND PI space)"... thats blackmail. also ARIN doesnt charge their "new" DirectAssignment fee to "old" direct assignments, and ripe never tried to bill PRE-RIR registrations either. there probably is a very good reason for that... implementing a new pricelist? fine.. but only for new customers. mind you: direct assignments can be revoked if their use is no longer in agreement with the original provided reasons, so there is no problem in checking all of them if they are actually used for the original purpose, there is a problem in forcing people to pay and threatten to remove their ip assignments if they dont, if there are no agreements covering that. -- Sven Olaf Kamphuis CB3ROB DataServices Phone: +31/87-8747479 Skype: CB3ROB MSN: sven(a)cb3rob.net C.V.: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cb3rob Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Martin List-Petersen wrote: > Hank Nussbacher wrote: > > On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Andrea Cima wrote: > > > >>> 4) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment > >>> and the > >>> fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - Operates for all direct > >>> assignments? or Only new direct assignments (included after 3 May, > >>> 2009)? > >> > >> All Assignments made since 1992 will be included. > > > > I have stated it before and I'll state it again - changing the billing > > rules retroactively is wrong. Maybe even EU legally wrong. Allocations > > made in the 1990s should not be billed. By all means recover > > unannounced allocations by whatever means necessary, but charging LIRs > > for allocations made in 1995 is wrong. > > > > It's not charging retroactively. Retroactively charging for the PI space > would be sending invoices out for every year from '92 to to date, which > is not happening. > > What is happening that the price has changed from 0 to 50 EUR/year > (well, the draft price). > > It's like an update of pricing or the terms and conditions, so you can > consider to either give your allocation back and won't be charged in the > future or you'll pay the price. > > This has nothing to do with retroactively charging. It's just a change > of the fee from now and on. > > Kind regards, > Martin List-Petersen > -- > Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair > http://www.airwire.ie > Phone: 091-865 968 > > > X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "ripe.net" >

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010
by Sven Olaf Kamphuis 19 Jun '09

19 Jun '09

> Anyhow, this whole matter was also already raised at the GM. unfortunately, in the agenda for that specific GM it was presented as if there would be the option for 3rd parties to register PI space directly with RIPE, like it used to be the case with internic in the past. Despite RIPEs newly announced rediculous prices, which come very close to running an actual LIR, compared to ARIN (arin only charges 100 dollars for direct assigned ip space for example) I have no issues with that construct and therefore didnt bother to go and vote against it. it was not mentioned that this would include EXISTING PI space and AS numbers. and yeah sure, we have a contract with our customers, verbal agreements are legally binding, especially if followed by a payment :P (having a payment relation by itself is already legally binding) unfortunately for RIPE those agreements only cover the effort to REGISTER the PI space in the first place, no renewal fees were ever mentioned. -this cannot be done, its blackmail!- now the funny thing is that our customers are already caving in and are willing to sign new contracts BUT they should not. caving in to blackmail is not a very good idea. -- Sven Olaf Kamphuis CB3ROB DataServices Phone: +31/87-8747479 Skype: CB3ROB MSN: sven(a)cb3rob.net C.V.: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cb3rob Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Martin List-Petersen wrote: > Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: > >> The product that the customer buys of the LIR should be giving more than > >> 50 EUR/year revenue, if not, you might not be in business for long. > > > > LIRS are NOT isps! > > > Not every LIR is an ISP, a lot of them are. If you assign PI to somebody > else, you have a provider/enduser relationship. That makes you a service > provider of some sort. Be it internet, content or hosting. > > > > the "product" bought from a LIR is the registration of IP space, usually > > at at one-time single payment that covered the increase in the billing > > score for 2 years if applicable and the administrative work. > > > > there are no "services" or "products" a LIR normally sells. > > > You have to have a contractual relationship with the enduser that has PI > now. You know that, right ? > > > > and there also is no question of "circumventing ripe membership fees" > > as those only apply to LIRs (that is, people willing to register IP space > > for others). > > Or entities, that don't want to deal with a LIR. > > > > the fact that -most- LIRs are part of an ISP or even some ASPs that fell > > for ripes jedi-mind-trick and became a LIR themselves, doesnt mean they > > HAVE to be part of an ISP. > > There are very few LIRs, that aren't providing some commercial product. > And even then 50 EUR/year is compared to the money they probably pay for > connectivity: > near to nothing. > > Anyhow, this whole matter was also already raised at the GM. > > Kind regards, > Martin List-Petersen > -- > Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair > http://www.airwire.ie > Phone: 091-865 968 > > > > X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "ripe.net" >

2 2

Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010
by Sven Olaf Kamphuis 19 Jun '09

19 Jun '09

> > -this cannot be done, its blackmail!- > > It's the RIPE membership (the LIRs), that change these policies, not the > NCC. The NCC has to action them. > > Has nothing to do with blackmail. At the end of the day, it's a decision > driven by RIPE members, who take an active role. > > Policies change, if you don't like'm you can try to change them again. > Just requires a majority approval for a policy proposal. > hiding behind "democratic internal processes" changes nothing to that fact. if the members of ripe decided ripe was not going to pay taxes this year, im quite sure that the democratic aspect would not warrant it from prosecution :P -- Sven Olaf Kamphuis CB3ROB DataServices Phone: +31/87-8747479 Skype: CB3ROB MSN: sven(a)cb3rob.net C.V.: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cb3rob Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Martin List-Petersen wrote: > Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: > >> Anyhow, this whole matter was also already raised at the GM. > > > > unfortunately for RIPE those agreements only cover the effort to REGISTER > > the PI space in the first place, no renewal fees were ever mentioned. > > > > -this cannot be done, its blackmail!- > > It's the RIPE membership (the LIRs), that change these policies, not the > NCC. The NCC has to action them. > > Has nothing to do with blackmail. At the end of the day, it's a decision > driven by RIPE members, who take an active role. > > Policies change, if you don't like'm you can try to change them again. > Just requires a majority approval for a policy proposal. > > Kind regards, > Martin List-Petersen > -- > Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair > http://www.airwire.ie > Phone: 091-865 968 > > > > X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "ripe.net" >

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010
by Sven Olaf Kamphuis 19 Jun '09

19 Jun '09

> > -this cannot be done, its blackmail!- > > It's the RIPE membership (the LIRs), that change these policies, not the > NCC. The NCC has to action them. > > Has nothing to do with blackmail. At the end of the day, it's a decision > driven by RIPE members, who take an active role. > > Policies change, if you don't like'm you can try to change them again. > Just requires a majority approval for a policy proposal. > hiding behind "democratic internal processes" changes nothing to that fact. if the members of ripe decided ripe was not going to pay taxes this year, im quite sure that the democratic aspect would not warrant it from prosecution :P -- Sven Olaf Kamphuis CB3ROB DataServices Phone: +31/87-8747479 Skype: CB3ROB MSN: sven(a)cb3rob.net C.V.: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cb3rob Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Martin List-Petersen wrote: > Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: > >> Anyhow, this whole matter was also already raised at the GM. > > > > unfortunately for RIPE those agreements only cover the effort to REGISTER > > the PI space in the first place, no renewal fees were ever mentioned. > > > > -this cannot be done, its blackmail!- > > It's the RIPE membership (the LIRs), that change these policies, not the > NCC. The NCC has to action them. > > Has nothing to do with blackmail. At the end of the day, it's a decision > driven by RIPE members, who take an active role. > > Policies change, if you don't like'm you can try to change them again. > Just requires a majority approval for a policy proposal. > > Kind regards, > Martin List-Petersen > -- > Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair > http://www.airwire.ie > Phone: 091-865 968 > > > > X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "ripe.net" >

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010
by Sven Olaf Kamphuis 19 Jun '09

19 Jun '09

> Not every LIR is an ISP, a lot of them are. If you assign PI to somebody > else, you have a provider/enduser relationship. That makes you a service > provider of some sort. Be it internet, content or hosting. no, you dont. the customer usually asks to just register ip space and an AS number which he then announces himself to transits of -his- choice. if the customer happens to be in lets say russia it doesnt make much sense to have their network announced in amsterdam or germany now does it.. thats the whole point of PI space in the first place, its PROVIDER INDEPENDANT, from day 1. -- Sven Olaf Kamphuis CB3ROB DataServices Phone: +31/87-8747479 Skype: CB3ROB MSN: sven(a)cb3rob.net C.V.: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cb3rob Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Martin List-Petersen wrote: > Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: > >> The product that the customer buys of the LIR should be giving more than > >> 50 EUR/year revenue, if not, you might not be in business for long. > > > > LIRS are NOT isps! > > > Not every LIR is an ISP, a lot of them are. If you assign PI to somebody > else, you have a provider/enduser relationship. That makes you a service > provider of some sort. Be it internet, content or hosting. > > > > the "product" bought from a LIR is the registration of IP space, usually > > at at one-time single payment that covered the increase in the billing > > score for 2 years if applicable and the administrative work. > > > > there are no "services" or "products" a LIR normally sells. > > > You have to have a contractual relationship with the enduser that has PI > now. You know that, right ? > > > > and there also is no question of "circumventing ripe membership fees" > > as those only apply to LIRs (that is, people willing to register IP space > > for others). > > Or entities, that don't want to deal with a LIR. > > > > the fact that -most- LIRs are part of an ISP or even some ASPs that fell > > for ripes jedi-mind-trick and became a LIR themselves, doesnt mean they > > HAVE to be part of an ISP. > > There are very few LIRs, that aren't providing some commercial product. > And even then 50 EUR/year is compared to the money they probably pay for > connectivity: > near to nothing. > > Anyhow, this whole matter was also already raised at the GM. > > Kind regards, > Martin List-Petersen > -- > Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair > http://www.airwire.ie > Phone: 091-865 968 > > > > X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "ripe.net" >

1 0