- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [members-discuss] {Spam?} RE: Surprise on renew fees
by poty＠iiat.ru 16 Dec '11

16 Dec '11

-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Phil Barton Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 5:59 PM To: Potapov Vladislav Cc: members-discuss(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] {Spam?} RE: Surprise on renew fees "1. You contradict your own point. To raise more funds RIPE needed only to raise the prices in each category, not to change the basis of charging. The New Schema sought to change the basis of raising income by looking at other categories particularly the anomaly of PI's and is the reason for so many objections. It is a second issue that they raise income because of increased costs. In particular they wanted to bring the PI's into the formal scheme and have the users join RIPE." I don't think I contradict my own point. The schema must be stable. The only change we've seen up to now is the start of the IPv6 deployment which was already reflected in 2008 version. PI is here for many years. The fact that the RIPE NCC driven by some populism and based on some lobby managed to adopt the ill-conceived changes to the Schema in 2008 doesn't mean they did good job. For example, ASns at once became "special" and bring money of course, PIs - on the terms of dictated agreements and so on. It is this change that led to "anomaly of PI's". The way they tried to patch it in Schema 2012 is rude, poorly thought-out, unfair and punish more members which don't have such anomalies than the real guilty LIRs (and not LIRs). PIs become a sin, burdened with the double payment and very much involved in the side effect of shifting up in categories badly. But - you know - As soon as the community have voted we don't have the rights to blame it for its decision. "2. I have been involved for 3 -4 years, not much time compared to others, but the proposals round the new schema were discussed at every event. Perhaps the way they were discussed were subtle but I understood what they were trying to do and why. The final proposal made was merely to formalise this. And no I do not keep all the mailings and documents, it is just the impression I built up from the sessions I attended and the mailings I read." The policy process, especially in the world of finances, should be clear and open in the form of membership the RIPE NCC in. "Impressions", subtle moving, personal and other hidden ways of determining the policy - is very uneasy for most members which they showed at the last general meeting. As other RIPE policies the Schema must be discussed in the mailing list together with the principles and concerns it solves. And it MUST be stable for several years while there is no changes in the horizon! It doesn't mean no rises, but the schema itself must not be changed. "3. I may be mistaken on this point I thought RIPE were Belgium based and therefore if they were it was the price we paid for basing them there. But the point I make is Valid if salaries increase where our staff are based we have to pay more even (if in Russia as in the UK salaries in the corporate world are being held down). Decisions taken in other countries can affect the whole community look at the high Debt countries in the Eurozone and the immpact on the Euro. Just because one does not want it to be does not stop it." No it is Dutch-based. But you know - if there are international agreements involved it is not only one-side law that counts. "But it is the issues over PI's that is at the core of this and perhaps the new group will address this. We are a NPO. We joined RIPE to obtain our own IP addresses as the alternative to using PI's, so we of course tend to agree with the proposal. We raise one category in the new and old scheme because we now have a second allocation /21 as well as IPV6. If we did not ask for the second allocation we would remain at the smallest level." I can say that you are wrong at the point. It is easy to count according the document. But may I ask question about mentioned in the Schema "services"? Do you use them? "Perhaps the PI issue was sprung on some members and they should have been given time to adjust but also I think they shut their eyes to the wind of change presented at the meetings." The general meeting showed that the wind of change is not in the interests of the member. We are not thoughtless sailer - we can go against wrong tendencies. Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat

1 0

Invitation to participate in the Charging Scheme Task Force
by Nigel Titley 16 Dec '11

16 Dec '11

Dear all, at the RIPE NCC Board Meeting, last Thursday, we agreed to set up a small task force, to work on a successor of the current RIPE NCC Charging Scheme. Apart from members from the Executive Board and RIPE NCC staff, we are looking for representatives from our members. We know some of you are interested in the topic, and would like to encourage you to volunteer to work on this important task. The composition of the task force will be two RIPE NCC staff members, two Board members and a maximum of four members. I have included the proposed charter of the task force, so that you know what you are getting yourselves into. You can reply either directly to me or to the list or both. If we get more than four volunteers then four will be chosen randomly. Looking forward to the results, Best regards, Nigel Titley Chairman RIPE NCC Executive Board ----- Introduction In the course of 2011 the RIPE NCC Management and the RIPE NCC Board have put in a lot of effort to propose a new, future proof Charging Scheme. Several proposals were announced to the members-discuss mailing list in July and after extensive discussion with a variety of opinions and new models, the Executive Board decided to propose a different model having taken feedback into account. After further extensive discussion and comments, this model was voted down by the membership at the last General Meeting. To improve the Charging Scheme process and to get broader input on a future Charging Scheme model the Executive Board has decided to create a Task Force, representing different groups within the RIPE NCC organisation. Objectives of the Task Force The Task Force will have the following objectives: - Define the principles of a future Charging Scheme - Propose an improved process for the annual Charging Scheme discussions and adoption - Set a pricing structure for several years for Legacy holders - Advise the Executive Board on a discussion or resolution for the General Meeting in April 2011 The Task Force will not discuss or set any actual fees or prices. Participants of the Task Force To have an efficient task force the group will have to be limited in size. The Executive Board has selected key individuals that have put themselves forward, have good understanding of the Charging Scheme and represent a variety of member groups. The group will consist of participants from 3 groups namely: - RIPE NCC staff - Jochem de Ruig, Andrea Cima - RIPE NCC Executive Board – Remco van Mook, Dmitry Burkov - RIPE NCC members (4 representatives) Timeframe Several meetings/phone conferences in Q1 2012, send draft proposal to Board ahead of the General Meeting in April 2012.

11 11

Re: [members-discuss] {Spam?} RE: Surprise on renew fees
by poty＠iiat.ru 15 Dec '11

15 Dec '11

-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Phil Barton Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 3:44 PM To: 'Jon Morby'; 'Carlos Friacas' Cc: 'Nigel Titley'; members-discuss(a)ripe.net Subject: [members-discuss] {Spam?} RE: Surprise on renew fees Disagree on many points here. You wrote: "I agree the charging scheme and budget are not directly related - other than the total income and expenditure over a period should balance in a Not for Profit Organisation. The schema is just about how it is recovered - who pays what - not about how much is spent by the NPO." Yes, they are related! And this (unnecessarily) hard relation was made by the RIPE NCC itself. RIPE community has to renew the schema very often just to cover new expenses and to patch holes in (bad) thought procedure. I've already ask several questions about the new Schema - just too lazy to repeat them once more -you can look at them in the archives. I add to this one more doc - Activity Plan, which after many years become an ancient book of community wills without any relation to the understanding how effectively RIPE NCC does all the activities it mentions. Then: "However I have to say certainly the new Schema had been well debated over a long time and I personally feel vested interests stopped this when the majority were supportive or ambivalent." I don't know where it was debated, but according to the present rules it MUST BE debated in the open way - in the mailing list. Prior to publishing the Schema there was no debates around it (and around the principles of changes which should be incorporated in it either)! The Schema was published late - not in July as Nigel said, but in August (look at the date in the RIPE NCC repository) and the underlying reasons were hidden for community until I think the end of September. The vested interests you've mentioned are fully irrelevant in the context. The Schema 2012 becomes very questionable as many LIRs jumps 2-3 categories up just having 1 (one) PI (or not having PI at all), I even haven't started to mention some very rude patches to show the strongest fight for greedy LIRs having huge profit using cheap chunks of PI, and another point - intrusion of tie-in sale of RIPE NCC services. Then: "Also by LAW people in Belgium have to receive a wage increase every 3 months in line with the Gezondheidsindex so we have to pay staff more." It's the country's problem, the RIPE NCC serves not only Belgium - why should people from other countries pay for it according Belgium law? Regards, Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] [#27249] Surprise on renew fees
by network＠privatelayer.com 15 Dec '11

15 Dec '11

Jon, We never asked to join this list anyway. Please remove us from as it is creating SPAM in our ticket system. James Prado Private Layer INC

3 2

Re: [members-discuss] Surprise on renew fees
by poty＠iiat.ru 14 Dec '11

14 Dec '11

From: members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Lu Heng Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 3:41 AM To: paolo.difrancesco(a)level7.it Cc: members-discuss(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Surprise on renew fees > Well, if the new 2012 charging scheme was processed, then it will be based on amount of resource we are using. The 2012 had several bad and quite unfair flaws in many sides of its preparing procedure, its structure and the undercarpet considerations - that is why it didn't see support. >if IP's price goes up, it not only benefits the new comer who got the IP but also >the old ones who already had the IP. If everybody is holding something has same value, >why one party should be paying more while another should be paying less. It's not so easy. I think you do not understand the scheme correctly. "old" LIRs if they want to get a block would be counted in the same way as newcomers for the block, so the fairness of getting addresses is better in the scheme. On the other hand - if the minimal block in "old" times was /16 and the then-new LIR got it and it is still enough or even not used even close to fully - it's unfair to punish the LIR. Many best practices at the time was not so flexible as now - and it led to "waste" in modern point of view, but it's very difficult to change the assignments now (initial criteria is still met) - why the LIR should suffer? Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat

3 2

[#27119] PrivateLayer ticketsystem still on the RIPE members-discuss list ...
by Erik Bais 14 Dec '11

14 Dec '11

Dear members-discuss moderator / list owner / maintainer, Is it possible to simple remove everyone from Privatelayer from the list, for still having their ticketsystem on the list? And if possible, please do so. The time they had to fix this is insane and if they would actually be reading the list (or their own created tickets.), they could have fixed it months ago. Kind regards, Erik Bais -----Original Message----- From: support(a)privatelayer.com [mailto:support@privatelayer.com] Sent: woensdag 14 december 2011 10:46 To: Erik Bais Subject: [#27119] Re: [members-discuss] Surprise on renew fees Dear Valued Private Layer Customer, Our tech support department has received your message in good order and we have assigned a ticket number to your request. The ticket number assigned is: 27119. We are reviewing your ticket and will reply to it shortly. Best Regards, Private Layer INC Tech Support Department support(a)privatelayer.com

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] Surprise on renew fees
by poty＠iiat.ru 14 Dec '11

14 Dec '11

1. Newcomers need several special (and not so special, but more "manual") procedures for contract signing, teaching, allocating, assisting first assignments, a lot more supporting, "free entrance" to RIPE meeting ... I think it reasonably costs several cents more? 2. You are right about the membership fee, but every member was once a newcomer and since then pays every year the money, according the current charging scheme. Many of "current" LIRs have already contributed a lot to community (and RIPE NCC) not only by means of fees, but by ideas, solutions... 3. The rules of allocating "then" were different than "now". The "default" block was bigger and the procedures for the distribution of allocated space were not so strictly tough. Why we should punish the LIRs now to abide the rules and best practices? ... (it's only small number of arguments, and - yes - the matter was discussed several times already) Regards, Vladislav Potapov > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss- > bounces(a)ripe.net] On Behalf Of Alexander Zubkov > Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 9:50 AM > To: members-discuss(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Surprise on renew fees > > On 12/13/2011 11:32 PM, Michał Margula wrote: > > W dniu 13.12.2011 20:23, LIR pisze: > >> I am new to RIPE and list, and I did not see any conversation of > that kind. > >> > >> Anyway, I find this way of calculating is not fair at all, despite > of used. > >> > >> This model does not compute real usage of resources, but penalizes > >> new entries and gives resources for free to old members. > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> Tonino > >> > > > > I can't agree. W got our first resources about 5 years ago. First > year > > we were "EXTRA SMALL", and then every year we are categorized > "SMALL", > > altough we requested some more resources. > > > > And does 500 euro per year really makes any difference? Really?? > Let's > > count IPv4 - you got /21 which is 1024 addresess which makes 50 cents > > (per year! about 4 cents a month!!) difference. > > > > And about fairness of that calculation - the later you get resources > > the more are they valuable, and they really are! > > > > This is absolutely correct in case of one-time payment. But membership > fee is regular and you are right - resources are valuable. And this > should be applied to all members, not to newcomers only. > > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the > general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From > here, you can add or remove addresses.

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] Surprise on renew fees
by LIR 13 Dec '11

13 Dec '11

Il 13/12/2011 19:54, Rob Golding ha scritto: >> This means every one asking first block allocation after year 2008 will be >> classified SMALL, despite of his real dimensions and resources. >> >> This is quite punishing for new comers like us, and not fair at all as a >> fee computing method. > It's like flights - the later you leave it to travel-date the more expensive > they become. Yes. But you had to book 15 years before your date. Tonino

1 0

IDAQ joins an exclusive club
by Nigel Titley 30 Nov '11

30 Nov '11

I see that IDAQ has joined PrivateLayer in the exclusive club of those members who have subscribed their ticket robots to the RIPE member-discuss list. Welcome to the IDAQ-ticket robot, and congratulations on achieving sentience. We will look forward to your contributions to the discussion list with interest. Nigel (waiting in Moscow airport for my flight back to strike-hit Heathrow)

1 0

What to do
by Comunicaciones ACOTELSA 24 Nov '11

24 Nov '11

Hi all. We have detected a DoS from IP of APNIC, from China. Are there a procedure to inform APNIC or RIPE about the problem or the only way is inform to the WHOIS contact? Thanks in advance. Saludos... =========================================== Luis Ángel Lozano Aparicio Comunicaciones y Seguridad Grupo Acotel e-mail: comunicaciones(a)acotelsa.com ------------------------------------------ Tlf: 983 440274 - 902 194273 Fax:983 548220 Oficina 201 - Edificio Galileo, módulo Rojo Parque Tecnológico de Boecillo 47151 Boecillo (Valladolid) - España =========================================== Protección de Datos: ACOTELSA le informa de que los datos facilitados por Ud. y utilizados para el envío de esta comunicación serán objeto de tratamiento automatizado o no en nuestros ficheros, con la finalidad de gestionar la agenda de contactos de nuestra empresa y para el envío de comunicaciones profesionales por cualquier medio electrónico o no. Vd. podrá en cualquier momento ejercer el derecho de acceso, rectificación, cancelación y oposición en los términos establecidos en la Ley Orgánica 15/1999. El responsable del tratamiento es ACOTELSA, con domicilio en Ronda de Poniente, 3 bajo, 28760 Tres Cantos, Madrid. Confidencialidad El contenido de esta comunicación, así como el de toda la documentación anexa, es confidencial y va dirigido únicamente al destinatario del mismo. En el supuesto de que usted no fuera el destinatario, le solicitamos que nos lo indique y no comunique su contenido a terceros, procediendo a su destrucción. Gracias. Confidenciality The content of this communication and any attached information is confidential and exclusively for the use of the addressee. If you are not the addressee, we ask you to notify to the sender and do not pass its content to another person, and please be sure you destroy it. Thank you.

8 8