- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

Discuss Charging Scheme 2010
by Natalya Petrova 21 Jun '09

21 Jun '09

RegID: kz.kazaktelecom Good morning, dear colleagues! Thanks for your message. I have read on a site the information be relative Charging Scheme 2010. There are some questions for me. I ask the help in the explanatory. Questions: 1) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment and the fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It mentions only PI? or PA? or PI+PA? 2) "fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It every month a payment? or every quarter? or for a year? 3) "fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It is payment for what quantity of addresses (50EUR= ? IPs)? 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)? I shall be very grateful for explanatories. Thanks for the help and understanding. Yours faithfully, Natalya

31 64

Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010
by Michiel Klaver 19 Jun '09

19 Jun '09

> On 19-6-2009 12:34, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: >> >> (before we registered our first PI block I even called and asked them >> if PROVIDER INDEPENDANT space would not cause recurring fees for us, >> and they said no. (besides the showing up in the billing score for a >> short time, which ofcourse is calculated into our one-time >> administration fee.) >> The RIPE example contract(1) for the 2007-01 policy indicated there should be a periodic maintenance fee under section 4.2. At the last RIPE meeting there were questions asked about the amount that a LIR should ask for this fee, but no concrete answers were given. The new (draft) charging scheme indicates an amount of 50eur/year, but all our new 2007-01 PI space with contracts have a lower maintenance fee amount. It would have been a lot less complicated if this was discussed and all clear before the new PI policy 2007-01 was accepted. (1) http://www.ripe.net/membership/lir-end-user-agreement.html With kind regards, Michiel Klaver BA.ict GrafiX Internet B.V. Stationsplein 20 2907 MJ Capelle aan den IJssel The Netherlands Web: http://grafix.nl/ Tel: +31-(0)10-2640210 Fax: +31-(0)10-2640211 Providing high-end professional internet services at our privately owned net-neutral in-house Data Center Facilities in Capelle aan den IJssel and Alphen aan den Rijn. Connected at TeleCityRedbus2 (Amsterdam) and Spaanse Kubus (Rotterdam).

5 7

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

19 Jun '09

So that would be an easy one: To receive provider-independent resources get into contract with RIPE-NCC. Without any other way. Only problem with this 'Direct End User Assignment' is the horrible, far to high fee NCC want's to invoice. My theory: our dear hostmasters don't want to have the typical end-user hassle themselves and simply go for keeping that which has been made possible by 2007-01 far away by simply setting the fee high enough. Being forced to have a LIR handle a independent resource makes that resource dependent. just my 2c. 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 Geraint Evans > Gesendet: Freitag, 19. Juni 2009 11:13 > An: Jon Morby; lir(a)uralttk.ru > Cc: Sven Olaf Kamphuis; Martin List-Petersen; lir(a)uralttk.ru; > Sven Olaf Kamphuis; members-discuss(a)ripe.net > Betreff: RE: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 > > The simple fact of the matter is PI space is not effectively > being controlled. > > RIPE need to take control of it so that we don't have the > same problems with IPv6 as we do now with IPv4. > > PI space has been passed to end users, and because its P.I no > one is really maintaining who has what and what it is being used for. > > By making LIR's responsible for the relationship with the end > user of the P.I a reclamation can be easily achieved - if > needed, I don't agree with the charging but I do agree with > making whoever requested the P.I space on behalf of a client > responsible. > > > Geraint > > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-admin(a)ripe.net > [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Jon Morby > Sent: 19 June 2009 09:29 > To: lir(a)uralttk.ru > Cc: Sven Olaf Kamphuis; Martin List-Petersen; lir(a)uralttk.ru; > Sven Olaf Kamphuis; members-discuss(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 > > 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. > > > >

2 1

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

19 Jun '09

yes! voting through the lir portal, great idea. (first on the agenda, the correction of 2007-01).. -- 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, David Crane wrote: > > On 19 Jun 2009, at 11:01, Jon Morby wrote: > > > I'd be happier voting based on the minutes of the meeting through > > the LIR portal however ... and even happier if I can watch a stream > > of the whole proceedings on the basis it is difficult for me to get > > to any of these events > > > This would be perfect. Much more democratic way of getting opinions > off people without impacting upon our working days. > > -Dave. > > > > > X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "ripe.net" >

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010
by Jeroen Wunnink 19 Jun '09

19 Jun '09

We've been discussing this draft with some of the NLNOG'ers (Dutch network operators), and from what we (or at least I) understood in a nutshell: In this draft, the PI space will lose it's scoring points scheme, and it'll just cost 50 euro's/year for an allocation (doesn't matter if it's a /24 or a /21 ?) Now a lot can (and has) already been said about the administrative implications, but from an operational standpoint it raises a few questions here. If a PI assignment will 'only' cost 50 euro's a year, won't everyone and his dog with a good story on why they need PI space just request their own range ?, I'm seeing a flurry of new customers with 1 or 2 servers knocking at our door to colocate these and say: 'Hey we have our own PI space, we don't need part of your PA, please add our range to your routers' Resulting lots of new small fragmented prefixes being added to the already growing global routing table.. -- Met vriendelijke groet, Jeroen Wunnink, EasyHosting B.V. Systeembeheerder systeembeheer(a)easyhosting.nl telefoon:+31 (035) 6285455 Postbus 48 fax: +31 (035) 6838242 3755 ZG Eemnes http://www.easyhosting.nl http://www.easycolocate.nl

9 11

Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010
by GrafiX NOC 19 Jun '09

19 Jun '09

> On 19-6-2009 12:34, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: >> >> (before we registered our first PI block I even called and asked them >> if PROVIDER INDEPENDANT space would not cause recurring fees for us, >> and they said no. (besides the showing up in the billing score for a >> short time, which ofcourse is calculated into our one-time >> administration fee.) >> The RIPE example contract(1) for the 2007-01 policy indicated there should be a periodic maintenance fee under section 4.2. At the last RIPE meeting there were questions asked about the amount that a LIR should ask for this fee, but no concrete answers were given. The new (draft) charging scheme indicates an amount of 50eur/year, but all our new 2007-01 PI space with contracts have a lower maintenance fee amount. It would have been a lot less complicated if this was discussed and all clear before the new PI policy 2007-01 was accepted. (1) http://www.ripe.net/membership/lir-end-user-agreement.html With kind regards, Michiel Klaver BA.ict GrafiX Internet B.V. Stationsplein 20 2907 MJ Capelle aan den IJssel The Netherlands Web: http://grafix.nl/ Tel: +31-(0)10-2640210 Fax: +31-(0)10-2640211 Providing high-end professional internet services at our privately owned net-neutral in-house Data Center Facilities in Capelle aan den IJssel and Alphen aan den Rijn. Connected at TeleCityRedbus2 (Amsterdam) and Spaanse Kubus (Rotterdam).

1 0

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