Hi Murat, Tells this an employee of a private isp with 3672 x /24 subnets I don't see any complaints from ISPs with 3672 x /24 about the current membership fee, so there doesn't seem to be a reason to propose them giving up the LIR status. Our internet dosnt belong only to you or companies like yours I have never said statement like this or something that can be understand as a statement like this. The internet belongs to everyone who can connect to Internet. And connectivity to internet is much more then just IPv4 address. So everyone has the right to use these resources Of course, and as soon as resources become available, RIPE distributes them among LIRs according to current policies, but to be an LIR, you need to pay membership fees. can not and should not use our common resources It is not your resources. As far as I know, there is no right to own IPv4, only to allocate them. e assigned these resources according to their intended purpose, providing customers access to the internet, and now you blame us for doing so. Btw. When did you get the right to decide who should have access to the internet and who should not? Because you dont pay for the ipv4 nothing at that time… Please explain which RIPE policy we violated and when exactly? What exactly is wrong with my suggestion to you save money on membership fees and only pay for PI sponsorship? Didn't you say that your fee is too high for you that you don’t have any benefits paying same amount of many as any other LIR and using only /24? It is logical, if you have only one /24, then PI sponsorship is cheaper. From: Murat Terzioglu | PREBITS <m.terzioglu@prebits.de> Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2025 9:54 PM To: Evgeniy Brodskiy <Evgeniy.Brodskiy@kyivstar.net> Cc: Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net>; Gert Doering <gert@space.net>; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month Tells this an employee of a private isp with 3672 x /24 subnets, which they lease for commercial gains and willing to pay for benefit maker resources only as much as a provider with /22 subnet. Why, because this is a membership organisation. Nope, this is wrong way. Our internet dosnt belong only to you or companies like yours. So everyone has the right to use these resources. But because kyivstar were estabilished years ago can not and should not use our common resources for their commercial benefit and pay nothing. Because you dont pay for the ipv4 nothing at that time… -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards Murat TERZIOGLU PREBITS - Premium Business IT Solutions Bochumer Str. 20 D-44866 Bochum Telefon: 0234/58825994 Telefax: 0234/58825995 www.prebits.de<http://www.prebits.de> m.terzioglu@prebits.de<mailto:m.terzioglu@prebits.de> USt-ID: DE315418902 Am 31.05.2025 um 19:17 schrieb Evgeniy Brodskiy via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>>: Конфіденційно/Confidential Hi Jean, I'm really interested in understanding your perspective. If you became an LIR 5 years ago, when there was already a fixed fee and free IPv4 addresses were practically unavailable, it's practically the same situation as now. What has changed that satisfied you then but no longer satisfies you now? P.S. In any case, if we talk about cost distribution between LIRs, the RIPE costs should be fairly distributed based on the consumed RIPE services (that bring these costs) by each LIR, not on the address allocation size for this LIR. RIPE services include different services and projects. These services are consumed by different LIRs almost independently of IPv4 allocation size. From: Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net<mailto:jean@bsmart-isp.net>> Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2025 4:06 PM To: Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net<mailto:kajtzu@basen.net>> Cc: Gert Doering <gert@space.net<mailto:gert@space.net>>; members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month Let me understand you well, we shouldn't have tiered charging because other LIRs are doing it and that would be copying? A tiered model is not right because it's of the benefit of the large majority of LIRs, but because it's fair. What has the cost per IP or economies of scale have anything to do with this discussion, this discussion is how to FAIRLY distribute the RIPE costs, and anyone that's 5 years or older knows that this current flat fee is very unfair for most LIRs, which are small. I don't understand why large LIRs are so much against this. Nobody's asking you to pay millions, but come on, it's only fair that you pay a bit more than LIRs with one /24 allocation are you that greedy? On Sat, 31 May 2025, 15:53 Kaj Niemi, <kajtzu@basen.net<mailto:kajtzu@basen.net>> wrote: Assuming Gert (or his employer) really has 11872 addresses, as you claim, the LTV is significantly higher to the organization considering what they've paid over the years. Besides your statement, that a tiered model is the right thing to do [for your benefit is implied here], there isn't anything supporting it. There is a term for copying another someone else's charging scheme or business model. It's called cargo culting. They might have made other assumptions than what you have. Similarly, I can claim that it cannot be a cost issue because, given current pricing, at less than two cents per day per IP address the pricing structure is certainly sustainable by anyone and thus fair given what we know about the market. Yes, if you have more addresses your cost per address will be even lower. Economies of scale and all that. What you seemingly want to do is to drive your own cost down at the expense of others. Which is far from fair. Kaj (who doesn't have 11872 addresses) Sent from my iPad ________________________________ From: Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net<mailto:jean@bsmart-isp.net>> Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2025 3:17 PM To: Gert Doering <gert@space.net<mailto:gert@space.net>> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> <members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> Subject: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month And by the way, for those that say it has to be a flat fee because of taxes in the Netherlands or whatever. Currently there's a fee per ASN, so the LIRs pay 50 EUR ASN which isn't a flat fee. A tiered model is possible and the right thing to do (again, everyone other than RIPE does it) Only objectors are people like Gert that manage 11872 IPv4 and want to keep paying the same fees as someone that hold 256 IPs On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:45 Jean Salim, <jean@bsmart-isp.net<mailto:jean@bsmart-isp.net>> wrote: That's not true, last time you were afraid of even putting a tiered model on the ballot while the vast majority of LIRs (which are very small LIRs) wanted to have an option to vote on a tiered model, but you didn't even have the guts to put it to vote. On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:41 Gert Doering, <gert@space.net<mailto:gert@space.net>> wrote: Hi, On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 01:36:27PM +0300, Jean Salim wrote:
We missed you Gert, I was surprised you disappeared as you're always the one to mislead the conversation away from charging scheme. I would like yo hear your proposal on an alternative charging scheme that more fair to small LIRs. I myself, as pointed out before, prefer the ARIN model.
"1 LIR, 1 vote, 1 fee for the membership" seems to be the one where most LIRs can actually *agree* on. Every charging scheme will be unfair to some - we had categories, and that was unfair to some, we had flat fees, and those are unfair to some, and even if we introduce fee-by-/24, it will be unfair to some. Even if we totally ignore IPv4, there will still be people that say "someone with a larger yearly budget should pay more", and "non-profit members should be free!", and maybe they are right. But if we go there, some people will have to pay more than they did the year before, and they will find this unfair. Conclusions left as homework to the reader. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14<https://www.google.com/maps/search/Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen+14?entry=gmail&source=g> Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/