So, Executive Board will be continue to offering "same like" charging schemes and no way to offer something new? Even with 400 votes? On 22.04.2024 16:27, Fergal Cunningham wrote:
Dear Murat,
That's correct. Any proposals regarding the Charging Scheme are meant to come from the Executive Board.
Best regards, Fergal
On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 5:42 PM <m.terzioglu@prebits.de <mailto:m.terzioglu@prebits.de>> wrote:
Dear Fergal,____
__ __
__ __
So we dont have now the possibility to offer new proposals for charging scheme here: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/member-proposals/ and we cant either offer any proposal for not chosing any offered options, right?____
__ __
__ __
__ __
-- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards
*Murat TERZIOGLU* *PREB**IT**S**____*
__ __
Bochumer Str. 20____
44866 Bochum____
Deutschland____
__ __
Telefon: 0234/58825994____
Telefax: 0234/58825995____
__ __
www.prebits.de <http://www.prebits.de/>____
info@prebits.de <mailto:info@prebits.de>____
__ __
USt-ID: DE315418902____
__ __
__ __
*Von:*members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> *Im Auftrag von *Fergal Cunningham *Gesendet:* Montag, 22. April 2024 16:58 *An:* members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> *Betreff:* Re: [members-discuss] [comms-circle] Re: Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)____
__ __
Dear Dmytro,
Making resolutions on the charging scheme for next year is solely the responsibility of the Executive Board. Proposing different versions is not possible. Please see also the mail I sent on Friday: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/2024-April/005454.ht...
Best regards, Fergal____
__ __
On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 1:44 PM Dmitry Kohmanyuk via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> wrote:____
On 22 Apr 2024, at 13:03, Sebastien Brossier <sebastien@brossier.org <mailto:sebastien@brossier.org>> wrote: > > On 20/04/2024 11:44, Claudius Zingerli wrote: >> I think IPv6 allocations larger than /29 aren't very common. Your proposal again puts too much load on smaller LIRs. > I generated this alternate simulation to address the concerns of those with IPv6 /29 and a very small amount of IPv4, but it is indeed worse for everyone else. Billing IPv6 in a fair way is not easy when 90% of LIRs are in the same category. > > Honestly, I prefer my initial proposal. Or James A.T. Rice's proposal if we're not going to charge for IPv6 at the moment.
Hi Sebastien,
I am examining formulas which involve a fixed price, as well as charges for both IPv4 and IPv6, and wondering if there is anyone who can help calculate the impact of merging LIRs or moving addresses on these (obviously not exactly.)
Additionally, I have a question about whether membership is able to propose any version to these charges for voting, subject to a signature threshold, or if it is solely the board's responsibility.
-- dk@
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ripencc-management%40...
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/admin%40roskomnadzor....