Hello Lutz, hello again everyone,
A few points on what is written below and other comments
a) There is a false sentiment of choice with this A,B,C as I was saying it this morning. This A,B,C choice is exaclty the same and should be renamed A, A' and A".
It's even not a question of is it fair or not it's a question about charging models. I see the same comments I saw last year.
So an alternative choice should be =>> paying price depending on how many IPv4 you use, regardless if it's per IP or something else with different levels (group small, group medium, group big).
The probleme here is that there is NO ALTERNATIVE CHOICE. The 2024 charging scheme that I would refer as A, A' and A" are the same !
b) The executive board took too much energy/time/money to produce these 3 x 2024 charging models and everyone seem to loose their time too.
It's either RIPE is wasting too much money/time to produce similar charging scheme OR these charging scheme have been produced in a matter of minutes and in that case it's not serious.
c) Regarding the fairness, I have seen in my own eyes many companies that have a lot of IPv4 (tens of class B), they absolutely don't care about optimising their IPv4 usage and have very fragmented IPv4 allocation.
From a financial point of view they don't even know what they're paying for. They receive the bill and they pay it.
So I don't think it's normal these who don't make effort pay almost nothing per IP while small LIR members pay much more in comparison.
These companies would have two choices:
- Pay for what they use and for what they waste
- Release what they don't use in order to pay less.
But I'm more focused on a) here, you want the members to vote then give different options, not similar once. I feel like this vote is a false democracy vote.
Regards
RIPE had a category based model, too.
The members (we all together) voted (multiple times) to replace it by a flat fee.
Please accept this decision.
If you want to be constructive:
- bring your input into the upcoming discussion about the action plan in order to reduce the expenses.
Cutting funding without cutting costs will never go, that's not even an option.- bring your input into the upcoming discussion about the charging scheme in order to find a new definition of fairness.
A new model takes time to evaluate the consequences, for this year, it's too late.- use IPv6 and NAT wherever you can in order to live with the IPv4 space you have.
You can't rewrite history and redistribute existing allocations. You can't get fresh IPv4 addresses, because there are none.
For IPv4, it's over. There is no action, which gives you IPv4 space for free via RIPE.
Please accept this fact.
Von: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> Im Auftrag von Mentor Leniqi via members-discuss
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 16. Mai 2024 10:47
An: Clement Cavadore <ccavadore@vedege.net>
Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net
Betreff: Re: [members-discuss] How can I vote against Charging Scheme A, B and C
Clement, there is no such thing as "big lirs will move out" each RIR has a policy that would prevent using the resource in other region/RIR. ARIN, APNIC and other RIRs have such model long ago charged per resource holder, and i wonder how many LIRs from mentioned RIRs moved to RIPE ;)
On Thu, 16 May 2024, 10:41 Clement Cavadore via members-discuss, <members-discuss@ripe.net> wrote:
Hello all,
For what it's worth, and to be clear: I voted against the proposed
category-based model last year. But not against its principle.
I strongly support the idea of a category-based model, but I also
strongly support the idea of "if you are a big player, you should
support the NCC's expense more than smaller structures". But I did vote
against because of its limitation on bigger categories. It's a equality
vs equity topic.
And, yes, the most easy way to do it can be related to resources
holding. Big LIRs won't cancel their membership. And if RIPE community
(and/or NCC) is afraid that the resources would be transfered to
another RIR for economic reasons, then, we still could limit RIR-to-RIR
resources transfer.
Regards,
Clément Cavadore
_______________________________________________
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/mentor.leniqi%40albahost.net
_______________________________________________
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/mjirari%40expertinet.fr