Hi it would be fair if the resource was not valued as a resource only as the number of IPs IP should be the basis for settlement - it is actually a cost there is a shortage of addresses, and some people have a lot of them unused and do not return them. If they paid for the addresses and it was a cost for them, they would wonder whether they really need them or whether it would be better to return some of them. Pozdrawiam Gabriel Sulka ------------------------------------------------------------- Firma Handlowo - Usługowa KOMPEX 34-400 Nowy Targ ul. Szaflarska 62A tel(18) 264-60-55 pn-pt 09:30 - 17:00 sb. 09:30 - 13:00 www.kompex.pl ; bok@kompex.pl ; kompex@nowytarg.net -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Gert Doering Sent: Friday, March 29, 2024 12:49 PM To: domain@wkey.it Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Open House: Recording and Slides Available Hi, On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 07:04:30PM +0100, Andrea Borghi wrote:
My humble proposal is to class basing on how many additional resources a company have beyond the basics that was valid at the time of joining Ripe.
... and possibly how old these resources are... we got our blocks in 1995/1996, and they are considered "large" by today's standards. Back then, it was what you got as a fast-growing small ISP... So if we really go for something based on allocation size, adding a yearly depreciation factor in would make this "more fair" (... we've been paying our share for the last 29(!) years already). Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer, Ingo Lalla, Karin Schuler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279