On Fri, 2024-04-12 at 15:49 +0000, Evgeniy Brodskiy via members-discuss wrote:
Confidential/Конфіденційно
Each LIR has an equal right to receive any unallocated resources. The problem is that you want to take away resources that someone else is using. Why another LIR should disconnect its clients for you and deprive them of access to the Internet is completely unclear. That's not correct. Consider these charges as an "idle land tax" or "property tax".
If someone owns multiple IPs and proportionally has a large user base using them, it is trivial for them to spread the payment across each user. Let's say 256 addresses NAT pool per 10,000 users. This will be a slightly overloaded NAT pool, and some applications will complain about auto-blocking, but this, in turn, motivates the owner to do two things. Firstly, they can sell individual IPv4 addresses as a premium resource or create separate premium pools and sell as well. Secondly, this situation encourages users to adopt IPv6. Win-win. If the owner of such addresses is simply hoarding them and using them ineffectively, yes, it will be painful for them. This is precisely why such a "tax" was created.
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 6:01 PM To: ivaylo <ivaylo@bglans.net>; Fergal Cunningham <fergalc@ripe.net> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [comms-circle] Re: Re: Re: [ncc- announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
Agree!
If member fee is same - then resources also must be same.
On 12.04.2024 14:02, ivaylo wrote:
From IANA documents signed and agreed from RIPE:
------------------------------------------------------------------- --- --- 4) Neutrality and impartiality in relation to all interested parties, and particularly the LIRs
All organisations that receive service from the new RIR must be treated equally. The policies and guidelines proposed and implemented by the RIR need to ensure fair distribution of resources, and impartial treatment of the members/requestors.
The new RIR should be established as an independent, not-for-profit and open membership association. ------------------------------------------------------------------- --- ----
As some of you mentioned bigger part of the members are "happy" with the current charging scheme. Also seems we can not agree for charging scheme based on resources the member hold. Then logicaly we have an other option:
Let then RIPE do same with the resources ! Allocate absolutely equal number of resources to each of the LIR members ! Because there is shortage for IPV4, deallocate them from members who hold more ! For IPV6 just release new networks for simplification. For 32 bit ASNs give the current holders 1 year to free them, and then redistribute again equal number to each LIR.
To avoid disruption of the internet work, during the deallocation/allocation keep the IRR and ROA object same. And then separate we LIRs will make each to each contracts.
Ivaylo Josifov VarnaIX / Varteh LTD +359 52 969393 Varna, Bulgaria
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024, Fergal Cunningham wrote:
Dear Sebastien,
The charging scheme is adopted by the General Meeting upon proposal of the Executive Board. The Executive Board proposes a charging scheme and is responsible for the adoption of the budget and the activity plan of the organisation, so it is their responsibility to propose a charging scheme to collect the budget for the execution of this activity plan.
For the execution of the activity plan of 2025 the board proposed multiple options for covering the estimated budget. Contrary to other years, this time the current charging scheme cannot cover the necessary expenses. It would be damaging for the organisation to propose a resolution that would result in maintaining the current charging scheme and thus a much smaller income. The board has no obligation to put forward a resolution that may result in maintaining the current charging scheme. It does have an obligation to put forward resolutions for the benefit of the organisation.
So in short, the proposal would be completely valid.
All the best,
Fergal
On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 12:09?PM Sebastien Brossier <sebastien@brossier.org> wrote: On 12/04/2024 10:56, Gert Doering wrote: > On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 09:59:37AM +0200, Sebastien Brossier wrote: >> Correct, but the question is: is it ok for the option to reject the proposed >> resolution to be missing ? > > This option would take away the necessary resources for the NCC to do > what they presented at the autumn AGM.? So, yes, this would be a very > poor choice. > > The question is not "if" this is the budget, the question is "how can > the costs for this budget be distributed?".? So "no!" can not be a valid > choice for that question.
Hi,
I agree that a rejection is not desirable and would put the NCC in a difficult situation. All voting options should result in the same budget.
I'm not asking if it is desirable, but if it is *legal* to remove the choice to reject a proposal. I think it is better to ask the question now, rather than take the risk of seeing someone challenge the vote result later.
Regards, Sebastien Brossier
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net
https://lis/ ts.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers- discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvg eniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Cf0a8de7a34784444617308dc5b020df9%7 Cf8f 9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638485311585894231%7CUnkn own% 7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWw iLCJ XVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=LGjDpiVkpy%2Be22c%2F81aLPPur%2BAJz HTXL Kb84lJZitnQ%3D&reserved=0
Unsubscribe:http://https/ %3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers- discuss%2Fripen cc- management%25254&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7 C f0a8de7a34784444617308dc5b020df9%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a309 86%7 C0%7C0%7C638485311585904363%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wL jAwM DAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sd ata= AFoj0tjM9koRoJw0JVV6oeDGAZzvxUKqC6XuMsuBZqY%3D&reserved=0
0ripe.net
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers- discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvgen iy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Cf0a8de7a34784444617308dc5b020df9%7Cf8f 9bd 573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638485311585910766%7CUnknown%7 CTW FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXV CI6 Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=cGGZ6o56Z8bJvv41fZ3hSquUIhVjKBgm7MSqJQo2U f8% 3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers- discuss%2Fadmin%2540roskomnad zor.io&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Cf0a8de7a347 844 44617308dc5b020df9%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638 485 311585916842%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2 luM zIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Sux6kJ%2Bv9dDx PPr iP8vovAbQibXR815mpwAS4e0e6Z8%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ 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/evgeniy.brodskiy%40ky... _______________________________________________ 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/nuclearcat%40nuclearc...