Hello Fergal and RIPE Board members.
With all the respect to RIPE Executive board, there is a problem. From the day first 2025 charging scheme draft was published - thread instantly got hundreds of responses clearly indicating just one thing - that proposed scheme is not ok. Majority (at least that’s what I see in members-discuss) of members raised their concerns and responded that they disagree with it.
There are dozens of other schemes offered by others. They can not be exact or final as that’s up on Executive Board to do counts with all needed source data. Without it can not be final, correct and sane. No member outside board has all the needed details.
Same time members majority clearly indicated (again, that’s what I see in this mailing list) that simply raising fee to 400-500 EUR is not acceptable and really hurts some smaller LIRs - different approach should be chosen.
If I understand logic of things correctly - this means that board is *required* to work on something different for coming year (2025). Previous reply that it’s not fitting current multi-year financial plans and model so won’t be discussed is not acceptable.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I assumed that RIPE is members ruled structure. That’s what all RIPE learning PDFs say. You can not simply ignore everyone.
There are different concerns and ideas from members, each of them should be worked on, short list is something like this:
1. Resource based fee
2. Level based fee in some way
3. Reducing expenses
4. Splitting expenses into core and projects
5. Some other ideas I might have missed :)
I’m not saying one is solution for everything. Truth might be something in between. But I honestly believe current board should really work on them to find the best one. Members alone can’t make some final solution, that’s why executive board exists in such structures.
Thanks and all the respects for work already done.
On 22 Apr 2024, at 17:58, Fergal Cunningham <fergalc@ripe.net> wrote:
On 22 Apr 2024, at 13:03, Sebastien Brossier <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
https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss
Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ripencc-management%40ripe.net