I was worried so much about this discussion starting again! I suppose a lot of people is interested in it, as far as I can understand is a matter of quick money by buying and reselling the last IPv4 blocks, and RIPE is NOT making this easy enough for some people. Then there are legitimate claims, but the rules were so easy to understand, 1k IPs for new LIRs, that there is always someone trying to bend them to make some more money. Anyway it is the way it goes, the world moves where it finds the money, I suppose it is a corollary of finding the minimum of potential energy. But I am not interested in this discussion, it goes on and on and on since more than a year, I am unsubscribing to the list. Thanks anybody who contributed. Paolo Il 04/12/2018 11:25, ripe-member-discuss+lr@c2play.de ha scritto:

...

Sebastian Wiesinger sebastian.wiesinger at noris.net  [Tue Dec 4 08:53:56 CET 2018] The RIPE NCC fees are anually. As a convenience *to you* you can also pay them quarterly (we don't). This has been discussed multiple times.

...

Regards

...

Sebastian

That is, in the light of the matter of this discussion, not quite correct. Yes, the fees are annual - but they are charged on a pro rata basis, so for example, LIRs don't pay a full annual fee of €1,400 when they become LIR in the last quarter of 2018. They only pay for the last quarter of 2018.

What the starter of the discussion criticizes is that LIRs not only have to pay member fees retroactively, they also have to pay it when those LIRs are not involved in the transfer at all.

To be honest, I think that RIPE NCC is a very fair RIR, if not the fairest. But I also admit that this rule is quite confusing: To prevent impatient people from creating a LIR in the last quarter of a year, then transfering the resource(s) and closing the LIR to make fast money, we already have a rule which states that scarce resources cannot be transfered within the first 24 months after the resource was allocated.

There may be also other reasons for companies to create multiple LIRs than making fast money. Many people do legitime business. Also in the earlier days of RIPE NCC some companies had multiple LIRs.

With that said, I don't think the way how fees are charged for such transfers is consistent, it is quite confusing. On the other hand RIPE NCC has a legitime interest to prevent people from making fast money; but here we already have an effective rule: The 24 months restriction.

So the question is: What is the reason for this rule if you think we need it to be kept?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:*Dave Benwell <dave@it-communicationsltd.co.uk </email/new/1/dave%40it-communicationsltd.co.uk>> *Sent:*Tuesday, 4. Dec 2018 – 10:39 CET +0100 *To:*Sebastian Wiesinger <sebastian.wiesinger@noris.net </email/new/1/sebastian.wiesinger%40noris.net>> members-discuss@ripe.net </email/new/1/members-discuss%40ripe.net>

*Subject:*Re: [members-discuss] LIR’s billing issues with RIPE NCC, need support

Additional accounts are normally setup to get more IP Space

-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Sebastian Wiesinger Sent: 04 December 2018 07:54 To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] LIR’s billing issues with RIPE NCC, need support

* Juri <hostmaster@ntx.ru> [2018-12-04 08:09]:

...

I suggest RIPE NCC do correct accounting for each LIR for the time this LIR instance exists. If LIR has annual billing - then RIPE NCC should use it. If LIR selected quarterly billing - RIPE NCC show use. But RIPE NCC should not overcharge LIRs for the time they didn't give any services for LIR instance.

The RIPE NCC fees are anually. As a convenience *to you* you can also pay them quarterly (we don't). This has been discussed multiple times.

Regards

Sebastian

_______________________________________________ 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/dave%40it-communicati...

_______________________________________________ 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/ripe-member-discuss%2...

_______________________________________________ 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/prandini%40spe.net

So the question is: What is the reason for this rule if you think we need it to be kept?

Stability. It's bad for any organisation, if the members come and go too quickly. We - as a community - want to welcome newcomers, so becoming a LIR should be easy. That's why it's accepted to make a compromise between fiscal year and entry time. OTOH we - as a community - do not want to encourage people to misuse the address assignment policy for their sole purpose, which involves creating and merging LIRs quickly. That's why another compromise to ease their life is so likely. Yes, that's a bit bitter for companies which need to shut down or are taken over. But that's normal contractual risk. IMHO.

The 24-month rule may prevent "fast" money, but the payment requirement for all LIRs before transfer makes a dent in the "slow" money. -- Regards, Terrence Koeman, PhD/MTh/BPsy Darkness Reigns (Holding) B.V. Please quote relevant replies.

-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of ripe- member-discuss+lr@c2play.de Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2018 11:25 AM To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] LIR’s billing issues with RIPE NCC, need support

...

Sebastian Wiesinger sebastian.wiesinger at noris.net [Tue Dec 4 08:53:56 CET 2018] The RIPE NCC fees are anually. As a convenience *to you* you can also pay them quarterly (we don't). This has been discussed multiple times.

...

Regards

...

Sebastian

That is, in the light of the matter of this discussion, not quite correct. Yes, the fees are annual - but they are charged on a pro rata basis, so for example, LIRs don't pay a full annual fee of €1,400 when they become LIR in the last quarter of 2018. They only pay for the last quarter of 2018.

What the starter of the discussion criticizes is that LIRs not only have to pay member fees retroactively, they also have to pay it when those LIRs are not involved in the transfer at all.

To be honest, I think that RIPE NCC is a very fair RIR, if not the fairest. But I also admit that this rule is quite confusing: To prevent impatient people from creating a LIR in the last quarter of a year, then transfering the resource(s) and closing the LIR to make fast money, we already have a rule which states that scarce resources cannot be transfered within the first 24 months after the resource was allocated.

There may be also other reasons for companies to create multiple LIRs than making fast money. Many people do legitime business. Also in the earlier days of RIPE NCC some companies had multiple LIRs.

With that said, I don't think the way how fees are charged for such transfers is consistent, it is quite confusing. On the other hand RIPE NCC has a legitime interest to prevent people from making fast money; but here we already have an effective rule: The 24 months restriction.

So the question is: What is the reason for this rule if you think we need it to be kept?

________________________________

From: Dave Benwell <dave@it-communicationsltd.co.uk> Sent: Tuesday, 4. Dec 2018 – 10:39 CET +0100 To: Sebastian Wiesinger <sebastian.wiesinger@noris.net> members-discuss@ripe.net

Subject: Re: [members-discuss] LIR’s billing issues with RIPE NCC, need support

Additional accounts are normally setup to get more IP Space

-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Sebastian Wiesinger Sent: 04 December 2018 07:54 To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] LIR’s billing issues with RIPE NCC, need support

* Juri <hostmaster@ntx.ru> [2018-12-04 08:09]:

...

I suggest RIPE NCC do correct accounting for each LIR for the time this LIR instance exists. If LIR has annual billing - then RIPE NCC should use it. If LIR selected quarterly billing - RIPE NCC show use. But RIPE NCC should not overcharge LIRs for the time they didn't give any services for LIR instance.

The RIPE NCC fees are anually. As a convenience *to you* you can also pay them quarterly (we don't). This has been discussed multiple times.

Regards

Sebastian

_______________________________________________ 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/dave%40it-communicationsltd.co.uk

_______________________________________________ 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/ripe- member-discuss%2Blr%40c2play.de