Re: [members-discuss] is the self-assessment model really a good idea?
A flat fee would disadvantage small members even more as the "regular" fee would apply. I don't want to see membership being priced out so I support the simpler banded system proposed. Kind regards Jamie Stallwood Sent from my Android Secured with Good (www.good.com) Managed by Imerja -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Jacob [ripe-ncc-members-list@internet24.de] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 01:15 PM GMT Standard Time To: Rob Evans Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net; exec-board@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] is the self-assessment model really a good idea? On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 21:45 +0100, Rob Evans wrote:
This, I suppose, comes down to communication. These are probably the same companies that, when presented with a bill that says "we've assessed you into the 'regular' category, please feel free to let us know if you feel that is inappropriate," will just sort out the bank transfer without further question (give or take whatever level of 'sending round the heavies' the NCC must usually do).
Designing a system that not only continues to make the vast majority of LIRs pay far more per IP address than the big LIRs do, but on top of that also makes your fee subject to some sort of "insider" knowledge? As an employee of a smaller LIR I cannot see how this makes this new charge scheme worth having over the current one. As for the simplicity of this approach, simply charging everyone the same amount or using a proportional system like APNIC seems far simpler and more transparent from my point of view, and doesn't add the incalculable factor of self-assessment changes to the mix of the thing. ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. -- Imerja Limited Tel: 0870 8611488 | Fax: 0870 8611489 | 24x7 ISOC: 0870 8611490 | Web: www.imerja.com Registered Office: Paragon House, Paragon Business Park, Chorley New Road, Horwich, Bolton BL6 6HG Registered in England and Wales No. 5180119 VAT Registered No. 845 0647 22 ISO Registered Firm No. GB2001527 This email is confidential and intended solely for the person or organisation to which it is addressed. It may contain privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient(s) you should not use, copy, distribute or take any action or reliance on it, since to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this transmission in error please notify the sender immediately by email reply and delete it from your system. E-mail messages are not secure and attachments could contain software viruses which may damage your system. Whilst every reasonable precaution has been taken to minimise this risk, Imerja Limited cannot accept any liability for any damage sustained as a result of these factors. You are advised to carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not represent those of Imerja Limited unless otherwise stated.
Hi, what about "everybody who brings up the same arguments that have been here a number of times half a year ago pays 50x the normal fee"? This should significantly lower the fees for everybody else. Gert Doering -- troll -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Nice, but to be honest: the APNIC scheme seems quite fair to me. Why not adopt something that's been working well for another RIR? A self-assessment does not sound well thought-through. It will result in vague estimates instead of facts, facts, facts. And if the very large LIR does not comply, would RIPE really de-register it? I doubt it. But if payment is based on a simple formula, then the invoice will be an automated procedure. And in case a very large LIR has many unused ressources, the incentive is there to either return them, or assign them properly, or charge his customers properly - or simply don't care and pay. Regards, Olaf
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss- bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Gert Doering Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 2:45 PM To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] is the self-assessment model really a good idea?
Hi,
what about "everybody who brings up the same arguments that have been here a number of times half a year ago pays 50x the normal fee"?
This should significantly lower the fees for everybody else.
Gert Doering -- troll
-- jacobi@ibh.de Tel. +49 351 477 77 21 sales@ibh.de Fax +49 351 477 77 29 www.ibh.de GSM +49 175 290 03 48 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Olaf Jacobi Leiter Internet-Vertrieb/-Marketing IBH IT-Service GmbH Amtsgericht Dresden Gostritzer Str. 67a HRB 13626 D-01217 Dresden GF: Prof. Dr. Thomas Horn Germany VAT DE182302907
On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 13:34 +0100, Jamie Stallwood wrote:
A flat fee would disadvantage small members even more as the "regular" fee would apply.
Perfectly agree, yet wouldn't this be exactly the situation we will end up with, if LIRs take would start self-assessing themselves into the small band in larger numbers? And what's to stop them from doing that?
Thomas Jacob wrote:
Perfectly agree, yet wouldn't this be exactly the situation we will end up with, if LIRs take would start self-assessing themselves into the small band in larger numbers? And what's to stop them from doing that?
Maybe we need to prevent LIR's from moving more than one band per year, and then maybe permit changes only subject to a majority member vote? Reasons for changing would have to be submitted and published in the directory. LIR's who may be a bit "economical", shall we say, would do damage to their reputation if their vote was rejected. whatever we do, the NCC is going to have to act as final arbiter But first of course we have to agree that banding is acceptable before we can discuss the mechanisms, and as you've seen, the familiar arguments are back out. The 3(or 4? 5?)-band system broken by allocation size alone, will hopefully win that argument. Kind regards Jamie Stallwood -- Jamie Stallwood Security Specialist Imerja Limited Tel: 07795 840385 jamie.stallwood@imerja.com -- Imerja Limited Tel: 0870 8611488 | Fax: 0870 8611489 | 24x7 ISOC: 0870 8611490 | Web: www.imerja.com Registered Office: Paragon House, Paragon Business Park, Chorley New Road, Horwich, Bolton BL6 6HG Registered in England and Wales No. 5180119 VAT Registered No. 845 0647 22 ISO Registered Firm No. GB2001527 This email is confidential and intended solely for the person or organisation to which it is addressed. It may contain privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient(s) you should not use, copy, distribute or take any action or reliance on it, since to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this transmission in error please notify the sender immediately by email reply and delete it from your system. E-mail messages are not secure and attachments could contain software viruses which may damage your system. Whilst every reasonable precaution has been taken to minimise this risk, Imerja Limited cannot accept any liability for any damage sustained as a result of these factors. You are advised to carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not represent those of Imerja Limited unless otherwise stated.
On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 14:12 +0100, Jamie Stallwood wrote:
Maybe we need to prevent LIR's from moving more than one band per year, and then maybe permit changes only subject to a majority member vote? Reasons for changing would have to be submitted and published in the directory. LIR's who may be a bit "economical", shall we say, would do damage to their reputation if their vote was rejected. whatever we do, the NCC is going to have to act as final arbiter
Quite frankly, that sounds like a bureaucratic mess to me, I can't see this as a simplification compared to the current fee system.
But first of course we have to agree that banding is acceptable before we can discuss the mechanisms, and as you've seen, the familiar arguments are back out. The 3(or 4? 5?)-band system broken by allocation size alone, will hopefully win that argument.
Which is more less exactly what we already have today, isn't it?
participants (4)
-
Gert Doering -
Jacobi, Olaf -
Jamie Stallwood -
Thomas Jacob