How can I vote against Charging Scheme A, B and C
Hello everyone, I see so many discussions to end with what ? An increasing charging scheme with A, B, C more or less the same. I don't understand that so much time is taken by the RIPE executive board and people on the mailling list to end with more or less the same scheme. I agree with some voices here. Some members have large amount of IPv4 IP adresses and are big buisnesses and have been around for a long time. They retain these IPv4 and/or don't pay their fair part: Their cost per IP are very low, they have the money to pay these IPv4 or release them if they want. On top of that, RIPE increase the charging by 20% This charging is a joke ! It's like you are in a bar and there are 3 options on the menu: normal coke, sugar free coke, cherry coke. What's the point ? => How can I vote against these A, B, C proposals ? a) LIR fee should be lower and packaged with 1 x /24 IPv4 + 1 x /32 IPv6 in terms of price. b) Big IPv4 owners should pay that 20% increase of RIPE budget and handle the cost of a) Regards ********************************* This message and any attachments (the "message") are confidential and intended solely for the addressees. Any unauthorised use or dissemination is prohibited. Messages are susceptible to alteration. Expertinet shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you are not the intended addressee of this message, please cancel it immediately and inform the sender. ********************************
Hi!
=> How can I vote against these A, B, C proposals ?
You can't, that's the whole point of the discussion. If you do not select any of the three options, your vote does not count. If you select any of the three options, one of them will be selected by the way the vote counting is done. -- MfG/Best regards, Kurt Jaeger Now what ? Dr.-Ing. Nepustil & Co. GmbH fon +49 7123 93006-0 pi@nepustil.net Rathausstr. 3 mob +49 171 3101372 72658 Bempflingen
Currently RIPE protecting BIG IPv4 holders, so your voices will not be really heared. And as described early - community havent ability to vote against, only RIPE EB can. We are ask Ondrej Filip about review option for adding variant "Versus all" in Charging Scheme voting, but currently no any decision. Anyway, if RIPE EB doesnt add any additional variants for voting - then community have 2 variants: 1) Make a lot of votes and start process of "firing" current RIPE EB OR 2) Collect some funds (around 100 EUR per donator) and hire lawyers who will be "helping" RIPE EB start to listening members. On 16.05.2024 5:56, Mikael Jirari via members-discuss wrote:
Hello everyone,
I see so many discussions to end with what ? An increasing charging scheme with A, B, C more or less the same.
I don't understand that so much time is taken by the RIPE executive board and people on the mailling list to end with more or less the same scheme.
I agree with some voices here. Some members have large amount of IPv4 IP adresses and are big buisnesses and have been around for a long time. They retain these IPv4 and/or don't pay their fair part: Their cost per IP are very low, they have the money to pay these IPv4 or release them if they want. On top of that, RIPE increase the charging by 20%
This charging is a joke ! It's like you are in a bar and there are 3 options on the menu: normal coke, sugar free coke, cherry coke. What's the point ?
=> How can I vote against these A, B, C proposals ?
a) LIR fee should be lower and packaged with 1 x /24 IPv4 + 1 x /32 IPv6 in terms of price. b) Big IPv4 owners should pay that 20% increase of RIPE budget and handle the cost of a)
Regards
********************************* This message and any attachments (the "message") are confidential and intended solely for the addressees. Any unauthorised use or dissemination is prohibited. Messages are susceptible to alteration. Expertinet shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you are not the intended addressee of this message, please cancel it immediately and inform the sender. ********************************
_______________________________________________ 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/admin%40roskomnadzor....
Am Donnerstag, 16. Mai 2024, 08:07:29 CEST schrieb ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED:
2) Collect some funds (around 100 EUR per donator) and hire lawyers who will be "helping" RIPE EB start to listening members.
oh, that may work ß) I remember the argument from a board member in a speech at RIPE General Meeting in 23 against higher fees for larger resource holders from the last RIPE voting: "we can't rise their fees to millions for the largest ressource holders because they are big companies (with lot of money) which will come onto us with their top lawyers". Means: it is easier to squeeze the many small ones with unproportional fees... To me that sounds - sorry - cowardly or corrupt.... just my .02€ niels. -- --- Niels Dettenbach Syndicat IT & Internet https://www.syndicat.com PGP: https://syndicat.com/pub_key.asc ---
Yes, and some of the friends from NCC also shared, if they make the fees higher for the large resource holder, that they would go to other LIRs 😊 And the large LIRs from our community think the same for the small LIRs "if you are not happy, go away!"... Interesting... ARIN is stronger than RIPE NCC I thing, because they were succeed to charge big players a bit more as the smaller one at least. I don’t want to imagine the other options... Stable future is not coming in this way unfortunately.. -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards Murat TERZIOGLU PREBITS Bochumer Str. 20 44866 Bochum Deutschland Telefon: 0234/58825994 Telefax: 0234/58825995 www.prebits.de info@prebits.de USt-ID: DE315418902 -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> Im Auftrag von Niels Dettenbach via members-discuss Gesendet: Donnerstag, 16. Mai 2024 10:04 An: members-discuss@ripe.net Betreff: Re: [members-discuss] How can I vote against Charging Scheme A, B and C Am Donnerstag, 16. Mai 2024, 08:07:29 CEST schrieb ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED:
2) Collect some funds (around 100 EUR per donator) and hire lawyers who will be "helping" RIPE EB start to listening members.
oh, that may work ß) I remember the argument from a board member in a speech at RIPE General Meeting in 23 against higher fees for larger resource holders from the last RIPE voting: "we can't rise their fees to millions for the largest ressource holders because they are big companies (with lot of money) which will come onto us with their top lawyers". Means: it is easier to squeeze the many small ones with unproportional fees... To me that sounds - sorry - cowardly or corrupt.... just my .02€ niels. -- --- Niels Dettenbach Syndicat IT & Internet https://www.syndicat.com PGP: https://syndicat.com/pub_key.asc --- _______________________________________________ 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/m.terzioglu%40prebits...
Speaking for myself: Now we're into conspiracy theories, right? Maybe one should think about what it means to have a member-based organization and contribute to it in a productive way. And to be clear: I strongly support what Gert D., Jan Z. and Sebastian W. have already written. And yes, I'm pretty sure you'll put it back to my affiliation. Have fun. Greetings, Sebastian Von: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> im Auftrag von m.terzioglu@prebits.de <m.terzioglu@prebits.de> Datum: Donnerstag, 16. Mai 2024 um 10:16 An: 'Niels Dettenbach' <nd@syndicat.com>, members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Betreff: Re: [members-discuss] How can I vote against Charging Scheme A, B and C Yes, and some of the friends from NCC also shared, if they make the fees higher for the large resource holder, that they would go to other LIRs 😊 And the large LIRs from our community think the same for the small LIRs "if you are not happy, go away!"... Interesting... ARIN is stronger than RIPE NCC I thing, because they were succeed to charge big players a bit more as the smaller one at least. I don’t want to imagine the other options... Stable future is not coming in this way unfortunately.. -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards Murat TERZIOGLU PREBITS
Sebastian, yes those "conspiracy theories" are implemented by all other RIRs except RIPE, i believe we all get now the reality of "conspiracy theories"! On Thu, 16 May 2024, 10:26 , <Sebastian-Becker@telekom.de> wrote:
Speaking for myself:
Now we're into conspiracy theories, right?
Maybe one should think about what it means to have a member-based organization and contribute to it in a productive way.
And to be clear: I strongly support what Gert D., Jan Z. and Sebastian W. have already written.
And yes, I'm pretty sure you'll put it back to my affiliation. Have fun.
Greetings, Sebastian
*Von: *members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> im Auftrag von m.terzioglu@prebits.de <m.terzioglu@prebits.de> *Datum: *Donnerstag, 16. Mai 2024 um 10:16 *An: *'Niels Dettenbach' <nd@syndicat.com>, members-discuss@ripe.net < members-discuss@ripe.net> *Betreff: *Re: [members-discuss] How can I vote against Charging Scheme A, B and C
Yes, and some of the friends from NCC also shared, if they make the fees higher for the large resource holder, that they would go to other LIRs 😊 And the large LIRs from our community think the same for the small LIRs "if you are not happy, go away!"...
Interesting... ARIN is stronger than RIPE NCC I thing, because they were succeed to charge big players a bit more as the smaller one at least.
I don’t want to imagine the other options...
Stable future is not coming in this way unfortunately..
-- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards
Murat TERZIOGLU PREBITS
_______________________________________________ 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/mentor.leniqi%40albah...
Hello all, For what it's worth, and to be clear: I voted against the proposed category-based model last year. But not against its principle. I strongly support the idea of a category-based model, but I also strongly support the idea of "if you are a big player, you should support the NCC's expense more than smaller structures". But I did vote against because of its limitation on bigger categories. It's a equality vs equity topic. And, yes, the most easy way to do it can be related to resources holding. Big LIRs won't cancel their membership. And if RIPE community (and/or NCC) is afraid that the resources would be transfered to another RIR for economic reasons, then, we still could limit RIR-to-RIR resources transfer. Regards, Clément Cavadore
Clement, there is no such thing as "big lirs will move out" each RIR has a policy that would prevent using the resource in other region/RIR. ARIN, APNIC and other RIRs have such model long ago charged per resource holder, and i wonder how many LIRs from mentioned RIRs moved to RIPE ;) On Thu, 16 May 2024, 10:41 Clement Cavadore via members-discuss, < members-discuss@ripe.net> wrote:
Hello all,
For what it's worth, and to be clear: I voted against the proposed category-based model last year. But not against its principle.
I strongly support the idea of a category-based model, but I also strongly support the idea of "if you are a big player, you should support the NCC's expense more than smaller structures". But I did vote against because of its limitation on bigger categories. It's a equality vs equity topic.
And, yes, the most easy way to do it can be related to resources holding. Big LIRs won't cancel their membership. And if RIPE community (and/or NCC) is afraid that the resources would be transfered to another RIR for economic reasons, then, we still could limit RIR-to-RIR resources transfer.
Regards,
Clément Cavadore
_______________________________________________ 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/mentor.leniqi%40albah...
RIPE had a category based model, too. The members (we all together) voted (multiple times) to replace it by a flat fee. Please accept this decision. If you want to be constructive: - bring your input into the upcoming discussion about the action plan in order to reduce the expenses. Cutting funding without cutting costs will never go, that’s not even an option. - bring your input into the upcoming discussion about the charging scheme in order to find a new definition of fairness. A new model takes time to evaluate the consequences, for this year, it’s too late. - use IPv6 and NAT wherever you can in order to live with the IPv4 space you have. You can’t rewrite history and redistribute existing allocations. You can’t get fresh IPv4 addresses, because there are none. For IPv4, it’s over. There is no action, which gives you IPv4 space for free via RIPE. Please accept this fact. Von: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> Im Auftrag von Mentor Leniqi via members-discuss Gesendet: Donnerstag, 16. Mai 2024 10:47 An: Clement Cavadore <ccavadore@vedege.net> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Betreff: Re: [members-discuss] How can I vote against Charging Scheme A, B and C Clement, there is no such thing as "big lirs will move out" each RIR has a policy that would prevent using the resource in other region/RIR. ARIN, APNIC and other RIRs have such model long ago charged per resource holder, and i wonder how many LIRs from mentioned RIRs moved to RIPE ;) On Thu, 16 May 2024, 10:41 Clement Cavadore via members-discuss, <members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> wrote: Hello all, For what it's worth, and to be clear: I voted against the proposed category-based model last year. But not against its principle. I strongly support the idea of a category-based model, but I also strongly support the idea of "if you are a big player, you should support the NCC's expense more than smaller structures". But I did vote against because of its limitation on bigger categories. It's a equality vs equity topic. And, yes, the most easy way to do it can be related to resources holding. Big LIRs won't cancel their membership. And if RIPE community (and/or NCC) is afraid that the resources would be transfered to another RIR for economic reasons, then, we still could limit RIR-to-RIR resources transfer. Regards, Clément Cavadore _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/mentor.leniqi%40albah...
Hello Lutz, hello again everyone, A few points on what is written below and other comments a) There is a false sentiment of choice with this A,B,C as I was saying it this morning. This A,B,C choice is exaclty the same and should be renamed A, A' and A". It's even not a question of is it fair or not it's a question about charging models. I see the same comments I saw last year. So an alternative choice should be =>> paying price depending on how many IPv4 you use, regardless if it's per IP or something else with different levels (group small, group medium, group big). The probleme here is that there is NO ALTERNATIVE CHOICE. The 2024 charging scheme that I would refer as A, A' and A" are the same ! b) The executive board took too much energy/time/money to produce these 3 x 2024 charging models and everyone seem to loose their time too. It's either RIPE is wasting too much money/time to produce similar charging scheme OR these charging scheme have been produced in a matter of minutes and in that case it's not serious. c) Regarding the fairness, I have seen in my own eyes many companies that have a lot of IPv4 (tens of class B), they absolutely don't care about optimising their IPv4 usage and have very fragmented IPv4 allocation. From a financial point of view they don't even know what they're paying for. They receive the bill and they pay it. So I don't think it's normal these who don't make effort pay almost nothing per IP while small LIR members pay much more in comparison. These companies would have two choices: - Pay for what they use and for what they waste - Release what they don't use in order to pay less. But I'm more focused on a) here, you want the members to vote then give different options, not similar once. I feel like this vote is a false democracy vote. Regards Le 2024-05-16 11:05, Lutz Donnerhacke a écrit :
RIPE had a category based model, too.
The members (we all together) voted (multiple times) to replace it by a flat fee.
Please accept this decision.
If you want to be constructive:
- bring your input into the upcoming discussion about the action plan in order to reduce the expenses. Cutting funding without cutting costs will never go, that's not even an option.
- bring your input into the upcoming discussion about the charging scheme in order to find a new definition of fairness. A new model takes time to evaluate the consequences, for this year, it's too late.
- use IPv6 and NAT wherever you can in order to live with the IPv4 space you have. You can't rewrite history and redistribute existing allocations. You can't get fresh IPv4 addresses, because there are none.
For IPv4, it's over. There is no action, which gives you IPv4 space for free via RIPE.
Please accept this fact.
Von: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> Im Auftrag von Mentor Leniqi via members-discuss Gesendet: Donnerstag, 16. Mai 2024 10:47 An: Clement Cavadore <ccavadore@vedege.net> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Betreff: Re: [members-discuss] How can I vote against Charging Scheme A, B and C
Clement, there is no such thing as "big lirs will move out" each RIR has a policy that would prevent using the resource in other region/RIR. ARIN, APNIC and other RIRs have such model long ago charged per resource holder, and i wonder how many LIRs from mentioned RIRs moved to RIPE ;)
On Thu, 16 May 2024, 10:41 Clement Cavadore via members-discuss, <members-discuss@ripe.net> wrote:
Hello all,
For what it's worth, and to be clear: I voted against the proposed category-based model last year. But not against its principle.
I strongly support the idea of a category-based model, but I also strongly support the idea of "if you are a big player, you should support the NCC's expense more than smaller structures". But I did vote against because of its limitation on bigger categories. It's a equality vs equity topic.
And, yes, the most easy way to do it can be related to resources holding. Big LIRs won't cancel their membership. And if RIPE community (and/or NCC) is afraid that the resources would be transfered to another RIR for economic reasons, then, we still could limit RIR-to-RIR resources transfer.
Regards,
Clément Cavadore
_______________________________________________ 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/mentor.leniqi%40albah... [1]
_______________________________________________ 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/mjirari%40expertinet....
-- Mikael Jirari Certified Network Expert Tel : +33 6 82 45 45 21 Email : mjirari@expertinet.fr ********************************* This message and any attachments (the "message") are confidential and intended solely for the addressees. Any unauthorised use or dissemination is prohibited. Messages are susceptible to alteration. Expertinet shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you are not the intended addressee of this message, please cancel it immediately and inform the sender. ******************************** Links: ------ [1] https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/mentor.leniqi%40albah...
Am 16.05.24 um 11:05 schrieb Lutz Donnerhacke:
RIPE had a category based model, too. The members (we all together) voted (multiple times) to replace it by a flat fee. Please accept this decision.
That membership was a different membership than last year's and most probably next year's. The Charging Scheme is, by the Articles of Association, each year to be decided upon. Regards, -kai -- Kai Siering Senior System Engineer mail.de GmbH Münsterstraße 3 D-33330 Gütersloh Tel.: +49 (0) 5241 / 74 34 986 Fax: +49 (0) 5241 / 74 34 987 E-Mail: k.siering@team.mail.de Web: https://mail.de/ Geschäftsführender Gesellschafter: Fabian Bock Sitz der Gesellschaft Nordhastedt Handelsregister Pinneberg HRB 8007 PI Steuernummer 18 293 20020
Hi, All. I would like again to point in: budget growth in the face of rising inflation will be inevitable! We don't need now to solve the budget rise problem. We need now to solve the problem of executing the main RIPE and NCC functions. Initially, the community was created and we joined as its members to organize an open and stable inter-network interaction. But in the end, we got a structure that requires more and more funds for its maintenance, but cannot in any way solve the systemic problem of lack of IPv4 and AS32 resources. For some reason, any attempts to start a discussion about the need to change the approach to the economic model or (and) the regulatory part are faced with inaction, primarily by EB NNC. I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but apparently those 7% of the 84% LIR holders historically (I emphasize HISTORICALLY) have a strong influence on the EB NCC and the RIPE agenda. I have already written more than once that in my opinion, the way out of the situation with growing costs and missing resources should be solved by introducing a flat scale of payment for scarce resources. The most optimal scenario in my opinion is the following: 1. The annual payment must consist of 2 parts: - The FIXED part - The VARIABLE part is directly dependent on the number of allocated SCARCE resources (now IPv4 and AS32) The amount of payments in this way should not affect the number of his votes. 2. In the first year, we have to plan payments and budget so that: - The FIXED part was about 1/4-1/2 of the planned budget - The VARIABLE part covered the rest of the planned budget with a surplus of at least 20%. 3. We must increase the payment for the PERMANENT part annually until at least 15% of the resources become available for distribution. At the same time, the community should allocate the funds received in excess of the planned budget for the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 or other new protocols. This can be the preparation of educational programs, the translation of articles into local languages, the completion and popularization of improvements to the IP stack or of training programs, the development of software to simplify migration and other initiatives. --- Dmitry Serbulov
Am 16.05.24 um 11:05 schrieb Lutz Donnerhacke:
RIPE had a category based model, too. The members (we all together) voted (multiple times) to replace it by a flat fee. Please accept this decision.
That membership was a different membership than last year's and most probably next year's. The Charging Scheme is, by the Articles of Association, each year to be decided upon.
Regards, -kai
-- Kai Siering Senior System Engineer
mail.de GmbH Münsterstraße 3 D-33330 Gütersloh
Tel.: +49 (0) 5241 / 74 34 986 Fax: +49 (0) 5241 / 74 34 987 E-Mail: k.siering@team.mail.de Web: https://mail.de/
Geschäftsführender Gesellschafter: Fabian Bock
Sitz der Gesellschaft Nordhastedt Handelsregister Pinneberg HRB 8007 PI Steuernummer 18 293 20020
_______________________________________________ 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/sdy%40a-n-t.ru
Hi, On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 10:47:26AM +0200, Mentor Leniqi via members-discuss wrote:
each RIR has a policy that would prevent using the resource in other region/RIR.
This is, again, a factually incorrect statement. There is one global Internet, so there is no "using resource in just one region" anyway - but all RIRs (maybe except AfriNIC) acknowledge that multinational corporations exist, and might have their membership office in the region of RIR A, and some/part/all of their network in the region of RIR B. Or "worldwide".
ARIN, APNIC and other RIRs have such model long ago charged per resource holder, and i wonder how many LIRs from mentioned RIRs moved to RIPE ;)
The statistics about transfers between the RIRs are posted by the RIRs, so you do not need to wonder, you can just look it up. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Ingo Lalla, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Look, i really don't need to argue with you because it's worthless it's not just AfriNIC but all the RIRs require almost the same. And, do me a favour, find me the statistic that the LIRs from other RIRs moved to RIPE just because of price per resource holder. On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 11:49 AM Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 10:47:26AM +0200, Mentor Leniqi via members-discuss wrote:
each RIR has a policy that would prevent using the resource in other region/RIR.
This is, again, a factually incorrect statement.
There is one global Internet, so there is no "using resource in just one region" anyway - but all RIRs (maybe except AfriNIC) acknowledge that multinational corporations exist, and might have their membership office in the region of RIR A, and some/part/all of their network in the region of RIR B. Or "worldwide".
ARIN, APNIC and other RIRs have such model long ago charged per resource holder, and i wonder how many LIRs from mentioned RIRs moved to RIPE ;)
The statistics about transfers between the RIRs are posted by the RIRs, so you do not need to wonder, you can just look it up.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Ingo Lalla, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hi, On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 11:57:53AM +0200, Mentor Leniqi wrote:
Look, i really don't need to argue with you because it's worthless it's not just AfriNIC but all the RIRs require almost the same. And, do me a favour, find me the statistic that the LIRs from other RIRs moved to RIPE just because of price per resource holder.
I'm not going to do your homework. I just correct factually incorrect claims, because some other reader might actually believe all this - and that would start doing more harm. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Ingo Lalla, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
It is true, and stop making other members less knowledgeable! We all know to read the RIR rules, and we can see the inter-RIR transfers. Almost not a single one moved to RIPE because of price/model charged by resource holder but because mostly EU companies buys those IPv4 space! On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 12:03 PM Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 11:57:53AM +0200, Mentor Leniqi wrote:
Look, i really don't need to argue with you because it's worthless it's not just AfriNIC but all the RIRs require almost the same. And, do me a favour, find me the statistic that the LIRs from other RIRs moved to RIPE just because of price per resource holder.
I'm not going to do your homework.
I just correct factually incorrect claims, because some other reader might actually believe all this - and that would start doing more harm.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Ingo Lalla, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hi, On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 12:06:07PM +0200, Mentor Leniqi wrote:
It is true, and stop making other members less knowledgeable! We all know to read the RIR rules, and we can see the inter-RIR transfers. Almost not a single one moved to RIPE because of price/model charged by resource holder but because mostly EU companies buys those IPv4 space!
So how do you read that from the available data? Unless backed by data, I call it an unfounded claim... Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Ingo Lalla, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
From RIPE OUT to those that as per your logic moved to RIPE due to charging model from those RIRs:
https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-transfers-and-mergers/tran...
From other RIRs to RIPE, you can see EU companies are the majority who bought from other RIRs:
Just click on - Transfers to the RIPE NCC <https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-transfers-and-mergers/transfer-statistics/inter-rir/inter-rir-ipv4-transfer-statistics/#incoming> - Transfers from the RIPE NCC <https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-transfers-and-mergers/transfer-statistics/inter-rir/inter-rir-ipv4-transfer-statistics/#outgoing> On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 12:09 PM Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote: Do we need more to talk about?!
Hi,
On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 12:06:07PM +0200, Mentor Leniqi wrote:
It is true, and stop making other members less knowledgeable! We all know to read the RIR rules, and we can see the inter-RIR transfers. Almost not a single one moved to RIPE because of price/model charged by resource holder but because mostly EU companies buys those IPv4 space!
So how do you read that from the available data?
Unless backed by data, I call it an unfounded claim...
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Ingo Lalla, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Dear Gert, please think about the policies a bit deeper and the internet is not out of ISP services, you know it better from your working field. So the market is growing, there are innovations, improvements. As you know, 20 years ago, when the google firstly came out, "meinen Sie" was an interesting thing, now it is an AI behind and what kind of services are in the market. I mean, there are small and new members of the internet and they dont need to offer innovations only. But there are. Like in economies, the Small Businesses (KMUs) are the most important part. For the small companies, the policies of the other RIRs dont give the possibility to move easily. For example I dont have the possibility to setup a company in ARIN region, to be able to move my resource to ARIN. Because I work in Germany, my customers are in this region, I earn in this region. So for me neither a move is an option nor the sponsoring lirs or leasing resources. Because I dont rely on the other ISPs. As a business owner, I had enough experience for this decision. But if I am connected and limited with my business model to RIPE NCC, RIPE NCC must handle fair. We are not agree at that time on the fairness term, I know.. -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards Murat TERZIOGLU PREBITS Bochumer Str. 20 44866 Bochum Deutschland Telefon: 0234/58825994 Telefax: 0234/58825995 www.prebits.de info@prebits.de USt-ID: DE315418902 -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> Im Auftrag von Gert Doering Gesendet: Donnerstag, 16. Mai 2024 11:49 An: Mentor Leniqi <mentor.leniqi@albahost.net> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Betreff: Re: [members-discuss] How can I vote against Charging Scheme A, B and C Hi, On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 10:47:26AM +0200, Mentor Leniqi via members-discuss wrote:
each RIR has a policy that would prevent using the resource in other region/RIR.
This is, again, a factually incorrect statement. There is one global Internet, so there is no "using resource in just one region" anyway - but all RIRs (maybe except AfriNIC) acknowledge that multinational corporations exist, and might have their membership office in the region of RIR A, and some/part/all of their network in the region of RIR B. Or "worldwide".
ARIN, APNIC and other RIRs have such model long ago charged per resource holder, and i wonder how many LIRs from mentioned RIRs moved to RIPE ;)
The statistics about transfers between the RIRs are posted by the RIRs, so you do not need to wonder, you can just look it up. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Ingo Lalla, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hi, On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 12:08:24PM +0200, m.terzioglu@prebits.de wrote:
But if I am connected and limited with my business model to RIPE NCC, RIPE NCC must handle fair.
RIPE NCC and RIPE policies are extremely fair. Same rules for all members. You want to change this into "different rules for different members", which would be unfair. No? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Ingo Lalla, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
As I told.
We are not agree at that time on the fairness term, I know..
We dont need to ask what is fair or what is not to each other. We all have our views. We need to get to the root of the problems. What is RIPE NCC, what is it for members, what most of the members are using, what is mandatory, what is obligatory, what is necessary... there are too many points.. So,
We are not agree at that time on the fairness term, I know..
-- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards Murat TERZIOGLU PREBITS Bochumer Str. 20 44866 Bochum Deutschland Telefon: 0234/58825994 Telefax: 0234/58825995 www.prebits.de info@prebits.de USt-ID: DE315418902 -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Gert Doering <gert@space.net> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 16. Mai 2024 12:11 An: m.terzioglu@prebits.de Cc: 'Gert Doering' <gert@space.net>; 'Mentor Leniqi' <mentor.leniqi@albahost.net>; members-discuss@ripe.net Betreff: Re: AW: [members-discuss] How can I vote against Charging Scheme A, B and C Hi, On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 12:08:24PM +0200, m.terzioglu@prebits.de wrote:
But if I am connected and limited with my business model to RIPE NCC, RIPE NCC must handle fair.
RIPE NCC and RIPE policies are extremely fair. Same rules for all members. You want to change this into "different rules for different members", which would be unfair. No? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Ingo Lalla, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
So. I have next progressive idea! Community must take flat payment for each deficit resource, and raise it until at minimum 10% of these resources stay free! If we do it - migration to IPv6 will be much faster, will be no problem with NCC budgets and will be no problem with free resources for new members. --- Dmitry Serbulov
Hi On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 01:21:05PM +0300, sdy@a-n-t.ru wrote:
If we do it - migration to IPv6 will be much faster, will be no problem with NCC budgets and will be no problem with free resources for new members.
Nothing is stopping *you* from doing your IPv6 rollout now. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Ingo Lalla, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hello. If you look in deep: category-based model is same protection scheme for big holders. For me: only flat-model can return some stability. --- Dmitry Serbulov
Hello all,
For what it's worth, and to be clear: I voted against the proposed category-based model last year. But not against its principle.
I strongly support the idea of a category-based model, but I also strongly support the idea of "if you are a big player, you should support the NCC's expense more than smaller structures". But I did vote against because of its limitation on bigger categories. It's a equality vs equity topic.
And, yes, the most easy way to do it can be related to resources holding. Big LIRs won't cancel their membership. And if RIPE community (and/or NCC) is afraid that the resources would be transfered to another RIR for economic reasons, then, we still could limit RIR-to-RIR resources transfer.
Regards,
Clément Cavadore
_______________________________________________ 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/sdy%40a-n-t.ru
----------------------------- С уважением Сербулов Дмитрий ООО "Альфа Нет Телеком" +7(498)785-8-000 раб. +7(495)940-92-11 доп. +7(925)518-10-69 сот.
What kind of „conspiracy theory”? I share the statement from 30.04.2024 from “Simon-Jan Haytink, RIPE NCC, CFO”. He is telling this, not me.. You are not yourself here. You are talking on behalf of de.telekom here. This is not a community discussion list, this is a LIR discussion list, as I know, you can subscribe it in LIR account only. I understand, why telekom and other ISPs are afraid of a charging scheme like ARIN: https://www.arin.net/resources/fees/fee_schedule/ Yes, I want the Telekom to pay more, for the resource it uses (Telekom is holding more than 3% of the RIPE NCC resources).. RIPE NCC is not only a “member-based organization”. It is a non-profit member-based organization, who is responsible for assigning IP addresses. Commonly used service of the RIPE NCC for more than 95% of the members is the resources, nothing else! That’s it. -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards Murat TERZIOGLU PREBITS Bochumer Str. 20 44866 Bochum Deutschland Telefon: 0234/58825994 Telefax: 0234/58825995 <http://www.prebits.de/> www.prebits.de <mailto:info@prebits.de> info@prebits.de USt-ID: DE315418902 Von: Sebastian-Becker@telekom.de <Sebastian-Becker@telekom.de> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 16. Mai 2024 10:26 An: m.terzioglu@prebits.de; nd@syndicat.com; members-discuss@ripe.net Betreff: AW: [members-discuss] How can I vote against Charging Scheme A, B and C Speaking for myself: Now we're into conspiracy theories, right? Maybe one should think about what it means to have a member-based organization and contribute to it in a productive way. And to be clear: I strongly support what Gert D., Jan Z. and Sebastian W. have already written. And yes, I'm pretty sure you'll put it back to my affiliation. Have fun. Greetings, Sebastian Von: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> > im Auftrag von m.terzioglu@prebits.de <mailto:m.terzioglu@prebits.de> <m.terzioglu@prebits.de <mailto:m.terzioglu@prebits.de> > Datum: Donnerstag, 16. Mai 2024 um 10:16 An: 'Niels Dettenbach' <nd@syndicat.com <mailto:nd@syndicat.com> >, members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> <members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> > Betreff: Re: [members-discuss] How can I vote against Charging Scheme A, B and C Yes, and some of the friends from NCC also shared, if they make the fees higher for the large resource holder, that they would go to other LIRs 😊 And the large LIRs from our community think the same for the small LIRs "if you are not happy, go away!"... Interesting... ARIN is stronger than RIPE NCC I thing, because they were succeed to charge big players a bit more as the smaller one at least. I don’t want to imagine the other options... Stable future is not coming in this way unfortunately.. -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards Murat TERZIOGLU PREBITS
On 16.05.24 08:07, ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED wrote:
Anyway, if RIPE EB doesnt add any additional variants for voting - then community have 2 variants: 1) Make a lot of votes and start process of "firing" current RIPE EB OR 2) Collect some funds (around 100 EUR per donator) and hire lawyers who will be "helping" RIPE EB start to listening members.
Those are *not* the only options available; for starters, I count three different decisions rather relevant to the matter that are *already* up for voting on the next GM's (draft) agenda. But yes, after it was explicitly confirmed that Netherlands' legalese *does* have provisions to remove board members before the end of their term, I *would* have expected *someone* to instantly ask for the exact source and whether there are translations available ... Kind regards, -- Jochen Bern Systemingenieur Binect GmbH
participants (13)
-
Clement Cavadore -
Gert Doering -
Jochen Bern -
Kai Siering -
Kurt Jaeger -
Lutz Donnerhacke -
m.terzioglu＠prebits.de -
Mentor Leniqi -
Mikael Jirari -
Niels Dettenbach -
ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED -
sdy＠a-n-t.ru -
Sebastian-Becker＠telekom.de