Re: [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCCCharging Scheme Model
On Jul 17, 2012, at 3:33 PM, Jørgen Hovland wrote:
Why should a large company with many employees and/or high revenue pay more than a small company if they both eat up the same amount of resources at RIPE NCC ?
I really can't understand this "amount of resources" in term of "amount of work done by RIPE NCC". RIPE NCC needs to do a lot of work to screen, monitor and limit IPv4 resources usage because large players wasted these resources or a keeping them allocated. Otherwise please allocate to my LIR that last /8, that is going to take very little time and effort, just the time to ad one entry into the database and it's done: thus I don't expect that we have to pay more than who just asked for a /24, right? After all I am supporting optimization of work at RIPE.... with only one ticked the whole IPv4 handling and the address space exhaustion issue is solved :) A.
Hi, On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 03:43:40PM +0200, Andrea Cocito wrote:
RIPE NCC needs to do a lot of work to screen, monitor and limit IPv4 resources usage because large players wasted these resources or a keeping them allocated.
All of this will be irrelevant soon. So can we focus on a model that's not related to IPv4 usage, please? We're discussing the charging scheme for 2014 and onwards, where IPv4 allocation is not something the RIPE NCC will be doing any longer. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- 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
All of this will be irrelevant soon. So can we focus on a model that's not related to IPv4 usage, please? We're discussing the charging scheme for 2014 and onwards, where IPv4 allocation is not something the RIPE NCC will be doing any longer.
May be then just make the same fee for all LIRs not depend on volume PA/PA/AS and etc? In this case we don't need to canlucalate any wokload, count of resources (IPv6 is too big right now), pay any taxes. It is very simple. Payment fee for next year = BUDGET / Count of LIRs. Why not? -- Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom Ltd. 17.07.2012 18:13 - Gert Doering написал(а): Hi, On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 03:43:40PM +0200, Andrea Cocito wrote:
RIPE NCC needs to do a lot of work to screen, monitor and limit IPv4 resources usage because large players wasted these resources or a keeping them allocated.
All of this will be irrelevant soon. So can we focus on a model that's not related to IPv4 usage, please? We're discussing the charging scheme for 2014 and onwards, where IPv4 allocation is not something the RIPE NCC will be doing any longer. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- 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 ---- 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: [1]https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. [1] https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 06:26:17PM +0400, LeaderTelecom Ltd. wrote:
It is very simple. Payment fee for next year = BUDGET / Count of LIRs.
Which, I think, is the intention of the proposed charging scheme. "Self-assessment" and outlier categories notwithstanding. It probably is the simplest system and it is also IPv6 compatible as there should not be a huge difference in allocations per member. As Jorgen said earlier in the thread, what the community ought to do is to engage with the NCC to determine which activities are actually required and how much the community is prepared to pay for them. This is, in the medium term, the only mechanism by which the cost of RIR resources can be controlled. One thing I dislike about the CS proposal is the retention of the "sign-up fee". This effectibly doubles the cost of NCC membership for a new entrant in the first year and works as a barrier to membership. If it *really* costs the NCC EUR 2000 to sign up a new member, something is seriously wrong and the efficiency of that process must be scrutinized. rgds, Sascha Luck
As Jorgen said earlier in the thread, what the community ought to do is to engage with the NCC to determine which activities are actually required and how much the community is prepared to pay for them. This is, in the medium term, the only mechanism by which the cost of RIR resources can be controlled.
Sorry, make that "membership" instead of "community" as these are two different entities.
Dear Sascha,
If it *really* costs the NCC EUR 2000 to sign up a new member, something is seriously wrong and the efficiency of that process must be scrutinized.
Please remember that two free RIPE meeting tickets are included in this fee. Best regards, Janos
Please remember that two free RIPE meeting tickets are included in this fee.
Meeting tickets or training tickets ? Either way, how many people ever use them ? Rob
well I think that IPv4 address space percentage allocation will not change in the next 5 years Maybe I am wrong but I do not see any indicator that telco companies, huge LIRs are going to release some IPv4 address space in the future so that indicator will stay untouched for the next 5 to 10 years but I am open to other "indicators" Regards
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 03:43:40PM +0200, Andrea Cocito wrote:
RIPE NCC needs to do a lot of work to screen, monitor and limit IPv4 resources usage because large players wasted these resources or a keeping them allocated.
All of this will be irrelevant soon. So can we focus on a model that's not related to IPv4 usage, please? We're discussing the charging scheme for 2014 and onwards, where IPv4 allocation is not something the RIPE NCC will be doing any longer.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster
-- Ing. Paolo Di Francesco Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 Fax : +39-091-8772072 assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 web: http://www.level7.it
Hi, On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 05:12:27PM +0200, Paolo Di Francesco wrote:
well I think that IPv4 address space percentage allocation will not change in the next 5 years
True, but that's not related to the cost of the RIPE NCC anymore, so why should it be relevant to the costs paid? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- 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
I have gazed into my crystal ball and predict there will be IPv4 transfer activity, LIR merges, and NCC audits of IPv4 PA space that require NCC activity in the v4 space. And that UK Telcos will *still* be dragging their heels over IPv6 transit for LIRs such as ourselves... Kind regards Jamie Stallwood -- Jamie Stallwood Security Specialist Imerja Limited Tel: 07795 840385 jamie.stallwood@imerja.com -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net on behalf of Gert Doering Sent: Tue 7/17/2012 16:17 To: Paolo Di Francesco Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCCCharging Scheme Model Hi, On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 05:12:27PM +0200, Paolo Di Francesco wrote:
well I think that IPv4 address space percentage allocation will not change in the next 5 years
True, but that's not related to the cost of the RIPE NCC anymore, so why should it be relevant to the costs paid? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- 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 ---- 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 Gert
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 05:12:27PM +0200, Paolo Di Francesco wrote:
well I think that IPv4 address space percentage allocation will not change in the next 5 years
True, but that's not related to the cost of the RIPE NCC anymore, so why should it be relevant to the costs paid?
well because it should be relevant to the "size" of the LIR and not saying that we should NOT consider also incentives or other metrics in the same equation. the other option to not make the fee "flat rate" (which I personally do not like because it's simply a barrier) is to ask how much revenues are coming from the IP services, which is not so pratical -- Ing. Paolo Di Francesco Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 Fax : +39-091-8772072 assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 web: http://www.level7.it
Il 17/07/2012 17:17, Gert Doering ha scritto:
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 05:12:27PM +0200, Paolo Di Francesco wrote:
well I think that IPv4 address space percentage allocation will not change in the next 5 years True, but that's not related to the cost of the RIPE NCC anymore, so why should it be relevant to the costs paid?
So, is all budget of RIPE used for managing IPv6, new members and trouble tickets? Is RIPE not having servers and bandwidth to manage IPv4 services, PA, AS, routes, and so on? It would be nice to have an analytic view of the budget, and see how much is spent for seminars, how much for accounting, and how much for servers and bandwith. I see big LIR start from the point of view that public IPv4 resources are free for them, and IPv6 will be free as well. Why IPv6 resources should be free? IPv4 should cost more than IPv6, but IPv6 resources MUST be payed according to usage. So, I agree an accounting/seminars fee should be the same for all, but IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, as well as AS, PA, PI should be charged for quantity. RIPE budget spent for accounting and seminars should be payed the same from all LIRs, and the remaining part of budget should be charged over resources usage. Regards, Tonino
Gert Doering -- NetMaster
On 18/07/2012 14:33, LIR wrote:
It would be nice to have an analytic view of the budget, and see how much is spent for seminars, how much for accounting, and how much for servers and bandwith.
This has dutifully been published every year since RIPE started. The latest report is RIPE-551: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-551 Nick
So, I agree an accounting/seminars fee should be the same for all, but IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, as well as AS, PA, PI should be charged for quantity.
So how do you reconcile the fact that assignment policies have changed over time? Do you want to challenge assignements done in the past, by applying today's standards? Even within the RIPE NCCs lifetime, assignment policies have changed ... and legacy address space holders should via the RIPE NCC fee be "financially encouraged" (to use a euphemism) to get rid of their by today's standard large IPv4 address blocks? To hell with this "being an Internet pioneer" thing! We have a saying which translates: When the cribbage is empty, the horses bite each other... I would suggest we not mimic the horses. Regards, - Håvard
Il 18/07/2012 15:52, Havard Eidnes ha scritto:
So, I agree an accounting/seminars fee should be the same for all, but IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, as well as AS, PA, PI should be charged for quantity. So how do you reconcile the fact that assignment policies have changed over time? Do you want to challenge assignements done in the past, by applying today's standards? Even within the RIPE NCCs lifetime, assignment policies have changed ... and legacy address space holders should via the RIPE NCC fee be "financially encouraged" (to use a euphemism) to get rid of their by today's standard large IPv4 address blocks? To hell with this "being an Internet pioneer" thing!
Oh! Only my contracts change price with time, I see... even ICANN asks more money for domains, and electrical power costs more, and bandwith changes prices, and salaries change... Only first RIPE members must have same price than twenty years ago! Being a pioneer, you had very low prices for twenty years, and you could build a market using almost for free public resources. Now that resources are limited rules must change. Thanks to Internet pioneers, but you should also thank the community for giving them resources at very special conditions until now! Regards, Tonino
We have a saying which translates: When the cribbage is empty, the horses bite each other... I would suggest we not mimic the horses.
Regards,
- Håvard
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 04:08:50PM +0200, LIR wrote:
Oh! Only my contracts change price with time, I see... even ICANN asks more money for domains, and electrical power costs more, and bandwith changes prices, and salaries change... Only first RIPE members must have same price than twenty years ago!
This isn't a market. The NCC is in a regional monopoly position and any attempt to charge "whatever the traffic will bear" on the resources it administrates would (and should) be met with a challenge via the national and EU competition authorities. That would be a can of worms that I'm not sure anyone wants to open. rgds, Sascha Luck
Oh! Only my contracts change price with time, I see... even ICANN asks more money for domains
The ICANN fee on domains hasn't changed in a while, perhaps you're confusing the registry fee with the ICANN fee ?
and electrical power costs more
Power in real-terms in most countries is lower now than it was 2 years ago (excluding scammy taxes for fake-products like carbon credits)
and bandwith changes prices
Has come down in price every year for at least the last 5 - if you're paying more you need to get a better negotiator
and salaries change...
Agreed.
Only first RIPE members must have same price than twenty years ago!
It's a NOT FOR PROFIT organisation who only really has 1 job - maintain the database of who an IP is allocated to. Discussion on pricing is good, but there seems to be a focus on switching to ip based charging which is primarily driven by people who don't have any, don't justify having any or seem to be under the misapprehension that suddenly there will be a massive return of it that they can have. Not going to happen :p V4 is dead, get with the program on v6 - it's coming up for a 20th anniversary ! Now discussions about *value* for money on our RIPE fees, that's a lot more interesting ... Rob
At 16:08 18/07/2012 +0200, LIR wrote:
Being a pioneer, you had very low prices for twenty years, and you could build a market using almost for free public resources.
Building a market? You might very well find that a vast majority of the legacy IP holders are mainly academic organizations that were the Internet pioneers. These are non-profit organizations, who helped and assisted local organizations start using the Internet in their respective countries.
Now that resources are limited rules must change.
We are not against change. We are willing to pay our fair share. We are against unilateral decisions, without discussion. -Hank
Thanks to Internet pioneers, but you should also thank the community for giving them resources at very special conditions until now!
Regards,
Tonino
The only resources we pay for as members are The RIPE NCC Projects such as the €500,000 spent on the RPKI project the LIR Portal the RIPE Database RIPE Atlas RIPE Labs and so on plus staffing costs which include Support from the Hostmasters Training for members The regular RIPE meetings (organisation, travel and costs of staff) None of these are or should be "becoming limited", outside of the "natural availability" of staff based on the above projects. We don't pay for the IP addresses we have, or at least we shouldn't be as we're a member organisation and IP addresses are free ... or so I keep being told To date, the size of an organisation (and thus the charges) have been calculated on the size of the LIR .. but not calculated based on turnover of the parent organisation / group, instead calculated on the number of allocations an entity has. The main issue has been the cost of being members .. these costs have been increasing over time. With the increase in memberships it was always assumed that the cost of being a member would reduce. Instead the cost seems to increase ... part of this appears to be due to diversification of responsibilities due to the ever increasing number of projects and spend on these projects, some of the increases seem to be in the pursuit of new members ... I personally think we need to get away from taxing members on the basis of their allocations, and look at a better solution all together ... perhaps one which actually reduces the size of the RIPE NCC and the associated costs, and encourages a lot of the "small" and "extra small" members to become customers of LIRs paying the LIR for their services in a free market, rather than the NCC accepting requests from anyone and everyone. As an ISP one of our core products is being an LIR and managing customer resources, yet we're finding more and more that corporates are simply becoming an LIR themselves ... This has also (imho) contributed to the IPv4 resource shortage as a number of these LIRs have ended up with an allocation (be it a /19 a /20 or /21) when they really only needed a /24 or at worst case a /23 ... I know of 2 or 3 companies in this position certainly ... One I know of in particular has a /19 and actually uses less than a /24 .. I'm sure there are many in this position. Jon On 18 Jul 2012, at 15:08, LIR wrote:
Now that resources are limited rules must change.
-- Jon Morby FidoNet - the internet made simple! 10 - 16 Tiller Road, London, E14 8PX tel: 0845 004 3050 / fax: 0845 004 3051
Hello. Paolo Di Francesco wrote:
Maybe I am wrong but I do not see any indicator that telco companies, huge LIRs are going to release some IPv4 address space in the future.
Can't RIPE run an IP audit of the "suspected" companies? If they use IPs efficiently... Milan Husak cz.losan
Milan, RIPE are doing audit of companies. But I agree with Paolo that large Telco etc will be reluctant to release IPV4 space as this would be a commercial decision in some cases. Mark -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Milan Husák - ISP Sent: 23 July 2012 08:37 To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCCCharging Scheme Model Hello. Paolo Di Francesco wrote:
Maybe I am wrong but I do not see any indicator that telco companies, huge LIRs are going to release some IPv4 address space in the future.
Can't RIPE run an IP audit of the "suspected" companies? If they use IPs efficiently... Milan Husak cz.losan ---- 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. ############################################################################## This communication together with any attachments transmitted with it ("this E-Mail") is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information which is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this E-Mail is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this E-Mail is strictly prohibited. Addressees should check this E-mail for viruses. The Company makes no representations as regards the absence of viruses in this E-Mail. If you have received this E-Mail in error please notify our IT Service Desk immediately by e-mail at abuse.ttb@talktalkplc.com Please then immediately delete, erase or otherwise destroy this E-Mail and any copies of it. Any opinions expressed in this E-Mail are those of the author and do not necessarily constitute the views of the Company. Nothing in this E-Mail shall bind the Company in any contract or obligation. For the purposes of this E-Mail "the Company" means TalkTalk Telecom Group PLC and/or any of its subsidiaries. Please feel free to visit our website: www.talktalkgroup.com TalkTalk Telecom Group Plc (Registered in England & Wales No. 7105891) 11 Evesham Street, London W11 4AR ##############################################################################
Why should a large company with many employees and/or high revenue pay more than a small company if they both eat up the same amount of resources at RIPE NCC ? They don’t, the basis on if you are a small or large LIR is based on the number of resources you hold, not the physical size / revenue of your company If both small and large LIRs get a /32 IPv6 block they will "never" need anything more as it is sufficient for ~4,29 billion customers. Under the current rules where you resell to companies, and each of those companies uses a /48, then that is only 65 000 Customers (assuming you keep some for your own infrastructure), but if you are using a dynamic pool (even a single /48 can server 65,536 customers with a single /64). There are already some LIRS who have larger than a /32 of IPv6 space. With todays general /32 prefixallocation policy, all LIRs would in simplified terms end up being the same LIR size. If you want to pay less than a big LIR, you simply can't. Perhaps this is good as we would stop having discussions about who should pay what and just divide the bill by the amount of members. If you must discuss something, discuss what RIPE NCC projects that should cut or receive funding instead. I'm sure there are plenty. I’m sure there are too… Mike. Cheers, At 13:00 17/07/2012 (UTC), Paolo Di Francesco wrote: I support a model that will charge accordingly to "company size" or how much money is made
From my point of view, it's not a matter of IPv4-vs-IPv6 allocation war, this should be more a policy based issue and I would support that who does not implement NOW IPv6 and present a plan to implement dual stack in 2 years should loose the IPv4 address space (*).
Hi
I think this discussion is going a cycle in past few days, I think I'd like to do a little here for fellow colleagues so make more people understand what have been going on.
Let me start with a summary here, every time I saw two argument together with two main charging suggestions.
Argument 1: fees should related to Ripe NCC workload rather than address distribution.(in the sense that Ripe NCC is in fact NOT RIPE, it is just a secretary service offered to people who need help from the community, the more help you have, the more you pay).
Argument preferred model: work-load based, or at least everybody pays same.
Argument 2: Fees should related to address distribution because the more address you have, the more valuable you are, and you of course should pay more.(in a time IPv4 are almost ready to become trade-able commodity, this might make sense).
Argument preferred model: IP address share based.(at present time, since IPv6's trade value are not clear in future 10 years, this mostly refer to IPv4) p.s. since every time this argument being bought up always being followed by reply like "someone still stay in ipv4 will die", just to make clear that here is pure discussion in a business cost sense in which has nothing to do with the discussion if we should go for ipv6 or not.
And Let's do a quick calculation to see which argument preferred to which
At the same time we should choose a realistic way of measuring the size of a company: bigger will pay more (much more) than smaller. This is because from the small-lir perspective, the percentage of money to be "free and competitive" for a huge LIR is ridicolous compared to what small LIRs are paying today to RIPE. Therefore I do not find scandalous that a bigger LIR that probably makes billions per year (e.g. mobile companies) should pay to RIPE 50K Euros per year. RIPE is not useful only to me, but to EVERY SINGLE EUROPEAN LIR. Moreover, the more resources (e.g. IPv4, AS, etc) you allocate, the more you use the DB, the more you open tickets, etc. Regarding the number of LIRs, the point is very simple: I do not buy directly from a bigger LIR just simply because most of them are not efficient of they would charge me even more than RIPE. It's also a matter of market and etic: the more you wait to have resources that the same LIR is going to provide in hours to your customera the less competitive you are. I do not think it would be a good idea to start a resource suballocation and SLA policy asking to RIPE to be the judge of every suballocation issue between LIRs. So the bigger is the number of LIR, the better is for the WHOLE telco market (and European competitiveness). Now regarding the vote I have some questions: 1) can we delegate somebody to go and vote? If so we could ask to other Lirs or Associations of Providers to step in and do vote for N LIRs. I do not think that would be a problem to delegate somebody who will represent your company, isn't it? 2) do we have a remote mechanism to participate and vote? Thank you (*) big companies in Italy are telling us small LIRs that "there is no device supporting IPv6 we cannot give it" or "mobile phone dop not support IPv6" or "nobody uses it, we do not neet IPv6 we need ONLY IPv4" and "we will discuss about about IPv6 in a few years not now". This is why they told us they are going to implement asap IPv4 NAT on operators side instead of dual stack, interesting hu? party.
If we charge people by price per address..then...here's a simple math:
Total Ripe address:32.78 /8=549957140.48 about 550millions. Total Ripe expenditure each year: 20millions Euro.
20/550=0.0367 per address each year.
So most small LIR(2048 address) will pay ...74 Euro/year. and if you are media LIR(with /16), you will pay... 2405 Euro/year.
And if you are large LIR(people with /8), then you will pay 615723.8272Euro/year(for people agree on argument two, companies in real world with over /8, of course should be very well above millions income level, so it shouldn't be a problem for them).
However, please note, if a charging model based on IP address number is being done, then the total Ripe expenditure might increase due tax changes. Let's say the premiums are 50% additional cost. For small LIRs, they will pay 130Euro a year, for media, it will be 3700 euro a year, and for real large ones, it will be around 1 millions euro a year.
And if everyone pays same:
20,000,000/8000=2500Euro/year
So, in term of pure cost assumption, media and large LIR will prefer a model close to "everyone pays the same", while for small and extra small LIRs, cost per IP is much more preferred even Ripe starting pay taxes.
Since theoretically every LIR has one vote regardless their size, cost per IP model might get passed consider the number of small and extra small LIRs.
But...there is a reality that most small and extra small LIR never attended any Ripe event...not even come to vote while most large ones always do.
So in term of that, large ones are in fact paying more for make community more active(sending one person to Ripe meeting will at least cost 2000 euro a time consider the working time loss and all the other expenditures), and of course they have more power in the vote, as no matter how much voting power there is for small LIRs, if they don't use it, they don' have it.
Hope this summary can help everybody have more clear view of what is going on in past discussions and future better future discussion. -- Kind regards. Lu
This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
---- 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.
-- Ing. Paolo Di Francesco Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 Fax : +39-091-8772072 assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 web: http://www.level7.it ---- 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.
participants (17)
-
Andrea Cocito -
Gert Doering -
Hank Nussbacher -
Havard Eidnes -
Jamie Stallwood -
Janos Zsako -
Jon Morby -
Jørgen Hovland -
LeaderTelecom Ltd. -
LIR -
Mark Jones (MK) -
Mike Simkins -
Milan Husák - ISP -
Nick Hilliard -
Paolo Di Francesco -
Rob Golding -
Sascha Luck