Re: Meeting, Charging & Documents
- Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 19:10:45 +0200 (MET DST)
Dear Mr. Karrenberg:
After reading carefully the document ripe-143, and also the "rain"
of messages sent by the other contributors during last days, we think we
have a clear opinion about our preference on models 1, 2 and 3.
CESATEL agrees with the reasons explained in section 6
(Recommendation) of document ripe-143 and also prefers model 3 first, model
1 second, and doesn't like model 2.
Just one point to take into account if model 3 is chosen. The
charges for address space (carried out per quarter) will be minimum in most
of cases (most of contributors are of category small and they have small
address space allocated), compared with the fixed (subscription) charge.
Then, the bill of the first quarter will contain the subscription charge
plus the variable charge of the first quarter. The other three bills will
contain just the respective variable charges. This structure of billing
generates administrative costs (both for RIPE and for the contributors) and
comission costs generated by the banks (transferring the money from one
country to the Netherlands).
Our proposition is to generate just one annual bill per contributor,
including in it the subscription charge and the variable charges (estimated
with the data known in 1996). In the bill of 1998 you can include the
subscription charge of 1998, the correction of variable charges of 1997
(already calculated with real data and that can result positive or negative)
and the variable charges of 1998 (estimated with the new data). And so on.
Due to CESATEL will not be present at the RIPE NCC Contributors
Committee, we ask for you to take our opinion into account.
Enrique A. Fernandez Perez
c/ Fernando Macias, 2 - planta 2
15004 - La Coruna
Tel: +34 81 252898
Fax: +34 81 253050