[address-policy-wg] Status of 2011-02 Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)?
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Status of 2011-02 Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Status of 2011-02 Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet
Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at
Tue Aug 9 09:03:59 CEST 2011
[beware: slightly off-topic maybe, but imho fundamentally important] Nick Hilliard wrote: > Hi Eric, [...] >>However, the RIPE community can't dictate the cost for PI, as that is to >>be decided in the AGM meeting by the member votes. This is "just" procedural, but... > It's more difficult than this. Because of the sheer numbers of PI > assignments, increasing the "wholesale" cost even by a small amount will > have a significant impact on the RIPE NCC's budget. That would create... > awkward bureaucratic problems for the RIPE NCC. This line of thinking would be even more than "difficult" to maintain: it would simply turn the funding and charging model for the RIPE NCC's services upside-down. The fundamental assumption is that the charging model provides the money to allow the RIPE NCC to execute the annual activity-plan (as agreed by the AGM), and to maintain a certain level of safety-belt funds to guarantee the stability of the NCC itself. The Service Charges are to be set according to cost and effort *within the NCC* to provide the services (plus the overhead, according to the activity plan). The NCC, for good reasons imho, is a not-for-profit entity and is *not* mandated (nor formally allowed, I presume) to collect money for and/or redistribute to any third party, which is not directly involved or necessary in the management of Number Resources. > Nick I think it is pretty important to keep this in mind, in general. Wilfried.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Status of 2011-02 Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Status of 2011-02 Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]