From natalya.petrova at telecom.kz Thu Jun 18 12:29:03 2009 From: natalya.petrova at telecom.kz (Natalya Petrova) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:29:03 +0600 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 Message-ID: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> RegID: kz.kazaktelecom Good morning, dear colleagues! Thanks for your message. I have read on a site the information be relative Charging Scheme 2010. There are some questions for me. I ask the help in the explanatory. Questions: 1) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment and the fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It mentions only PI? or PA? or PI+PA? 2) "fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It every month a payment? or every quarter? or for a year? 3) "fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It is payment for what quantity of addresses (50EUR= ? IPs)? 4) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment and the fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - Operates for all direct assignments? or Only new direct assignments (included after 3 May, 2009)? I shall be very grateful for explanatories. Thanks for the help and understanding. Yours faithfully, Natalya From hostmaster at uk.tiscali.com Thu Jun 18 13:22:07 2009 From: hostmaster at uk.tiscali.com (Hostmaster) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:22:07 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> Message-ID: <746D7D8FCA18FA4BA70391D24A710E36C0CBA1@MK-MSX3-VS3.uk.tiscali.intl> Privyet Natalya Where is this document? I cant see it on RIPE? Mark -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Natalya Petrova Sent: 18 June 2009 11:29 To: members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 RegID: kz.kazaktelecom Good morning, dear colleagues! Thanks for your message. I have read on a site the information be relative Charging Scheme 2010. There are some questions for me. I ask the help in the explanatory. Questions: 1) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment and the fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It mentions only PI? or PA? or PI+PA? 2) "fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It every month a payment? or every quarter? or for a year? 3) "fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It is payment for what quantity of addresses (50EUR= ? IPs)? 4) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment and the fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - Operates for all direct assignments? or Only new direct assignments (included after 3 May, 2009)? I shall be very grateful for explanatories. Thanks for the help and understanding. Yours faithfully, Natalya From fweimer at bfk.de Thu Jun 18 13:30:22 2009 From: fweimer at bfk.de (Florian Weimer) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 13:30:22 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <746D7D8FCA18FA4BA70391D24A710E36C0CBA1@MK-MSX3-VS3.uk.tiscali.intl> (hostmaster@uk.tiscali.com's message of "Thu\, 18 Jun 2009 12\:22\:07 +0100") References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <746D7D8FCA18FA4BA70391D24A710E36C0CBA1@MK-MSX3-VS3.uk.tiscali.intl> Message-ID: <82ab45n5ip.fsf@mid.bfk.de> > Where is this document? I cant see it on RIPE? I guess Natalya is referring to this message: From: Fergal Cunningham Subject: [ncc-announce] Proposed Draft Charging Scheme 2010 To: ncc-announce at ripe.net, regional-russia at ripe.net Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 11:54:20 +0200 Message-ID: <4A38BD4C.9050608 at ripe.net> -- Florian Weimer BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ Kriegsstra?e 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99 From mvyskocil at highway.telekom.at Thu Jun 18 13:36:26 2009 From: mvyskocil at highway.telekom.at (Martin Vyskocil) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 13:36:26 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] FW: [ncc-announce] Proposed Draft Charging Scheme 2010 Message-ID: <20090618114415.876286A08D@postboy.ripe.net> FYI Martin -----Original Message----- From: ncc-announce-admin at ripe.net [mailto:ncc-announce-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Fergal Cunningham Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 11:54 AM To: ncc-announce at ripe.net; regional-russia at ripe.net Subject: [ncc-announce] Proposed Draft Charging Scheme 2010 [Apologies for duplicate emails] Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC is currently formulating the Draft Charging Scheme 2010. The Draft Charging Scheme 2010 will take into account the requirements of policy proposal 2007-01, "Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC", and the discussions that took place at the RIPE NCC General Meeting in May 2009 regarding the 2010 Charging Scheme. The main features of the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 will be: - As in previous years, there will be five membership categories - Extra Small, Small, Medium, Large and Extra Large - The 2010 fee for each membership category will be the same as for 2009 - An algorithm will determine a score that decides what category a member belongs to - The score will be based on Provider Aggregatable (PA) IPv4 and PA IPv6 allocated over time - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment and the fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment The RIPE NCC will publish the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 at the beginning of July 2009. The RIPE NCC Executive Board will then monitor discussion and input from the RIPE NCC membership before publishing a final version of the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 by 9 September 2009. The RIPE NCC membership will vote on this version at the RIPE NCC General Meeting on 7 October 2009. The RIPE NCC notes that this proposal for the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 is subject to change based on advice from the RIPE NCC's lawyers on tax and legal issues. Membership discussion of the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 proposal can take place at . Best regards, Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC From bosko at globalnet.ba Thu Jun 18 13:44:03 2009 From: bosko at globalnet.ba (Jerkovic Bosko) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 13:44:03 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <746D7D8FCA18FA4BA70391D24A710E36C0CBA1@MK-MSX3-VS3.uk.tiscali.intl> References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <746D7D8FCA18FA4BA70391D24A710E36C0CBA1@MK-MSX3-VS3.uk.tiscali.intl> Message-ID: <009401c9f00a$14b95800$3e2c0800$@ba> Thanks for sharing with everyone that you can't find that... duhhh! -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Hostmaster Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 1:22 PM To: Natalya Petrova; members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: RE: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 Privyet Natalya Where is this document? I cant see it on RIPE? Mark -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Natalya Petrova Sent: 18 June 2009 11:29 To: members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 RegID: kz.kazaktelecom Good morning, dear colleagues! Thanks for your message. I have read on a site the information be relative Charging Scheme 2010. There are some questions for me. I ask the help in the explanatory. Questions: 1) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment and the fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It mentions only PI? or PA? or PI+PA? 2) "fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It every month a payment? or every quarter? or for a year? 3) "fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It is payment for what quantity of addresses (50EUR= ? IPs)? 4) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment and the fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - Operates for all direct assignments? or Only new direct assignments (included after 3 May, 2009)? I shall be very grateful for explanatories. Thanks for the help and understanding. Yours faithfully, Natalya From pkambach at kambach.net Thu Jun 18 13:51:23 2009 From: pkambach at kambach.net (Patrick Kambach) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 13:51:23 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <746D7D8FCA18FA4BA70391D24A710E36C0CBA1@MK-MSX3-VS3.uk.tiscali.intl> References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <746D7D8FCA18FA4BA70391D24A710E36C0CBA1@MK-MSX3-VS3.uk.tiscali.intl> Message-ID: <4A3A2A3B.2030204@kambach.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 hi Mark, the document was announced by Axel Pawlik / Fergal Cunningham yesterday on the maillist ncc-announce. The draft will be available in July 2009. Cheers, Patrick - --- Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC is currently formulating the Draft Charging Scheme 2010. The Draft Charging Scheme 2010 will take into account the requirements of policy proposal 2007-01, "Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC", and the discussions that took place at the RIPE NCC General Meeting in May 2009 regarding the 2010 Charging Scheme. The main features of the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 will be: - - As in previous years, there will be five membership categories - Extra Small, Small, Medium, Large and Extra Large - - The 2010 fee for each membership category will be the same as for 2009 - - An algorithm will determine a score that decides what category a member belongs to - - The score will be based on Provider Aggregatable (PA) IPv4 and PA IPv6 allocated over time - - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment and the fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment The RIPE NCC will publish the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 at the beginning of July 2009. The RIPE NCC Executive Board will then monitor discussion and input from the RIPE NCC membership before publishing a final version of the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 by 9 September 2009. The RIPE NCC membership will vote on this version at the RIPE NCC General Meeting on 7 October 2009. The RIPE NCC notes that this proposal for the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 is subject to change based on advice from the RIPE NCC's lawyers on tax and legal issues. Membership discussion of the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 proposal can take place at . - --- Am 18.06.2009 13:22, schrieb Hostmaster: > Privyet Natalya > > Where is this document? I cant see it on RIPE? > > Mark - -- ConnectingBytes GmbH - "www.kambach.net" | In der Steele 35, 40599 D?sseldorf, Germany | Telefon: 0800 / 900 2580 - 1, Fax: 0800 / 900 2580 - 2 | Email: pkambach at kambach.net | Web: http://www.kambach.net | | Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Patrick Kambach | Amtsgericht D?sseldorf, HRB 60009 | Ust-IdNr.: DE815028832, Steuernummer: 106/5736/0037 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iD8DBQFKOio7CIR+kawbQF0RArVYAKC3dNDyaSGd9DBzWj+AMnFg8YDIOgCeOpXl T+OiG0tSS3yOvRnuef/Vwas= =T6vE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From sven at cb3rob.net Thu Jun 18 13:23:20 2009 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 11:23:20 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> Message-ID: Eh, I conclude that ripe actually is trying to push network operators to become a LIR, while actually those should be seperated functions, a LIR can just be an office with no network whatsoever, just like an insurance agent doesn't run the insurance company. Although they have done this for quite some time (asking our clients rediculous questions such as wether they would not rather become a LIR themselves eventhough they only operate a network for their own services). (and i'm getting pretty tired of them trying to do so and thereby preventing LIRs from doing what they are supposed to to in a swift and practical way, prolonging the process by several days to weeks and bugging LIR and clients with stupid questions) furthermore it's wrong that IP space is hereby assigned a monetary value, as the sole function of LIRs is to distribute that IP space to end-users, RIPE already gets plenty of cash from the LIRs just for being a LIR, requesting additional payment for PI space registrations is pretty much against the whole existing points-billing-model. Instead of asking 50 euros per assignment per ??year/month/cow/whatever??, it would make more sense to check if assignments are actually announced and if they are not, delete them after 3 years or so. also with the introduction of 32 bit AS numbers and IPv6 neither PI space, nor AS numbers are going to run out anywhere within our life time, so actually i don't see the point of even keeping them linked to the current points system at all, let alone introduce new fees. the whole idea behind the rirs and lirs is to -distribute- ip space, so that people don't just have to "grab their own". not to make money, should that become the case, we could just as well go back to the "just grab yourself some address space" approach like still is the case on some other larger linked networks. RIPE should not be in the business of trying to run a profit on it, their only purpose is to make sure the resources don't run out (which neither 32 bit AS numbers nor IPv6 PI space ever will, and IPv4 will become significantly less wanted before it even gets the chance to "run out" anyway). so this is a "solution" to a non-existing "problem".. besides, anyone looked at their concept-contract? it's like 3 meters long! wtf.. our "contracts" are usually verbal and go like "we will register some PI space for you, if you pay us EUR 2500 "Administration fee" for the work (and yes, due to RIPE's pain in the butt-ness regarding PI space, its a lot of work ;), for which you will receive an invoice which needs to be paid before $date". and that's about it and should suffice. (with most of our PI/AS clients, we do not actually route their network for them, they get local companies to do that for them.) -- Sven Olaf Kamphuis CB3ROB DataServices Phone: +31/87-8747479 Skype: CB3ROB MSN: sven at cb3rob.net C.V.: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cb3rob Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Natalya Petrova wrote: > RegID: kz.kazaktelecom > > Good morning, dear colleagues! > Thanks for your message. > I have read on a site the information be relative Charging Scheme > 2010. There are some questions for me. > I ask the help in the explanatory. > Questions: > 1) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment and the > fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It mentions only PI? or > PA? or PI+PA? > 2) "fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It every month a > payment? or every quarter? or for a year? > 3) "fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It is payment for what > quantity of addresses (50EUR= ? IPs)? > 4) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment and the > fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - Operates for all direct > assignments? or Only new direct assignments (included after 3 May, > 2009)? > I shall be very grateful for explanatories. > Thanks for the help and understanding. > Yours faithfully, > Natalya > > > X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "ripe.net" > From s.sulava at unistream.com Thu Jun 18 13:56:08 2009 From: s.sulava at unistream.com (=?koi8-r?Q?=F3=D5=CC=C1=D7=C1_=F3=C5=D2=C7=C5=CA?=) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:56:08 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <746D7D8FCA18FA4BA70391D24A710E36C0CBA1@MK-MSX3-VS3.uk.tiscali.intl> References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <746D7D8FCA18FA4BA70391D24A710E36C0CBA1@MK-MSX3-VS3.uk.tiscali.intl> Message-ID: Hi All! There's no such document in RIPE database. But I suppose Natalya is speaking about this: "[Apologies for duplicate emails] Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC is currently formulating the Draft Charging Scheme 2010. The Draft Charging Scheme 2010 will take into account the requirements of policy proposal 2007-01, "Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC", and the discussions that took place at the RIPE NCC General Meeting in May 2009 regarding the 2010 Charging Scheme. The main features of the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 will be: - As in previous years, there will be five membership categories - Extra Small, Small, Medium, Large and Extra Large - The 2010 fee for each membership category will be the same as for 2009 - An algorithm will determine a score that decides what category a member belongs to - The score will be based on Provider Aggregatable (PA) IPv4 and PA IPv6 allocated over time - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment and the fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment The RIPE NCC will publish the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 at the beginning of July 2009. The RIPE NCC Executive Board will then monitor discussion and input from the RIPE NCC membership before publishing a final version of the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 by 9 September 2009. The RIPE NCC membership will vote on this version at the RIPE NCC General Meeting on 7 October 2009. The RIPE NCC notes that this proposal for the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 is subject to change based on advice from the RIPE NCC's lawyers on tax and legal issues. Membership discussion of the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 proposal can take place at . Best regards, Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC" Kind Regards Sergey Sulava -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Hostmaster Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 3:22 PM To: Natalya Petrova; members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: RE: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 Privyet Natalya Where is this document? I cant see it on RIPE? Mark -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Natalya Petrova Sent: 18 June 2009 11:29 To: members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 RegID: kz.kazaktelecom Good morning, dear colleagues! Thanks for your message. I have read on a site the information be relative Charging Scheme 2010. There are some questions for me. I ask the help in the explanatory. Questions: 1) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment and the fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It mentions only PI? or PA? or PI+PA? 2) "fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It every month a payment? or every quarter? or for a year? 3) "fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It is payment for what quantity of addresses (50EUR= ? IPs)? 4) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment and the fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - Operates for all direct assignments? or Only new direct assignments (included after 3 May, 2009)? I shall be very grateful for explanatories. Thanks for the help and understanding. Yours faithfully, Natalya *Disclaimer:* This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. *???????????:* ?????? ????????? (??????? ????? ????????) ????? ????????? ???????????????? ?????????? ? ???? ??????????????? ????????????? ??? ???????? ??? ???????????, ??????? ??? ??????????. ???? ?? ?? ????????? ?????????? ?????????, ?? ????????? ?? ??????????, ??? ????? ?????????, ???????????, ??????????????? ??? ????????????? ?????????? ????? ????????? ?????? ?????????. From fweimer at bfk.de Thu Jun 18 14:09:12 2009 From: fweimer at bfk.de (Florian Weimer) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 14:09:12 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: (Sven Olaf Kamphuis's message of "Thu\, 18 Jun 2009 11\:23\:20 +0000 \(GMT\)") References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> Message-ID: <82ws79lp5j.fsf@mid.bfk.de> * Sven Olaf Kamphuis: > furthermore it's wrong that IP space is hereby assigned a monetary value, > as the sole function of LIRs is to distribute that IP space to end-users, > RIPE already gets plenty of cash from the LIRs just for being a LIR, > requesting additional payment for PI space registrations is pretty much > against the whole existing points-billing-model. The fee is just a kludge to make sure that RIPE can recover the resource when the assignee lost interest in it. > Instead of asking 50 euros per assignment per ??year/month/cow/whatever??, > it would make more sense to check if assignments are actually > announced and if they are not, delete them after 3 years or so. RIPE policies separate address assignment from (capital-I Internet) routing, so this can't work. > also with the introduction of 32 bit AS numbers and IPv6 neither PI space, > nor AS numbers are going to run out anywhere within our life time, so > actually i don't see the point of even keeping them linked to the current > points system at all, let alone introduce new fees. There are two opposing opinions on this matter. One side claims we're moving towards scarce resources. The other side claims exactly the opposite. (I'm siding with the latter.) We should move this discussion to the address-policy working group mailing list, but I think the topic has already been hashed out over there. -- Florian Weimer BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ Kriegsstra?e 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99 From 'Sven Thu Jun 18 14:17:06 2009 From: 'Sven ('Sven) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:17:06 +0300 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> Message-ID: <4A3A3042.9040706@trabia.net> FULL ACK You spoke like out of my soul... Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: > Eh, I conclude that ripe actually is trying to push network operators to > become a LIR, while actually those should be seperated functions, a LIR > can just be an office with no network whatsoever, just like an insurance > agent doesn't run the insurance company. > > Although they have done this for quite some time (asking our clients > rediculous questions such as wether they would not rather become a LIR > themselves eventhough they only operate a network for their own services). > > (and i'm getting pretty tired of them trying to do so and thereby > preventing LIRs from doing what they are supposed to to in a swift and > practical way, prolonging the process by several days to weeks and bugging > LIR and clients with stupid questions) > > furthermore it's wrong that IP space is hereby assigned a monetary value, > as the sole function of LIRs is to distribute that IP space to end-users, > RIPE already gets plenty of cash from the LIRs just for being a LIR, > requesting additional payment for PI space registrations is pretty much > against the whole existing points-billing-model. > > Instead of asking 50 euros per assignment per ??year/month/cow/whatever??, > it would make more sense to check if assignments are actually > announced and if they are not, delete them after 3 years or so. > > also with the introduction of 32 bit AS numbers and IPv6 neither PI space, > nor AS numbers are going to run out anywhere within our life time, so > actually i don't see the point of even keeping them linked to the current > points system at all, let alone introduce new fees. > > the whole idea behind the rirs and lirs is to -distribute- ip space, so > that people don't just have to "grab their own". not to make money, should > that become the case, we could just as well go back to the "just grab > yourself some address space" approach like still is the case on some > other larger linked networks. > > RIPE should not be in the business of trying to run a profit on it, their > only purpose is to make sure the resources don't run out (which neither 32 > bit AS numbers nor IPv6 PI space ever will, and IPv4 will become > significantly less wanted before it even gets the chance to "run out" > anyway). > > so this is a "solution" to a non-existing "problem".. > > besides, anyone looked at their concept-contract? it's like 3 meters long! > wtf.. > > our "contracts" are usually verbal and go like "we will register some PI > space for you, if you pay us EUR 2500 "Administration fee" for the work > (and yes, due to RIPE's pain in the butt-ness regarding PI space, its a > lot of work ;), for which you will receive an invoice which needs to be > paid before $date". and that's about it and should suffice. > (with most of our PI/AS clients, we do not actually route their > network for them, they get local companies to do that for them.) > > > -- Sven Wiese General Director I.C.S. "Trabia-Network" S.R.L. [t] +373 (22) 843104 [e] s.wiese at trabia.net [i] www.trabia.net Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not in the addresses indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such a case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paul at racksense.com Thu Jun 18 14:36:25 2009 From: paul at racksense.com (Paul Civati) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 13:36:25 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> Message-ID: <93809.1245328585@xciv.org> Some observations on the announcement.. If RIPE are going to put out an announcement that will end up creating a lot of discussion it would be helpful to provide more clarity rather than just create confusion. Aside, as a whole these changes to administration of PI space have been confusing and difficult to follow, IMO. 1. 50 EUR per what time period? 2. It's not clear if this is the LIR fee or end user fee? 3. If the charging score is only going to be based on PA space then some re-jigging of the numbers might be in order. For example, as a SMALL LIR with some PI and AS for customers we'll will still be classed as SMALL if we have both the smallest of both a single v4 assignment and a v6 assignment. My point here is that as soon as a new LIR takes some v6 PA space it's going to cost them more money to jump up from EXTRA SMALL to SMALL. What motivation here is there for new members to start looking at v6 straight away? It gives additional cost for doing v6 but there may not be a business case for a small provider. At least when PI and AS also contributed there was some direct attached cost relevant to the business associated with customer revenues on those PI/AS objects. Regards, -Paul- -- Paul Civati 0870 321 2855 Rack Sense Ltd - Managed Service Provider - www.racksense.com From servicedesk at adaptplc.com Thu Jun 18 14:22:10 2009 From: servicedesk at adaptplc.com (Adapt Service Desk) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 13:22:10 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <746D7D8FCA18FA4BA70391D24A710E36C0CBA1@MK-MSX3-VS3.uk.tiscali.intl> Message-ID: <1C6BF4BEC510974BA67CA315A092A9A82470A9@gbnbshexch01.as24867.intra> Ripe, Please remove us from this discussion thread. It is totally irrelevant to us and is filling our mailbox with junk. You may have the following e-mail addresses on record, servicedesk at adaptplc.com support at mnet.co.uk hostmaster at adaptplc.com hostmaster at mnet.co.uk please remove them all. Regards, Raj Bola Service Desk Manager adapt New Broad Street House, 35?New Broad Street, London? EC2M 1NH t: +44 (0)845 304 3046 e: servicedesk at adaptplc.com?? www.adaptplc.com adapt, the independent managed services provider?offering the broadest choice?of next generation technologies, and doing right by our customers. adapt to success! We're ranked 15th in the 2008 Tech Track 100. -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of ?????? ?????? Sent: 18 June 2009 12:56 To: Hostmaster; Natalya Petrova; members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: RE: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 Hi All! There's no such document in RIPE database. But I suppose Natalya is speaking about this: "[Apologies for duplicate emails] Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC is currently formulating the Draft Charging Scheme 2010. The Draft Charging Scheme 2010 will take into account the requirements of policy proposal 2007-01, "Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC", and the discussions that took place at the RIPE NCC General Meeting in May 2009 regarding the 2010 Charging Scheme. The main features of the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 will be: - As in previous years, there will be five membership categories - Extra Small, Small, Medium, Large and Extra Large - The 2010 fee for each membership category will be the same as for 2009 - An algorithm will determine a score that decides what category a member belongs to - The score will be based on Provider Aggregatable (PA) IPv4 and PA IPv6 allocated over time - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment and the fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment The RIPE NCC will publish the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 at the beginning of July 2009. The RIPE NCC Executive Board will then monitor discussion and input from the RIPE NCC membership before publishing a final version of the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 by 9 September 2009. The RIPE NCC membership will vote on this version at the RIPE NCC General Meeting on 7 October 2009. The RIPE NCC notes that this proposal for the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 is subject to change based on advice from the RIPE NCC's lawyers on tax and legal issues. Membership discussion of the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 proposal can take place at . Best regards, Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC" Kind Regards Sergey Sulava -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Hostmaster Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 3:22 PM To: Natalya Petrova; members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: RE: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 Privyet Natalya Where is this document? I cant see it on RIPE? Mark -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Natalya Petrova Sent: 18 June 2009 11:29 To: members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 RegID: kz.kazaktelecom Good morning, dear colleagues! Thanks for your message. I have read on a site the information be relative Charging Scheme 2010. There are some questions for me. I ask the help in the explanatory. Questions: 1) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment and the fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It mentions only PI? or PA? or PI+PA? 2) "fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It every month a payment? or every quarter? or for a year? 3) "fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It is payment for what quantity of addresses (50EUR= ? IPs)? 4) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment and the fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - Operates for all direct assignments? or Only new direct assignments (included after 3 May, 2009)? I shall be very grateful for explanatories. Thanks for the help and understanding. Yours faithfully, Natalya *Disclaimer:* This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. *???????????:* ?????? ????????? (??????? ????? ????????) ????? ????????? ???????????????? ?????????? ? ???? ??????????????? ????????????? ??? ???????? ??? ???????????, ??????? ??? ??????????. ???? ?? ?? ????????? ?????????? ?????????, ?? ????????? ?? ??????????, ??? ????? ?????????, ???????????, ??????????????? ??? ????????????? ?????????? ????? ????????? ?????? ?????????. This message has been scanned for viruses by Mail Control - www.adaptplc.com From d.martin at migfx.com Thu Jun 18 13:58:44 2009 From: d.martin at migfx.com (David Martin) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 13:58:44 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 Message-ID: Hi, May I ask you why we receive your chat on our corporate e-mail ?? Rgds, --- David Martin Head of Corporate Solutions MIG Investments SA 14, Route des Gouttes d'Or 2008 Neuch?tel Switzerland Phone +41 32 722 86 00 Mobile +41 78 692 29 34 Fax +41 32 722 86 01 Email d.martin at migfx.com Home http://www.migfx.com/ Disclaimer: This communication may contain confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. It is intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. If you are not an intended recipient, you may not use, read, retransmit, disseminate or take any action in reliance upon it. Please notify the sender that you have received it in error and immediately delete the entire communication, including any attachments. MIG Investments SA does not encrypt and cannot ensure the confidentiality or integrity of external e-mail communications and, therefore, cannot be responsible for any unauthorized access, disclosure, use or tampering that may occur during transmission. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. MIG Investments SA accepts no liability for the content of this email, or for the consequences of any actions taken on the basis of the information provide. ----- Original Message ----- From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net To: Hostmaster Cc: Natalya Petrova ; members-discuss at ripe.net Sent: Thu Jun 18 13:30:22 2009 Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 > Where is this document? I cant see it on RIPE? I guess Natalya is referring to this message: From: Fergal Cunningham Subject: [ncc-announce] Proposed Draft Charging Scheme 2010 To: ncc-announce at ripe.net, regional-russia at ripe.net Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 11:54:20 +0200 Message-ID: <4A38BD4C.9050608 at ripe.net> -- Florian Weimer BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ Kriegsstra?e 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From HeidrichA at invitel.co.hu Thu Jun 18 16:22:07 2009 From: HeidrichA at invitel.co.hu (Heidrich Attila) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:22:07 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <93809.1245328585@xciv.org> Message-ID: <23739028DD178741B38EF9878A23A3B30276796B@MAIL1.office.intra> I really like this conversation!! I myself also have some questions, some are the same than yours, but I hope I know some answers as well - but these are y answers, and of course they are far far away from being official, just my reading! I guess that 50EUR per year would be charged to the LIR (if the end user is not in contractual relationship with RIPE - which is I think the case in this context!) But what is the moment in time when the LIR is elected to pay this fee? The end-user can change the LIR during the year - can not he? Anyway - this will costs some for the end user as well, but that fee will be charged by the contracted LIR. What happens to the LIRs with quarterly and yearly fee schedule? Should there be any difference? I guess no... 50EUR per end user, or per database entry, (providing that I hit the bulls eye with the one year period), orper transaction? What happens to the assignments which are assigned and deleted within the same billing period? I consider the not-aging PI resources logical... although the billing procedure and the cost estimation will be much more difficult. Maybe two bills would be better, or at least two lines on the bill, one for the yearly fee, and another for the currently introduced per-entry fees - or a complete detailed bill which enumerates all the unique assignments. Heidrich Attila vezet? fejleszt?m?rn?k Invitel Zrt. 6724 Szeged, R?kusi krt. 2-10. iroda: +36 62 777574 fax: +36 62 471122 mobil: +36 20 9357792 www.invitel.hu? ? ? SAVE PAPER - Please do not print this e-mail unless absolutely necessary -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Paul Civati Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 2:36 PM To: members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 Some observations on the announcement.. If RIPE are going to put out an announcement that will end up creating a lot of discussion it would be helpful to provide more clarity rather than just create confusion. Aside, as a whole these changes to administration of PI space have been confusing and difficult to follow, IMO. 1. 50 EUR per what time period? 2. It's not clear if this is the LIR fee or end user fee? 3. If the charging score is only going to be based on PA space then some re-jigging of the numbers might be in order. For example, as a SMALL LIR with some PI and AS for customers we'll will still be classed as SMALL if we have both the smallest of both a single v4 assignment and a v6 assignment. My point here is that as soon as a new LIR takes some v6 PA space it's going to cost them more money to jump up from EXTRA SMALL to SMALL. What motivation here is there for new members to start looking at v6 straight away? It gives additional cost for doing v6 but there may not be a business case for a small provider. At least when PI and AS also contributed there was some direct attached cost relevant to the business associated with customer revenues on those PI/AS objects. Regards, -Paul- -- Paul Civati 0870 321 2855 Rack Sense Ltd - Managed Service Provider - www.racksense.com -------------- Ezen uzenet kizarolag a cimzettjenek szol es olyan bizalmas jellegu informaciokat tartalmazhat, amelyek feltarasat jogszabaly vagy szerzodes tiltja. Amennyiben a jelen uzenetet On teves kezbesites folytan kapta, kerjuk haladektalanul ertesitsen bennunket es az uzenetet annak csatolmanyaival egyutt torolje. Amennyiben On nem cimzettje a jelen uzenetnek, annak es mellekleteinek elolvasasa, masolasa, tovabbitasa, vagy barmely celbol torteno felhasznalasa szigoruan tilos. Megjegyezzuk, hogy az e-mail utjan torteno kozlesek nem garantaljak az elkuldott uzenetek bizalmas jellegenek es teljessegenek megorzeset, valamint az uzenetek megfelelo kezbesiteset. A fentieken tulmenoen, a Hungarian Telephone and Cable Corp., annak kapcsolt vallalkozasai, illetve az altaluk megbizott harmadik felek a jelen e-mail cimrol kuldott, vagy arra erkezo barmely uzenetet ellenorizhetnek, lemasolhatnak, felhasznalhatnak vagy harmadik fel reszere tovabbithatnak. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee and may contain confidential information protected from disclosure by law or contract. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify us and delete it together with its attachments. If you are not an addressee of this message, reading, copying, distribution or use for any purpose of the contents of this message or its attachments is strictly forbidden. Additionally, please note that communication by email guarantees neither the confidentiality nor the completeness or proper receipt of the messages sent. Furthermore, Hungarian Telephone and Cable Corp., its affiliates and third parties retained by them may monitor, copy, use or forward to third parties any outgoing messages from and incoming messages to this email address From andrea at ripe.net Thu Jun 18 14:49:00 2009 From: andrea at ripe.net (Andrea Cima) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 14:49:00 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> Message-ID: <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear Natalya, Natalya Petrova wrote: > RegID: kz.kazaktelecom > > Good morning, dear colleagues! > Thanks for your message. > I have read on a site the information be relative Charging Scheme > 2010. There are some questions for me. > I ask the help in the explanatory. > Questions: > 1) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment and the > fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It mentions only PI? or > PA? or PI+PA? According to the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 the 50 Euro per resource applies to IPv4 and IPv6 PI Assignments, AS numbers, Internet Exchange Point and Anycasting Assignments. PA IPv4 and IPv6 Allocations will instead determine the member billing category. > 2) "fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It every month a > payment? or every quarter? or for a year? The 50 Euro fee per Assignment would be charged on a yearly basis. With regards to payment terms, you will receive the invoice according to the Billing scheme chosen by your LIR (quarterly, half-yearly, yearly invoices). > 3) "fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It is payment for what > quantity of addresses (50EUR= ? IPs)? According to the current proposal, the 50 Euro fee will be charged per Assignment. The charge will not depend on the number of IP Addresses the Assignment is made of. > 4) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment and the > fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - Operates for all direct > assignments? or Only new direct assignments (included after 3 May, > 2009)? All Assignments made since 1992 will be included. With the implementation of RIPE Policy "Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC", LIRs have the possibility to inform the RIPE NCC which independent resources should stay with the LIR and which should be moved (End User not their customer). The resources which will be moved, will be marked and excluded from your LIR's 2010 invoice. Please see: http://www.ripe.net/rs/pi-existing-assignments.html I hope this clarifies. Kind regards, Andrea Cima Customer Services Manager RIPE NCC > I shall be very grateful for explanatories. > Thanks for the help and understanding. > Yours faithfully, > Natalya > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.11 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAko6N7wACgkQXOgsmPkFrjMsUgCeI+i5n2Q/AevvibMsNeKLpaP0 ELgAn2979ttiRN/6jqW4O1Id6v6aMHYj =nteg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From geraint.evans at urbanwimax.co.uk Thu Jun 18 16:43:29 2009 From: geraint.evans at urbanwimax.co.uk (Geraint Evans) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:43:29 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <25ED320036CFC94EB0F4D2514AD85CFADAEA6E@uw-exchange-001.urbanwimaxltd.local> If you don?t want to receive this discussion email login to your LIR portal and remove the email addresses from the discussion input box Kind Regards Geraint Evans Head of Network Engineering Urban Wimax Ltd 22 Southampton Place Holborn London WC1A 2BP Direct dial: +44 (0)207 400 6312 Mobile: +44 (0) 7799 116087 Email: geraint.evans at urbanwimax.co.uk www.linkedin.com/in/gerainte Website: www.urbanwimax.co.uk UK Registered company no. 5467333 CONFIDENTIAL All content and attachments are strictly confidential and intended for the addressee only. Please delete, if you've received this email in error. Email Disclaimer Information featured in this email is intended to give general details of the broadband service provided by Urban Wimax and the opportunity that Urban Wimax may offer potential licensees or customers. It is not intended to constitute a binding offer to either potential end-users or licensees nor set out the terms of any agreement which may be concluded between Urban Wimax and a potential licensee or end-user. Any figures published are published as a guideline only and will depend on various factors including in relation to end users the level of service and the geographical location and in relation to potential licensees the level of investment the individual licensee contributes. Urban Wimax gives no guarantee as to the accuracy of these figures in any respect. Urban Wimax accepts no responsibility or liability for any loss which may arise from reliance on information contained in this email or on this site. From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of David Martin Sent: 18 June 2009 12:59 To: fweimer at bfk.de; hostmaster at uk.tiscali.com Cc: natalya.petrova at telecom.kz; members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 Hi, May I ask you why we receive your chat on our corporate e-mail ?? Rgds, --- David Martin Head of Corporate Solutions MIG Investments MIG Investments SA 14, Route des Gouttes d'Or 2008 Neuch?tel Switzerland Phone +41 32 722 86 00 Mobile +41 78 692 29 34 Fax +41 32 722 86 01 Email d.martin at migfx.com Home www.migfx.com ISO certified Disclaimer: This communication may contain confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. It is intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. If you are not an intended recipient, you may not use, read, retransmit, disseminate or take any action in reliance upon it. Please notify the sender that you have received it in error and immediately delete the entire communication, including any attachments. MIG Investments SA does not encrypt and cannot ensure the confidentiality or integrity of external e-mail communications and, therefore, cannot be responsible for any unauthorized access, disclosure, use or tampering that may occur during transmission. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. MIG Investments SA accepts no liability for the content of this email, or for the consequences of any actions taken on the basis of the information provide. ----- Original Message ----- From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net To: Hostmaster Cc: Natalya Petrova ; members-discuss at ripe.net Sent: Thu Jun 18 13:30:22 2009 Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 > Where is this document? I cant see it on RIPE? I guess Natalya is referring to this message: From: Fergal Cunningham Subject: [ncc-announce] Proposed Draft Charging Scheme 2010 To: ncc-announce at ripe.net, regional-russia at ripe.net Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 11:54:20 +0200 Message-ID: <4A38BD4C.9050608 at ripe.net> -- Florian Weimer BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ Kriegsstra?e 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2380 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 5564 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image005.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 6977 bytes Desc: image005.jpg URL: From Marcus.Gerdon at versatel.de Thu Jun 18 16:37:27 2009 From: Marcus.Gerdon at versatel.de (Marcus.Gerdon) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:37:27 +0200 Subject: AW: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 Message-ID: <227142482560EF458FF1F7E784E26AB8A45476@FLBVEXCH01.versatel.local> Sorry, but maybe you shouldn't put daily-use business email addresses into mailing-lists? Someone has to have that configured at any point in time. Ever took a look into the LIR portal? Just unsubscribe there (under 'General')... Btw, replying to all including a mailing list like the one you're complaining about is better behaviour? Marcus ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Engineering IP Services Versatel West GmbH Unterste-Wilms-Strasse 29 D-44143 Dortmund Fon: +49-(0)231-399-4486 | Fax: +49-(0)231-399-4491 marcus.gerdon at versatel.de | www.versatel.de Sitz der Gesellschaft: Dortmund | Registergericht: Dortmund HRB 21738 Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Marc L?tzenkirchen, Dr. Hai Cheng, Dr. Max Padberg, Peter Schindler ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AS8881 / AS8638 / AS13270 | MG3031-RIPE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net > [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Adapt > Service Desk > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 18. Juni 2009 14:22 > An: s.sulava at unistream.com; Hostmaster; Natalya Petrova; > members-discuss at ripe.net > Betreff: RE: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 > > Ripe, > > Please remove us from this discussion thread. It is totally > irrelevant to us and is filling our mailbox with junk. > > You may have the following e-mail addresses on record, > > servicedesk at adaptplc.com > support at mnet.co.uk > hostmaster at adaptplc.com > hostmaster at mnet.co.uk > > please remove them all. > > > Regards, > Raj Bola > Service Desk Manager > > adapt > New Broad Street House, 35 New Broad Street, London EC2M 1NH > t: +44 (0)845 304 3046 > e: servicedesk at adaptplc.com > > www.adaptplc.com > > adapt, the independent managed services provider offering the > broadest choice of next generation technologies, and doing > right by our customers. > > adapt to success! We're ranked 15th in the 2008 Tech Track 100. > > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net > [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of ?????? ?????? > Sent: 18 June 2009 12:56 > To: Hostmaster; Natalya Petrova; members-discuss at ripe.net > Subject: RE: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 > > Hi All! > > There's no such document in RIPE database. > But I suppose Natalya is speaking about this: > > "[Apologies for duplicate emails] > > Dear Colleagues, > > The RIPE NCC is currently formulating the Draft Charging Scheme 2010. > The Draft Charging Scheme 2010 will take into account the > requirements of policy proposal 2007-01, "Direct Internet > Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC", and the > discussions that took place at the RIPE NCC General Meeting > in May 2009 regarding the 2010 Charging Scheme. > > The main features of the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 will be: > > - As in previous years, there will be five membership > categories - Extra Small, Small, Medium, Large and Extra Large > - The 2010 fee for each membership category will be the same > as for 2009 > - An algorithm will determine a score that decides what > category a member belongs to > - The score will be based on Provider Aggregatable (PA) IPv4 > and PA IPv6 allocated over time > - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per > assignment and the fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment > > The RIPE NCC will publish the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 at > the beginning of July 2009. The RIPE NCC Executive Board will > then monitor discussion and input from the RIPE NCC > membership before publishing a final version of the Draft > Charging Scheme 2010 by 9 September 2009. The RIPE NCC > membership will vote on this version at the RIPE NCC General > Meeting on 7 October 2009. > > The RIPE NCC notes that this proposal for the Draft Charging > Scheme 2010 is subject to change based on advice from the > RIPE NCC's lawyers on tax and legal issues. > > Membership discussion of the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 > proposal can take place at . > > Best regards, > > Axel Pawlik > Managing Director > RIPE NCC" > > Kind Regards > Sergey Sulava > > > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net > [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Hostmaster > Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 3:22 PM > To: Natalya Petrova; members-discuss at ripe.net > Subject: RE: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 > > Privyet Natalya > > Where is this document? I cant see it on RIPE? > > Mark > > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net > [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Natalya Petrova > Sent: 18 June 2009 11:29 > To: members-discuss at ripe.net > Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 > > RegID: kz.kazaktelecom > > Good morning, dear colleagues! > Thanks for your message. > I have read on a site the information be relative Charging Scheme > 2010. There are some questions for me. > I ask the help in the explanatory. > Questions: > 1) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment > and the > fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It mentions only PI? or > PA? or PI+PA? > 2) "fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It every month a > payment? or every quarter? or for a year? > 3) "fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It is payment for what > quantity of addresses (50EUR= ? IPs)? > 4) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment > and the > fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - Operates for all direct > assignments? or Only new direct assignments (included after 3 May, > 2009)? > I shall be very grateful for explanatories. > Thanks for the help and understanding. > Yours faithfully, > Natalya > > > *Disclaimer:* > This message (including any attachments) contains > confidential information > intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is > protected by law. If > you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this > message and are > hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this > message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly > prohibited. > > *???????????:* > ?????? ????????? (??????? ????? ????????) ????? ????????? > ???????????????? ?????????? ? ???? ??????????????? ????????????? > ??? ???????? ??? ???????????, ??????? ??? ??????????. ???? ?? ?? > ????????? ?????????? ?????????, ?? ????????? ?? ??????????, ??? ????? > ?????????, ???????????, ??????????????? ??? ????????????? ?????????? > ????? ????????? ?????? ?????????. > > > > This message has been scanned for viruses by Mail Control - > www.adaptplc.com > > From phil.barton at pncl.co.uk Thu Jun 18 16:37:12 2009 From: phil.barton at pncl.co.uk (Phil Barton) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:37:12 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <93809.1245328585@xciv.org> Message-ID: This is a very good point . We would have started as very small and to move to V^ is hard enough without a cost penalty. -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net]On Behalf Of Paul Civati Sent: 18 June 2009 13:36 To: members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 Some observations on the announcement.. If RIPE are going to put out an announcement that will end up creating a lot of discussion it would be helpful to provide more clarity rather than just create confusion. Aside, as a whole these changes to administration of PI space have been confusing and difficult to follow, IMO. 1. 50 EUR per what time period? 2. It's not clear if this is the LIR fee or end user fee? 3. If the charging score is only going to be based on PA space then some re-jigging of the numbers might be in order. For example, as a SMALL LIR with some PI and AS for customers we'll will still be classed as SMALL if we have both the smallest of both a single v4 assignment and a v6 assignment. My point here is that as soon as a new LIR takes some v6 PA space it's going to cost them more money to jump up from EXTRA SMALL to SMALL. What motivation here is there for new members to start looking at v6 straight away? It gives additional cost for doing v6 but there may not be a business case for a small provider. At least when PI and AS also contributed there was some direct attached cost relevant to the business associated with customer revenues on those PI/AS objects. Regards, -Paul- -- Paul Civati 0870 321 2855 Rack Sense Ltd - Managed Service Provider - www.racksense.com No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.76/2183 - Release Date: 06/18/09 05:53:00 From mark.barber at brightstar.ltd.uk Thu Jun 18 17:21:20 2009 From: mark.barber at brightstar.ltd.uk (Mark Barber) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:21:20 +0100 (BST) Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <227142482560EF458FF1F7E784E26AB8A45476@FLBVEXCH01.versatel.local> References: <227142482560EF458FF1F7E784E26AB8A45476@FLBVEXCH01.versatel.local> Message-ID: Marcus, Excellent point!! It would seem that Adapt haven't Adapted yet. LOL Mark -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Marcus.Gerdon Sent: 18 June 2009 15:37 To: Adapt Service Desk; members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: AW: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 Sorry, but maybe you shouldn't put daily-use business email addresses into mailing-lists? Someone has to have that configured at any point in time. Ever took a look into the LIR portal? Just unsubscribe there (under 'General')... Btw, replying to all including a mailing list like the one you're complaining about is better behaviour? Marcus ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Engineering IP Services Versatel West GmbH Unterste-Wilms-Strasse 29 D-44143 Dortmund Fon: +49-(0)231-399-4486 | Fax: +49-(0)231-399-4491 marcus.gerdon at versatel.de | www.versatel.de Sitz der Gesellschaft: Dortmund | Registergericht: Dortmund HRB 21738 Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Marc L?tzenkirchen, Dr. Hai Cheng, Dr. Max Padberg, Peter Schindler ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AS8881 / AS8638 / AS13270 | MG3031-RIPE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net > [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Adapt > Service Desk > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 18. Juni 2009 14:22 > An: s.sulava at unistream.com; Hostmaster; Natalya Petrova; > members-discuss at ripe.net > Betreff: RE: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 > > Ripe, > > Please remove us from this discussion thread. It is totally > irrelevant to us and is filling our mailbox with junk. > > You may have the following e-mail addresses on record, > > servicedesk at adaptplc.com > support at mnet.co.uk > hostmaster at adaptplc.com > hostmaster at mnet.co.uk > > please remove them all. > > > Regards, > Raj Bola > Service Desk Manager > > adapt > New Broad Street House, 35 New Broad Street, London EC2M 1NH > t: +44 (0)845 304 3046 > e: servicedesk at adaptplc.com > > www.adaptplc.com > > adapt, the independent managed services provider offering the > broadest choice of next generation technologies, and doing > right by our customers. > > adapt to success! We're ranked 15th in the 2008 Tech Track 100. > > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net > [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of ?????? ?????? > Sent: 18 June 2009 12:56 > To: Hostmaster; Natalya Petrova; members-discuss at ripe.net > Subject: RE: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 > > Hi All! > > There's no such document in RIPE database. > But I suppose Natalya is speaking about this: > > "[Apologies for duplicate emails] > > Dear Colleagues, > > The RIPE NCC is currently formulating the Draft Charging Scheme 2010. > The Draft Charging Scheme 2010 will take into account the > requirements of policy proposal 2007-01, "Direct Internet > Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC", and the > discussions that took place at the RIPE NCC General Meeting > in May 2009 regarding the 2010 Charging Scheme. > > The main features of the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 will be: > > - As in previous years, there will be five membership > categories - Extra Small, Small, Medium, Large and Extra Large > - The 2010 fee for each membership category will be the same > as for 2009 > - An algorithm will determine a score that decides what > category a member belongs to > - The score will be based on Provider Aggregatable (PA) IPv4 > and PA IPv6 allocated over time > - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per > assignment and the fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment > > The RIPE NCC will publish the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 at > the beginning of July 2009. The RIPE NCC Executive Board will > then monitor discussion and input from the RIPE NCC > membership before publishing a final version of the Draft > Charging Scheme 2010 by 9 September 2009. The RIPE NCC > membership will vote on this version at the RIPE NCC General > Meeting on 7 October 2009. > > The RIPE NCC notes that this proposal for the Draft Charging > Scheme 2010 is subject to change based on advice from the > RIPE NCC's lawyers on tax and legal issues. > > Membership discussion of the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 > proposal can take place at . > > Best regards, > > Axel Pawlik > Managing Director > RIPE NCC" > > Kind Regards > Sergey Sulava > > > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net > [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Hostmaster > Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 3:22 PM > To: Natalya Petrova; members-discuss at ripe.net > Subject: RE: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 > > Privyet Natalya > > Where is this document? I cant see it on RIPE? > > Mark > > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net > [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Natalya Petrova > Sent: 18 June 2009 11:29 > To: members-discuss at ripe.net > Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 > > RegID: kz.kazaktelecom > > Good morning, dear colleagues! > Thanks for your message. > I have read on a site the information be relative Charging Scheme > 2010. There are some questions for me. > I ask the help in the explanatory. > Questions: > 1) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment > and the > fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It mentions only PI? or > PA? or PI+PA? > 2) "fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It every month a > payment? or every quarter? or for a year? > 3) "fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It is payment for what > quantity of addresses (50EUR= ? IPs)? > 4) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment > and the > fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - Operates for all direct > assignments? or Only new direct assignments (included after 3 May, > 2009)? > I shall be very grateful for explanatories. > Thanks for the help and understanding. > Yours faithfully, > Natalya > > > *Disclaimer:* > This message (including any attachments) contains > confidential information > intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is > protected by law. If > you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this > message and are > hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this > message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly > prohibited. > > *???????????:* > ?????? ????????? (??????? ????? ????????) ????? ????????? > ???????????????? ?????????? ? ???? ??????????????? ????????????? > ??? ???????? ??? ???????????, ??????? ??? ??????????. ???? ?? ?? > ????????? ?????????? ?????????, ?? ????????? ?? ??????????, ??? ????? > ?????????, ???????????, ??????????????? ??? ????????????? ?????????? > ????? ????????? ?????? ?????????. > > > > This message has been scanned for viruses by Mail Control - > www.adaptplc.com > > From nafis at dwaalster.nl Thu Jun 18 18:44:54 2009 From: nafis at dwaalster.nl (Nafis Dwaalster) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 18:44:54 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <1C6BF4BEC510974BA67CA315A092A9A82470A9@gbnbshexch01.as24867.intra> References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <746D7D8FCA18FA4BA70391D24A710E36C0CBA1@MK-MSX3-VS3.uk.tiscali.intl> <1C6BF4BEC510974BA67CA315A092A9A82470A9@gbnbshexch01.as24867.intra> Message-ID: <8f75fc670906180944m6803f851vffd3a4684d95c70c@mail.gmail.com> Ripe, Please remove nafis at dwaalster.nl as well from the list thank you Nafis 2009/6/18 Adapt Service Desk > Ripe, > > Please remove us from this discussion thread. It is totally irrelevant to > us and is filling our mailbox with junk. > > You may have the following e-mail addresses on record, > > servicedesk at adaptplc.com > support at mnet.co.uk > hostmaster at adaptplc.com > hostmaster at mnet.co.uk > > please remove them all. > > > Regards, > Raj Bola > Service Desk Manager > > adapt > New Broad Street House, 35 New Broad Street, London EC2M 1NH > t: +44 (0)845 304 3046 > e: servicedesk at adaptplc.com > > www.adaptplc.com > > adapt, the independent managed services provider offering the broadest > choice of next generation technologies, and doing right by our customers. > > adapt to success! We're ranked 15th in the 2008 Tech Track 100. > > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto: > members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of ?????? ?????? > Sent: 18 June 2009 12:56 > To: Hostmaster; Natalya Petrova; members-discuss at ripe.net > Subject: RE: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 > > Hi All! > > There's no such document in RIPE database. > But I suppose Natalya is speaking about this: > > "[Apologies for duplicate emails] > > Dear Colleagues, > > The RIPE NCC is currently formulating the Draft Charging Scheme 2010. > The Draft Charging Scheme 2010 will take into account the requirements of > policy proposal 2007-01, "Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users > from the RIPE NCC", and the discussions that took place at the RIPE NCC > General Meeting in May 2009 regarding the 2010 Charging Scheme. > > The main features of the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 will be: > > - As in previous years, there will be five membership categories - Extra > Small, Small, Medium, Large and Extra Large > - The 2010 fee for each membership category will be the same as for 2009 > - An algorithm will determine a score that decides what category a member > belongs to > - The score will be based on Provider Aggregatable (PA) IPv4 and PA IPv6 > allocated over time > - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment and the > fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment > > The RIPE NCC will publish the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 at the beginning > of July 2009. The RIPE NCC Executive Board will then monitor discussion and > input from the RIPE NCC membership before publishing a final version of the > Draft Charging Scheme 2010 by 9 September 2009. The RIPE NCC membership will > vote on this version at the RIPE NCC General Meeting on 7 October 2009. > > The RIPE NCC notes that this proposal for the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 is > subject to change based on advice from the RIPE NCC's lawyers on tax and > legal issues. > > Membership discussion of the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 proposal can take > place at . > > Best regards, > > Axel Pawlik > Managing Director > RIPE NCC" > > Kind Regards > Sergey Sulava > > > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto: > members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Hostmaster > Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 3:22 PM > To: Natalya Petrova; members-discuss at ripe.net > Subject: RE: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 > > Privyet Natalya > > Where is this document? I cant see it on RIPE? > > Mark > > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net > [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Natalya Petrova > Sent: 18 June 2009 11:29 > To: members-discuss at ripe.net > Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 > > RegID: kz.kazaktelecom > > Good morning, dear colleagues! > Thanks for your message. > I have read on a site the information be relative Charging Scheme > 2010. There are some questions for me. > I ask the help in the explanatory. > Questions: > 1) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment > and the > fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It mentions only PI? or > PA? or PI+PA? > 2) "fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It every month a > payment? or every quarter? or for a year? > 3) "fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It is payment for what > quantity of addresses (50EUR= ? IPs)? > 4) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment > and the > fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - Operates for all direct > assignments? or Only new direct assignments (included after 3 May, > 2009)? > I shall be very grateful for explanatories. > Thanks for the help and understanding. > Yours faithfully, > Natalya > > > *Disclaimer:* > This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information > intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If > you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are > hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this > message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. > > *???????????:* > ?????? ????????? (??????? ????? ????????) ????? ????????? > ???????????????? ?????????? ? ???? ??????????????? ????????????? > ??? ???????? ??? ???????????, ??????? ??? ??????????. ???? ?? ?? > ????????? ?????????? ?????????, ?? ????????? ?? ??????????, ??? ????? > ?????????, ???????????, ??????????????? ??? ????????????? ?????????? > ????? ????????? ?????? ?????????. > > > > This message has been scanned for viruses by Mail Control - > www.adaptplc.com > > -- Met vriendelijke groet / Kind regards, Nafis Dwaalster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alopez at adif.es Thu Jun 18 19:31:55 2009 From: alopez at adif.es (alopez at adif.es) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 19:31:55 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 Message-ID: Please remove alopez at adif.es From the list. ----- Mensaje original ----- De: Nafis Dwaalster [nafis at dwaalster.nl] Enviado: 18/06/2009 18:44 ZE2 Para: members-discuss at ripe.net Asunto: Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 Ripe, Please remove nafis at dwaalster.nl as well from the list thank you Nafis 2009/6/18 Adapt Service Desk > Ripe, > > Please remove us from this discussion thread. It is totally irrelevant to > us and is filling our mailbox with junk. > > You may have the following e-mail addresses on record, > > servicedesk at adaptplc.com > support at mnet.co.uk > hostmaster at adaptplc.com > hostmaster at mnet.co.uk > > please remove them all. > > > Regards, > Raj Bola > Service Desk Manager > > adapt > New Broad Street House, 35 New Broad Street, London EC2M 1NH > t: +44 (0)845 304 3046 > e: servicedesk at adaptplc.com > > www.adaptplc.com > > adapt, the independent managed services provider offering the broadest > choice of next generation technologies, and doing right by our customers. > > adapt to success! We're ranked 15th in the 2008 Tech Track 100. > > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto: > members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of ?????? ?????? > Sent: 18 June 2009 12:56 > To: Hostmaster; Natalya Petrova; members-discuss at ripe.net > Subject: RE: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 > > Hi All! > > There's no such document in RIPE database. > But I suppose Natalya is speaking about this: > > "[Apologies for duplicate emails] > > Dear Colleagues, > > The RIPE NCC is currently formulating the Draft Charging Scheme 2010. > The Draft Charging Scheme 2010 will take into account the requirements of > policy proposal 2007-01, "Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users > from the RIPE NCC", and the discussions that took place at the RIPE NCC > General Meeting in May 2009 regarding the 2010 Charging Scheme. > > The main features of the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 will be: > > - As in previous years, there will be five membership categories - Extra > Small, Small, Medium, Large and Extra Large > - The 2010 fee for each membership category will be the same as for 2009 > - An algorithm will determine a score that decides what category a member > belongs to > - The score will be based on Provider Aggregatable (PA) IPv4 and PA IPv6 > allocated over time > - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment and the > fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment > > The RIPE NCC will publish the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 at the beginning > of July 2009. The RIPE NCC Executive Board will then monitor discussion and > input from the RIPE NCC membership before publishing a final version of the > Draft Charging Scheme 2010 by 9 September 2009. The RIPE NCC membership will > vote on this version at the RIPE NCC General Meeting on 7 October 2009. > > The RIPE NCC notes that this proposal for the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 is > subject to change based on advice from the RIPE NCC's lawyers on tax and > legal issues. > > Membership discussion of the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 proposal can take > place at . > > Best regards, > > Axel Pawlik > Managing Director > RIPE NCC" > > Kind Regards > Sergey Sulava > > > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto: > members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Hostmaster > Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 3:22 PM > To: Natalya Petrova; members-discuss at ripe.net > Subject: RE: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 > > Privyet Natalya > > Where is this document? I cant see it on RIPE? > > Mark > > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net > [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Natalya Petrova > Sent: 18 June 2009 11:29 > To: members-discuss at ripe.net > Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 > > RegID: kz.kazaktelecom > > Good morning, dear colleagues! > Thanks for your message. > I have read on a site the information be relative Charging Scheme > 2010. There are some questions for me. > I ask the help in the explanatory. > Questions: > 1) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment > and the > fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It mentions only PI? or > PA? or PI+PA? > 2) "fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It every month a > payment? or every quarter? or for a year? > 3) "fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It is payment for what > quantity of addresses (50EUR= ? IPs)? > 4) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment > and the > fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - Operates for all direct > assignments? or Only new direct assignments (included after 3 May, > 2009)? > I shall be very grateful for explanatories. > Thanks for the help and understanding. > Yours faithfully, > Natalya > > > *Disclaimer:* > This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information > intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If > you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are > hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this > message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. > > *???????????:* > ?????? ????????? (??????? ????? ????????) ????? ????????? > ???????????????? ?????????? ? ???? ??????????????? ????????????? > ??? ???????? ??? ???????????, ??????? ??? ??????????. ???? ?? ?? > ????????? ?????????? ?????????, ?? ????????? ?? ??????????, ??? ????? > ?????????, ???????????, ??????????????? ??? ????????????? ?????????? > ????? ????????? ?????? ?????????. > > > > This message has been scanned for viruses by Mail Control - > www.adaptplc.com > > -- Met vriendelijke groet / Kind regards, Nafis Dwaalster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hank at efes.iucc.ac.il Thu Jun 18 19:59:55 2009 From: hank at efes.iucc.ac.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 20:59:55 +0300 (IDT) Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Andrea Cima wrote: >> 4) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment and the >> fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - Operates for all direct >> assignments? or Only new direct assignments (included after 3 May, >> 2009)? > > All Assignments made since 1992 will be included. I have stated it before and I'll state it again - changing the billing rules retroactively is wrong. Maybe even EU legally wrong. Allocations made in the 1990s should not be billed. By all means recover unannounced allocations by whatever means necessary, but charging LIRs for allocations made in 1995 is wrong. Regards, Hank Nussbacher From gpashollari at it-tel.com.al Thu Jun 18 22:33:32 2009 From: gpashollari at it-tel.com.al (Gerhard Pashollari) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:33:32 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 References: Message-ID: Please remove gpashollari at it-tel.com.al From the list ----- Original Message ----- From: alopez at adif.es To: Nafis Dwaalster ; members-discuss Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 7:31 PM Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 Please remove alopez at adif.es From the list. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----- Mensaje original ----- De: Nafis Dwaalster [nafis at dwaalster.nl] Enviado: 18/06/2009 18:44 ZE2 Para: members-discuss at ripe.net Asunto: Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 Ripe, Please remove nafis at dwaalster.nl as well from the list thank you Nafis 2009/6/18 Adapt Service Desk Ripe, Please remove us from this discussion thread. It is totally irrelevant to us and is filling our mailbox with junk. You may have the following e-mail addresses on record, servicedesk at adaptplc.com support at mnet.co.uk hostmaster at adaptplc.com hostmaster at mnet.co.uk please remove them all. Regards, Raj Bola Service Desk Manager adapt New Broad Street House, 35 New Broad Street, London EC2M 1NH t: +44 (0)845 304 3046 e: servicedesk at adaptplc.com www.adaptplc.com adapt, the independent managed services provider offering the broadest choice of next generation technologies, and doing right by our customers. adapt to success! We're ranked 15th in the 2008 Tech Track 100. -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of ?????? ?????? Sent: 18 June 2009 12:56 To: Hostmaster; Natalya Petrova; members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: RE: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 Hi All! There's no such document in RIPE database. But I suppose Natalya is speaking about this: "[Apologies for duplicate emails] Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC is currently formulating the Draft Charging Scheme 2010. The Draft Charging Scheme 2010 will take into account the requirements of policy proposal 2007-01, "Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC", and the discussions that took place at the RIPE NCC General Meeting in May 2009 regarding the 2010 Charging Scheme. The main features of the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 will be: - As in previous years, there will be five membership categories - Extra Small, Small, Medium, Large and Extra Large - The 2010 fee for each membership category will be the same as for 2009 - An algorithm will determine a score that decides what category a member belongs to - The score will be based on Provider Aggregatable (PA) IPv4 and PA IPv6 allocated over time - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment and the fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment The RIPE NCC will publish the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 at the beginning of July 2009. The RIPE NCC Executive Board will then monitor discussion and input from the RIPE NCC membership before publishing a final version of the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 by 9 September 2009. The RIPE NCC membership will vote on this version at the RIPE NCC General Meeting on 7 October 2009. The RIPE NCC notes that this proposal for the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 is subject to change based on advice from the RIPE NCC's lawyers on tax and legal issues. Membership discussion of the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 proposal can take place at . Best regards, Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC" Kind Regards Sergey Sulava -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Hostmaster Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 3:22 PM To: Natalya Petrova; members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: RE: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 Privyet Natalya Where is this document? I cant see it on RIPE? Mark -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Natalya Petrova Sent: 18 June 2009 11:29 To: members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 RegID: kz.kazaktelecom Good morning, dear colleagues! Thanks for your message. I have read on a site the information be relative Charging Scheme 2010. There are some questions for me. I ask the help in the explanatory. Questions: 1) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment and the fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It mentions only PI? or PA? or PI+PA? 2) "fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It every month a payment? or every quarter? or for a year? 3) "fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It is payment for what quantity of addresses (50EUR= ? IPs)? 4) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment and the fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - Operates for all direct assignments? or Only new direct assignments (included after 3 May, 2009)? I shall be very grateful for explanatories. Thanks for the help and understanding. Yours faithfully, Natalya *Disclaimer:* This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. *???????????:* ?????? ????????? (??????? ????? ????????) ????? ????????? ???????????????? ?????????? ? ???? ??????????????? ????????????? ??? ???????? ??? ???????????, ??????? ??? ??????????. ???? ?? ?? ????????? ?????????? ?????????, ?? ????????? ?? ??????????, ??? ????? ?????????, ???????????, ??????????????? ??? ????????????? ?????????? ????? ????????? ?????? ?????????. This message has been scanned for viruses by Mail Control - www.adaptplc.com -- Met vriendelijke groet / Kind regards, Nafis Dwaalster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From martin at airwire.ie Thu Jun 18 22:48:02 2009 From: martin at airwire.ie (Martin List-Petersen) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 21:48:02 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> Message-ID: <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> Hank Nussbacher wrote: > On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Andrea Cima wrote: > >>> 4) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment >>> and the >>> fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - Operates for all direct >>> assignments? or Only new direct assignments (included after 3 May, >>> 2009)? >> >> All Assignments made since 1992 will be included. > > I have stated it before and I'll state it again - changing the billing > rules retroactively is wrong. Maybe even EU legally wrong. Allocations > made in the 1990s should not be billed. By all means recover > unannounced allocations by whatever means necessary, but charging LIRs > for allocations made in 1995 is wrong. > It's not charging retroactively. Retroactively charging for the PI space would be sending invoices out for every year from '92 to to date, which is not happening. What is happening that the price has changed from 0 to 50 EUR/year (well, the draft price). It's like an update of pricing or the terms and conditions, so you can consider to either give your allocation back and won't be charged in the future or you'll pay the price. This has nothing to do with retroactively charging. It's just a change of the fee from now and on. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968 From martin at airwire.ie Thu Jun 18 23:50:40 2009 From: martin at airwire.ie (Martin List-Petersen) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:50:40 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> Message-ID: <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: >> It's not charging retroactively. Retroactively charging for the PI space >> would be sending invoices out for every year from '92 to to date, which >> is not happening. >> >> What is happening that the price has changed from 0 to 50 EUR/year >> (well, the draft price). > > mind you that PI registrants never agreed to any contract that allows > "price changes" and that "choosing" to have their allocations removeed > instead of either paying a LIR, with whom they would usually have an > agreement that only covers a one time payment, or several thousand euros > to ripe directly, OR GIVE UP THEIR ALLOCATIONS and therefore cause > significant damage to their business :P is pure blackmail. > > you cant first tell someone "sure we will register ip sppace for your > company, please pay 2500 euros which covers our work and the first 2 years > in which potentially our ripe-score could be affected by this registration > (PI and AS numbers only count for 2 years in the score), and then go > "oops, now you have to either pay a few 1000 to ripe OR a few hundred to > us (most customers have as numberrs AND PI space)"... > Not necessarily. It's a change of the market and certainly not good practice. It's like an ISP adjusting the price upwards on a broadband package. The problem is, there's no competition to move to or well there is .. because it depends what the LIR charges the end-user or if the LIR just takes the 50 EUR and basically writes it off. The product that the customer buys of the LIR should be giving more than 50 EUR/year revenue, if not, you might not be in business for long. Honestly this discussion is pretty much about chump change in the bigger scheme. The ones that get hit are the ones that abused the PI scheme to not pay for PA or RIPE membership. For everyone else it's pretty much something that falls under the table. It's 4.17EUR/month per allocation. If you don't make that kindda money of your PI customers on top of your cost, your business isn't viable. And yeah .. you can just charge it on to them or eat the cost. Latter wouldn't make a difference to the customer as long as they are with you. And before you ask, We've got a few PI allocations ourselves and I couldn't care less about 50 EUR each a year. If that is, what it takes, to get people to give ressources back, then that's that. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968 From sven at cyberbunker.com Thu Jun 18 23:56:50 2009 From: sven at cyberbunker.com (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 21:56:50 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> Message-ID: > The product that the customer buys of the LIR should be giving more than > 50 EUR/year revenue, if not, you might not be in business for long. LIRS are NOT isps! the "product" bought from a LIR is the registration of IP space, usually at at one-time single payment that covered the increase in the billing score for 2 years if applicable and the administrative work. there are no "services" or "products" a LIR normally sells. and there also is no question of "circumventing ripe membership fees" as those only apply to LIRs (that is, people willing to register IP space for others). the fact that -most- LIRs are part of an ISP or even some ASPs that fell for ripes jedi-mind-trick and became a LIR themselves, doesnt mean they HAVE to be part of an ISP. -- Sven Olaf Kamphuis CB3ROB DataServices Phone: +31/87-8747479 Skype: CB3ROB MSN: sven at cb3rob.net C.V.: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cb3rob Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Martin List-Petersen wrote: > Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: > >> It's not charging retroactively. Retroactively charging for the PI space > >> would be sending invoices out for every year from '92 to to date, which > >> is not happening. > >> > >> What is happening that the price has changed from 0 to 50 EUR/year > >> (well, the draft price). > > > > mind you that PI registrants never agreed to any contract that allows > > "price changes" and that "choosing" to have their allocations removeed > > instead of either paying a LIR, with whom they would usually have an > > agreement that only covers a one time payment, or several thousand euros > > to ripe directly, OR GIVE UP THEIR ALLOCATIONS and therefore cause > > significant damage to their business :P is pure blackmail. > > > > you cant first tell someone "sure we will register ip sppace for your > > company, please pay 2500 euros which covers our work and the first 2 years > > in which potentially our ripe-score could be affected by this registration > > (PI and AS numbers only count for 2 years in the score), and then go > > "oops, now you have to either pay a few 1000 to ripe OR a few hundred to > > us (most customers have as numberrs AND PI space)"... > > > > Not necessarily. It's a change of the market and certainly not good > practice. It's like an ISP adjusting the price upwards on a broadband > package. The problem is, there's no competition to move to or well there > is .. because it depends what the LIR charges the end-user or if the LIR > just takes the 50 EUR and basically writes it off. > > The product that the customer buys of the LIR should be giving more than > 50 EUR/year revenue, if not, you might not be in business for long. > > Honestly this discussion is pretty much about chump change in the bigger > scheme. > > The ones that get hit are the ones that abused the PI scheme to not pay > for PA or RIPE membership. For everyone else it's pretty much something > that falls under the table. It's 4.17EUR/month per allocation. If you > don't make that kindda money of your PI customers on top of your cost, > your business isn't viable. And yeah .. you can just charge it on to > them or eat the cost. Latter wouldn't make a difference to the customer > as long as they are with you. > > And before you ask, We've got a few PI allocations ourselves and I > couldn't care less about 50 EUR each a year. If that is, what it takes, > to get people to give ressources back, then that's that. > > Kind regards, > Martin List-Petersen > -- > Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair > http://www.airwire.ie > Phone: 091-865 968 > > X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "ripe.net" > From martin at airwire.ie Fri Jun 19 00:03:22 2009 From: martin at airwire.ie (Martin List-Petersen) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 23:03:22 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> Message-ID: <4A3AB9AA.4000904@airwire.ie> Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: >> The product that the customer buys of the LIR should be giving more than >> 50 EUR/year revenue, if not, you might not be in business for long. > > LIRS are NOT isps! Not every LIR is an ISP, a lot of them are. If you assign PI to somebody else, you have a provider/enduser relationship. That makes you a service provider of some sort. Be it internet, content or hosting. > the "product" bought from a LIR is the registration of IP space, usually > at at one-time single payment that covered the increase in the billing > score for 2 years if applicable and the administrative work. > > there are no "services" or "products" a LIR normally sells. You have to have a contractual relationship with the enduser that has PI now. You know that, right ? > and there also is no question of "circumventing ripe membership fees" > as those only apply to LIRs (that is, people willing to register IP space > for others). Or entities, that don't want to deal with a LIR. > the fact that -most- LIRs are part of an ISP or even some ASPs that fell > for ripes jedi-mind-trick and became a LIR themselves, doesnt mean they > HAVE to be part of an ISP. There are very few LIRs, that aren't providing some commercial product. And even then 50 EUR/year is compared to the money they probably pay for connectivity: near to nothing. Anyhow, this whole matter was also already raised at the GM. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968 From sven at cyberbunker.com Thu Jun 18 23:50:40 2009 From: sven at cyberbunker.com (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 21:50:40 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 (fwd) Message-ID: > It's not charging retroactively. Retroactively charging for the PI space > would be sending invoices out for every year from '92 to to date, which > is not happening. > > What is happening that the price has changed from 0 to 50 EUR/year > (well, the draft price). mind you that PI registrants never agreed to any contract that allows "price changes" and that "choosing" to have their allocations removeed instead of either paying a LIR, with whom they would usually have an agreement that only covers a one time payment, or several thousand euros to ripe directly, OR GIVE UP THEIR ALLOCATIONS and therefore cause significant damage to their business :P is pure blackmail. you cant first tell someone "sure we will register ip sppace for your company, please pay 2500 euros which covers our work and the first 2 years in which potentially our ripe-score could be affected by this registration (PI and AS numbers only count for 2 years in the score), and then go "oops, now you have to either pay a few 1000 to ripe OR a few hundred to us (most customers have as numberrs AND PI space)"... thats blackmail. also ARIN doesnt charge their "new" DirectAssignment fee to "old" direct assignments, and ripe never tried to bill PRE-RIR registrations either. there probably is a very good reason for that... implementing a new pricelist? fine.. but only for new customers. mind you: direct assignments can be revoked if their use is no longer in agreement with the original provided reasons, so there is no problem in checking all of them if they are actually used for the original purpose, there is a problem in forcing people to pay and threatten to remove their ip assignments if they dont, if there are no agreements covering that. -- Sven Olaf Kamphuis CB3ROB DataServices Phone: +31/87-8747479 Skype: CB3ROB MSN: sven at cb3rob.net C.V.: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cb3rob Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Martin List-Petersen wrote: > Hank Nussbacher wrote: > > On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Andrea Cima wrote: > > > >>> 4) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment > >>> and the > >>> fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - Operates for all direct > >>> assignments? or Only new direct assignments (included after 3 May, > >>> 2009)? > >> > >> All Assignments made since 1992 will be included. > > > > I have stated it before and I'll state it again - changing the billing > > rules retroactively is wrong. Maybe even EU legally wrong. Allocations > > made in the 1990s should not be billed. By all means recover > > unannounced allocations by whatever means necessary, but charging LIRs > > for allocations made in 1995 is wrong. > > > > It's not charging retroactively. Retroactively charging for the PI space > would be sending invoices out for every year from '92 to to date, which > is not happening. > > What is happening that the price has changed from 0 to 50 EUR/year > (well, the draft price). > > It's like an update of pricing or the terms and conditions, so you can > consider to either give your allocation back and won't be charged in the > future or you'll pay the price. > > This has nothing to do with retroactively charging. It's just a change > of the fee from now and on. > > Kind regards, > Martin List-Petersen > -- > Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair > http://www.airwire.ie > Phone: 091-865 968 > > > X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "ripe.net" > From sven at cyberbunker.com Fri Jun 19 00:10:58 2009 From: sven at cyberbunker.com (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:10:58 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> Message-ID: as for your "not making 50 euros a year" remark: its potentially possible for a natural person to obtain pi space and an AS number for his home network (provided he has that many equipment to cover the minimum announcable space of /24 ofcourse), we as a LIR would not object to registering such, neither does RIPE. profitability does not come into question. LIRs distribute IP space according to -need- not to -profitability- also, customers of a LIR usually have agreed to pay the -registration- fees of the LIR, in some cases they may have paid nothing at all (associations, home users, etc) in case the LIR was like "oh we can well cover this without going up a catagory in the scoring algorithm". also, PI allocations on IPv4 are usually pretty small anyway and not worth "recovery" as opposed to some old PRE-RIR blocks which are also assigned to ripe, held by some larger organisations, which are usually not even routed on the internet or severely firewalled. point remains: there is -no- legal basis on which to bill existing PI customers or on wich to force them to engage in a new contract, besides the already fulfilled contract to "register ip space" for them, its quite close to blackmail if the "threat" includes to remove their allocations if they dont enter into a new recurring-payment contract (even if the lir would pay for it and not charge the customer, the customer still has to enter into a new contract, with which they potentially could have issues. -- Sven Olaf Kamphuis CB3ROB DataServices Phone: +31/87-8747479 Skype: CB3ROB MSN: sven at cb3rob.net C.V.: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cb3rob Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: > > The product that the customer buys of the LIR should be giving more than > > 50 EUR/year revenue, if not, you might not be in business for long. > > LIRS are NOT isps! > > the "product" bought from a LIR is the registration of IP space, usually > at at one-time single payment that covered the increase in the billing > score for 2 years if applicable and the administrative work. > > there are no "services" or "products" a LIR normally sells. > > and there also is no question of "circumventing ripe membership fees" > as those only apply to LIRs (that is, people willing to register IP space > for others). > > the fact that -most- LIRs are part of an ISP or even some ASPs that fell > for ripes jedi-mind-trick and became a LIR themselves, doesnt mean they > HAVE to be part of an ISP. > > -- > > Sven Olaf Kamphuis > CB3ROB DataServices > > Phone: +31/87-8747479 > Skype: CB3ROB > MSN: sven at cb3rob.net > C.V.: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cb3rob > > Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this > email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged > and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or > individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or > copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. > > On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Martin List-Petersen wrote: > > > Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: > > >> It's not charging retroactively. Retroactively charging for the PI space > > >> would be sending invoices out for every year from '92 to to date, which > > >> is not happening. > > >> > > >> What is happening that the price has changed from 0 to 50 EUR/year > > >> (well, the draft price). > > > > > > mind you that PI registrants never agreed to any contract that allows > > > "price changes" and that "choosing" to have their allocations removeed > > > instead of either paying a LIR, with whom they would usually have an > > > agreement that only covers a one time payment, or several thousand euros > > > to ripe directly, OR GIVE UP THEIR ALLOCATIONS and therefore cause > > > significant damage to their business :P is pure blackmail. > > > > > > you cant first tell someone "sure we will register ip sppace for your > > > company, please pay 2500 euros which covers our work and the first 2 years > > > in which potentially our ripe-score could be affected by this registration > > > (PI and AS numbers only count for 2 years in the score), and then go > > > "oops, now you have to either pay a few 1000 to ripe OR a few hundred to > > > us (most customers have as numberrs AND PI space)"... > > > > > > > Not necessarily. It's a change of the market and certainly not good > > practice. It's like an ISP adjusting the price upwards on a broadband > > package. The problem is, there's no competition to move to or well there > > is .. because it depends what the LIR charges the end-user or if the LIR > > just takes the 50 EUR and basically writes it off. > > > > The product that the customer buys of the LIR should be giving more than > > 50 EUR/year revenue, if not, you might not be in business for long. > > > > Honestly this discussion is pretty much about chump change in the bigger > > scheme. > > > > The ones that get hit are the ones that abused the PI scheme to not pay > > for PA or RIPE membership. For everyone else it's pretty much something > > that falls under the table. It's 4.17EUR/month per allocation. If you > > don't make that kindda money of your PI customers on top of your cost, > > your business isn't viable. And yeah .. you can just charge it on to > > them or eat the cost. Latter wouldn't make a difference to the customer > > as long as they are with you. > > > > And before you ask, We've got a few PI allocations ourselves and I > > couldn't care less about 50 EUR each a year. If that is, what it takes, > > to get people to give ressources back, then that's that. > > > > Kind regards, > > Martin List-Petersen > > -- > > Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair > > http://www.airwire.ie > > Phone: 091-865 968 > > > > X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "ripe.net" > > > > > X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "linkedin.com" > X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "ripe.net" > From sven at cyberbunker.com Fri Jun 19 00:14:02 2009 From: sven at cyberbunker.com (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:14:02 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> Message-ID: > Not every LIR is an ISP, a lot of them are. If you assign PI to somebody > else, you have a provider/enduser relationship. That makes you a service > provider of some sort. Be it internet, content or hosting. no, you dont. the customer usually asks to just register ip space and an AS number which he then announces himself to transits of -his- choice. if the customer happens to be in lets say russia it doesnt make much sense to have their network announced in amsterdam or germany now does it.. thats the whole point of PI space in the first place, its PROVIDER INDEPENDANT, from day 1. -- Sven Olaf Kamphuis CB3ROB DataServices Phone: +31/87-8747479 Skype: CB3ROB MSN: sven at cb3rob.net C.V.: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cb3rob Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Martin List-Petersen wrote: > Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: > >> The product that the customer buys of the LIR should be giving more than > >> 50 EUR/year revenue, if not, you might not be in business for long. > > > > LIRS are NOT isps! > > > Not every LIR is an ISP, a lot of them are. If you assign PI to somebody > else, you have a provider/enduser relationship. That makes you a service > provider of some sort. Be it internet, content or hosting. > > > > the "product" bought from a LIR is the registration of IP space, usually > > at at one-time single payment that covered the increase in the billing > > score for 2 years if applicable and the administrative work. > > > > there are no "services" or "products" a LIR normally sells. > > > You have to have a contractual relationship with the enduser that has PI > now. You know that, right ? > > > > and there also is no question of "circumventing ripe membership fees" > > as those only apply to LIRs (that is, people willing to register IP space > > for others). > > Or entities, that don't want to deal with a LIR. > > > > the fact that -most- LIRs are part of an ISP or even some ASPs that fell > > for ripes jedi-mind-trick and became a LIR themselves, doesnt mean they > > HAVE to be part of an ISP. > > There are very few LIRs, that aren't providing some commercial product. > And even then 50 EUR/year is compared to the money they probably pay for > connectivity: > near to nothing. > > Anyhow, this whole matter was also already raised at the GM. > > Kind regards, > Martin List-Petersen > -- > Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair > http://www.airwire.ie > Phone: 091-865 968 > > > > X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "ripe.net" > From martin at airwire.ie Fri Jun 19 00:15:18 2009 From: martin at airwire.ie (Martin List-Petersen) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 23:15:18 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> Message-ID: <4A3ABC76.8090802@airwire.ie> Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: > as for your "not making 50 euros a year" remark: > > its potentially possible for a natural person to obtain pi space and an AS > number for his home network (provided he has that many equipment to > cover the minimum announcable space of /24 ofcourse), we as a LIR would > not object to registering such, neither does RIPE. > > profitability does not come into question. > > LIRs distribute IP space according to -need- not to -profitability- > > also, customers of a LIR usually have agreed to pay the -registration- > fees of the LIR, in some cases they may have paid nothing at all > > (associations, home users, etc) in case the LIR was like "oh we can well > cover this without going up a catagory in the scoring algorithm". > > also, PI allocations on IPv4 are usually pretty small anyway and not worth > "recovery" as opposed to some old PRE-RIR blocks which are also assigned > to ripe, held by some larger organisations, which are usually not even > routed on the internet or severely firewalled. > > point remains: there is -no- legal basis on which to bill existing PI > customers or on wich to force them to engage in a new contract, besides the already > fulfilled contract to "register ip space" for them, its quite close to > blackmail if the "threat" includes to remove their allocations if they > dont enter into a new recurring-payment contract (even if the lir would > pay for it and not charge the customer, the customer still has to enter > into a new contract, with which they potentially could have issues. Please read http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-452.html . This is a result of work done by RIPE members, not the RIPE NCC. Every LIR is a RIPE member. The RIPE NCC is not a for profit organisation and it has to report to the RIPE membership. If the revenue from the PI charges generate so much income, that they make a huge profit, that'll mean that the LIR charges go down, it's as simple as that. Charging for PI is what has been proposed to force unused ressources to be returned, this is a draft, if you don't like it, you might want to vote against this or maybe participate in a workgroup to come up with a better proposal. At the end of the day, the membership has to approve or disapprove this. That is at least my understanding. So you might want to show up, when it gets voted for or against. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968 From alex at ilca.ru Fri Jun 19 00:22:27 2009 From: alex at ilca.ru (Alexandr Tretyakov) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 02:22:27 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> Message-ID: <1867590366.20090619022227@ilca.ru> Hi, Sven. > as for your "not making 50 euros a year" remark: > its potentially possible for a natural person to obtain pi space and an AS > number for his home network (provided he has that many equipment to > cover the minimum announcable space of /24 ofcourse), we as a LIR would > not object to registering such, neither does RIPE. If "natural person" want to - even pays. Any bonuses worth the money. Sometimes a lot of money. And I do not understand why someone should receive ASN & PI free when I pay for the ASN and PA money. -- Alexandr Tretyakov ILCA ISP http://www.ilca.ru Tel +7 812 490-6014 Mob +7 812 928-8014 From alex at ilca.ru Fri Jun 19 00:16:08 2009 From: alex at ilca.ru (Alexandr Tretyakov) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 02:16:08 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> Message-ID: <1259719102.20090619021608@ilca.ru> Hi, Sven. > the "product" bought from a LIR is the registration of IP space, usually > at at one-time single payment that covered the increase in the billing > score for 2 years if applicable and the administrative work. I am one - do not understand why the "one-time payment? Make a new contract, to collect 50 euro and all. Who does not want to pay - let them pay in RIPE. If a client wants to be / 24 and the ASN, but can not pay 10 euros a month - it is bad. Very bad customer. -- Alexandr Tretyakov ILCA ISP http://www.ilca.ru Tel +7 812 490-6014 Mob +7 812 928-8014 From sven at cyberbunker.com Fri Jun 19 00:23:43 2009 From: sven at cyberbunker.com (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:23:43 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> Message-ID: > Anyhow, this whole matter was also already raised at the GM. unfortunately, in the agenda for that specific GM it was presented as if there would be the option for 3rd parties to register PI space directly with RIPE, like it used to be the case with internic in the past. Despite RIPEs newly announced rediculous prices, which come very close to running an actual LIR, compared to ARIN (arin only charges 100 dollars for direct assigned ip space for example) I have no issues with that construct and therefore didnt bother to go and vote against it. it was not mentioned that this would include EXISTING PI space and AS numbers. and yeah sure, we have a contract with our customers, verbal agreements are legally binding, especially if followed by a payment :P (having a payment relation by itself is already legally binding) unfortunately for RIPE those agreements only cover the effort to REGISTER the PI space in the first place, no renewal fees were ever mentioned. -this cannot be done, its blackmail!- now the funny thing is that our customers are already caving in and are willing to sign new contracts BUT they should not. caving in to blackmail is not a very good idea. -- Sven Olaf Kamphuis CB3ROB DataServices Phone: +31/87-8747479 Skype: CB3ROB MSN: sven at cb3rob.net C.V.: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cb3rob Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Martin List-Petersen wrote: > Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: > >> The product that the customer buys of the LIR should be giving more than > >> 50 EUR/year revenue, if not, you might not be in business for long. > > > > LIRS are NOT isps! > > > Not every LIR is an ISP, a lot of them are. If you assign PI to somebody > else, you have a provider/enduser relationship. That makes you a service > provider of some sort. Be it internet, content or hosting. > > > > the "product" bought from a LIR is the registration of IP space, usually > > at at one-time single payment that covered the increase in the billing > > score for 2 years if applicable and the administrative work. > > > > there are no "services" or "products" a LIR normally sells. > > > You have to have a contractual relationship with the enduser that has PI > now. You know that, right ? > > > > and there also is no question of "circumventing ripe membership fees" > > as those only apply to LIRs (that is, people willing to register IP space > > for others). > > Or entities, that don't want to deal with a LIR. > > > > the fact that -most- LIRs are part of an ISP or even some ASPs that fell > > for ripes jedi-mind-trick and became a LIR themselves, doesnt mean they > > HAVE to be part of an ISP. > > There are very few LIRs, that aren't providing some commercial product. > And even then 50 EUR/year is compared to the money they probably pay for > connectivity: > near to nothing. > > Anyhow, this whole matter was also already raised at the GM. > > Kind regards, > Martin List-Petersen > -- > Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair > http://www.airwire.ie > Phone: 091-865 968 > > > > X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "ripe.net" > From sven at cyberbunker.com Fri Jun 19 00:34:37 2009 From: sven at cyberbunker.com (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:34:37 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <1867590366.20090619022227@ilca.ru> References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <1867590366.20090619022227@ilca.ru> Message-ID: > If "natural person" want to - even pays. > Any bonuses worth the money. > Sometimes a lot of money. And I do not understand why someone should receive > ASN & PI free when I pay for the ASN and PA money. BECAUSE you do not pay for your ASN and PA space, you pay membership fees for running a LOCAL INTERNET REGISTRY. (which gives you the opportunity to register IP space for others), if you dont register IP space for others, you should actually use PI space (and yes, for free). I see we have another one that fell for RIPEs jedi-mind trick trying to sell everyone a LIR membership. keep in mind: customers with whom you expect to have a long-running relationship and which use your network should not be on PI space with their own AS in the first place, they should be on YOUR PA space. the sole purpose of having PI space -is- to distribute IP space in a REGULATED matter (the other option ofcourse is anarchy), without any running-contracts/payment relations with the registering party, after all, its supposed to provide independance (I know some of our colleguas like to force customers to stay their customer by just letting them grow and grow until re-numbering becomes somewhat of a problem and then rip them off, and exactly -that- is why PI space is there, and why most smart customers insist on having PI space)... RIPE implementing a new policy for NEW registrations is totally fine, no problems with that (besides the somewhat rediculous prices if they choose to do business with ripe directly but that gives the LIRs the opportunity to provide a discount) but you cannot force customers that were told they only had to pay once that they now have to pay recurring. -- Sven Olaf Kamphuis CB3ROB DataServices Phone: +31/87-8747479 Skype: CB3ROB MSN: sven at cb3rob.net C.V.: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cb3rob Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Alexandr Tretyakov wrote: > Hi, Sven. > > > as for your "not making 50 euros a year" remark: > > > its potentially possible for a natural person to obtain pi space and an AS > > number for his home network (provided he has that many equipment to > > cover the minimum announcable space of /24 ofcourse), we as a LIR would > > not object to registering such, neither does RIPE. > > If "natural person" want to - even pays. > Any bonuses worth the money. > Sometimes a lot of money. And I do not understand why someone should receive > ASN & PI free when I pay for the ASN and PA money. > > -- > Alexandr Tretyakov > ILCA ISP > http://www.ilca.ru > Tel +7 812 490-6014 > Mob +7 812 928-8014 > > > X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "google" > X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "ripe.net" > From sven at cyberbunker.com Fri Jun 19 00:36:43 2009 From: sven at cyberbunker.com (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:36:43 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> Message-ID: well fine, then start with the huge allocations that are PRE-RIR and no longer in use but still registered to various multinationals... if you are going to do a cleanup, do it properly :P several /14s etc there.. go ahead. -- Sven Olaf Kamphuis CB3ROB DataServices Phone: +31/87-8747479 Skype: CB3ROB MSN: sven at cb3rob.net C.V.: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cb3rob Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Dariusz Margas wrote: > On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: > > > point remains: there is -no- legal basis on which to bill existing PI > > customers or on wich to force them to engage in a new contract, besides the already > > fulfilled contract to "register ip space" for them, its quite close to > > blackmail if the "threat" includes to remove their allocations if they > > dont enter into a new recurring-payment contract (even if the lir would > > pay for it and not charge the customer, the customer still has to enter > > into a new contract, with which they potentially could have issues. > > Is there any law basis to say that such block has ben assigned forever? > > I don't see it that way. Law is being changed every day. Any law can be > changed so why not allocation policy? Is it different then, say, acts > governing banks? If you fulfill current requirements for anything ATM > (say to be a bank) then you can do this thing (say you can be a bank). > Next year you may need to fulfill different requirements to persist. > That's it. > > Regards > Dariusz Margas > > X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "ripe.net" > From martin at airwire.ie Fri Jun 19 00:37:51 2009 From: martin at airwire.ie (Martin List-Petersen) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 23:37:51 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> Message-ID: <4A3AC1BF.1010204@airwire.ie> Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: >> Anyhow, this whole matter was also already raised at the GM. > > unfortunately for RIPE those agreements only cover the effort to REGISTER > the PI space in the first place, no renewal fees were ever mentioned. > > -this cannot be done, its blackmail!- It's the RIPE membership (the LIRs), that change these policies, not the NCC. The NCC has to action them. Has nothing to do with blackmail. At the end of the day, it's a decision driven by RIPE members, who take an active role. Policies change, if you don't like'm you can try to change them again. Just requires a majority approval for a policy proposal. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968 From sven at cyberbunker.com Fri Jun 19 00:42:22 2009 From: sven at cyberbunker.com (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 04:42:22 +0600 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> Message-ID: > Not every LIR is an ISP, a lot of them are. If you assign PI to somebody > else, you have a provider/enduser relationship. That makes you a service > provider of some sort. Be it internet, content or hosting. no, you dont. the customer usually asks to just register ip space and an AS number which he then announces himself to transits of -his- choice. if the customer happens to be in lets say russia it doesnt make much sense to have their network announced in amsterdam or germany now does it.. thats the whole point of PI space in the first place, its PROVIDER INDEPENDANT, from day 1. -- Sven Olaf Kamphuis CB3ROB DataServices Phone: +31/87-8747479 Skype: CB3ROB MSN: sven at cb3rob.net C.V.: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cb3rob Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Martin List-Petersen wrote: > Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: > >> The product that the customer buys of the LIR should be giving more than > >> 50 EUR/year revenue, if not, you might not be in business for long. > > > > LIRS are NOT isps! > > > Not every LIR is an ISP, a lot of them are. If you assign PI to somebody > else, you have a provider/enduser relationship. That makes you a service > provider of some sort. Be it internet, content or hosting. > > > > the "product" bought from a LIR is the registration of IP space, usually > > at at one-time single payment that covered the increase in the billing > > score for 2 years if applicable and the administrative work. > > > > there are no "services" or "products" a LIR normally sells. > > > You have to have a contractual relationship with the enduser that has PI > now. You know that, right ? > > > > and there also is no question of "circumventing ripe membership fees" > > as those only apply to LIRs (that is, people willing to register IP space > > for others). > > Or entities, that don't want to deal with a LIR. > > > > the fact that -most- LIRs are part of an ISP or even some ASPs that fell > > for ripes jedi-mind-trick and became a LIR themselves, doesnt mean they > > HAVE to be part of an ISP. > > There are very few LIRs, that aren't providing some commercial product. > And even then 50 EUR/year is compared to the money they probably pay for > connectivity: > near to nothing. > > Anyhow, this whole matter was also already raised at the GM. > > Kind regards, > Martin List-Petersen > -- > Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair > http://www.airwire.ie > Phone: 091-865 968 > > > > X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "ripe.net" > From sven at cyberbunker.com Fri Jun 19 00:43:35 2009 From: sven at cyberbunker.com (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:43:35 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> Message-ID: > > -this cannot be done, its blackmail!- > > It's the RIPE membership (the LIRs), that change these policies, not the > NCC. The NCC has to action them. > > Has nothing to do with blackmail. At the end of the day, it's a decision > driven by RIPE members, who take an active role. > > Policies change, if you don't like'm you can try to change them again. > Just requires a majority approval for a policy proposal. > hiding behind "democratic internal processes" changes nothing to that fact. if the members of ripe decided ripe was not going to pay taxes this year, im quite sure that the democratic aspect would not warrant it from prosecution :P -- Sven Olaf Kamphuis CB3ROB DataServices Phone: +31/87-8747479 Skype: CB3ROB MSN: sven at cb3rob.net C.V.: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cb3rob Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Martin List-Petersen wrote: > Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: > >> Anyhow, this whole matter was also already raised at the GM. > > > > unfortunately for RIPE those agreements only cover the effort to REGISTER > > the PI space in the first place, no renewal fees were ever mentioned. > > > > -this cannot be done, its blackmail!- > > It's the RIPE membership (the LIRs), that change these policies, not the > NCC. The NCC has to action them. > > Has nothing to do with blackmail. At the end of the day, it's a decision > driven by RIPE members, who take an active role. > > Policies change, if you don't like'm you can try to change them again. > Just requires a majority approval for a policy proposal. > > Kind regards, > Martin List-Petersen > -- > Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair > http://www.airwire.ie > Phone: 091-865 968 > > > > X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "ripe.net" > From sven at cyberbunker.com Fri Jun 19 00:43:59 2009 From: sven at cyberbunker.com (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 04:43:59 +0600 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> Message-ID: > > -this cannot be done, its blackmail!- > > It's the RIPE membership (the LIRs), that change these policies, not the > NCC. The NCC has to action them. > > Has nothing to do with blackmail. At the end of the day, it's a decision > driven by RIPE members, who take an active role. > > Policies change, if you don't like'm you can try to change them again. > Just requires a majority approval for a policy proposal. > hiding behind "democratic internal processes" changes nothing to that fact. if the members of ripe decided ripe was not going to pay taxes this year, im quite sure that the democratic aspect would not warrant it from prosecution :P -- Sven Olaf Kamphuis CB3ROB DataServices Phone: +31/87-8747479 Skype: CB3ROB MSN: sven at cb3rob.net C.V.: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cb3rob Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Martin List-Petersen wrote: > Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: > >> Anyhow, this whole matter was also already raised at the GM. > > > > unfortunately for RIPE those agreements only cover the effort to REGISTER > > the PI space in the first place, no renewal fees were ever mentioned. > > > > -this cannot be done, its blackmail!- > > It's the RIPE membership (the LIRs), that change these policies, not the > NCC. The NCC has to action them. > > Has nothing to do with blackmail. At the end of the day, it's a decision > driven by RIPE members, who take an active role. > > Policies change, if you don't like'm you can try to change them again. > Just requires a majority approval for a policy proposal. > > Kind regards, > Martin List-Petersen > -- > Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair > http://www.airwire.ie > Phone: 091-865 968 > > > > X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "ripe.net" > From sven at cyberbunker.com Fri Jun 19 00:24:07 2009 From: sven at cyberbunker.com (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 04:24:07 +0600 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> Message-ID: > Anyhow, this whole matter was also already raised at the GM. unfortunately, in the agenda for that specific GM it was presented as if there would be the option for 3rd parties to register PI space directly with RIPE, like it used to be the case with internic in the past. Despite RIPEs newly announced rediculous prices, which come very close to running an actual LIR, compared to ARIN (arin only charges 100 dollars for direct assigned ip space for example) I have no issues with that construct and therefore didnt bother to go and vote against it. it was not mentioned that this would include EXISTING PI space and AS numbers. and yeah sure, we have a contract with our customers, verbal agreements are legally binding, especially if followed by a payment :P (having a payment relation by itself is already legally binding) unfortunately for RIPE those agreements only cover the effort to REGISTER the PI space in the first place, no renewal fees were ever mentioned. -this cannot be done, its blackmail!- now the funny thing is that our customers are already caving in and are willing to sign new contracts BUT they should not. caving in to blackmail is not a very good idea. -- Sven Olaf Kamphuis CB3ROB DataServices Phone: +31/87-8747479 Skype: CB3ROB MSN: sven at cb3rob.net C.V.: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cb3rob Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Martin List-Petersen wrote: > Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: > >> The product that the customer buys of the LIR should be giving more than > >> 50 EUR/year revenue, if not, you might not be in business for long. > > > > LIRS are NOT isps! > > > Not every LIR is an ISP, a lot of them are. If you assign PI to somebody > else, you have a provider/enduser relationship. That makes you a service > provider of some sort. Be it internet, content or hosting. > > > > the "product" bought from a LIR is the registration of IP space, usually > > at at one-time single payment that covered the increase in the billing > > score for 2 years if applicable and the administrative work. > > > > there are no "services" or "products" a LIR normally sells. > > > You have to have a contractual relationship with the enduser that has PI > now. You know that, right ? > > > > and there also is no question of "circumventing ripe membership fees" > > as those only apply to LIRs (that is, people willing to register IP space > > for others). > > Or entities, that don't want to deal with a LIR. > > > > the fact that -most- LIRs are part of an ISP or even some ASPs that fell > > for ripes jedi-mind-trick and became a LIR themselves, doesnt mean they > > HAVE to be part of an ISP. > > There are very few LIRs, that aren't providing some commercial product. > And even then 50 EUR/year is compared to the money they probably pay for > connectivity: > near to nothing. > > Anyhow, this whole matter was also already raised at the GM. > > Kind regards, > Martin List-Petersen > -- > Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair > http://www.airwire.ie > Phone: 091-865 968 > > > > X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "ripe.net" > From sven at cyberbunker.com Fri Jun 19 00:53:48 2009 From: sven at cyberbunker.com (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:53:48 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <85BAB38E-92D1-4ACD-9C30-126DFAEBD138@fido.net> References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <1867590366.20090619022227@ilca.ru> <85BAB38E-92D1-4ACD-9C30-126DFAEBD138@fido.net> Message-ID: > It is also worth noting that we were recently "chastised" by RIPE for > charging a fee to our customers for additional IP addresses > > The quote was something along the lines of "whilst we think the > principal of charging for IP addresses to stop customers ordering more > than they really need, the terms of the LIR agreement do not allow you > to charge for IP addresses, and you should not do so" > > So can we start to charge anyone / everyone for IP addresses now? > > J indeed, charging money for ip space is not allowed, which is why we only billed our one-time administration fee, no provisions for further recurring payments or continueing contracts where ever made. and indeed, ripe has in the past also actively commented on a lot of isps asking money from customers that wanted to have additional ips from their PA space (hosting, access, etc), and is now suddenly expecting us to do the same. (well they claim its per-assignment but with the shitty small PI assignments customers usually need several to get around anyway). -- Sven Olaf Kamphuis CB3ROB DataServices Phone: +31/87-8747479 Skype: CB3ROB MSN: sven at cb3rob.net C.V.: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cb3rob Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Jon Morby wrote: > It is also worth noting that we were recently "chastised" by RIPE for > charging a fee to our customers for additional IP addresses > > The quote was something along the lines of "whilst we think the > principal of charging for IP addresses to stop customers ordering more > than they really need, the terms of the LIR agreement do not allow you > to charge for IP addresses, and you should not do so" > > So can we start to charge anyone / everyone for IP addresses now? > > J > > On 19 Jun 2009, at 00:34, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: > > > > >> If "natural person" want to - even pays. > >> Any bonuses worth the money. > >> Sometimes a lot of money. And I do not understand why someone > >> should receive > >> ASN & PI free when I pay for the ASN and PA money. > > > > BECAUSE you do not pay for your ASN and PA space, you pay membership > > fees > > for running a LOCAL INTERNET REGISTRY. (which gives you the > > opportunity to > > register IP space for others), if you dont register IP space for > > others, > > you should actually use PI space (and yes, for free). > > > > I see we have another one that fell for RIPEs jedi-mind trick trying > > to > > sell everyone a LIR membership. > > > > keep in mind: customers with whom you expect to have a long-running > > relationship and which use your network should not be on PI space with > > their own AS in the first place, they should be on YOUR PA space. > > > > the sole purpose of having PI space -is- to distribute IP space in a > > REGULATED matter (the other option ofcourse is anarchy), without any > > running-contracts/payment relations with the registering party, > > after all, > > its supposed to provide independance (I know some of our colleguas > > like to > > force customers to stay their customer by just letting them grow and > > grow > > until re-numbering becomes somewhat of a problem and then rip them > > off, and exactly -that- is why PI space is there, and why most smart > > customers insist on having PI space)... > > > > RIPE implementing a new policy for NEW registrations is totally > > fine, no > > problems with that (besides the somewhat rediculous prices if they > > choose > > to do business with ripe directly but that gives the LIRs the > > opportunity > > to provide a discount) but you cannot force customers that were told > > they > > only had to pay once that they now have to pay recurring. > > > > > > -- > > > > Sven Olaf Kamphuis > > CB3ROB DataServices > > > > Phone: +31/87-8747479 > > Skype: CB3ROB > > MSN: sven at cb3rob.net > > C.V.: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cb3rob > > > > Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this > > email message, including all attached documents or files, is > > privileged > > and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or > > individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or > > copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. > > > > On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Alexandr Tretyakov wrote: > > > >> Hi, Sven. > >> > >>> as for your "not making 50 euros a year" remark: > >> > >>> its potentially possible for a natural person to obtain pi space > >>> and an AS > >>> number for his home network (provided he has that many equipment to > >>> cover the minimum announcable space of /24 ofcourse), we as a LIR > >>> would > >>> not object to registering such, neither does RIPE. > >> > >> If "natural person" want to - even pays. > >> Any bonuses worth the money. > >> Sometimes a lot of money. And I do not understand why someone > >> should receive > >> ASN & PI free when I pay for the ASN and PA money. > >> > >> -- > >> Alexandr Tretyakov > >> ILCA ISP > >> http://www.ilca.ru > >> Tel +7 812 490-6014 > >> Mob +7 812 928-8014 > >> > >> > >> X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "google" > >> X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "ripe.net" > >> > > > > From martin at airwire.ie Fri Jun 19 00:46:02 2009 From: martin at airwire.ie (Martin List-Petersen) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 04:46:02 +0600 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> Message-ID: Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: >> Anyhow, this whole matter was also already raised at the GM. > > unfortunately for RIPE those agreements only cover the effort to REGISTER > the PI space in the first place, no renewal fees were ever mentioned. > > -this cannot be done, its blackmail!- It's the RIPE membership (the LIRs), that change these policies, not the NCC. The NCC has to action them. Has nothing to do with blackmail. At the end of the day, it's a decision driven by RIPE members, who take an active role. Policies change, if you don't like'm you can try to change them again. Just requires a majority approval for a policy proposal. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968 From jon at fido.net Fri Jun 19 00:38:37 2009 From: jon at fido.net (Jon Morby) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 00:38:37 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <1867590366.20090619022227@ilca.ru> Message-ID: <85BAB38E-92D1-4ACD-9C30-126DFAEBD138@fido.net> It is also worth noting that we were recently "chastised" by RIPE for charging a fee to our customers for additional IP addresses The quote was something along the lines of "whilst we think the principal of charging for IP addresses to stop customers ordering more than they really need, the terms of the LIR agreement do not allow you to charge for IP addresses, and you should not do so" So can we start to charge anyone / everyone for IP addresses now? J On 19 Jun 2009, at 00:34, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: > >> If "natural person" want to - even pays. >> Any bonuses worth the money. >> Sometimes a lot of money. And I do not understand why someone >> should receive >> ASN & PI free when I pay for the ASN and PA money. > > BECAUSE you do not pay for your ASN and PA space, you pay membership > fees > for running a LOCAL INTERNET REGISTRY. (which gives you the > opportunity to > register IP space for others), if you dont register IP space for > others, > you should actually use PI space (and yes, for free). > > I see we have another one that fell for RIPEs jedi-mind trick trying > to > sell everyone a LIR membership. > > keep in mind: customers with whom you expect to have a long-running > relationship and which use your network should not be on PI space with > their own AS in the first place, they should be on YOUR PA space. > > the sole purpose of having PI space -is- to distribute IP space in a > REGULATED matter (the other option ofcourse is anarchy), without any > running-contracts/payment relations with the registering party, > after all, > its supposed to provide independance (I know some of our colleguas > like to > force customers to stay their customer by just letting them grow and > grow > until re-numbering becomes somewhat of a problem and then rip them > off, and exactly -that- is why PI space is there, and why most smart > customers insist on having PI space)... > > RIPE implementing a new policy for NEW registrations is totally > fine, no > problems with that (besides the somewhat rediculous prices if they > choose > to do business with ripe directly but that gives the LIRs the > opportunity > to provide a discount) but you cannot force customers that were told > they > only had to pay once that they now have to pay recurring. > > > -- > > Sven Olaf Kamphuis > CB3ROB DataServices > > Phone: +31/87-8747479 > Skype: CB3ROB > MSN: sven at cb3rob.net > C.V.: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cb3rob > > Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this > email message, including all attached documents or files, is > privileged > and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or > individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or > copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. > > On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Alexandr Tretyakov wrote: > >> Hi, Sven. >> >>> as for your "not making 50 euros a year" remark: >> >>> its potentially possible for a natural person to obtain pi space >>> and an AS >>> number for his home network (provided he has that many equipment to >>> cover the minimum announcable space of /24 ofcourse), we as a LIR >>> would >>> not object to registering such, neither does RIPE. >> >> If "natural person" want to - even pays. >> Any bonuses worth the money. >> Sometimes a lot of money. And I do not understand why someone >> should receive >> ASN & PI free when I pay for the ASN and PA money. >> >> -- >> Alexandr Tretyakov >> ILCA ISP >> http://www.ilca.ru >> Tel +7 812 490-6014 >> Mob +7 812 928-8014 >> >> >> X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "google" >> X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "ripe.net" >> > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3898 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ra at siberianet.ru Fri Jun 19 03:35:28 2009 From: ra at siberianet.ru (=?windows-1251?B?0ejt5ePz6+7iINDg5OjpIMAuL1NpYmVyaWFOZXQv?=) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 09:35:28 +0800 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> Message-ID: <454795396.20090619093528@siberianet.ru> Please remove ra at siberianet.ru From the list -------------- ?? ?????? 19 ???? 2009 ?., 1:59:55: > On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Andrea Cima wrote: >>> 4) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment and the >>> fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - Operates for all direct >>> assignments? or Only new direct assignments (included after 3 May, >>> 2009)? >> >> All Assignments made since 1992 will be included. > I have stated it before and I'll state it again - changing the billing > rules retroactively is wrong. Maybe even EU legally wrong. Allocations > made in the 1990s should not be billed. By all means recover unannounced > allocations by whatever means necessary, but charging LIRs for allocations > made in 1995 is wrong. > Regards, > Hank Nussbacher > __________ NOD32 4137 (20090608) Information __________ > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > http://www.eset.com From hank at efes.iucc.ac.il Fri Jun 19 08:31:35 2009 From: hank at efes.iucc.ac.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 09:31:35 +0300 (IDT) Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> Message-ID: On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Martin List-Petersen wrote: > It's not charging retroactively. Retroactively charging for the PI space > would be sending invoices out for every year from '92 to to date, which > is not happening. > > What is happening that the price has changed from 0 to 50 EUR/year > (well, the draft price). > > It's like an update of pricing or the terms and conditions, so you can > consider to either give your allocation back and won't be charged in the > future or you'll pay the price. That would be true from about 2000 and onward when there was terms and conditions. Back in 1992 or even 1996 there were no terms and conditions in this regards. From a certain point onward the T&C changed whereby you agreed to any future changes. -Hank From hank at efes.iucc.ac.il Fri Jun 19 08:40:50 2009 From: hank at efes.iucc.ac.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 09:40:50 +0300 (IDT) Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> Message-ID: On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Martin List-Petersen wrote: > The product that the customer buys of the LIR should be giving more than > 50 EUR/year revenue, if not, you might not be in business for long. > > Honestly this discussion is pretty much about chump change in the bigger > scheme. >From today onward it makes total sense to charge 50 or even 200 Euro per allocation - at least then the LIR knows the cost, the end user knows the cost. > > The ones that get hit are the ones that abused the PI scheme to not pay > for PA or RIPE membership. For everyone else it's pretty much something > that falls under the table. It's 4.17EUR/month per allocation. If you > don't make that kindda money of your PI customers on top of your cost, > your business isn't viable. And yeah .. you can just charge it on to > them or eat the cost. Latter wouldn't make a difference to the customer > as long as they are with you. Here you hit the nail on the head. Most ISPs will just pass the cost onward to the end user. As you said - it is chump change. And most of the 5000 LIR members don't even waste their manpower discussing this since the time spent is not worth the cost savings. But not all LIRs are commercial ISPs - some are non-profits. Back in the dark ages, before ISPs knew about multi-homing and BGP, ISOC-IL acted as a LIR and assigned ASNs to organizations needing multihoming in Israel. Dozens pre-1999. ISOC-IL knew its RIPE membership fees and charged end users a one time fee for the allocations. Only recently has the charging algorithm changed to include allocations dating back to 1992. -Hank From hank at efes.iucc.ac.il Fri Jun 19 08:43:28 2009 From: hank at efes.iucc.ac.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 09:43:28 +0300 (IDT) Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <4A3AB9AA.4000904@airwire.ie> References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <4A3AB9AA.4000904@airwire.ie> Message-ID: On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Martin List-Petersen wrote: > Anyhow, this whole matter was also already raised at the GM. And who ever heard that 50 LIR members vote on behalf of 5000 (as was at the last GM)? Why can't proxy voting or Internet voting be allowed? Why does a non-profit LIR have to travel to the GM in order to discuss this and to be able to vote? -Hank From pkambach at kambach.net Fri Jun 19 08:46:02 2009 From: pkambach at kambach.net (Patrick Kambach) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 08:46:02 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> Message-ID: <4A3B342A.2040803@kambach.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 hi! Stupid question: 50 EUR / year / allocation -> ok But in addition the billing score will grow as the PI / ASN assignments in the past years only came into scoring once. Now they will be a permanent scoring point, right? Cheers, Patrick Am 19.06.2009 08:40, schrieb Hank Nussbacher: > On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Martin List-Petersen wrote: > >> The product that the customer buys of the LIR should be giving more than >> 50 EUR/year revenue, if not, you might not be in business for long. >> >> Honestly this discussion is pretty much about chump change in the bigger >> scheme. > > From today onward it makes total sense to charge 50 or even 200 Euro per > allocation - at least then the LIR knows the cost, the end user knows > the cost. > >> >> The ones that get hit are the ones that abused the PI scheme to not pay >> for PA or RIPE membership. For everyone else it's pretty much something >> that falls under the table. It's 4.17EUR/month per allocation. If you >> don't make that kindda money of your PI customers on top of your cost, >> your business isn't viable. And yeah .. you can just charge it on to >> them or eat the cost. Latter wouldn't make a difference to the customer >> as long as they are with you. > > Here you hit the nail on the head. Most ISPs will just pass the cost > onward to the end user. As you said - it is chump change. And most of > the 5000 LIR members don't even waste their manpower discussing this > since the time spent is not worth the cost savings. > > But not all LIRs are commercial ISPs - some are non-profits. Back in > the dark ages, before ISPs knew about multi-homing and BGP, ISOC-IL > acted as a LIR and assigned ASNs to organizations needing multihoming in > Israel. Dozens pre-1999. ISOC-IL knew its RIPE membership fees and > charged end users a one time fee for the allocations. Only recently has > the charging algorithm changed to include allocations dating back to 1992. > > -Hank > - -- ConnectingBytes GmbH - "www.kambach.net" | In der Steele 35, 40599 D?sseldorf, Germany | Telefon: 0800 / 900 2580 - 1, Fax: 0800 / 900 2580 - 2 | Email: pkambach at kambach.net | Web: http://www.kambach.net | | Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Patrick Kambach | Amtsgericht D?sseldorf, HRB 60009 | Ust-IdNr.: DE815028832, Steuernummer: 106/5736/0037 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iD8DBQFKOzQqCIR+kawbQF0RAiIzAJ4q1vF/wIrS1JvQuyOpVtN/5N07hQCg8/V5 2CfBvcl2f1qxzp6+GOVmAbg= =Yyg0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From m.abrile at itelsi.com Fri Jun 19 08:37:24 2009 From: m.abrile at itelsi.com (Matteo Abrile) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 08:37:24 +0200 Subject: R: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <4A3AB9AA.4000904@airwire.ie> Message-ID: Please remove from this list m.abrile at itelsi.com Thank you -------------------------------------------------------- Matteo Abrile Itelsi Tigullio Srl Via G. Casaregis 50/12 - 16129 Genova Tel. 0109845320 Fax. 0109845321 mail: m.abrile at itelsi.com -----Messaggio originale----- Da: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] Per conto di Hank Nussbacher Inviato: venerd? 19 giugno 2009 8.43 A: Martin List-Petersen Cc: Sven Olaf Kamphuis; Sven Olaf Kamphuis; members-discuss at ripe.net Oggetto: Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Martin List-Petersen wrote: > Anyhow, this whole matter was also already raised at the GM. And who ever heard that 50 LIR members vote on behalf of 5000 (as was at the last GM)? Why can't proxy voting or Internet voting be allowed? Why does a non-profit LIR have to travel to the GM in order to discuss this and to be able to vote? -Hank From kaa at net-art.cz Thu Jun 18 17:45:57 2009 From: kaa at net-art.cz (sergey myasoedov) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:45:57 +0200 Subject: [ncc-announce] Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> Message-ID: <1568564407.20090618174557@net-art.cz> Dear Andrea, will be implemented 'LIR change' for DA holders? It is possible for the LIR owner to register a new LIR for a new company, then to sign new contracts with DA holders (transfer DA to new LIR), and do not pay the yearly invoice? You wrote Thursday, June 18, 2009, 2:49:00 PM: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > Dear Natalya, > Natalya Petrova wrote: >> RegID: kz.kazaktelecom >> >> Good morning, dear colleagues! >> Thanks for your message. >> I have read on a site the information be relative Charging Scheme >> 2010. There are some questions for me. >> I ask the help in the explanatory. >> Questions: >> 1) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment and the >> fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It mentions only PI? or >> PA? or PI+PA? > According to the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 the 50 Euro per resource > applies to IPv4 and IPv6 PI Assignments, AS numbers, Internet Exchange > Point and Anycasting Assignments. > PA IPv4 and IPv6 Allocations will instead determine the member billing > category. >> 2) "fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It every month a >> payment? or every quarter? or for a year? > The 50 Euro fee per Assignment would be charged on a yearly basis. > With regards to payment terms, you will receive the invoice according to > the Billing scheme chosen by your LIR (quarterly, half-yearly, yearly > invoices). >> 3) "fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It is payment for what >> quantity of addresses (50EUR= ? IPs)? > According to the current proposal, the 50 Euro fee will be charged per > Assignment. The charge will not depend on the number of IP Addresses the > Assignment is made of. >> 4) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment and the >> fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - Operates for all direct >> assignments? or Only new direct assignments (included after 3 May, >> 2009)? > All Assignments made since 1992 will be included. > With the implementation of RIPE Policy "Direct Internet Resource > Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC", LIRs have the possibility > to inform the RIPE NCC which independent resources should stay with the > LIR and which should be moved (End User not their customer). > The resources which will be moved, will be marked and excluded from your > LIR's 2010 invoice. Please see: > http://www.ripe.net/rs/pi-existing-assignments.html > I hope this clarifies. > Kind regards, > Andrea Cima > Customer Services Manager > RIPE NCC >> I shall be very grateful for explanatories. >> Thanks for the help and understanding. >> Yours faithfully, >> Natalya >> -- Kind regards, sergey myasoedov From 'Sven Thu Jun 18 19:08:09 2009 From: 'Sven ('Sven) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 20:08:09 +0300 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <8f75fc670906180944m6803f851vffd3a4684d95c70c@mail.gmail.com> References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <746D7D8FCA18FA4BA70391D24A710E36C0CBA1@MK-MSX3-VS3.uk.tiscali.intl> <1C6BF4BEC510974BA67CA315A092A9A82470A9@gbnbshexch01.as24867.intra> <8f75fc670906180944m6803f851vffd3a4684d95c70c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A3A7479.20109@trabia.net> Hiya, to everyone who is complaining about this e-mail mailing list. If you actual don't want to receive these E-Mails, please login to your LIR account at http://lirportal.ripe.net/ , click on General, click on Edit. At the bottom of the Page you can add/remove E-Mail addresses for these mailing lists. RIPE nor we aren't guilty that you receive these e-mails. If you feel bothered, you should just take a look inside the LIR portal as written above :-) Cheers! Nafis Dwaalster wrote: > Ripe, > > Please remove nafis at dwaalster.nl as well > from the list > > thank you > > Nafis > > 2009/6/18 Adapt Service Desk > > > Ripe, > > Please remove us from this discussion thread. It is totally > irrelevant to us and is filling our mailbox with junk. > > You may have the following e-mail addresses on record, > > servicedesk at adaptplc.com > support at mnet.co.uk > hostmaster at adaptplc.com > hostmaster at mnet.co.uk > > please remove them all. > > > Regards, > Raj Bola > Service Desk Manager > > adapt > New Broad Street House, 35 New Broad Street, London EC2M 1NH > t: +44 (0)845 304 3046 > e: servicedesk at adaptplc.com > > www.adaptplc.com > > adapt, the independent managed services provider offering the > broadest choice of next generation technologies, and doing right > by our customers. > > adapt to success! We're ranked 15th in the 2008 Tech Track 100. > > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net > > [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net > ] On Behalf Of ?????? ?????? > Sent: 18 June 2009 12:56 > To: Hostmaster; Natalya Petrova; members-discuss at ripe.net > > Subject: RE: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 > > Hi All! > > There's no such document in RIPE database. > But I suppose Natalya is speaking about this: > > "[Apologies for duplicate emails] > > Dear Colleagues, > > The RIPE NCC is currently formulating the Draft Charging Scheme 2010. > The Draft Charging Scheme 2010 will take into account the > requirements of policy proposal 2007-01, "Direct Internet Resource > Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC", and the discussions > that took place at the RIPE NCC General Meeting in May 2009 > regarding the 2010 Charging Scheme. > > The main features of the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 will be: > > - As in previous years, there will be five membership categories - > Extra Small, Small, Medium, Large and Extra Large > - The 2010 fee for each membership category will be the same as > for 2009 > - An algorithm will determine a score that decides what category a > member belongs to > - The score will be based on Provider Aggregatable (PA) IPv4 and > PA IPv6 allocated over time > - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment > and the fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment > > The RIPE NCC will publish the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 at the > beginning of July 2009. The RIPE NCC Executive Board will then > monitor discussion and input from the RIPE NCC membership before > publishing a final version of the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 by 9 > September 2009. The RIPE NCC membership will vote on this version > at the RIPE NCC General Meeting on 7 October 2009. > > The RIPE NCC notes that this proposal for the Draft Charging > Scheme 2010 is subject to change based on advice from the RIPE > NCC's lawyers on tax and legal issues. > > Membership discussion of the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 proposal > can take place at >. > > Best regards, > > Axel Pawlik > Managing Director > RIPE NCC" > > Kind Regards > Sergey Sulava > > > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net > > [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net > ] On Behalf Of Hostmaster > Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 3:22 PM > To: Natalya Petrova; members-discuss at ripe.net > > Subject: RE: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 > > Privyet Natalya > > Where is this document? I cant see it on RIPE? > > Mark > > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net > > [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net > ] On Behalf Of Natalya Petrova > Sent: 18 June 2009 11:29 > To: members-discuss at ripe.net > Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 > > RegID: kz.kazaktelecom > > Good morning, dear colleagues! > Thanks for your message. > I have read on a site the information be relative Charging Scheme > 2010. There are some questions for me. > I ask the help in the explanatory. > Questions: > 1) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment > and the > fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It mentions only PI? or > PA? or PI+PA? > 2) "fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It every month a > payment? or every quarter? or for a year? > 3) "fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It is payment for what > quantity of addresses (50EUR= ? IPs)? > 4) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment > and the > fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - Operates for all direct > assignments? or Only new direct assignments (included after 3 May, > 2009)? > I shall be very grateful for explanatories. > Thanks for the help and understanding. > Yours faithfully, > Natalya > > > *Disclaimer:* > This message (including any attachments) contains confidential > information > intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected > by law. If > you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message > and are > hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this > message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly > prohibited. > > *???????????:* > ?????? ????????? (??????? ????? ????????) ????? ????????? > ???????????????? ?????????? ? ???? ??????????????? ????????????? > ??? ???????? ??? ???????????, ??????? ??? ??????????. ???? ?? ?? > ????????? ?????????? ?????????, ?? ????????? ?? ??????????, ??? ????? > ?????????, ???????????, ??????????????? ??? ????????????? ?????????? > ????? ????????? ?????? ?????????. > > > > This message has been scanned for viruses by Mail Control - > www.adaptplc.com > > > > > -- > Met vriendelijke groet / Kind regards, > > Nafis Dwaalster -- Sven Wiese General Director I.C.S. "Trabia-Network" S.R.L. [t] +373 (22) 843104 [e] s.wiese at trabia.net [i] www.trabia.net Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not in the addresses indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such a case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From smarco at libero.it Thu Jun 18 20:13:20 2009 From: smarco at libero.it (smarco at libero.it) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 20:13:20 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [members-discuss] Please STOP to spam to members-discuss@ripe.net Message-ID: <17387424.72271245348800237.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> This is an email for all "Ripe Members"... Pleae use "members-discuss at ripe. net" only for important question!!! Thanks for support Best Regards From sven at cb3rob.net Thu Jun 18 23:39:47 2009 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 21:39:47 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> Message-ID: > It's not charging retroactively. Retroactively charging for the PI space > would be sending invoices out for every year from '92 to to date, which > is not happening. > > What is happening that the price has changed from 0 to 50 EUR/year > (well, the draft price). mind you that PI registrants never agreed to any contract that allows "price changes" and that "choosing" to have their allocations removeed instead of either paying a LIR, with whom they would usually have an agreement that only covers a one time payment, or several thousand euros to ripe directly, OR GIVE UP THEIR ALLOCATIONS and therefore cause significant damage to their business :P is pure blackmail. you cant first tell someone "sure we will register ip sppace for your company, please pay 2500 euros which covers our work and the first 2 years in which potentially our ripe-score could be affected by this registration (PI and AS numbers only count for 2 years in the score), and then go "oops, now you have to either pay a few 1000 to ripe OR a few hundred to us (most customers have as numberrs AND PI space)"... thats blackmail. -- Sven Olaf Kamphuis CB3ROB DataServices Phone: +31/87-8747479 Skype: CB3ROB MSN: sven at cb3rob.net C.V.: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cb3rob Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Martin List-Petersen wrote: > Hank Nussbacher wrote: > > On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Andrea Cima wrote: > > > >>> 4) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment > >>> and the > >>> fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - Operates for all direct > >>> assignments? or Only new direct assignments (included after 3 May, > >>> 2009)? > >> > >> All Assignments made since 1992 will be included. > > > > I have stated it before and I'll state it again - changing the billing > > rules retroactively is wrong. Maybe even EU legally wrong. Allocations > > made in the 1990s should not be billed. By all means recover > > unannounced allocations by whatever means necessary, but charging LIRs > > for allocations made in 1995 is wrong. > > > > It's not charging retroactively. Retroactively charging for the PI space > would be sending invoices out for every year from '92 to to date, which > is not happening. > > What is happening that the price has changed from 0 to 50 EUR/year > (well, the draft price). > > It's like an update of pricing or the terms and conditions, so you can > consider to either give your allocation back and won't be charged in the > future or you'll pay the price. > > This has nothing to do with retroactively charging. It's just a change > of the fee from now and on. > > Kind regards, > Martin List-Petersen > -- > Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair > http://www.airwire.ie > Phone: 091-865 968 > > > X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "ripe.net" > From dariusz.margas at netregistry.com.au Fri Jun 19 00:15:31 2009 From: dariusz.margas at netregistry.com.au (Dariusz Margas) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 08:15:31 +1000 (EST) Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Hank Nussbacher wrote: >> All Assignments made since 1992 will be included. > > I have stated it before and I'll state it again - changing the billing rules > retroactively is wrong. Maybe even EU legally wrong. Allocations made in > the 1990s should not be billed. By all means recover unannounced allocations > by whatever means necessary, but charging LIRs for allocations made in 1995 > is wrong. Well, as someone said, this is from now onwards only. Yet this is the goal - to charge for everything, for these in use and for these kept "just in case". Money can trigger some changes in peoples' minds and switch them from "grab as much as you can" mode into new one, which can be "keep as little as you really need and try to conserve as much as possible" I reckon it is too cheap. I can not imagine any running business, in fact large scale business which needs PI and can not afford 50 EU per year! This is not 50 grant, is it? Regards Dariusz Margas From tonnerre.lombard at sygroup.ch Fri Jun 19 07:41:09 2009 From: tonnerre.lombard at sygroup.ch (Tonnerre Lombard) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 07:41:09 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> Message-ID: <20090619054109.GP32028@wssyg117.sygroup-int.ch> Salut, On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 10:50:40PM +0100, Martin List-Petersen wrote: > The ones that get hit are the ones that abused the PI scheme to not pay > for PA or RIPE membership. For everyone else it's pretty much something > that falls under the table. It's 4.17EUR/month per allocation. If you > don't make that kindda money of your PI customers on top of your cost, > your business isn't viable. And yeah .. you can just charge it on to > them or eat the cost. Latter wouldn't make a difference to the customer > as long as they are with you. That doesn't work for all cases. There are for example things such as non-commercial internet exchanges - the SwissIX for example comes to mind. The SwissIX owns a PI /24 IPv4 network, a /64 IPv6 network and an aut-num for the route server. Since all fiber and switches are sponsored by association members, the connection fee is 0.- With the advent of the new charging scheme, RIPE now suddenly does want (they refuse to make an exception as far as I know) to charge SwissIX the regular fee for PI ressources - which sums up to EUR 150.- per year as far as I can tell. This is not something which can be "reclaimed" from a customer, though - it is simply money a free-of-charge non-profit internet exchange does not have. (And SwissIX is not totally negligible - after all, the 10 locations which are distributed over 2 countries are currently exchanging an aggregated 5 Gbps. With the opening of two new sites in Basel, this won't go down either.) Following your suggestion would mean to ask all non-profit internet exchanges to become profit oriented. I don't see the point in that though. Kind regards, Tonnerre PS. Hello to all those out there who do not want to receive this mail. Please unsubscribe from this mailing list using the LIR Portal - https://lirportal.ripe.net/lirportal/index.html -- SyGroup GmbH Tonnerre Lombard Solutions Systematiques Tel:+41 61 333 80 33 G?terstrasse 86 Fax:+41 61 383 14 67 4053 Basel Web:www.sygroup.ch tonnerre.lombard at sygroup.ch -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 835 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From tonnerre.lombard at sygroup.ch Fri Jun 19 08:07:07 2009 From: tonnerre.lombard at sygroup.ch (Tonnerre Lombard) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 08:07:07 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20090619060707.GQ32028@wssyg117.sygroup-int.ch> Salut, On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 09:50:40PM +0000, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: > you cant first tell someone "sure we will register ip sppace for your > company, please pay 2500 euros which covers our work and the first 2 years > in which potentially our ripe-score could be affected by this registration > (PI and AS numbers only count for 2 years in the score), and then go > "oops, now you have to either pay a few 1000 to ripe OR a few hundred to > us (most customers have as numberrs AND PI space)"... > > thats blackmail. As far as I can see, there are two options for the LIRs, depending on the contract they signed with the customer. If the contract permits, it is probably the best for the LIR to return the PI ressources to RIPE to be converted to a direct assignment. This way, RIPE will have to bother with the legal implication of suddenly demanding charges for a contract which only mentioned initial charges. If that is not the case, the LIR can _kindly_ request the customer to pay a recurring fee for the IP space, just for charity. If the customer refuses, then the LIR will have to pay the fee out of their own pockets. I don't see a way the LIR can legally force their customers to pay this sum. Kind regards, Tonnerre -- SyGroup GmbH Tonnerre Lombard Solutions Systematiques Tel:+41 61 333 80 33 G?terstrasse 86 Fax:+41 61 383 14 67 4053 Basel Web:www.sygroup.ch tonnerre.lombard at sygroup.ch -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 835 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From dariusz.margas at netregistry.com.au Fri Jun 19 00:27:24 2009 From: dariusz.margas at netregistry.com.au (Dariusz Margas) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 08:27:24 +1000 (EST) Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> Message-ID: On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: > point remains: there is -no- legal basis on which to bill existing PI > customers or on wich to force them to engage in a new contract, besides the already > fulfilled contract to "register ip space" for them, its quite close to > blackmail if the "threat" includes to remove their allocations if they > dont enter into a new recurring-payment contract (even if the lir would > pay for it and not charge the customer, the customer still has to enter > into a new contract, with which they potentially could have issues. Is there any law basis to say that such block has ben assigned forever? I don't see it that way. Law is being changed every day. Any law can be changed so why not allocation policy? Is it different then, say, acts governing banks? If you fulfill current requirements for anything ATM (say to be a bank) then you can do this thing (say you can be a bank). Next year you may need to fulfill different requirements to persist. That's it. Regards Dariusz Margas From n.hagoort at interconnect.nl Fri Jun 19 08:57:53 2009 From: n.hagoort at interconnect.nl (Niels Hagoort) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 08:57:53 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <4A3AB9AA.4000904@airwire.ie> Message-ID: Please remove n.hagoort at interconnect.nl from this list Thanks -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Matteo Abrile Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 8:37 AM To: Hank Nussbacher; Martin List-Petersen Cc: Sven Olaf Kamphuis; Sven Olaf Kamphuis; members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: R: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 Please remove from this list m.abrile at itelsi.com Thank you -------------------------------------------------------- Matteo Abrile Itelsi Tigullio Srl Via G. Casaregis 50/12 - 16129 Genova Tel. 0109845320 Fax. 0109845321 mail: m.abrile at itelsi.com -----Messaggio originale----- Da: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] Per conto di Hank Nussbacher Inviato: venerd? 19 giugno 2009 8.43 A: Martin List-Petersen Cc: Sven Olaf Kamphuis; Sven Olaf Kamphuis; members-discuss at ripe.net Oggetto: Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Martin List-Petersen wrote: > Anyhow, this whole matter was also already raised at the GM. And who ever heard that 50 LIR members vote on behalf of 5000 (as was at the last GM)? Why can't proxy voting or Internet voting be allowed? Why does a non-profit LIR have to travel to the GM in order to discuss this and to be able to vote? -Hank From tonnerre.lombard at sygroup.ch Fri Jun 19 09:10:43 2009 From: tonnerre.lombard at sygroup.ch (Tonnerre Lombard) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 09:10:43 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> Message-ID: <20090619071043.GR32028@wssyg117.sygroup-int.ch> Salut, On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 08:27:24AM +1000, Dariusz Margas wrote: > I don't see it that way. Law is being changed every day. Any law can be > changed so why not allocation policy? Is it different then, say, acts > governing banks? If you fulfill current requirements for anything ATM > (say to be a bank) then you can do this thing (say you can be a bank). > Next year you may need to fulfill different requirements to persist. That may be true, but the validity of these requirements is actually laid out through legislation. RIPE, however, is not a governmental body or democratically legitimated (legitimation only by members doesn't really count), so what we're debating here is the policy of an organization, not a law. In that case it is difficult to change a policy which previously held unlimited validity. If there was however a clause defining that the policy may be superseeded at any time, then it can be debated that it was the responsibility of the sponsoring LIR to make corresponding contracts. Kind regards, Tonnerre -- SyGroup GmbH Tonnerre Lombard Solutions Systematiques Tel:+41 61 333 80 33 G?terstrasse 86 Fax:+41 61 383 14 67 4053 Basel Web:www.sygroup.ch tonnerre.lombard at sygroup.ch -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 835 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From heidricha at invitel.co.hu Fri Jun 19 09:16:25 2009 From: heidricha at invitel.co.hu (Heidrich Attila) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 09:16:25 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> Message-ID: <1245395785.4209.9.camel@ws> I think you do. Consider the domain registration. The registrator is kinda "service provider" whether it serves any kind of access/hosting/content/DNS or whatever, and the end user is the only "independent" user of the named resource - but not owner. I think this is very similar to the PI assignments. In Hungary this is normal the regitrstor having a one time enrollment feer, a yearly fee (well, this contains registration fees for the whole amount), and per-transaction fees after all new registration, transfers, and prolongals. I do not think EUR50 to be so big problem, but we are an ISP, so this is quite normal for us to have the customer pay after allocating resources of any kind. Attila -----Eredeti ?zenet----- > Not every LIR is an ISP, a lot of them are. If you assign PI to somebody > else, you have a provider/enduser relationship. That makes you a service > provider of some sort. Be it internet, content or hosting. no, you dont. the customer usually asks to just register ip space and an AS number which he then announces himself to transits of -his- choice. -------------- Ezen uzenet kizarolag a cimzettjenek szol es olyan bizalmas jellegu informaciokat tartalmazhat, amelyek feltarasat jogszabaly vagy szerzodes tiltja. Amennyiben a jelen uzenetet On teves kezbesites folytan kapta, kerjuk haladektalanul ertesitsen bennunket es az uzenetet annak csatolmanyaival egyutt torolje. Amennyiben On nem cimzettje a jelen uzenetnek, annak es mellekleteinek elolvasasa, masolasa, tovabbitasa, vagy barmely celbol torteno felhasznalasa szigoruan tilos. Megjegyezzuk, hogy az e-mail utjan torteno kozlesek nem garantaljak az elkuldott uzenetek bizalmas jellegenek es teljessegenek megorzeset, valamint az uzenetek megfelelo kezbesiteset. A fentieken tulmenoen, a Hungarian Telephone and Cable Corp., annak kapcsolt vallalkozasai, illetve az altaluk megbizott harmadik felek a jelen e-mail cimrol kuldott, vagy arra erkezo barmely uzenetet ellenorizhetnek, lemasolhatnak, felhasznalhatnak vagy harmadik fel reszere tovabbithatnak. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee and may contain confidential information protected from disclosure by law or contract. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify us and delete it together with its attachments. If you are not an addressee of this message, reading, copying, distribution or use for any purpose of the contents of this message or its attachments is strictly forbidden. Additionally, please note that communication by email guarantees neither the confidentiality nor the completeness or proper receipt of the messages sent. Furthermore, Hungarian Telephone and Cable Corp., its affiliates and third parties retained by them may monitor, copy, use or forward to third parties any outgoing messages from and incoming messages to this email address. From jon at fido.net Fri Jun 19 09:27:34 2009 From: jon at fido.net (Jon Morby) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 09:27:34 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <1245395785.4209.9.camel@ws> References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <1245395785.4209.9.camel@ws> Message-ID: And sadly it is a precedent ... EUR50 this year .... EUR500 the year after ... EUR5000 the year after that ?? Once it has been agreed in principal that we RIPE should start charging for an assignment, it is then possible for "the few" who are able to make it to these RIPE jollies^Wmeetings all over Europe and steer the policies then do so to their best interests. We've seen this recently with Nominet in the UK where by they now have 2 tiers of access, and it is no longer a "level playing field" for all members .. you have members, and you have "elite" members I totally agree that RIPE have been needlessly steering everyone into becoming an LIR when they only need a small assignment, and this has lead to a waste of IP allocations .. however my understanding is that this policy isn't designed to limit PA space assignments anyway ... it is designed to make PI harder to obtain, thus steering yet more people into the LIR route (whether they need to be an LIR or not) ... How many LIRs find RIPE referring customers to them because they needed an assignment? Few I suspect - they all either get told "go find one from this list" or otherwise "become an LIR" and pay the small LIR fee. Maybe its just me only seeing the glass as half full? Jon On 19 Jun 2009, at 09:16, Heidrich Attila wrote: > I think you do. > > Consider the domain registration. The registrator is kinda "service > provider" whether it serves any kind of access/hosting/content/DNS or > whatever, and the end user is the only "independent" user of the named > resource - but not owner. > > I think this is very similar to the PI assignments. In Hungary this is > normal the regitrstor having a one time enrollment feer, a yearly fee > (well, this contains registration fees for the whole amount), and > per-transaction fees after all new registration, transfers, and > prolongals. > > I do not think EUR50 to be so big problem, but we are an ISP, so > this is > quite normal for us to have the customer pay after allocating > resources > of any kind. > > Attila > > -----Eredeti ?zenet----- > >> Not every LIR is an ISP, a lot of them are. If you assign PI to >> somebody >> else, you have a provider/enduser relationship. That makes you a >> service >> provider of some sort. Be it internet, content or hosting. > > no, you dont. > > the customer usually asks to just register ip space and an AS number > which > he then announces himself to transits of -his- choice. > > > > -------------- > Ezen uzenet kizarolag a cimzettjenek szol es olyan bizalmas jellegu > informaciokat tartalmazhat, amelyek feltarasat jogszabaly vagy > szerzodes > tiltja. Amennyiben a jelen uzenetet On teves kezbesites folytan kapta, > kerjuk haladektalanul ertesitsen bennunket es az uzenetet annak > csatolmanyaival egyutt torolje. Amennyiben On nem cimzettje a jelen > uzenetnek, annak es mellekleteinek elolvasasa, masolasa, > tovabbitasa, vagy > barmely celbol torteno felhasznalasa szigoruan tilos. Megjegyezzuk, > hogy az > e-mail utjan torteno kozlesek nem garantaljak az elkuldott uzenetek > bizalmas jellegenek es teljessegenek megorzeset, valamint az uzenetek > megfelelo kezbesiteset. A fentieken tulmenoen, a Hungarian Telephone > and > Cable Corp., annak kapcsolt vallalkozasai, illetve az altaluk > megbizott > harmadik felek a jelen e-mail cimrol kuldott, vagy arra erkezo barmely > uzenetet ellenorizhetnek, lemasolhatnak, felhasznalhatnak vagy > harmadik fel > reszere tovabbithatnak. > > This message is intended exclusively for its addressee and may contain > confidential information protected from disclosure by law or > contract. If > you have received this message in error, please immediately notify > us and > delete it together with its attachments. If you are not an addressee > of > this message, reading, copying, distribution or use for any purpose > of the > contents of this message or its attachments is strictly forbidden. > Additionally, please note that communication by email guarantees > neither > the confidentiality nor the completeness or proper receipt of the > messages > sent. Furthermore, Hungarian Telephone and Cable Corp., its > affiliates and > third parties retained by them may monitor, copy, use or forward to > third > parties any outgoing messages from and incoming messages to this email > address. > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3898 bytes Desc: not available URL: From heidricha at invitel.co.hu Fri Jun 19 09:22:44 2009 From: heidricha at invitel.co.hu (Heidrich Attila) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:22:44 +0600 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> Message-ID: I think you do. Consider the domain registration. The registrator is kinda "service provider" whether it serves any kind of access/hosting/content/DNS or whatever, and the end user is the only "independent" user of the named resource - but not owner. I think this is very similar to the PI assignments. In Hungary this is normal the regitrstor having a one time enrollment feer, a yearly fee (well, this contains registration fees for the whole amount), and per-transaction fees after all new registration, transfers, and prolongals. I do not think EUR50 to be so big problem, but we are an ISP, so this is quite normal for us to have the customer pay after allocating resources of any kind. Attila -----Eredeti ?zenet----- > Not every LIR is an ISP, a lot of them are. If you assign PI to somebody > else, you have a provider/enduser relationship. That makes you a service > provider of some sort. Be it internet, content or hosting. no, you dont. the customer usually asks to just register ip space and an AS number which he then announces himself to transits of -his- choice. -------------- Ezen uzenet kizarolag a cimzettjenek szol es olyan bizalmas jellegu informaciokat tartalmazhat, amelyek feltarasat jogszabaly vagy szerzodes tiltja. Amennyiben a jelen uzenetet On teves kezbesites folytan kapta, kerjuk haladektalanul ertesitsen bennunket es az uzenetet annak csatolmanyaival egyutt torolje. Amennyiben On nem cimzettje a jelen uzenetnek, annak es mellekleteinek elolvasasa, masolasa, tovabbitasa, vagy barmely celbol torteno felhasznalasa szigoruan tilos. Megjegyezzuk, hogy az e-mail utjan torteno kozlesek nem garantaljak az elkuldott uzenetek bizalmas jellegenek es teljessegenek megorzeset, valamint az uzenetek megfelelo kezbesiteset. A fentieken tulmenoen, a Hungarian Telephone and Cable Corp., annak kapcsolt vallalkozasai, illetve az altaluk megbizott harmadik felek a jelen e-mail cimrol kuldott, vagy arra erkezo barmely uzenetet ellenorizhetnek, lemasolhatnak, felhasznalhatnak vagy harmadik fel reszere tovabbithatnak. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee and may contain confidential information protected from disclosure by law or contract. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify us and delete it together with its attachments. If you are not an addressee of this message, reading, copying, distribution or use for any purpose of the contents of this message or its attachments is strictly forbidden. Additionally, please note that communication by email guarantees neither the confidentiality nor the completeness or proper receipt of the messages sent. Furthermore, Hungarian Telephone and Cable Corp., its affiliates and third parties retained by them may monitor, copy, use or forward to third parties any outgoing messages from and incoming messages to this email address. From dettenbach at skyway.net Fri Jun 19 09:54:43 2009 From: dettenbach at skyway.net (Niels Dettenbach) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 09:54:43 +0200 Subject: AW: [members-discuss] Please STOP to spam / list removal requests Message-ID: > -- Quote -- > This is an email for all "Ripe Members"... > > Pleae use "members-discuss at ripe. > net" only for important question!!! Sorry, but this discussion is related to the lists topic and - as the current traffic on this list let assume - seems to be "important" for many RIPE members. This is not an announcement only list - so this is not Spam. just btw: Who decides what is "important" or not for RIPE members? Are you able to recommend a better list or place for this RIPE member related topic? > ...please remove xxx at yyy.tld from this list ... You have the option to unsubscribe this list in your RIPE portal account or if you are not interested just in this thread just filter it (i.e. by subject or id) out i.e. into your /dev/null. Best regards, Niels. --- Niels Dettenbach ND2000-RIPE Skyway.net - Gesellschaft fuer satellitengestuetzte Internet Kommunikation mbH http://www.skyway.net --- Syndicat IT&Internet http://www.syndicat.com From Marcus.Gerdon at versatel.de Fri Jun 19 10:24:34 2009 From: Marcus.Gerdon at versatel.de (Marcus.Gerdon) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 10:24:34 +0200 Subject: AW: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 Message-ID: <227142482560EF458FF1F7E784E26AB8A45652@FLBVEXCH01.versatel.local> Hi @All, I've just digged through the mails happened during night with the list and would like to place some (more or less general) questions instead of replying to bunch of mails. 1) Charging Scheme The Charging Scheme 2009 counted PI and ASN for end-users the same way like any other allocation to a lir. So at most the lir's category might be raised. I suppose most widespread understanding is that the membership fee is mainly raised to cover administrative work done by the NCC. Where's the continuing work with PI/ASN that's different - even more - than with an allocation? Why's that going to be changed? I didn't see any rationale behind it being published up to now by the NCC. 2) Discussion and votes at RIPE meetings and GM's Someone's asked about Proxy and Internet Votes. Proxy Votes are possible - meaning you can transfer your vote to someone else - in before of a metting. Once I've been responded in sense of 'if you don't attend and don't arrange for a Proxy you're silently agreeing'. Despite missing the discussion and in-meeting changes or clarifications I've to proxy my vote to some other lir possibly eben being a competitor. But a few times already I missed a concrete agenda well in advance (a minor couple of weeks isn't 'well in advance' being possibly months after annoucement of the meeting). Taking into account the Policy Development Process with the different WG's which are discussed and decided by the according mailing lists I wonder why attention to a GM is effectively *required* to participate. The votes could be collected online via the LIR-Portal afterwards (after anybody had a chance to review the minutes from the meeting). So: How's the procedure for voting defined? Maybe it should be changed to allow for fair and equal participation? 3) 2007-01 I just took a quick look again at 2007-01 in the archive. Regarding the contractual requirements it only states in the 'Contractual Requirements' *DRAFT*: Notice that the resource holder is obliged to pay an annual fee to the LIR for the resources A clear statement that the resources will return by default to the RIPE NCC if - The resource holder cannot be contacted - The annual fee to the LIR is not paid Read the first and last line again. Where does it say the End-User has to pay to the *RIR*? How does NCC come up with this requirement then? Taking a look into RIPE-452 it's also saying 'LIR', not *RIR* in regards to the payment. 4) progress on 2007-01 implementation And finally just a comment by me on the general way this is handled: A TOTAL MESS... Supposedly someone handling a project on job like this might have to go and look for a new employer. Where's an overview across all phases of the implementation? Where's the (communicated) timeline for the complete project in advance? Where're the (as far as possible) finalized documents, requirements and to-do's of the implementation? Each time a new announcement is sent it's a new bit of 2007-01 and a new surprise. Imho the approval of 2007-01 turns out to be a wildcard for NCC to implement severe changes partially years afterwards. Complaining in March about incomplete information, somewhat hidden documents and time between information and deadline being to short I was told (in meaning): '2007-01 was accepted 2008, why now complain when 2 or 3 weeks in advance in March implementation starts? You could have worked out the End-User contract with the legals since approval of 2007-01'. I ask again in this discussion: WHEN have the contractual requirements been published? WHEN has the sample agreement been published? Btw: the sample still isn't linked anywhere on www.ripe.net, or wasn't I simply unable to find the third menu on a fifth-level page? Up to now all I see from 2007-01 is a lot of hassle, additional administrative burdens, open questions, even legal problems might still arise (still didn't dig into it). Sorry getting quite off-topic here - but this discussions seems to turn out to a general regarding implementation of 2007-01. So maybe someone serious answer to a few points... regards, Marcus ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Engineering IP Services Versatel West GmbH Unterste-Wilms-Strasse 29 D-44143 Dortmund Fon: +49-(0)231-399-4486 | Fax: +49-(0)231-399-4491 marcus.gerdon at versatel.de | www.versatel.de Sitz der Gesellschaft: Dortmund | Registergericht: Dortmund HRB 21738 Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Marc L?tzenkirchen, Dr. Hai Cheng, Dr. Max Padberg, Peter Schindler ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AS8881 / AS8638 / AS13270 | MG3031-RIPE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net > [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Matteo Abrile > Gesendet: Freitag, 19. Juni 2009 08:37 > An: Hank Nussbacher; Martin List-Petersen > Cc: Sven Olaf Kamphuis; Sven Olaf Kamphuis; members-discuss at ripe.net > Betreff: R: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 > > Please remove from this list m.abrile at itelsi.com > > Thank you > > -------------------------------------------------------- > Matteo Abrile > > Itelsi Tigullio Srl > Via G. Casaregis 50/12 - 16129 Genova > Tel. 0109845320 Fax. 0109845321 > mail: m.abrile at itelsi.com > > -----Messaggio originale----- > Da: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net > [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] Per conto di Hank Nussbacher > Inviato: venerd? 19 giugno 2009 8.43 > A: Martin List-Petersen > Cc: Sven Olaf Kamphuis; Sven Olaf Kamphuis; members-discuss at ripe.net > Oggetto: Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 > > On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Martin List-Petersen wrote: > > > Anyhow, this whole matter was also already raised at the GM. > > And who ever heard that 50 LIR members vote on behalf of 5000 > (as was at > the last GM)? Why can't proxy voting or Internet voting be > allowed? Why > does a non-profit LIR have to travel to the GM in order to > discuss this > and to be able to vote? > > -Hank > > From jon at fido.net Fri Jun 19 10:28:31 2009 From: jon at fido.net (Jon Morby) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 14:28:31 +0600 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <1245395785.4209.9.camel@ws> References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <1245395785.4209.9.camel@ws> Message-ID: And sadly it is a precedent ... EUR50 this year .... EUR500 the year after ... EUR5000 the year after that ?? Once it has been agreed in principal that we RIPE should start charging for an assignment, it is then possible for "the few" who are able to make it to these RIPE jollies^Wmeetings all over Europe and steer the policies then do so to their best interests. We've seen this recently with Nominet in the UK where by they now have 2 tiers of access, and it is no longer a "level playing field" for all members .. you have members, and you have "elite" members I totally agree that RIPE have been needlessly steering everyone into becoming an LIR when they only need a small assignment, and this has lead to a waste of IP allocations .. however my understanding is that this policy isn't designed to limit PA space assignments anyway ... it is designed to make PI harder to obtain, thus steering yet more people into the LIR route (whether they need to be an LIR or not) ... How many LIRs find RIPE referring customers to them because they needed an assignment? Few I suspect - they all either get told "go find one from this list" or otherwise "become an LIR" and pay the small LIR fee. Maybe its just me only seeing the glass as half full? Jon On 19 Jun 2009, at 09:16, Heidrich Attila wrote: > I think you do. > > Consider the domain registration. The registrator is kinda "service > provider" whether it serves any kind of access/hosting/content/DNS or > whatever, and the end user is the only "independent" user of the named > resource - but not owner. > > I think this is very similar to the PI assignments. In Hungary this is > normal the regitrstor having a one time enrollment feer, a yearly fee > (well, this contains registration fees for the whole amount), and > per-transaction fees after all new registration, transfers, and > prolongals. > > I do not think EUR50 to be so big problem, but we are an ISP, so > this is > quite normal for us to have the customer pay after allocating > resources > of any kind. > > Attila > > -----Eredeti ?zenet----- > >> Not every LIR is an ISP, a lot of them are. If you assign PI to >> somebody >> else, you have a provider/enduser relationship. That makes you a >> service >> provider of some sort. Be it internet, content or hosting. > > no, you dont. > > the customer usually asks to just register ip space and an AS number > which > he then announces himself to transits of -his- choice. > > > > -------------- > Ezen uzenet kizarolag a cimzettjenek szol es olyan bizalmas jellegu > informaciokat tartalmazhat, amelyek feltarasat jogszabaly vagy > szerzodes > tiltja. Amennyiben a jelen uzenetet On teves kezbesites folytan kapta, > kerjuk haladektalanul ertesitsen bennunket es az uzenetet annak > csatolmanyaival egyutt torolje. Amennyiben On nem cimzettje a jelen > uzenetnek, annak es mellekleteinek elolvasasa, masolasa, > tovabbitasa, vagy > barmely celbol torteno felhasznalasa szigoruan tilos. Megjegyezzuk, > hogy az > e-mail utjan torteno kozlesek nem garantaljak az elkuldott uzenetek > bizalmas jellegenek es teljessegenek megorzeset, valamint az uzenetek > megfelelo kezbesiteset. A fentieken tulmenoen, a Hungarian Telephone > and > Cable Corp., annak kapcsolt vallalkozasai, illetve az altaluk > megbizott > harmadik felek a jelen e-mail cimrol kuldott, vagy arra erkezo barmely > uzenetet ellenorizhetnek, lemasolhatnak, felhasznalhatnak vagy > harmadik fel > reszere tovabbithatnak. > > This message is intended exclusively for its addressee and may contain > confidential information protected from disclosure by law or > contract. If > you have received this message in error, please immediately notify > us and > delete it together with its attachments. If you are not an addressee > of > this message, reading, copying, distribution or use for any purpose > of the > contents of this message or its attachments is strictly forbidden. > Additionally, please note that communication by email guarantees > neither > the confidentiality nor the completeness or proper receipt of the > messages > sent. Furthermore, Hungarian Telephone and Cable Corp., its > affiliates and > third parties retained by them may monitor, copy, use or forward to > third > parties any outgoing messages from and incoming messages to this email > address. > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3898 bytes Desc: not available URL: From geraint.evans at urbanwimax.co.uk Fri Jun 19 11:12:58 2009 From: geraint.evans at urbanwimax.co.uk (Geraint Evans) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 10:12:58 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <1245395785.4209.9.camel@ws> Message-ID: <25ED320036CFC94EB0F4D2514AD85CFADAEB04@uw-exchange-001.urbanwimaxltd.local> The simple fact of the matter is PI space is not effectively being controlled. RIPE need to take control of it so that we don't have the same problems with IPv6 as we do now with IPv4. PI space has been passed to end users, and because its P.I no one is really maintaining who has what and what it is being used for. By making LIR's responsible for the relationship with the end user of the P.I a reclamation can be easily achieved - if needed, I don't agree with the charging but I do agree with making whoever requested the P.I space on behalf of a client responsible. Geraint -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Jon Morby Sent: 19 June 2009 09:29 To: lir at uralttk.ru Cc: Sven Olaf Kamphuis; Martin List-Petersen; lir at uralttk.ru; Sven Olaf Kamphuis; members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 And sadly it is a precedent ... EUR50 this year .... EUR500 the year after ... EUR5000 the year after that ?? Once it has been agreed in principal that we RIPE should start charging for an assignment, it is then possible for "the few" who are able to make it to these RIPE jollies^Wmeetings all over Europe and steer the policies then do so to their best interests. We've seen this recently with Nominet in the UK where by they now have 2 tiers of access, and it is no longer a "level playing field" for all members .. you have members, and you have "elite" members I totally agree that RIPE have been needlessly steering everyone into becoming an LIR when they only need a small assignment, and this has lead to a waste of IP allocations .. however my understanding is that this policy isn't designed to limit PA space assignments anyway ... it is designed to make PI harder to obtain, thus steering yet more people into the LIR route (whether they need to be an LIR or not) ... How many LIRs find RIPE referring customers to them because they needed an assignment? Few I suspect - they all either get told "go find one from this list" or otherwise "become an LIR" and pay the small LIR fee. Maybe its just me only seeing the glass as half full? Jon On 19 Jun 2009, at 09:16, Heidrich Attila wrote: > I think you do. > > Consider the domain registration. The registrator is kinda "service > provider" whether it serves any kind of access/hosting/content/DNS or > whatever, and the end user is the only "independent" user of the named > resource - but not owner. > > I think this is very similar to the PI assignments. In Hungary this is > normal the regitrstor having a one time enrollment feer, a yearly fee > (well, this contains registration fees for the whole amount), and > per-transaction fees after all new registration, transfers, and > prolongals. > > I do not think EUR50 to be so big problem, but we are an ISP, so > this is > quite normal for us to have the customer pay after allocating > resources > of any kind. > > Attila > > -----Eredeti ?zenet----- > >> Not every LIR is an ISP, a lot of them are. If you assign PI to >> somebody >> else, you have a provider/enduser relationship. That makes you a >> service >> provider of some sort. Be it internet, content or hosting. > > no, you dont. > > the customer usually asks to just register ip space and an AS number > which > he then announces himself to transits of -his- choice. > > > > -------------- > Ezen uzenet kizarolag a cimzettjenek szol es olyan bizalmas jellegu > informaciokat tartalmazhat, amelyek feltarasat jogszabaly vagy > szerzodes > tiltja. Amennyiben a jelen uzenetet On teves kezbesites folytan kapta, > kerjuk haladektalanul ertesitsen bennunket es az uzenetet annak > csatolmanyaival egyutt torolje. Amennyiben On nem cimzettje a jelen > uzenetnek, annak es mellekleteinek elolvasasa, masolasa, > tovabbitasa, vagy > barmely celbol torteno felhasznalasa szigoruan tilos. Megjegyezzuk, > hogy az > e-mail utjan torteno kozlesek nem garantaljak az elkuldott uzenetek > bizalmas jellegenek es teljessegenek megorzeset, valamint az uzenetek > megfelelo kezbesiteset. A fentieken tulmenoen, a Hungarian Telephone > and > Cable Corp., annak kapcsolt vallalkozasai, illetve az altaluk > megbizott > harmadik felek a jelen e-mail cimrol kuldott, vagy arra erkezo barmely > uzenetet ellenorizhetnek, lemasolhatnak, felhasznalhatnak vagy > harmadik fel > reszere tovabbithatnak. > > This message is intended exclusively for its addressee and may contain > confidential information protected from disclosure by law or > contract. If > you have received this message in error, please immediately notify > us and > delete it together with its attachments. If you are not an addressee > of > this message, reading, copying, distribution or use for any purpose > of the > contents of this message or its attachments is strictly forbidden. > Additionally, please note that communication by email guarantees > neither > the confidentiality nor the completeness or proper receipt of the > messages > sent. Furthermore, Hungarian Telephone and Cable Corp., its > affiliates and > third parties retained by them may monitor, copy, use or forward to > third > parties any outgoing messages from and incoming messages to this email > address. > From Marcus.Gerdon at versatel.de Fri Jun 19 11:30:46 2009 From: Marcus.Gerdon at versatel.de (Marcus.Gerdon) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 11:30:46 +0200 Subject: AW: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 Message-ID: <227142482560EF458FF1F7E784E26AB8A456EA@FLBVEXCH01.versatel.local> So that would be an easy one: To receive provider-independent resources get into contract with RIPE-NCC. Without any other way. Only problem with this 'Direct End User Assignment' is the horrible, far to high fee NCC want's to invoice. My theory: our dear hostmasters don't want to have the typical end-user hassle themselves and simply go for keeping that which has been made possible by 2007-01 far away by simply setting the fee high enough. Being forced to have a LIR handle a independent resource makes that resource dependent. just my 2c. Marcus ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Engineering IP Services Versatel West GmbH Unterste-Wilms-Strasse 29 D-44143 Dortmund Fon: +49-(0)231-399-4486 | Fax: +49-(0)231-399-4491 marcus.gerdon at versatel.de | www.versatel.de Sitz der Gesellschaft: Dortmund | Registergericht: Dortmund HRB 21738 Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Marc L?tzenkirchen, Dr. Hai Cheng, Dr. Max Padberg, Peter Schindler ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AS8881 / AS8638 / AS13270 | MG3031-RIPE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net > [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Geraint Evans > Gesendet: Freitag, 19. Juni 2009 11:13 > An: Jon Morby; lir at uralttk.ru > Cc: Sven Olaf Kamphuis; Martin List-Petersen; lir at uralttk.ru; > Sven Olaf Kamphuis; members-discuss at ripe.net > Betreff: RE: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 > > The simple fact of the matter is PI space is not effectively > being controlled. > > RIPE need to take control of it so that we don't have the > same problems with IPv6 as we do now with IPv4. > > PI space has been passed to end users, and because its P.I no > one is really maintaining who has what and what it is being used for. > > By making LIR's responsible for the relationship with the end > user of the P.I a reclamation can be easily achieved - if > needed, I don't agree with the charging but I do agree with > making whoever requested the P.I space on behalf of a client > responsible. > > > Geraint > > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net > [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Jon Morby > Sent: 19 June 2009 09:29 > To: lir at uralttk.ru > Cc: Sven Olaf Kamphuis; Martin List-Petersen; lir at uralttk.ru; > Sven Olaf Kamphuis; members-discuss at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 > > And sadly it is a precedent ... EUR50 this year .... EUR500 the year > after ... EUR5000 the year after that ?? > > Once it has been agreed in principal that we RIPE should start > charging for an assignment, it is then possible for "the few" > who are > able to make it to these RIPE jollies^Wmeetings all over Europe and > steer the policies then do so to their best interests. > > We've seen this recently with Nominet in the UK where by they > now have > 2 tiers of access, and it is no longer a "level playing > field" for all > members .. you have members, and you have "elite" members > > I totally agree that RIPE have been needlessly steering > everyone into > becoming an LIR when they only need a small assignment, and this has > lead to a waste of IP allocations .. however my understanding > is that > this policy isn't designed to limit PA space assignments > anyway ... it > is designed to make PI harder to obtain, thus steering yet > more people > into the LIR route (whether they need to be an LIR or not) ... > > How many LIRs find RIPE referring customers to them because they > needed an assignment? Few I suspect - they all either get told "go > find one from this list" or otherwise "become an LIR" and pay the > small LIR fee. > > Maybe its just me only seeing the glass as half full? > > Jon > > On 19 Jun 2009, at 09:16, Heidrich Attila wrote: > > > I think you do. > > > > Consider the domain registration. The registrator is kinda "service > > provider" whether it serves any kind of > access/hosting/content/DNS or > > whatever, and the end user is the only "independent" user > of the named > > resource - but not owner. > > > > I think this is very similar to the PI assignments. In > Hungary this is > > normal the regitrstor having a one time enrollment feer, a > yearly fee > > (well, this contains registration fees for the whole amount), and > > per-transaction fees after all new registration, transfers, and > > prolongals. > > > > I do not think EUR50 to be so big problem, but we are an ISP, so > > this is > > quite normal for us to have the customer pay after allocating > > resources > > of any kind. > > > > Attila > > > > -----Eredeti ?zenet----- > > > >> Not every LIR is an ISP, a lot of them are. If you assign PI to > >> somebody > >> else, you have a provider/enduser relationship. That makes you a > >> service > >> provider of some sort. Be it internet, content or hosting. > > > > no, you dont. > > > > the customer usually asks to just register ip space and an > AS number > > which > > he then announces himself to transits of -his- choice. > > > > > > > > -------------- > > Ezen uzenet kizarolag a cimzettjenek szol es olyan bizalmas jellegu > > informaciokat tartalmazhat, amelyek feltarasat jogszabaly vagy > > szerzodes > > tiltja. Amennyiben a jelen uzenetet On teves kezbesites > folytan kapta, > > kerjuk haladektalanul ertesitsen bennunket es az uzenetet annak > > csatolmanyaival egyutt torolje. Amennyiben On nem cimzettje a jelen > > uzenetnek, annak es mellekleteinek elolvasasa, masolasa, > > tovabbitasa, vagy > > barmely celbol torteno felhasznalasa szigoruan tilos. > Megjegyezzuk, > > hogy az > > e-mail utjan torteno kozlesek nem garantaljak az elkuldott uzenetek > > bizalmas jellegenek es teljessegenek megorzeset, valamint > az uzenetek > > megfelelo kezbesiteset. A fentieken tulmenoen, a Hungarian > Telephone > > and > > Cable Corp., annak kapcsolt vallalkozasai, illetve az altaluk > > megbizott > > harmadik felek a jelen e-mail cimrol kuldott, vagy arra > erkezo barmely > > uzenetet ellenorizhetnek, lemasolhatnak, felhasznalhatnak vagy > > harmadik fel > > reszere tovabbithatnak. > > > > This message is intended exclusively for its addressee and > may contain > > confidential information protected from disclosure by law or > > contract. If > > you have received this message in error, please immediately notify > > us and > > delete it together with its attachments. If you are not an > addressee > > of > > this message, reading, copying, distribution or use for any > purpose > > of the > > contents of this message or its attachments is strictly forbidden. > > Additionally, please note that communication by email guarantees > > neither > > the confidentiality nor the completeness or proper receipt of the > > messages > > sent. Furthermore, Hungarian Telephone and Cable Corp., its > > affiliates and > > third parties retained by them may monitor, copy, use or > forward to > > third > > parties any outgoing messages from and incoming messages to > this email > > address. > > > > From thomas.mangin at exa-networks.co.uk Fri Jun 19 11:38:54 2009 From: thomas.mangin at exa-networks.co.uk (Thomas Mangin) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 10:38:54 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <1245395785.4209.9.camel@ws> Message-ID: <21E803F2-1CDE-4542-BEC8-C80EA9478330@exa-networks.co.uk> Hi, > Once it has been agreed in principal that we RIPE should start > charging for an assignment, it is then possible for "the few" who > are able to make it to these RIPE jollies^Wmeetings all over Europe > and steer the policies then do so to their best interests. RIPE policies are proposed and voted by the membership, it can not get any more democratic than that ! If you do not like them: VOTE - you do not have to be at the meeting to send a proxy, and I do not say this as I am in favor of charing for PI space (I am neutral on the point) - I say it as it is how working members organisation stay alive. > We've seen this recently with Nominet in the UK where by they now > have 2 tiers of access, and it is no longer a "level playing field" > for all members .. you have members, and you have "elite" members I am in the UK, I am Nominet member as well. I went to Nominet Manchester consultation and to the best of my knowledge what you are saying is totally wrong. The board has currently no say on pricing, it is one of the point under discussion and any change in this direction will need to be voted. Feel free to ask nom-steer for a long discussion on the matter should you not want to take my word for it (and you have no reason to do). Regards, Thomas Mangin Technical Director -- Exa Networks Limited - http://www.exa-networks.co.uk/ Company No. 04922037 - VAT no. 829 1565 09 27-29 Mill Field Road, BD16 1PY, UK Phone: +44 (0) 845 145 1234 - Fax: +44 (0) 1274 567646 > And sadly it is a precedent ... EUR50 this year .... EUR500 the year > after ... EUR5000 the year after that ?? > > Once it has been agreed in principal that we RIPE should start > charging for an assignment, it is then possible for "the few" who > are able to make it to these RIPE jollies^Wmeetings all over Europe > and steer the policies then do so to their best interests. > > We've seen this recently with Nominet in the UK where by they now > have 2 tiers of access, and it is no longer a "level playing field" > for all members .. you have members, and you have "elite" members > > I totally agree that RIPE have been needlessly steering everyone > into becoming an LIR when they only need a small assignment, and > this has lead to a waste of IP allocations .. however my > understanding is that this policy isn't designed to limit PA space > assignments anyway ... it is designed to make PI harder to obtain, > thus steering yet more people into the LIR route (whether they need > to be an LIR or not) ... > > How many LIRs find RIPE referring customers to them because they > needed an assignment? Few I suspect - they all either get told "go > find one from this list" or otherwise "become an LIR" and pay the > small LIR fee. > > Maybe its just me only seeing the glass as half full? > > Jon > > On 19 Jun 2009, at 09:16, Heidrich Attila wrote: > >> I think you do. >> >> Consider the domain registration. The registrator is kinda "service >> provider" whether it serves any kind of access/hosting/content/DNS or >> whatever, and the end user is the only "independent" user of the >> named >> resource - but not owner. >> >> I think this is very similar to the PI assignments. In Hungary this >> is >> normal the regitrstor having a one time enrollment feer, a yearly fee >> (well, this contains registration fees for the whole amount), and >> per-transaction fees after all new registration, transfers, and >> prolongals. >> >> I do not think EUR50 to be so big problem, but we are an ISP, so >> this is >> quite normal for us to have the customer pay after allocating >> resources >> of any kind. >> >> Attila >> >> -----Eredeti ?zenet----- >> >>> Not every LIR is an ISP, a lot of them are. If you assign PI to >>> somebody >>> else, you have a provider/enduser relationship. That makes you a >>> service >>> provider of some sort. Be it internet, content or hosting. >> >> no, you dont. >> >> the customer usually asks to just register ip space and an AS >> number which >> he then announces himself to transits of -his- choice. >> >> >> >> -------------- >> Ezen uzenet kizarolag a cimzettjenek szol es olyan bizalmas jellegu >> informaciokat tartalmazhat, amelyek feltarasat jogszabaly vagy >> szerzodes >> tiltja. Amennyiben a jelen uzenetet On teves kezbesites folytan >> kapta, >> kerjuk haladektalanul ertesitsen bennunket es az uzenetet annak >> csatolmanyaival egyutt torolje. Amennyiben On nem cimzettje a jelen >> uzenetnek, annak es mellekleteinek elolvasasa, masolasa, >> tovabbitasa, vagy >> barmely celbol torteno felhasznalasa szigoruan tilos. Megjegyezzuk, >> hogy az >> e-mail utjan torteno kozlesek nem garantaljak az elkuldott uzenetek >> bizalmas jellegenek es teljessegenek megorzeset, valamint az uzenetek >> megfelelo kezbesiteset. A fentieken tulmenoen, a Hungarian >> Telephone and >> Cable Corp., annak kapcsolt vallalkozasai, illetve az altaluk >> megbizott >> harmadik felek a jelen e-mail cimrol kuldott, vagy arra erkezo >> barmely >> uzenetet ellenorizhetnek, lemasolhatnak, felhasznalhatnak vagy >> harmadik fel >> reszere tovabbithatnak. >> >> This message is intended exclusively for its addressee and may >> contain >> confidential information protected from disclosure by law or >> contract. If >> you have received this message in error, please immediately notify >> us and >> delete it together with its attachments. If you are not an >> addressee of >> this message, reading, copying, distribution or use for any purpose >> of the >> contents of this message or its attachments is strictly forbidden. >> Additionally, please note that communication by email guarantees >> neither >> the confidentiality nor the completeness or proper receipt of the >> messages >> sent. Furthermore, Hungarian Telephone and Cable Corp., its >> affiliates and >> third parties retained by them may monitor, copy, use or forward to >> third >> parties any outgoing messages from and incoming messages to this >> email >> address. >> > From geraint.evans at urbanwimax.co.uk Fri Jun 19 11:26:24 2009 From: geraint.evans at urbanwimax.co.uk (Geraint Evans) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 15:26:24 +0600 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <1245395785.4209.9.camel@ws> Message-ID: The simple fact of the matter is PI space is not effectively being controlled. RIPE need to take control of it so that we don't have the same problems with IPv6 as we do now with IPv4. PI space has been passed to end users, and because its P.I no one is really maintaining who has what and what it is being used for. By making LIR's responsible for the relationship with the end user of the P.I a reclamation can be easily achieved - if needed, I don't agree with the charging but I do agree with making whoever requested the P.I space on behalf of a client responsible. Geraint -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Jon Morby Sent: 19 June 2009 09:29 To: lir at uralttk.ru Cc: Sven Olaf Kamphuis; Martin List-Petersen; lir at uralttk.ru; Sven Olaf Kamphuis; members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 And sadly it is a precedent ... EUR50 this year .... EUR500 the year after ... EUR5000 the year after that ?? Once it has been agreed in principal that we RIPE should start charging for an assignment, it is then possible for "the few" who are able to make it to these RIPE jollies^Wmeetings all over Europe and steer the policies then do so to their best interests. We've seen this recently with Nominet in the UK where by they now have 2 tiers of access, and it is no longer a "level playing field" for all members .. you have members, and you have "elite" members I totally agree that RIPE have been needlessly steering everyone into becoming an LIR when they only need a small assignment, and this has lead to a waste of IP allocations .. however my understanding is that this policy isn't designed to limit PA space assignments anyway ... it is designed to make PI harder to obtain, thus steering yet more people into the LIR route (whether they need to be an LIR or not) ... How many LIRs find RIPE referring customers to them because they needed an assignment? Few I suspect - they all either get told "go find one from this list" or otherwise "become an LIR" and pay the small LIR fee. Maybe its just me only seeing the glass as half full? Jon On 19 Jun 2009, at 09:16, Heidrich Attila wrote: > I think you do. > > Consider the domain registration. The registrator is kinda "service > provider" whether it serves any kind of access/hosting/content/DNS or > whatever, and the end user is the only "independent" user of the named > resource - but not owner. > > I think this is very similar to the PI assignments. In Hungary this is > normal the regitrstor having a one time enrollment feer, a yearly fee > (well, this contains registration fees for the whole amount), and > per-transaction fees after all new registration, transfers, and > prolongals. > > I do not think EUR50 to be so big problem, but we are an ISP, so > this is > quite normal for us to have the customer pay after allocating > resources > of any kind. > > Attila > > -----Eredeti ?zenet----- > >> Not every LIR is an ISP, a lot of them are. If you assign PI to >> somebody >> else, you have a provider/enduser relationship. That makes you a >> service >> provider of some sort. Be it internet, content or hosting. > > no, you dont. > > the customer usually asks to just register ip space and an AS number > which > he then announces himself to transits of -his- choice. > > > > -------------- > Ezen uzenet kizarolag a cimzettjenek szol es olyan bizalmas jellegu > informaciokat tartalmazhat, amelyek feltarasat jogszabaly vagy > szerzodes > tiltja. Amennyiben a jelen uzenetet On teves kezbesites folytan kapta, > kerjuk haladektalanul ertesitsen bennunket es az uzenetet annak > csatolmanyaival egyutt torolje. Amennyiben On nem cimzettje a jelen > uzenetnek, annak es mellekleteinek elolvasasa, masolasa, > tovabbitasa, vagy > barmely celbol torteno felhasznalasa szigoruan tilos. Megjegyezzuk, > hogy az > e-mail utjan torteno kozlesek nem garantaljak az elkuldott uzenetek > bizalmas jellegenek es teljessegenek megorzeset, valamint az uzenetek > megfelelo kezbesiteset. A fentieken tulmenoen, a Hungarian Telephone > and > Cable Corp., annak kapcsolt vallalkozasai, illetve az altaluk > megbizott > harmadik felek a jelen e-mail cimrol kuldott, vagy arra erkezo barmely > uzenetet ellenorizhetnek, lemasolhatnak, felhasznalhatnak vagy > harmadik fel > reszere tovabbithatnak. > > This message is intended exclusively for its addressee and may contain > confidential information protected from disclosure by law or > contract. If > you have received this message in error, please immediately notify > us and > delete it together with its attachments. If you are not an addressee > of > this message, reading, copying, distribution or use for any purpose > of the > contents of this message or its attachments is strictly forbidden. > Additionally, please note that communication by email guarantees > neither > the confidentiality nor the completeness or proper receipt of the > messages > sent. Furthermore, Hungarian Telephone and Cable Corp., its > affiliates and > third parties retained by them may monitor, copy, use or forward to > third > parties any outgoing messages from and incoming messages to this email > address. > From jon at fido.net Fri Jun 19 12:01:20 2009 From: jon at fido.net (Jon Morby) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:01:20 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <21E803F2-1CDE-4542-BEC8-C80EA9478330@exa-networks.co.uk> References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <1245395785.4209.9.camel@ws> <21E803F2-1CDE-4542-BEC8-C80EA9478330@exa-networks.co.uk> Message-ID: <7BAD68A5-3171-463B-9BD7-51F71336E47D@fido.net> On 19 Jun 2009, at 11:38, Thomas Mangin wrote: > Hi, > >> Once it has been agreed in principal that we RIPE should start >> charging for an assignment, it is then possible for "the few" who >> are able to make it to these RIPE jollies^Wmeetings all over Europe >> and steer the policies then do so to their best interests. > > RIPE policies are proposed and voted by the membership, it can not > get any more democratic than that ! Yes, but generally it would seem that they're discussed at the GM and not in open forums such as this .... tbh other than a comment asking for a sample contract a few months ago (which I've still not seen, so haven't looked into this further until this thread started) I've not seen any discussion on this proposal > If you do not like them: VOTE - you do not have to be at the meeting > to send a proxy, and I do not say this as I am in favor of charing > for PI space (I am neutral on the point) - I say it as it is how > working members organisation stay alive. If I knew what we were voting on, and could find a company/member I trusted to proxy my vote in the way I wished it to be cast, then I would I'd be happier voting based on the minutes of the meeting through the LIR portal however ... and even happier if I can watch a stream of the whole proceedings on the basis it is difficult for me to get to any of these events > >> We've seen this recently with Nominet in the UK where by they now >> have 2 tiers of access, and it is no longer a "level playing field" >> for all members .. you have members, and you have "elite" members > > I am in the UK, I am Nominet member as well. I went to Nominet > Manchester consultation and to the best of my knowledge what you are > saying is totally wrong. The board has currently no say on pricing, > it is one of the point under discussion and any change in this > direction will need to be voted. This isn't the place for this discussion, but I refer to the implementation of DAC/EPP/Whois2/etc where we were told we would have to pay an additional ?400 for access on top of our membership fee owing to the policy of having "preferred" access or similar ... In the end we worked around it, but I'm also concerned about discussions I've heard about having weighted voting based on the number of domains you have registered through Nominet ... being a member should entitle you to 1 vote per membership .. not 1 vote per domain you register .. then anyone can "buy" the policy making process if they have enough money > > Feel free to ask nom-steer for a long discussion on the matter > should you not want to take my word for it (and you have no reason > to do). One day ... when I have enough staff, and enough spare time ... but not before I've had some sleep and a holiday! :) > > Regards, > > Thomas Mangin > Technical Director > -- > Exa Networks Limited - http://www.exa-networks.co.uk/ > Company No. 04922037 - VAT no. 829 1565 09 > 27-29 Mill Field Road, BD16 1PY, UK > Phone: +44 (0) 845 145 1234 - Fax: +44 (0) 1274 567646 > > >> And sadly it is a precedent ... EUR50 this year .... EUR500 the >> year after ... EUR5000 the year after that ?? >> >> Once it has been agreed in principal that we RIPE should start >> charging for an assignment, it is then possible for "the few" who >> are able to make it to these RIPE jollies^Wmeetings all over Europe >> and steer the policies then do so to their best interests. >> >> We've seen this recently with Nominet in the UK where by they now >> have 2 tiers of access, and it is no longer a "level playing field" >> for all members .. you have members, and you have "elite" members >> >> I totally agree that RIPE have been needlessly steering everyone >> into becoming an LIR when they only need a small assignment, and >> this has lead to a waste of IP allocations .. however my >> understanding is that this policy isn't designed to limit PA space >> assignments anyway ... it is designed to make PI harder to obtain, >> thus steering yet more people into the LIR route (whether they need >> to be an LIR or not) ... >> >> How many LIRs find RIPE referring customers to them because they >> needed an assignment? Few I suspect - they all either get told "go >> find one from this list" or otherwise "become an LIR" and pay the >> small LIR fee. >> >> Maybe its just me only seeing the glass as half full? >> >> Jon >> >> On 19 Jun 2009, at 09:16, Heidrich Attila wrote: >> >>> I think you do. >>> >>> Consider the domain registration. The registrator is kinda "service >>> provider" whether it serves any kind of access/hosting/content/DNS >>> or >>> whatever, and the end user is the only "independent" user of the >>> named >>> resource - but not owner. >>> >>> I think this is very similar to the PI assignments. In Hungary >>> this is >>> normal the regitrstor having a one time enrollment feer, a yearly >>> fee >>> (well, this contains registration fees for the whole amount), and >>> per-transaction fees after all new registration, transfers, and >>> prolongals. >>> >>> I do not think EUR50 to be so big problem, but we are an ISP, so >>> this is >>> quite normal for us to have the customer pay after allocating >>> resources >>> of any kind. >>> >>> Attila >>> >>> -----Eredeti ?zenet----- >>> >>>> Not every LIR is an ISP, a lot of them are. If you assign PI to >>>> somebody >>>> else, you have a provider/enduser relationship. That makes you a >>>> service >>>> provider of some sort. Be it internet, content or hosting. >>> >>> no, you dont. >>> >>> the customer usually asks to just register ip space and an AS >>> number which >>> he then announces himself to transits of -his- choice. >>> >>> >>> >>> -------------- >>> Ezen uzenet kizarolag a cimzettjenek szol es olyan bizalmas jellegu >>> informaciokat tartalmazhat, amelyek feltarasat jogszabaly vagy >>> szerzodes >>> tiltja. Amennyiben a jelen uzenetet On teves kezbesites folytan >>> kapta, >>> kerjuk haladektalanul ertesitsen bennunket es az uzenetet annak >>> csatolmanyaival egyutt torolje. Amennyiben On nem cimzettje a jelen >>> uzenetnek, annak es mellekleteinek elolvasasa, masolasa, >>> tovabbitasa, vagy >>> barmely celbol torteno felhasznalasa szigoruan tilos. >>> Megjegyezzuk, hogy az >>> e-mail utjan torteno kozlesek nem garantaljak az elkuldott uzenetek >>> bizalmas jellegenek es teljessegenek megorzeset, valamint az >>> uzenetek >>> megfelelo kezbesiteset. A fentieken tulmenoen, a Hungarian >>> Telephone and >>> Cable Corp., annak kapcsolt vallalkozasai, illetve az altaluk >>> megbizott >>> harmadik felek a jelen e-mail cimrol kuldott, vagy arra erkezo >>> barmely >>> uzenetet ellenorizhetnek, lemasolhatnak, felhasznalhatnak vagy >>> harmadik fel >>> reszere tovabbithatnak. >>> >>> This message is intended exclusively for its addressee and may >>> contain >>> confidential information protected from disclosure by law or >>> contract. If >>> you have received this message in error, please immediately notify >>> us and >>> delete it together with its attachments. If you are not an >>> addressee of >>> this message, reading, copying, distribution or use for any >>> purpose of the >>> contents of this message or its attachments is strictly forbidden. >>> Additionally, please note that communication by email guarantees >>> neither >>> the confidentiality nor the completeness or proper receipt of the >>> messages >>> sent. Furthermore, Hungarian Telephone and Cable Corp., its >>> affiliates and >>> third parties retained by them may monitor, copy, use or forward >>> to third >>> parties any outgoing messages from and incoming messages to this >>> email >>> address. >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3898 bytes Desc: not available URL: From martin at airwire.ie Fri Jun 19 12:01:02 2009 From: martin at airwire.ie (Martin List-Petersen) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 11:01:02 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <4A3AB9AA.4000904@airwire.ie> Message-ID: <4A3B61DE.8060802@airwire.ie> Hank Nussbacher wrote: > On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Martin List-Petersen wrote: > >> Anyhow, this whole matter was also already raised at the GM. > > And who ever heard that 50 LIR members vote on behalf of 5000 (as was at > the last GM)? Why can't proxy voting or Internet voting be allowed? > Why does a non-profit LIR have to travel to the GM in order to discuss > this and to be able to vote? Proxy voting is allowed. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968 From jon at fido.net Fri Jun 19 12:01:47 2009 From: jon at fido.net (Jon Morby) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:01:47 +0600 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <21E803F2-1CDE-4542-BEC8-C80EA9478330@exa-networks.co.uk> References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <1245395785.4209.9.camel@ws> <21E803F2-1CDE-4542-BEC8-C80EA9478330@exa-networks.co.uk> Message-ID: On 19 Jun 2009, at 11:38, Thomas Mangin wrote: > Hi, > >> Once it has been agreed in principal that we RIPE should start >> charging for an assignment, it is then possible for "the few" who >> are able to make it to these RIPE jollies^Wmeetings all over Europe >> and steer the policies then do so to their best interests. > > RIPE policies are proposed and voted by the membership, it can not > get any more democratic than that ! Yes, but generally it would seem that they're discussed at the GM and not in open forums such as this .... tbh other than a comment asking for a sample contract a few months ago (which I've still not seen, so haven't looked into this further until this thread started) I've not seen any discussion on this proposal > If you do not like them: VOTE - you do not have to be at the meeting > to send a proxy, and I do not say this as I am in favor of charing > for PI space (I am neutral on the point) - I say it as it is how > working members organisation stay alive. If I knew what we were voting on, and could find a company/member I trusted to proxy my vote in the way I wished it to be cast, then I would I'd be happier voting based on the minutes of the meeting through the LIR portal however ... and even happier if I can watch a stream of the whole proceedings on the basis it is difficult for me to get to any of these events > >> We've seen this recently with Nominet in the UK where by they now >> have 2 tiers of access, and it is no longer a "level playing field" >> for all members .. you have members, and you have "elite" members > > I am in the UK, I am Nominet member as well. I went to Nominet > Manchester consultation and to the best of my knowledge what you are > saying is totally wrong. The board has currently no say on pricing, > it is one of the point under discussion and any change in this > direction will need to be voted. This isn't the place for this discussion, but I refer to the implementation of DAC/EPP/Whois2/etc where we were told we would have to pay an additional ?400 for access on top of our membership fee owing to the policy of having "preferred" access or similar ... In the end we worked around it, but I'm also concerned about discussions I've heard about having weighted voting based on the number of domains you have registered through Nominet ... being a member should entitle you to 1 vote per membership .. not 1 vote per domain you register .. then anyone can "buy" the policy making process if they have enough money > > Feel free to ask nom-steer for a long discussion on the matter > should you not want to take my word for it (and you have no reason > to do). One day ... when I have enough staff, and enough spare time ... but not before I've had some sleep and a holiday! :) > > Regards, > > Thomas Mangin > Technical Director > -- > Exa Networks Limited - http://www.exa-networks.co.uk/ > Company No. 04922037 - VAT no. 829 1565 09 > 27-29 Mill Field Road, BD16 1PY, UK > Phone: +44 (0) 845 145 1234 - Fax: +44 (0) 1274 567646 > > >> And sadly it is a precedent ... EUR50 this year .... EUR500 the >> year after ... EUR5000 the year after that ?? >> >> Once it has been agreed in principal that we RIPE should start >> charging for an assignment, it is then possible for "the few" who >> are able to make it to these RIPE jollies^Wmeetings all over Europe >> and steer the policies then do so to their best interests. >> >> We've seen this recently with Nominet in the UK where by they now >> have 2 tiers of access, and it is no longer a "level playing field" >> for all members .. you have members, and you have "elite" members >> >> I totally agree that RIPE have been needlessly steering everyone >> into becoming an LIR when they only need a small assignment, and >> this has lead to a waste of IP allocations .. however my >> understanding is that this policy isn't designed to limit PA space >> assignments anyway ... it is designed to make PI harder to obtain, >> thus steering yet more people into the LIR route (whether they need >> to be an LIR or not) ... >> >> How many LIRs find RIPE referring customers to them because they >> needed an assignment? Few I suspect - they all either get told "go >> find one from this list" or otherwise "become an LIR" and pay the >> small LIR fee. >> >> Maybe its just me only seeing the glass as half full? >> >> Jon >> >> On 19 Jun 2009, at 09:16, Heidrich Attila wrote: >> >>> I think you do. >>> >>> Consider the domain registration. The registrator is kinda "service >>> provider" whether it serves any kind of access/hosting/content/DNS >>> or >>> whatever, and the end user is the only "independent" user of the >>> named >>> resource - but not owner. >>> >>> I think this is very similar to the PI assignments. In Hungary >>> this is >>> normal the regitrstor having a one time enrollment feer, a yearly >>> fee >>> (well, this contains registration fees for the whole amount), and >>> per-transaction fees after all new registration, transfers, and >>> prolongals. >>> >>> I do not think EUR50 to be so big problem, but we are an ISP, so >>> this is >>> quite normal for us to have the customer pay after allocating >>> resources >>> of any kind. >>> >>> Attila >>> >>> -----Eredeti ?zenet----- >>> >>>> Not every LIR is an ISP, a lot of them are. If you assign PI to >>>> somebody >>>> else, you have a provider/enduser relationship. That makes you a >>>> service >>>> provider of some sort. Be it internet, content or hosting. >>> >>> no, you dont. >>> >>> the customer usually asks to just register ip space and an AS >>> number which >>> he then announces himself to transits of -his- choice. >>> >>> >>> >>> -------------- >>> Ezen uzenet kizarolag a cimzettjenek szol es olyan bizalmas jellegu >>> informaciokat tartalmazhat, amelyek feltarasat jogszabaly vagy >>> szerzodes >>> tiltja. Amennyiben a jelen uzenetet On teves kezbesites folytan >>> kapta, >>> kerjuk haladektalanul ertesitsen bennunket es az uzenetet annak >>> csatolmanyaival egyutt torolje. Amennyiben On nem cimzettje a jelen >>> uzenetnek, annak es mellekleteinek elolvasasa, masolasa, >>> tovabbitasa, vagy >>> barmely celbol torteno felhasznalasa szigoruan tilos. >>> Megjegyezzuk, hogy az >>> e-mail utjan torteno kozlesek nem garantaljak az elkuldott uzenetek >>> bizalmas jellegenek es teljessegenek megorzeset, valamint az >>> uzenetek >>> megfelelo kezbesiteset. A fentieken tulmenoen, a Hungarian >>> Telephone and >>> Cable Corp., annak kapcsolt vallalkozasai, illetve az altaluk >>> megbizott >>> harmadik felek a jelen e-mail cimrol kuldott, vagy arra erkezo >>> barmely >>> uzenetet ellenorizhetnek, lemasolhatnak, felhasznalhatnak vagy >>> harmadik fel >>> reszere tovabbithatnak. >>> >>> This message is intended exclusively for its addressee and may >>> contain >>> confidential information protected from disclosure by law or >>> contract. If >>> you have received this message in error, please immediately notify >>> us and >>> delete it together with its attachments. If you are not an >>> addressee of >>> this message, reading, copying, distribution or use for any >>> purpose of the >>> contents of this message or its attachments is strictly forbidden. >>> Additionally, please note that communication by email guarantees >>> neither >>> the confidentiality nor the completeness or proper receipt of the >>> messages >>> sent. Furthermore, Hungarian Telephone and Cable Corp., its >>> affiliates and >>> third parties retained by them may monitor, copy, use or forward >>> to third >>> parties any outgoing messages from and incoming messages to this >>> email >>> address. >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3898 bytes Desc: not available URL: From martin at airwire.ie Fri Jun 19 12:03:08 2009 From: martin at airwire.ie (Martin List-Petersen) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 11:03:08 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <20090619071043.GR32028@wssyg117.sygroup-int.ch> References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <20090619071043.GR32028@wssyg117.sygroup-int.ch> Message-ID: <4A3B625C.6080503@airwire.ie> Tonnerre Lombard wrote: > In that case it is difficult to change a policy which previously held > unlimited validity. If there was however a clause defining that the > policy may be superseeded at any time, then it can be debated that it was > the responsibility of the sponsoring LIR to make corresponding contracts. Can you point out to me, where it said unlimited ? Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968 From thomas.mangin at exa-networks.co.uk Fri Jun 19 11:46:27 2009 From: thomas.mangin at exa-networks.co.uk (Thomas Mangin) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 15:46:27 +0600 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <1245395785.4209.9.camel@ws> Message-ID: Hi, > Once it has been agreed in principal that we RIPE should start > charging for an assignment, it is then possible for "the few" who > are able to make it to these RIPE jollies^Wmeetings all over Europe > and steer the policies then do so to their best interests. RIPE policies are proposed and voted by the membership, it can not get any more democratic than that ! If you do not like them: VOTE - you do not have to be at the meeting to send a proxy, and I do not say this as I am in favor of charing for PI space (I am neutral on the point) - I say it as it is how working members organisation stay alive. > We've seen this recently with Nominet in the UK where by they now > have 2 tiers of access, and it is no longer a "level playing field" > for all members .. you have members, and you have "elite" members I am in the UK, I am Nominet member as well. I went to Nominet Manchester consultation and to the best of my knowledge what you are saying is totally wrong. The board has currently no say on pricing, it is one of the point under discussion and any change in this direction will need to be voted. Feel free to ask nom-steer for a long discussion on the matter should you not want to take my word for it (and you have no reason to do). Regards, Thomas Mangin Technical Director -- Exa Networks Limited - http://www.exa-networks.co.uk/ Company No. 04922037 - VAT no. 829 1565 09 27-29 Mill Field Road, BD16 1PY, UK Phone: +44 (0) 845 145 1234 - Fax: +44 (0) 1274 567646 > And sadly it is a precedent ... EUR50 this year .... EUR500 the year > after ... EUR5000 the year after that ?? > > Once it has been agreed in principal that we RIPE should start > charging for an assignment, it is then possible for "the few" who > are able to make it to these RIPE jollies^Wmeetings all over Europe > and steer the policies then do so to their best interests. > > We've seen this recently with Nominet in the UK where by they now > have 2 tiers of access, and it is no longer a "level playing field" > for all members .. you have members, and you have "elite" members > > I totally agree that RIPE have been needlessly steering everyone > into becoming an LIR when they only need a small assignment, and > this has lead to a waste of IP allocations .. however my > understanding is that this policy isn't designed to limit PA space > assignments anyway ... it is designed to make PI harder to obtain, > thus steering yet more people into the LIR route (whether they need > to be an LIR or not) ... > > How many LIRs find RIPE referring customers to them because they > needed an assignment? Few I suspect - they all either get told "go > find one from this list" or otherwise "become an LIR" and pay the > small LIR fee. > > Maybe its just me only seeing the glass as half full? > > Jon > > On 19 Jun 2009, at 09:16, Heidrich Attila wrote: > >> I think you do. >> >> Consider the domain registration. The registrator is kinda "service >> provider" whether it serves any kind of access/hosting/content/DNS or >> whatever, and the end user is the only "independent" user of the >> named >> resource - but not owner. >> >> I think this is very similar to the PI assignments. In Hungary this >> is >> normal the regitrstor having a one time enrollment feer, a yearly fee >> (well, this contains registration fees for the whole amount), and >> per-transaction fees after all new registration, transfers, and >> prolongals. >> >> I do not think EUR50 to be so big problem, but we are an ISP, so >> this is >> quite normal for us to have the customer pay after allocating >> resources >> of any kind. >> >> Attila >> >> -----Eredeti ?zenet----- >> >>> Not every LIR is an ISP, a lot of them are. If you assign PI to >>> somebody >>> else, you have a provider/enduser relationship. That makes you a >>> service >>> provider of some sort. Be it internet, content or hosting. >> >> no, you dont. >> >> the customer usually asks to just register ip space and an AS >> number which >> he then announces himself to transits of -his- choice. >> >> >> >> -------------- >> Ezen uzenet kizarolag a cimzettjenek szol es olyan bizalmas jellegu >> informaciokat tartalmazhat, amelyek feltarasat jogszabaly vagy >> szerzodes >> tiltja. Amennyiben a jelen uzenetet On teves kezbesites folytan >> kapta, >> kerjuk haladektalanul ertesitsen bennunket es az uzenetet annak >> csatolmanyaival egyutt torolje. Amennyiben On nem cimzettje a jelen >> uzenetnek, annak es mellekleteinek elolvasasa, masolasa, >> tovabbitasa, vagy >> barmely celbol torteno felhasznalasa szigoruan tilos. Megjegyezzuk, >> hogy az >> e-mail utjan torteno kozlesek nem garantaljak az elkuldott uzenetek >> bizalmas jellegenek es teljessegenek megorzeset, valamint az uzenetek >> megfelelo kezbesiteset. A fentieken tulmenoen, a Hungarian >> Telephone and >> Cable Corp., annak kapcsolt vallalkozasai, illetve az altaluk >> megbizott >> harmadik felek a jelen e-mail cimrol kuldott, vagy arra erkezo >> barmely >> uzenetet ellenorizhetnek, lemasolhatnak, felhasznalhatnak vagy >> harmadik fel >> reszere tovabbithatnak. >> >> This message is intended exclusively for its addressee and may >> contain >> confidential information protected from disclosure by law or >> contract. If >> you have received this message in error, please immediately notify >> us and >> delete it together with its attachments. If you are not an >> addressee of >> this message, reading, copying, distribution or use for any purpose >> of the >> contents of this message or its attachments is strictly forbidden. >> Additionally, please note that communication by email guarantees >> neither >> the confidentiality nor the completeness or proper receipt of the >> messages >> sent. Furthermore, Hungarian Telephone and Cable Corp., its >> affiliates and >> third parties retained by them may monitor, copy, use or forward to >> third >> parties any outgoing messages from and incoming messages to this >> email >> address. >> > From martin at airwire.ie Fri Jun 19 12:12:18 2009 From: martin at airwire.ie (Martin List-Petersen) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 11:12:18 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <1245395785.4209.9.camel@ws> Message-ID: <4A3B6482.2030405@airwire.ie> Jon Morby wrote: > And sadly it is a precedent ... EUR50 this year .... EUR500 the year > after ... EUR5000 the year after that ?? You don't seem to have read the whole discussion. The RIPE NCC is not for profit. It's a cost-covering run operation and has to report to the board and the membership. If the PI fee's go up and generate so much revenue, the LIR fee's will have to got down. It's as simple as that, because at the end of the day, they are not allowed to turn out an overly huge profit. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968 From r.eeden at ecatel.net Fri Jun 19 12:17:30 2009 From: r.eeden at ecatel.net (Eeden, Reinier) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:17:30 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <4A3B6482.2030405@airwire.ie> References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <1245395785.4209.9.camel@ws> <4A3B6482.2030405@airwire.ie> Message-ID: <0e9a01c9f0c7$27b9dca0$772d95e0$@eeden@ecatel.net> Please remove me from this list. Thank you. Best regards, Reinier van Eeden ECATEL (NETHERLANDS) LIMITED. . +31 (0) 70 220 4015 ? +31 (0) 6 34 203 105 r.eeden at ecatel.net ? http://www.ecatel.net --- This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Martin List-Petersen Sent: Friday, 19 June 2009 12:12 PM To: Jon Morby Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 Jon Morby wrote: > And sadly it is a precedent ... EUR50 this year .... EUR500 the year > after ... EUR5000 the year after that ?? You don't seem to have read the whole discussion. The RIPE NCC is not for profit. It's a cost-covering run operation and has to report to the board and the membership. If the PI fee's go up and generate so much revenue, the LIR fee's will have to got down. It's as simple as that, because at the end of the day, they are not allowed to turn out an overly huge profit. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968 From jeroen at easyhosting.nl Fri Jun 19 12:07:59 2009 From: jeroen at easyhosting.nl (Jeroen Wunnink) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:07:59 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 Message-ID: <4A3B637F.8090005@easyhosting.nl> We've been discussing this draft with some of the NLNOG'ers (Dutch network operators), and from what we (or at least I) understood in a nutshell: In this draft, the PI space will lose it's scoring points scheme, and it'll just cost 50 euro's/year for an allocation (doesn't matter if it's a /24 or a /21 ?) Now a lot can (and has) already been said about the administrative implications, but from an operational standpoint it raises a few questions here. If a PI assignment will 'only' cost 50 euro's a year, won't everyone and his dog with a good story on why they need PI space just request their own range ?, I'm seeing a flurry of new customers with 1 or 2 servers knocking at our door to colocate these and say: 'Hey we have our own PI space, we don't need part of your PA, please add our range to your routers' Resulting lots of new small fragmented prefixes being added to the already growing global routing table.. -- Met vriendelijke groet, Jeroen Wunnink, EasyHosting B.V. Systeembeheerder systeembeheer at easyhosting.nl telefoon:+31 (035) 6285455 Postbus 48 fax: +31 (035) 6838242 3755 ZG Eemnes http://www.easyhosting.nl http://www.easycolocate.nl From thomas.mangin at exa-networks.co.uk Fri Jun 19 12:40:26 2009 From: thomas.mangin at exa-networks.co.uk (Thomas Mangin) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 11:40:26 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <7BAD68A5-3171-463B-9BD7-51F71336E47D@fido.net> References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <1245395785.4209.9.camel@ws> <21E803F2-1CDE-4542-BEC8-C80EA9478330@exa-networks.co.uk> <7BAD68A5-3171-463B-9BD7-51F71336E47D@fido.net> Message-ID: Hi, >> RIPE policies are proposed and voted by the membership, it can not >> get any more democratic than that ! > > Yes, but generally it would seem that they're discussed at the GM > and not in open forums such as this .... tbh other than a comment > asking for a sample contract a few months ago (which I've still not > seen, so haven't looked into this further until this thread started) > I've not seen any discussion on this proposal I do not want to drag individuals into the discussion, but Nigel Titley (Board Chairman) is going the extra mile to make sure that RIPE policies are well communicated and members involved. For the last few LINX and UKNOF meetings, he has been presenting all the policies under discussion at RIPE, I will bore the list with all the links. http://www.uknof.org.uk/uknof12/Titley-RIPE_policies.pdf http://www.uknof.org.uk/uknof13/Titley-RIPE_policy.pdf Linx members can access the archives for Linx 63 and Linx 65 where slides, audio and video are accessible. > In the end we worked around it, but I'm also concerned about > discussions I've heard about having weighted voting based on the > number of domains you have registered through Nominet ... being a > member should entitle you to 1 vote per membership .. not 1 vote per > domain you register .. then anyone can "buy" the policy making > process if they have enough money Nominet does not currently have a "1 member 1 vote" system, it never had, the voting was always weighted - which is making changes hard as some big members have currently near veto power .. But as you said this is off-topic. Thomas From thomas.mangin at exa-networks.co.uk Fri Jun 19 12:40:52 2009 From: thomas.mangin at exa-networks.co.uk (Thomas Mangin) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:40:52 +0600 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <7BAD68A5-3171-463B-9BD7-51F71336E47D@fido.net> References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <1245395785.4209.9.camel@ws> <21E803F2-1CDE-4542-BEC8-C80EA9478330@exa-networks.co.uk> <7BAD68A5-3171-463B-9BD7-51F71336E47D@fido.net> Message-ID: Hi, >> RIPE policies are proposed and voted by the membership, it can not >> get any more democratic than that ! > > Yes, but generally it would seem that they're discussed at the GM > and not in open forums such as this .... tbh other than a comment > asking for a sample contract a few months ago (which I've still not > seen, so haven't looked into this further until this thread started) > I've not seen any discussion on this proposal I do not want to drag individuals into the discussion, but Nigel Titley (Board Chairman) is going the extra mile to make sure that RIPE policies are well communicated and members involved. For the last few LINX and UKNOF meetings, he has been presenting all the policies under discussion at RIPE, I will bore the list with all the links. http://www.uknof.org.uk/uknof12/Titley-RIPE_policies.pdf http://www.uknof.org.uk/uknof13/Titley-RIPE_policy.pdf Linx members can access the archives for Linx 63 and Linx 65 where slides, audio and video are accessible. > In the end we worked around it, but I'm also concerned about > discussions I've heard about having weighted voting based on the > number of domains you have registered through Nominet ... being a > member should entitle you to 1 vote per membership .. not 1 vote per > domain you register .. then anyone can "buy" the policy making > process if they have enough money Nominet does not currently have a "1 member 1 vote" system, it never had, the voting was always weighted - which is making changes hard as some big members have currently near veto power .. But as you said this is off-topic. Thomas From sven at cyberbunker.com Fri Jun 19 12:42:22 2009 From: sven at cyberbunker.com (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 10:42:22 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <4A3B637F.8090005@easyhosting.nl> References: <4A3B637F.8090005@easyhosting.nl> Message-ID: oh dear, the routing table again... do you still run on your cisco 7200 with 32mb ram or what... get with the program, ours all have 8gb ram and even load the routing tables in under 15 minutes (half a second to be precise)... and yes, the original design was ofcourse for everyone thats connected to the internet to have their own ip space, now that hardware no longer costs a shit, i dont see any problems with that, if you still run old shit, upgrade! (you are gonna need it for ipv6 and 32 bit ASNs anyway) route table size, in my opinion, hasnt been an arguement since the invention of zebra and hot plug pci cards. -- Sven Olaf Kamphuis CB3ROB DataServices Phone: +31/87-8747479 Skype: CB3ROB MSN: sven at cb3rob.net C.V.: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cb3rob Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Jeroen Wunnink wrote: > We've been discussing this draft with some of the NLNOG'ers (Dutch > network operators), and from what we (or at least I) understood in a > nutshell: > > In this draft, the PI space will lose it's scoring points scheme, and > it'll just cost 50 euro's/year for an allocation (doesn't matter if it's > a /24 or a /21 ?) > > Now a lot can (and has) already been said about the administrative > implications, but from an operational standpoint it raises a few > questions here. > If a PI assignment will 'only' cost 50 euro's a year, won't everyone and > his dog with a good story on why they need PI space just request their > own range ?, I'm seeing a flurry of new customers with 1 or 2 servers > knocking at our door to colocate these and say: 'Hey we have our own PI > space, we don't need part of your PA, please add our range to your routers' > > Resulting lots of new small fragmented prefixes being added to the > already growing global routing table.. > > -- > > Met vriendelijke groet, > > Jeroen Wunnink, > EasyHosting B.V. Systeembeheerder > systeembeheer at easyhosting.nl > > telefoon:+31 (035) 6285455 Postbus 48 > fax: +31 (035) 6838242 3755 ZG Eemnes > > http://www.easyhosting.nl > http://www.easycolocate.nl > > > > X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "ripe.net" > From sven at cyberbunker.com Fri Jun 19 12:44:36 2009 From: sven at cyberbunker.com (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 10:44:36 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <4A3B637F.8090005@easyhosting.nl> References: <4A3B637F.8090005@easyhosting.nl> Message-ID: besides, everyone and his dog -should- get pi space, thats what lirs are supposed to do, only until now they used to get it for free, usually at a one-time-payment base and for as long as the original criteria for the use are met, and ripe is trying to get the "old" ones to pay without no legal basis whatsoever changes in policy ofcourse cannot be applied to existing registrations... (and seriously... routing table size a problem? 1993 called, they want their hardware back) -- Sven Olaf Kamphuis CB3ROB DataServices Phone: +31/87-8747479 Skype: CB3ROB MSN: sven at cb3rob.net C.V.: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cb3rob Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Jeroen Wunnink wrote: > We've been discussing this draft with some of the NLNOG'ers (Dutch > network operators), and from what we (or at least I) understood in a > nutshell: > > In this draft, the PI space will lose it's scoring points scheme, and > it'll just cost 50 euro's/year for an allocation (doesn't matter if it's > a /24 or a /21 ?) > > Now a lot can (and has) already been said about the administrative > implications, but from an operational standpoint it raises a few > questions here. > If a PI assignment will 'only' cost 50 euro's a year, won't everyone and > his dog with a good story on why they need PI space just request their > own range ?, I'm seeing a flurry of new customers with 1 or 2 servers > knocking at our door to colocate these and say: 'Hey we have our own PI > space, we don't need part of your PA, please add our range to your routers' > > Resulting lots of new small fragmented prefixes being added to the > already growing global routing table.. > > -- > > Met vriendelijke groet, > > Jeroen Wunnink, > EasyHosting B.V. Systeembeheerder > systeembeheer at easyhosting.nl > > telefoon:+31 (035) 6285455 Postbus 48 > fax: +31 (035) 6838242 3755 ZG Eemnes > > http://www.easyhosting.nl > http://www.easycolocate.nl > > > > X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "ripe.net" > From nicola.pavoni at telecomitalia.it Fri Jun 19 12:46:01 2009 From: nicola.pavoni at telecomitalia.it (Pavoni Nicola) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:46:01 +0200 Subject: R: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <4A3B637F.8090005@easyhosting.nl> Message-ID: <2102B99AF021054BAD01B4E1A69E5A2C14675C7579@GRFMBX705RM001.griffon.local> Please remove me from this list. Thank you. Best regards Nicola Pavoni -----Messaggio originale----- Da: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] Per conto di Sven Olaf Kamphuis Inviato: venerd? 19 giugno 2009 12.42 A: Jeroen Wunnink Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net Oggetto: Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 oh dear, the routing table again... do you still run on your cisco 7200 with 32mb ram or what... get with the program, ours all have 8gb ram and even load the routing tables in under 15 minutes (half a second to be precise)... and yes, the original design was ofcourse for everyone thats connected to the internet to have their own ip space, now that hardware no longer costs a shit, i dont see any problems with that, if you still run old shit, upgrade! (you are gonna need it for ipv6 and 32 bit ASNs anyway) route table size, in my opinion, hasnt been an arguement since the invention of zebra and hot plug pci cards. -- Sven Olaf Kamphuis CB3ROB DataServices Phone: +31/87-8747479 Skype: CB3ROB MSN: sven at cb3rob.net C.V.: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cb3rob Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Jeroen Wunnink wrote: > We've been discussing this draft with some of the NLNOG'ers (Dutch > network operators), and from what we (or at least I) understood in a > nutshell: > > In this draft, the PI space will lose it's scoring points scheme, and > it'll just cost 50 euro's/year for an allocation (doesn't matter if it's > a /24 or a /21 ?) > > Now a lot can (and has) already been said about the administrative > implications, but from an operational standpoint it raises a few > questions here. > If a PI assignment will 'only' cost 50 euro's a year, won't everyone and > his dog with a good story on why they need PI space just request their > own range ?, I'm seeing a flurry of new customers with 1 or 2 servers > knocking at our door to colocate these and say: 'Hey we have our own PI > space, we don't need part of your PA, please add our range to your routers' > > Resulting lots of new small fragmented prefixes being added to the > already growing global routing table.. > > -- > > Met vriendelijke groet, > > Jeroen Wunnink, > EasyHosting B.V. Systeembeheerder > systeembeheer at easyhosting.nl > > telefoon:+31 (035) 6285455 Postbus 48 > fax: +31 (035) 6838242 3755 ZG Eemnes > > http://www.easyhosting.nl > http://www.easycolocate.nl > > > > X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "ripe.net" > Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie. This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks. From paul at racksense.com Fri Jun 19 12:50:24 2009 From: paul at racksense.com (Paul Civati) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 11:50:24 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <4A3B637F.8090005@easyhosting.nl> References: <4A3B637F.8090005@easyhosting.nl> Message-ID: <13131.1245408624@xciv.org> Jeroen Wunnink wrote: > In this draft, the PI space will lose it's scoring points scheme, and > it'll just cost 50 euro's/year for an allocation (doesn't matter if it's > a /24 or a /21 ?) > > If a PI assignment will 'only' cost 50 euro's a year, won't everyone and > his dog with a good story on why they need PI space just request their > own range ?, I'm seeing a flurry of new customers with 1 or 2 servers > knocking at our door to colocate these and say: 'Hey we have our own PI > space, we don't need part of your PA, please add our range to your routers' What I have seen happening is this, some providers at the lower end of the hosting/colo/network end of the market have been offering the PI and AS services for free to get new business in. They've done this because once they have reached a certain size and their LIR category is big enough they have enough scoring leeway available to do this without it costing them more. Obviously this kind of practice where it's easy for PI/AS to become a zero cost option will naturally increase take up. I have even seen it advertised as part of the sale process ("/24 PI with our full racks"). I could speculate that when we are running out of address space that attaching a direct monetary value to that IP space may serve to effect some slow down in take up. >From our point of view being SMALL, we'll still pay the same when we lose the PI/AS scoring (with 1x v4 PA and 1x v6 PA) yet we'll now have to go around and tell our clients that their admin fee for their AS/PI is going to have to go up because RIPE rules have changed. Previously our charges were reflecting by our costs, ie. our category, now they will be reflected by our category plus 50 EUR per object. This is annoying when you've already told clients what the admin fee will be and then have to go around telling them things have changed, no-one gets price rises, especially in a recession. I am fine with the concept but the implications are very annoying and could cost us money. Regards, -Paul- -- Paul Civati 0870 321 2855 Rack Sense Ltd - Managed Service Provider - www.racksense.com From thomas.mangin at exa-networks.co.uk Fri Jun 19 12:50:50 2009 From: thomas.mangin at exa-networks.co.uk (Thomas Mangin) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 11:50:50 +0100 Subject: R: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <2102B99AF021054BAD01B4E1A69E5A2C14675C7579@GRFMBX705RM001.griffon.local> References: <4A3B637F.8090005@easyhosting.nl> <2102B99AF021054BAD01B4E1A69E5A2C14675C7579@GRFMBX705RM001.griffon.local> Message-ID: <98323D29-B2FE-4194-AE87-F5D01077C762@exa-networks.co.uk> To anyone wanting to unsubscribe : 1 - find out what email is subscribed (look the mail you received) 2- visit http://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss (this information is in the header of the mail) 3- do not post on the list asking someone to do this for you - they CAN'T Good bye, sorry to see you leave. Thomas > Please remove me from this list. Thank you. From heidricha at invitel.co.hu Fri Jun 19 12:50:59 2009 From: heidricha at invitel.co.hu (Heidrich Attila) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:50:59 +0200 Subject: AW: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <227142482560EF458FF1F7E784E26AB8A45652@FLBVEXCH01.versatel.local> References: <227142482560EF458FF1F7E784E26AB8A45652@FLBVEXCH01.versatel.local> Message-ID: <1245408659.4209.32.camel@ws> Dear All! My collogue who is in charge of pricing the services just pointed me an important thing! We have to make the prototype contract now, gather the end users who will be contracted until September 20, and sign the actual contracts this year. We also have to sign the same contract with anyone who need indepentent resource right now. We have to do all this without having any knowledge of the prices we will have to pay after these services! OK, the projected fees are not high, but anyone who have ever dealt with corporate costs would have all hairs up seeing this!! I also know that RIPE have always encouraged the LIRs not to give these services free, but still this is the first case when there would be a direct cost against the incomes! I know this is another story, and not all the RIPE members are ISPs, but please do not forget this aspect eighter! Attila -------------- Ezen uzenet kizarolag a cimzettjenek szol es olyan bizalmas jellegu informaciokat tartalmazhat, amelyek feltarasat jogszabaly vagy szerzodes tiltja. Amennyiben a jelen uzenetet On teves kezbesites folytan kapta, kerjuk haladektalanul ertesitsen bennunket es az uzenetet annak csatolmanyaival egyutt torolje. Amennyiben On nem cimzettje a jelen uzenetnek, annak es mellekleteinek elolvasasa, masolasa, tovabbitasa, vagy barmely celbol torteno felhasznalasa szigoruan tilos. Megjegyezzuk, hogy az e-mail utjan torteno kozlesek nem garantaljak az elkuldott uzenetek bizalmas jellegenek es teljessegenek megorzeset, valamint az uzenetek megfelelo kezbesiteset. A fentieken tulmenoen, a Hungarian Telephone and Cable Corp., annak kapcsolt vallalkozasai, illetve az altaluk megbizott harmadik felek a jelen e-mail cimrol kuldott, vagy arra erkezo barmely uzenetet ellenorizhetnek, lemasolhatnak, felhasznalhatnak vagy harmadik fel reszere tovabbithatnak. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee and may contain confidential information protected from disclosure by law or contract. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify us and delete it together with its attachments. If you are not an addressee of this message, reading, copying, distribution or use for any purpose of the contents of this message or its attachments is strictly forbidden. Additionally, please note that communication by email guarantees neither the confidentiality nor the completeness or proper receipt of the messages sent. Furthermore, Hungarian Telephone and Cable Corp., its affiliates and third parties retained by them may monitor, copy, use or forward to third parties any outgoing messages from and incoming messages to this email address. From sven at cb3rob.net Fri Jun 19 12:34:43 2009 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 10:34:43 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <4A3B625C.6080503@airwire.ie> References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <20090619071043.GR32028@wssyg117.sygroup-int.ch> <4A3B625C.6080503@airwire.ie> Message-ID: On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Martin List-Petersen wrote: > Tonnerre Lombard wrote: > > In that case it is difficult to change a policy which previously held > > unlimited validity. If there was however a clause defining that the > > policy may be superseeded at any time, then it can be debated that it was > > the responsibility of the sponsoring LIR to make corresponding contracts. > > Can you point out to me, where it said unlimited ? it doesnt but the PI requlations do specify that the -use- has to remain in accordance with the orignal reasons for which it was requested. which basically boils down to: ripe can only remove such allocations if they are no longer in use for their original purpose, they cannot try to fork money out of existing PI/AS users, or their LIRs, so yes, as long as the original request criteria are met, they are -forever- (before we registered our first PI block I even called and asked them if PROVIDER INDEPENDANT space would not cause recurring fees for us, and they said no. (besides the showing up in the billing score for a short time, which ofcourse is calculated into our one-time administration fee.) > Kind regards, > Martin List-Petersen > -- > Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair > http://www.airwire.ie > Phone: 091-865 968 > > > X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "ripe.net" > From sven at cb3rob.net Fri Jun 19 12:35:39 2009 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 10:35:39 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <1245395785.4209.9.camel@ws> Message-ID: still, a democratic organisation that blackmails people is still conducting a crime. -- Sven Olaf Kamphuis CB3ROB DataServices Phone: +31/87-8747479 Skype: CB3ROB MSN: sven at cb3rob.net C.V.: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cb3rob Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Thomas Mangin wrote: > Hi, > > > Once it has been agreed in principal that we RIPE should start > > charging for an assignment, it is then possible for "the few" who > > are able to make it to these RIPE jollies^Wmeetings all over Europe > > and steer the policies then do so to their best interests. > > RIPE policies are proposed and voted by the membership, it can not get > any more democratic than that ! > If you do not like them: VOTE - you do not have to be at the meeting > to send a proxy, and I do not say this as I am in favor of charing for > PI space (I am neutral on the point) - I say it as it is how working > members organisation stay alive. > > > We've seen this recently with Nominet in the UK where by they now > > have 2 tiers of access, and it is no longer a "level playing field" > > for all members .. you have members, and you have "elite" members > > I am in the UK, I am Nominet member as well. I went to Nominet > Manchester consultation and to the best of my knowledge what you are > saying is totally wrong. The board has currently no say on pricing, it > is one of the point under discussion and any change in this direction > will need to be voted. > > Feel free to ask nom-steer for a long discussion on the matter should > you not want to take my word for it (and you have no reason to do). > > Regards, > > Thomas Mangin > Technical Director > -- > Exa Networks Limited - http://www.exa-networks.co.uk/ > Company No. 04922037 - VAT no. 829 1565 09 > 27-29 Mill Field Road, BD16 1PY, UK > Phone: +44 (0) 845 145 1234 - Fax: +44 (0) 1274 567646 > > > > And sadly it is a precedent ... EUR50 this year .... EUR500 the year > > after ... EUR5000 the year after that ?? > > > > Once it has been agreed in principal that we RIPE should start > > charging for an assignment, it is then possible for "the few" who > > are able to make it to these RIPE jollies^Wmeetings all over Europe > > and steer the policies then do so to their best interests. > > > > We've seen this recently with Nominet in the UK where by they now > > have 2 tiers of access, and it is no longer a "level playing field" > > for all members .. you have members, and you have "elite" members > > > > I totally agree that RIPE have been needlessly steering everyone > > into becoming an LIR when they only need a small assignment, and > > this has lead to a waste of IP allocations .. however my > > understanding is that this policy isn't designed to limit PA space > > assignments anyway ... it is designed to make PI harder to obtain, > > thus steering yet more people into the LIR route (whether they need > > to be an LIR or not) ... > > > > How many LIRs find RIPE referring customers to them because they > > needed an assignment? Few I suspect - they all either get told "go > > find one from this list" or otherwise "become an LIR" and pay the > > small LIR fee. > > > > Maybe its just me only seeing the glass as half full? > > > > Jon > > > > On 19 Jun 2009, at 09:16, Heidrich Attila wrote: > > > >> I think you do. > >> > >> Consider the domain registration. The registrator is kinda "service > >> provider" whether it serves any kind of access/hosting/content/DNS or > >> whatever, and the end user is the only "independent" user of the > >> named > >> resource - but not owner. > >> > >> I think this is very similar to the PI assignments. In Hungary this > >> is > >> normal the regitrstor having a one time enrollment feer, a yearly fee > >> (well, this contains registration fees for the whole amount), and > >> per-transaction fees after all new registration, transfers, and > >> prolongals. > >> > >> I do not think EUR50 to be so big problem, but we are an ISP, so > >> this is > >> quite normal for us to have the customer pay after allocating > >> resources > >> of any kind. > >> > >> Attila > >> > >> -----Eredeti ?zenet----- > >> > >>> Not every LIR is an ISP, a lot of them are. If you assign PI to > >>> somebody > >>> else, you have a provider/enduser relationship. That makes you a > >>> service > >>> provider of some sort. Be it internet, content or hosting. > >> > >> no, you dont. > >> > >> the customer usually asks to just register ip space and an AS > >> number which > >> he then announces himself to transits of -his- choice. > >> > >> > >> > >> -------------- > >> Ezen uzenet kizarolag a cimzettjenek szol es olyan bizalmas jellegu > >> informaciokat tartalmazhat, amelyek feltarasat jogszabaly vagy > >> szerzodes > >> tiltja. Amennyiben a jelen uzenetet On teves kezbesites folytan > >> kapta, > >> kerjuk haladektalanul ertesitsen bennunket es az uzenetet annak > >> csatolmanyaival egyutt torolje. Amennyiben On nem cimzettje a jelen > >> uzenetnek, annak es mellekleteinek elolvasasa, masolasa, > >> tovabbitasa, vagy > >> barmely celbol torteno felhasznalasa szigoruan tilos. Megjegyezzuk, > >> hogy az > >> e-mail utjan torteno kozlesek nem garantaljak az elkuldott uzenetek > >> bizalmas jellegenek es teljessegenek megorzeset, valamint az uzenetek > >> megfelelo kezbesiteset. A fentieken tulmenoen, a Hungarian > >> Telephone and > >> Cable Corp., annak kapcsolt vallalkozasai, illetve az altaluk > >> megbizott > >> harmadik felek a jelen e-mail cimrol kuldott, vagy arra erkezo > >> barmely > >> uzenetet ellenorizhetnek, lemasolhatnak, felhasznalhatnak vagy > >> harmadik fel > >> reszere tovabbithatnak. > >> > >> This message is intended exclusively for its addressee and may > >> contain > >> confidential information protected from disclosure by law or > >> contract. If > >> you have received this message in error, please immediately notify > >> us and > >> delete it together with its attachments. If you are not an > >> addressee of > >> this message, reading, copying, distribution or use for any purpose > >> of the > >> contents of this message or its attachments is strictly forbidden. > >> Additionally, please note that communication by email guarantees > >> neither > >> the confidentiality nor the completeness or proper receipt of the > >> messages > >> sent. Furthermore, Hungarian Telephone and Cable Corp., its > >> affiliates and > >> third parties retained by them may monitor, copy, use or forward to > >> third > >> parties any outgoing messages from and incoming messages to this > >> email > >> address. > >> > > > > > > > X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "limited" > X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "ripe.net" > From sven at cb3rob.net Fri Jun 19 12:40:30 2009 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 10:40:30 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <4A3B637F.8090005@easyhosting.nl> References: <4A3B637F.8090005@easyhosting.nl> Message-ID: oh dear, the routing table again... do you still run on your cisco 7200 with 32mb ram or what... get with the program, ours all have 8gb ram and even load the routing tables in under 15 minutes (half a second to be precise)... and yes, the original design was ofcourse for everyone thats connected to the internet to have their own ip space, now that hardware no longer costs a shit, i dont see any problems with that, if you still run old shit, upgrade! (you are gonna need it for ipv6 and 32 bit ASNs anyway) route table size, in my opinion, hasnt been an arguement since the invention of zebra and hot plug pci cards. -- Sven Olaf Kamphuis CB3ROB DataServices Phone: +31/87-8747479 Skype: CB3ROB MSN: sven at cb3rob.net C.V.: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cb3rob Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Jeroen Wunnink wrote: > We've been discussing this draft with some of the NLNOG'ers (Dutch > network operators), and from what we (or at least I) understood in a > nutshell: > > In this draft, the PI space will lose it's scoring points scheme, and > it'll just cost 50 euro's/year for an allocation (doesn't matter if it's > a /24 or a /21 ?) > > Now a lot can (and has) already been said about the administrative > implications, but from an operational standpoint it raises a few > questions here. > If a PI assignment will 'only' cost 50 euro's a year, won't everyone and > his dog with a good story on why they need PI space just request their > own range ?, I'm seeing a flurry of new customers with 1 or 2 servers > knocking at our door to colocate these and say: 'Hey we have our own PI > space, we don't need part of your PA, please add our range to your routers' > > Resulting lots of new small fragmented prefixes being added to the > already growing global routing table.. > > -- > > Met vriendelijke groet, > > Jeroen Wunnink, > EasyHosting B.V. Systeembeheerder > systeembeheer at easyhosting.nl > > telefoon:+31 (035) 6285455 Postbus 48 > fax: +31 (035) 6838242 3755 ZG Eemnes > > http://www.easyhosting.nl > http://www.easycolocate.nl > > > > X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "ripe.net" > From fweimer at bfk.de Fri Jun 19 12:52:47 2009 From: fweimer at bfk.de (Florian Weimer) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:52:47 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <4A3B637F.8090005@easyhosting.nl> (Jeroen Wunnink's message of "Fri\, 19 Jun 2009 12\:07\:59 +0200") References: <4A3B637F.8090005@easyhosting.nl> Message-ID: <82eitgbim8.fsf@mid.bfk.de> * Jeroen Wunnink: > If a PI assignment will 'only' cost 50 euro's a year, won't everyone > and his dog with a good story on why they need PI space just request > their own range ?, Over all the years, PI assignments weren't included in the LIR billing score after the year of assignment. There has already been a rather strong incentive to obtain PI space for customers. (BTW, if you don't want to receive this discussion, please go to the LIR Portal and make the required changes to your mailing list subscriptions.) -- Florian Weimer BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ Kriegsstra?e 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99 From jeroen at easyhosting.nl Fri Jun 19 13:00:33 2009 From: jeroen at easyhosting.nl (Jeroen Wunnink) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:00:33 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <82eitgbim8.fsf@mid.bfk.de> References: <4A3B637F.8090005@easyhosting.nl> <82eitgbim8.fsf@mid.bfk.de> Message-ID: <4A3B6FD1.1010201@easyhosting.nl> It's not ? From the charging scheme on the RIPE site, PI space is currently counted with a higher score as PA space: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/charging.html A /21 PA has a score of 1 against a /24 PI which also has a score of 1 Florian Weimer wrote: > * Jeroen Wunnink: > > >> If a PI assignment will 'only' cost 50 euro's a year, won't everyone >> and his dog with a good story on why they need PI space just request >> their own range ?, >> > > Over all the years, PI assignments weren't included in the LIR billing > score after the year of assignment. There has already been a rather > strong incentive to obtain PI space for customers. > > (BTW, if you don't want to receive this discussion, please go to the > LIR Portal and make the required changes to your mailing list > subscriptions.) > > -- Met vriendelijke groet, Jeroen Wunnink, EasyHosting B.V. Systeembeheerder systeembeheer at easyhosting.nl telefoon:+31 (035) 6285455 Postbus 48 fax: +31 (035) 6838242 3755 ZG Eemnes http://www.easyhosting.nl http://www.easycolocate.nl From sven at cyberbunker.com Fri Jun 19 13:20:56 2009 From: sven at cyberbunker.com (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 11:20:56 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <4A3B6FD1.1010201@easyhosting.nl> References: <4A3B637F.8090005@easyhosting.nl> <82eitgbim8.fsf@mid.bfk.de> <4A3B6FD1.1010201@easyhosting.nl> Message-ID: > It's not ? > > From the charging scheme on the RIPE site, PI space is currently > counted with a higher score as PA space: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/charging.html > > A /21 PA has a score of 1 against a /24 PI which also has a score of 1 only for the first (2?) year(s) after registration. after that pi space and customer-org as numbers are no longer counted in the lir billing score, after all, the PI-users intention is to be independant of providers, and therefore doesnt want the possibility for the lir to screw him over (change prices, contracts,etc) in the long run either. -- Sven Olaf Kamphuis CB3ROB DataServices Phone: +31/87-8747479 Skype: CB3ROB MSN: sven at cb3rob.net C.V.: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cb3rob Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Jeroen Wunnink wrote: > It's not ? > > From the charging scheme on the RIPE site, PI space is currently > counted with a higher score as PA space: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/charging.html > > A /21 PA has a score of 1 against a /24 PI which also has a score of 1 > > > Florian Weimer wrote: > > * Jeroen Wunnink: > > > > > >> If a PI assignment will 'only' cost 50 euro's a year, won't everyone > >> and his dog with a good story on why they need PI space just request > >> their own range ?, > >> > > > > Over all the years, PI assignments weren't included in the LIR billing > > score after the year of assignment. There has already been a rather > > strong incentive to obtain PI space for customers. > > > > (BTW, if you don't want to receive this discussion, please go to the > > LIR Portal and make the required changes to your mailing list > > subscriptions.) > > > > > > -- > > Met vriendelijke groet, > > Jeroen Wunnink, > EasyHosting B.V. Systeembeheerder > systeembeheer at easyhosting.nl > > telefoon:+31 (035) 6285455 Postbus 48 > fax: +31 (035) 6838242 3755 ZG Eemnes > > http://www.easyhosting.nl > http://www.easycolocate.nl > > > > X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "ripe.net" > From sven at cb3rob.net Fri Jun 19 12:55:44 2009 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:55:44 +0600 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <1245395785.4209.9.camel@ws> Message-ID: still, a democratic organisation that blackmails people is still conducting a crime. -- Sven Olaf Kamphuis CB3ROB DataServices Phone: +31/87-8747479 Skype: CB3ROB MSN: sven at cb3rob.net C.V.: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cb3rob Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Thomas Mangin wrote: > Hi, > > > Once it has been agreed in principal that we RIPE should start > > charging for an assignment, it is then possible for "the few" who > > are able to make it to these RIPE jollies^Wmeetings all over Europe > > and steer the policies then do so to their best interests. > > RIPE policies are proposed and voted by the membership, it can not get > any more democratic than that ! > If you do not like them: VOTE - you do not have to be at the meeting > to send a proxy, and I do not say this as I am in favor of charing for > PI space (I am neutral on the point) - I say it as it is how working > members organisation stay alive. > > > We've seen this recently with Nominet in the UK where by they now > > have 2 tiers of access, and it is no longer a "level playing field" > > for all members .. you have members, and you have "elite" members > > I am in the UK, I am Nominet member as well. I went to Nominet > Manchester consultation and to the best of my knowledge what you are > saying is totally wrong. The board has currently no say on pricing, it > is one of the point under discussion and any change in this direction > will need to be voted. > > Feel free to ask nom-steer for a long discussion on the matter should > you not want to take my word for it (and you have no reason to do). > > Regards, > > Thomas Mangin > Technical Director > -- > Exa Networks Limited - http://www.exa-networks.co.uk/ > Company No. 04922037 - VAT no. 829 1565 09 > 27-29 Mill Field Road, BD16 1PY, UK > Phone: +44 (0) 845 145 1234 - Fax: +44 (0) 1274 567646 > > > > And sadly it is a precedent ... EUR50 this year .... EUR500 the year > > after ... EUR5000 the year after that ?? > > > > Once it has been agreed in principal that we RIPE should start > > charging for an assignment, it is then possible for "the few" who > > are able to make it to these RIPE jollies^Wmeetings all over Europe > > and steer the policies then do so to their best interests. > > > > We've seen this recently with Nominet in the UK where by they now > > have 2 tiers of access, and it is no longer a "level playing field" > > for all members .. you have members, and you have "elite" members > > > > I totally agree that RIPE have been needlessly steering everyone > > into becoming an LIR when they only need a small assignment, and > > this has lead to a waste of IP allocations .. however my > > understanding is that this policy isn't designed to limit PA space > > assignments anyway ... it is designed to make PI harder to obtain, > > thus steering yet more people into the LIR route (whether they need > > to be an LIR or not) ... > > > > How many LIRs find RIPE referring customers to them because they > > needed an assignment? Few I suspect - they all either get told "go > > find one from this list" or otherwise "become an LIR" and pay the > > small LIR fee. > > > > Maybe its just me only seeing the glass as half full? > > > > Jon > > > > On 19 Jun 2009, at 09:16, Heidrich Attila wrote: > > > >> I think you do. > >> > >> Consider the domain registration. The registrator is kinda "service > >> provider" whether it serves any kind of access/hosting/content/DNS or > >> whatever, and the end user is the only "independent" user of the > >> named > >> resource - but not owner. > >> > >> I think this is very similar to the PI assignments. In Hungary this > >> is > >> normal the regitrstor having a one time enrollment feer, a yearly fee > >> (well, this contains registration fees for the whole amount), and > >> per-transaction fees after all new registration, transfers, and > >> prolongals. > >> > >> I do not think EUR50 to be so big problem, but we are an ISP, so > >> this is > >> quite normal for us to have the customer pay after allocating > >> resources > >> of any kind. > >> > >> Attila > >> > >> -----Eredeti ?zenet----- > >> > >>> Not every LIR is an ISP, a lot of them are. If you assign PI to > >>> somebody > >>> else, you have a provider/enduser relationship. That makes you a > >>> service > >>> provider of some sort. Be it internet, content or hosting. > >> > >> no, you dont. > >> > >> the customer usually asks to just register ip space and an AS > >> number which > >> he then announces himself to transits of -his- choice. > >> > >> > >> > >> -------------- > >> Ezen uzenet kizarolag a cimzettjenek szol es olyan bizalmas jellegu > >> informaciokat tartalmazhat, amelyek feltarasat jogszabaly vagy > >> szerzodes > >> tiltja. Amennyiben a jelen uzenetet On teves kezbesites folytan > >> kapta, > >> kerjuk haladektalanul ertesitsen bennunket es az uzenetet annak > >> csatolmanyaival egyutt torolje. Amennyiben On nem cimzettje a jelen > >> uzenetnek, annak es mellekleteinek elolvasasa, masolasa, > >> tovabbitasa, vagy > >> barmely celbol torteno felhasznalasa szigoruan tilos. Megjegyezzuk, > >> hogy az > >> e-mail utjan torteno kozlesek nem garantaljak az elkuldott uzenetek > >> bizalmas jellegenek es teljessegenek megorzeset, valamint az uzenetek > >> megfelelo kezbesiteset. A fentieken tulmenoen, a Hungarian > >> Telephone and > >> Cable Corp., annak kapcsolt vallalkozasai, illetve az altaluk > >> megbizott > >> harmadik felek a jelen e-mail cimrol kuldott, vagy arra erkezo > >> barmely > >> uzenetet ellenorizhetnek, lemasolhatnak, felhasznalhatnak vagy > >> harmadik fel > >> reszere tovabbithatnak. > >> > >> This message is intended exclusively for its addressee and may > >> contain > >> confidential information protected from disclosure by law or > >> contract. If > >> you have received this message in error, please immediately notify > >> us and > >> delete it together with its attachments. If you are not an > >> addressee of > >> this message, reading, copying, distribution or use for any purpose > >> of the > >> contents of this message or its attachments is strictly forbidden. > >> Additionally, please note that communication by email guarantees > >> neither > >> the confidentiality nor the completeness or proper receipt of the > >> messages > >> sent. Furthermore, Hungarian Telephone and Cable Corp., its > >> affiliates and > >> third parties retained by them may monitor, copy, use or forward to > >> third > >> parties any outgoing messages from and incoming messages to this > >> email > >> address. > >> > > > > > > > X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "limited" > X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "ripe.net" > From david.crane at webfusion.com Fri Jun 19 13:40:53 2009 From: david.crane at webfusion.com (David Crane) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:40:53 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <7BAD68A5-3171-463B-9BD7-51F71336E47D@fido.net> References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <1245395785.4209.9.camel@ws> <21E803F2-1CDE-4542-BEC8-C80EA9478330@exa-networks.co.uk> <7BAD68A5-3171-463B-9BD7-51F71336E47D@fido.net> Message-ID: On 19 Jun 2009, at 11:01, Jon Morby wrote: > I'd be happier voting based on the minutes of the meeting through > the LIR portal however ... and even happier if I can watch a stream > of the whole proceedings on the basis it is difficult for me to get > to any of these events This would be perfect. Much more democratic way of getting opinions off people without impacting upon our working days. -Dave. From martin at airwire.ie Fri Jun 19 13:46:08 2009 From: martin at airwire.ie (Martin List-Petersen) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:46:08 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <1245395785.4209.9.camel@ws> <21E803F2-1CDE-4542-BEC8-C80EA9478330@exa-networks.co.uk> <7BAD68A5-3171-463B-9BD7-51F71336E47D@fido.net> Message-ID: <4A3B7A80.105@airwire.ie> David Crane wrote: > > On 19 Jun 2009, at 11:01, Jon Morby wrote: > >> I'd be happier voting based on the minutes of the meeting through the >> LIR portal however ... and even happier if I can watch a stream of the >> whole proceedings on the basis it is difficult for me to get to any of >> these events > > > This would be perfect. Much more democratic way of getting opinions off > people without impacting upon our working days. > This has also been discussed at the GM. If it should be a mail-vote, via the LIR-portal or via an independant system. Well, not the vote based on the minutes, but the votes that are up for/at the GM. This will be up for vote, too, as soon as the proposal for it is done. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968 From m.klaver at grafix.nl Fri Jun 19 13:26:09 2009 From: m.klaver at grafix.nl (Michiel Klaver) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:26:09 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 Message-ID: <4A3B75D1.3010309@grafix.nl> > On 19-6-2009 12:34, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: >> >> (before we registered our first PI block I even called and asked them >> if PROVIDER INDEPENDANT space would not cause recurring fees for us, >> and they said no. (besides the showing up in the billing score for a >> short time, which ofcourse is calculated into our one-time >> administration fee.) >> The RIPE example contract(1) for the 2007-01 policy indicated there should be a periodic maintenance fee under section 4.2. At the last RIPE meeting there were questions asked about the amount that a LIR should ask for this fee, but no concrete answers were given. The new (draft) charging scheme indicates an amount of 50eur/year, but all our new 2007-01 PI space with contracts have a lower maintenance fee amount. It would have been a lot less complicated if this was discussed and all clear before the new PI policy 2007-01 was accepted. (1) http://www.ripe.net/membership/lir-end-user-agreement.html With kind regards, Michiel Klaver BA.ict GrafiX Internet B.V. Stationsplein 20 2907 MJ Capelle aan den IJssel The Netherlands Web: http://grafix.nl/ Tel: +31-(0)10-2640210 Fax: +31-(0)10-2640211 Providing high-end professional internet services at our privately owned net-neutral in-house Data Center Facilities in Capelle aan den IJssel and Alphen aan den Rijn. Connected at TeleCityRedbus2 (Amsterdam) and Spaanse Kubus (Rotterdam). From noc at grafix.nl Fri Jun 19 13:44:11 2009 From: noc at grafix.nl (GrafiX NOC) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:44:11 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 Message-ID: <4A3B7A0B.8070702@grafix.nl> > On 19-6-2009 12:34, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: >> >> (before we registered our first PI block I even called and asked them >> if PROVIDER INDEPENDANT space would not cause recurring fees for us, >> and they said no. (besides the showing up in the billing score for a >> short time, which ofcourse is calculated into our one-time >> administration fee.) >> The RIPE example contract(1) for the 2007-01 policy indicated there should be a periodic maintenance fee under section 4.2. At the last RIPE meeting there were questions asked about the amount that a LIR should ask for this fee, but no concrete answers were given. The new (draft) charging scheme indicates an amount of 50eur/year, but all our new 2007-01 PI space with contracts have a lower maintenance fee amount. It would have been a lot less complicated if this was discussed and all clear before the new PI policy 2007-01 was accepted. (1) http://www.ripe.net/membership/lir-end-user-agreement.html With kind regards, Michiel Klaver BA.ict GrafiX Internet B.V. Stationsplein 20 2907 MJ Capelle aan den IJssel The Netherlands Web: http://grafix.nl/ Tel: +31-(0)10-2640210 Fax: +31-(0)10-2640211 Providing high-end professional internet services at our privately owned net-neutral in-house Data Center Facilities in Capelle aan den IJssel and Alphen aan den Rijn. Connected at TeleCityRedbus2 (Amsterdam) and Spaanse Kubus (Rotterdam). From ip-office at kpn.com Fri Jun 19 13:41:18 2009 From: ip-office at kpn.com (IP-Office KPN) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:41:18 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <4A3B637F.8090005@easyhosting.nl> <82eitgbim8.fsf@mid.bfk.de><4A3B6FD1.1010201@easyhosting.nl> Message-ID: Sven, Even though I generally agree with your point of view(s) in this discussion, I have to agree with Florian here. It doesn't show from the billing score that IPv4 PI space is only influencing the billing score for a couple of years. The formula is the same for all resources, referencing to 1992 and IPv4 PI space and AS numbers are no exception there. With kind regards, Andries Hettema IP-Office KPN Internet 070 45 13398 ip-office at kpn.com -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Sven Olaf Kamphuis Sent: vrijdag 19 juni 2009 13:21 To: Jeroen Wunnink Cc: Florian Weimer; members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 > It's not ? > > From the charging scheme on the RIPE site, PI space is currently > counted with a higher score as PA space: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/charging.html > > A /21 PA has a score of 1 against a /24 PI which also has a score of 1 only for the first (2?) year(s) after registration. after that pi space and customer-org as numbers are no longer counted in the lir billing score, after all, the PI-users intention is to be independant of providers, and therefore doesnt want the possibility for the lir to screw him over (change prices, contracts,etc) in the long run either. -- Sven Olaf Kamphuis CB3ROB DataServices Phone: +31/87-8747479 Skype: CB3ROB MSN: sven at cb3rob.net C.V.: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cb3rob Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Jeroen Wunnink wrote: > It's not ? > > From the charging scheme on the RIPE site, PI space is currently > counted with a higher score as PA space: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/charging.html > > A /21 PA has a score of 1 against a /24 PI which also has a score of 1 > > > Florian Weimer wrote: > > * Jeroen Wunnink: > > > > > >> If a PI assignment will 'only' cost 50 euro's a year, won't everyone > >> and his dog with a good story on why they need PI space just request > >> their own range ?, > >> > > > > Over all the years, PI assignments weren't included in the LIR billing > > score after the year of assignment. There has already been a rather > > strong incentive to obtain PI space for customers. > > > > (BTW, if you don't want to receive this discussion, please go to the > > LIR Portal and make the required changes to your mailing list > > subscriptions.) > > > > > > -- > > Met vriendelijke groet, > > Jeroen Wunnink, > EasyHosting B.V. Systeembeheerder > systeembeheer at easyhosting.nl > > telefoon:+31 (035) 6285455 Postbus 48 > fax: +31 (035) 6838242 3755 ZG Eemnes > > http://www.easyhosting.nl > http://www.easycolocate.nl > > > > X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "ripe.net" > From martin at airwire.ie Fri Jun 19 13:55:31 2009 From: martin at airwire.ie (Martin List-Petersen) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:55:31 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <4A3B75D1.3010309@grafix.nl> References: <4A3B75D1.3010309@grafix.nl> Message-ID: <4A3B7CB3.2020609@airwire.ie> Michiel Klaver wrote: >> On 19-6-2009 12:34, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: >>> (before we registered our first PI block I even called and asked them >>> if PROVIDER INDEPENDANT space would not cause recurring fees for us, >>> and they said no. (besides the showing up in the billing score for a >>> short time, which ofcourse is calculated into our one-time >>> administration fee.) >>> > > The RIPE example contract(1) for the 2007-01 policy indicated there > should be a periodic maintenance fee under section 4.2. At the last RIPE > meeting there were questions asked about the amount that a LIR should > ask for this fee, but no concrete answers were given. > > The new (draft) charging scheme indicates an amount of 50eur/year, but > all our new 2007-01 PI space with contracts have a lower maintenance fee > amount. It would have been a lot less complicated if this was discussed > and all clear before the new PI policy 2007-01 was accepted. > > (1) http://www.ripe.net/membership/lir-end-user-agreement.html > The examples at the GM given were 50 EUR/year, 100 EUR/year and something else. I think that gave enough indication, of where they were proposing to go. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968 From thomas.mangin at exa-networks.co.uk Fri Jun 19 14:05:34 2009 From: thomas.mangin at exa-networks.co.uk (Thomas Mangin) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:05:34 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <376D2CBD-1DA9-47DD-A409-460434DB8E17@nosignal.org> References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <1245395785.4209.9.camel@ws> <376D2CBD-1DA9-47DD-A409-460434DB8E17@nosignal.org> Message-ID: <9D340B37-B9FA-49C1-A81D-18932F00BF8F@exa-networks.co.uk> Andy, That you for the correction and clarification. I will apologise to have spread inaccurate information to this list. I was _sure_ that policies were voted, hopefully I did not bet anything :D That is what you get to not read the documents yourself and participate enough ... Regards, Thomas Mangin Technical Director -- Exa Networks Limited - http://www.exa-networks.co.uk/ Company No. 04922037 - VAT no. 829 1565 09 27-29 Mill Field Road, BD16 1PY, UK Phone: +44 (0) 845 145 1234 - Fax: +44 (0) 1274 567646 On 19 Jun 2009, at 12:57, Andy Davidson wrote: > > On 19 Jun 2009, at 10:46, Thomas Mangin wrote: > >> RIPE policies are proposed and voted by the membership, it can not >> get any more democratic than that ! >> If you do not like them: VOTE - you do not have to be at the >> meeting to send a proxy, and I do not say this as I am in favor of >> charing for PI space (I am neutral on the point) - I say it as it >> is how working members organisation stay alive. > > Hi, > > A point of order if I may. > > RIPE policies are NOT decided by a vote, but by a general consensus > at meetings AND on the RIPE working group mailing lists. The > mailing lists are open to all. Some will benefit from increased > participation from genuinely interested sections of the community. ;-) > > You can read more about the process here http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/ > > > > Kind wishes, > Andy From andy at nosignal.org Fri Jun 19 13:57:55 2009 From: andy at nosignal.org (Andy Davidson) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:57:55 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <1245395785.4209.9.camel@ws> Message-ID: <376D2CBD-1DA9-47DD-A409-460434DB8E17@nosignal.org> On 19 Jun 2009, at 10:46, Thomas Mangin wrote: > RIPE policies are proposed and voted by the membership, it can not > get any more democratic than that ! > If you do not like them: VOTE - you do not have to be at the meeting > to send a proxy, and I do not say this as I am in favor of charing > for PI space (I am neutral on the point) - I say it as it is how > working members organisation stay alive. Hi, A point of order if I may. RIPE policies are NOT decided by a vote, but by a general consensus at meetings AND on the RIPE working group mailing lists. The mailing lists are open to all. Some will benefit from increased participation from genuinely interested sections of the community. ;-) You can read more about the process here http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/ Kind wishes, Andy From martin at airwire.ie Fri Jun 19 14:18:41 2009 From: martin at airwire.ie (Martin List-Petersen) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:18:41 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <4A3B8154.3010100@grafix.nl> References: <4A3B75D1.3010309@grafix.nl> <4A3B7CB3.2020609@airwire.ie> <4A3B8154.3010100@grafix.nl> Message-ID: <4A3B8221.3010808@airwire.ie> Michiel Klaver wrote: > On 19-6-2009 13:55, Martin List-Petersen wrote: >>> The RIPE example contract(1) for the 2007-01 policy indicated there >>> should be a periodic maintenance fee under section 4.2. At the last RIPE >>> meeting there were questions asked about the amount that a LIR should >>> ask for this fee, but no concrete answers were given. >>> >>> The new (draft) charging scheme indicates an amount of 50eur/year, but >>> all our new 2007-01 PI space with contracts have a lower maintenance fee >>> amount. It would have been a lot less complicated if this was discussed >>> and all clear before the new PI policy 2007-01 was accepted. >>> >>> (1) http://www.ripe.net/membership/lir-end-user-agreement.html >>> >> The examples at the GM given were 50 EUR/year, 100 EUR/year and >> something else. I think that gave enough indication, of where they were >> proposing to go. >> >> Kind regards, >> Martin List-Petersen > > > Those were examples/indications at the GM held at 6th of May 2009, while > the PI policy 2007-01 is in effect since 3rd of March 2009. And even now > the charging scheme for 2010 is still a draft, it should have been final > at the introduction of PI policy 2007-01 at 3rd of March. It is. As for now, it's part of your score. And next year, it may change as with all kind of pricing, as what this proposal is about. It changes the current charging on your score for the charging by a fixed 50 EUR/year fee per prefix. So, when you drew up your contracts after March 2009, you had to calculate what the effective cost was based on the charging score and anticipate, that the fee could change in the future. Where's the problem ? Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968 From m.klaver at grafix.nl Fri Jun 19 14:15:16 2009 From: m.klaver at grafix.nl (Michiel Klaver) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 14:15:16 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <4A3B7CB3.2020609@airwire.ie> References: <4A3B75D1.3010309@grafix.nl> <4A3B7CB3.2020609@airwire.ie> Message-ID: <4A3B8154.3010100@grafix.nl> On 19-6-2009 13:55, Martin List-Petersen wrote: >> >> The RIPE example contract(1) for the 2007-01 policy indicated there >> should be a periodic maintenance fee under section 4.2. At the last RIPE >> meeting there were questions asked about the amount that a LIR should >> ask for this fee, but no concrete answers were given. >> >> The new (draft) charging scheme indicates an amount of 50eur/year, but >> all our new 2007-01 PI space with contracts have a lower maintenance fee >> amount. It would have been a lot less complicated if this was discussed >> and all clear before the new PI policy 2007-01 was accepted. >> >> (1) http://www.ripe.net/membership/lir-end-user-agreement.html >> > > The examples at the GM given were 50 EUR/year, 100 EUR/year and > something else. I think that gave enough indication, of where they were > proposing to go. > > Kind regards, > Martin List-Petersen Those were examples/indications at the GM held at 6th of May 2009, while the PI policy 2007-01 is in effect since 3rd of March 2009. And even now the charging scheme for 2010 is still a draft, it should have been final at the introduction of PI policy 2007-01 at 3rd of March. With kind regards, Michiel Klaver BA.ict GrafiX Internet B.V. Stationsplein 20 2907 MJ Capelle aan den IJssel The Netherlands Web: http://grafix.nl/ Tel: +31-(0)10-2640210 Fax: +31-(0)10-2640211 Providing high-end professional internet services at our privately owned net-neutral in-house Data Center Facilities in Capelle aan den IJssel and Alphen aan den Rijn. Connected at TeleCityRedbus2 (Amsterdam) and Spaanse Kubus (Rotterdam). From sven at cyberbunker.com Fri Jun 19 14:24:32 2009 From: sven at cyberbunker.com (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:24:32 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <4A3B8154.3010100@grafix.nl> References: <4A3B75D1.3010309@grafix.nl> <4A3B7CB3.2020609@airwire.ie> <4A3B8154.3010100@grafix.nl> Message-ID: fact remains, the regulation of internet addresses by ripe and the outsource of such power is a "courtesy" rahter than actual "law". should any of our clients prefixes be deleted if they refuse to pay, we shall just continue to announce them. -- Sven Olaf Kamphuis CB3ROB DataServices Phone: +31/87-8747479 Skype: CB3ROB MSN: sven at cb3rob.net C.V.: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cb3rob Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Michiel Klaver wrote: > On 19-6-2009 13:55, Martin List-Petersen wrote: > >> > >> The RIPE example contract(1) for the 2007-01 policy indicated there > >> should be a periodic maintenance fee under section 4.2. At the last RIPE > >> meeting there were questions asked about the amount that a LIR should > >> ask for this fee, but no concrete answers were given. > >> > >> The new (draft) charging scheme indicates an amount of 50eur/year, but > >> all our new 2007-01 PI space with contracts have a lower maintenance fee > >> amount. It would have been a lot less complicated if this was discussed > >> and all clear before the new PI policy 2007-01 was accepted. > >> > >> (1) http://www.ripe.net/membership/lir-end-user-agreement.html > >> > > > > The examples at the GM given were 50 EUR/year, 100 EUR/year and > > something else. I think that gave enough indication, of where they were > > proposing to go. > > > > Kind regards, > > Martin List-Petersen > > > Those were examples/indications at the GM held at 6th of May 2009, while > the PI policy 2007-01 is in effect since 3rd of March 2009. And even now > the charging scheme for 2010 is still a draft, it should have been final > at the introduction of PI policy 2007-01 at 3rd of March. > > > With kind regards, > > Michiel Klaver BA.ict > GrafiX Internet B.V. > > Stationsplein 20 > 2907 MJ Capelle aan den IJssel > The Netherlands > > Web: http://grafix.nl/ > Tel: +31-(0)10-2640210 > Fax: +31-(0)10-2640211 > > Providing high-end professional internet services at our > privately owned net-neutral in-house Data Center Facilities > in Capelle aan den IJssel and Alphen aan den Rijn. Connected > at TeleCityRedbus2 (Amsterdam) and Spaanse Kubus (Rotterdam). > > > > > X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "grafix" > X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "grafix.nl" > X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "ripe.net" > From david.crane at webfusion.com Fri Jun 19 13:54:19 2009 From: david.crane at webfusion.com (David Crane) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:54:19 +0600 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <7BAD68A5-3171-463B-9BD7-51F71336E47D@fido.net> References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <1245395785.4209.9.camel@ws> <21E803F2-1CDE-4542-BEC8-C80EA9478330@exa-networks.co.uk> <7BAD68A5-3171-463B-9BD7-51F71336E47D@fido.net> Message-ID: On 19 Jun 2009, at 11:01, Jon Morby wrote: > I'd be happier voting based on the minutes of the meeting through > the LIR portal however ... and even happier if I can watch a stream > of the whole proceedings on the basis it is difficult for me to get > to any of these events This would be perfect. Much more democratic way of getting opinions off people without impacting upon our working days. -Dave. From sven at cyberbunker.com Fri Jun 19 14:26:32 2009 From: sven at cyberbunker.com (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:26:32 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <4A3B75D1.3010309@grafix.nl> <4A3B7CB3.2020609@airwire.ie> <4A3B8154.3010100@grafix.nl> Message-ID: not that i consider it likely that any of them refuse to pay as some of them already shitted their pants and asked us for new contracts that cover recurring fees, but it's just plainly -wrong- to force existing allocations to enter into new contracts. -- Sven Olaf Kamphuis CB3ROB DataServices Phone: +31/87-8747479 Skype: CB3ROB MSN: sven at cb3rob.net C.V.: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cb3rob Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: > fact remains, the regulation of internet addresses by ripe and the > outsource of such power is a "courtesy" rahter than actual "law". > > should any of our clients prefixes be deleted if they refuse to pay, we > shall just continue to announce them. > > > -- > > Sven Olaf Kamphuis > CB3ROB DataServices > > Phone: +31/87-8747479 > Skype: CB3ROB > MSN: sven at cb3rob.net > C.V.: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cb3rob > > Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this > email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged > and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or > individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or > copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. > > On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Michiel Klaver wrote: > > > On 19-6-2009 13:55, Martin List-Petersen wrote: > > >> > > >> The RIPE example contract(1) for the 2007-01 policy indicated there > > >> should be a periodic maintenance fee under section 4.2. At the last RIPE > > >> meeting there were questions asked about the amount that a LIR should > > >> ask for this fee, but no concrete answers were given. > > >> > > >> The new (draft) charging scheme indicates an amount of 50eur/year, but > > >> all our new 2007-01 PI space with contracts have a lower maintenance fee > > >> amount. It would have been a lot less complicated if this was discussed > > >> and all clear before the new PI policy 2007-01 was accepted. > > >> > > >> (1) http://www.ripe.net/membership/lir-end-user-agreement.html > > >> > > > > > > The examples at the GM given were 50 EUR/year, 100 EUR/year and > > > something else. I think that gave enough indication, of where they were > > > proposing to go. > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > Martin List-Petersen > > > > > > Those were examples/indications at the GM held at 6th of May 2009, while > > the PI policy 2007-01 is in effect since 3rd of March 2009. And even now > > the charging scheme for 2010 is still a draft, it should have been final > > at the introduction of PI policy 2007-01 at 3rd of March. > > > > > > With kind regards, > > > > Michiel Klaver BA.ict > > GrafiX Internet B.V. > > > > Stationsplein 20 > > 2907 MJ Capelle aan den IJssel > > The Netherlands > > > > Web: http://grafix.nl/ > > Tel: +31-(0)10-2640210 > > Fax: +31-(0)10-2640211 > > > > Providing high-end professional internet services at our > > privately owned net-neutral in-house Data Center Facilities > > in Capelle aan den IJssel and Alphen aan den Rijn. Connected > > at TeleCityRedbus2 (Amsterdam) and Spaanse Kubus (Rotterdam). > > > > > > > > > > X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "grafix" > > X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "grafix.nl" > > X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "ripe.net" > > > > > X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "grafix" > X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "grafix.nl" > X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "linkedin.com" > X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "ripe.net" > From sven at cyberbunker.com Fri Jun 19 14:28:55 2009 From: sven at cyberbunker.com (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:28:55 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <1245395785.4209.9.camel@ws> <21E803F2-1CDE-4542-BEC8-C80EA9478330@exa-networks.co.uk> <7BAD68A5-3171-463B-9BD7-51F71336E47D@fido.net> Message-ID: yes! voting through the lir portal, great idea. (first on the agenda, the correction of 2007-01).. -- Sven Olaf Kamphuis CB3ROB DataServices Phone: +31/87-8747479 Skype: CB3ROB MSN: sven at cb3rob.net C.V.: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cb3rob Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, David Crane wrote: > > On 19 Jun 2009, at 11:01, Jon Morby wrote: > > > I'd be happier voting based on the minutes of the meeting through > > the LIR portal however ... and even happier if I can watch a stream > > of the whole proceedings on the basis it is difficult for me to get > > to any of these events > > > This would be perfect. Much more democratic way of getting opinions > off people without impacting upon our working days. > > -Dave. > > > > > X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "ripe.net" > From sven at cyberbunker.com Fri Jun 19 14:29:20 2009 From: sven at cyberbunker.com (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 18:29:20 +0600 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <1245395785.4209.9.camel@ws> <21E803F2-1CDE-4542-BEC8-C80EA9478330@exa-networks.co.uk> <7BAD68A5-3171-463B-9BD7-51F71336E47D@fido.net> Message-ID: yes! voting through the lir portal, great idea. (first on the agenda, the correction of 2007-01).. -- Sven Olaf Kamphuis CB3ROB DataServices Phone: +31/87-8747479 Skype: CB3ROB MSN: sven at cb3rob.net C.V.: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cb3rob Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, David Crane wrote: > > On 19 Jun 2009, at 11:01, Jon Morby wrote: > > > I'd be happier voting based on the minutes of the meeting through > > the LIR portal however ... and even happier if I can watch a stream > > of the whole proceedings on the basis it is difficult for me to get > > to any of these events > > > This would be perfect. Much more democratic way of getting opinions > off people without impacting upon our working days. > > -Dave. > > > > > X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "ripe.net" > From stefano.venditti at telespazio.com Fri Jun 19 14:24:12 2009 From: stefano.venditti at telespazio.com (Venditti Stefano) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 14:24:12 +0200 Subject: R: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <2102B99AF021054BAD01B4E1A69E5A2C14675C7579@GRFMBX705RM001.griffon.local> References: <4A3B637F.8090005@easyhosting.nl> <2102B99AF021054BAD01B4E1A69E5A2C14675C7579@GRFMBX705RM001.griffon.local> Message-ID: <20090619123254.044A56A2C9@postboy.ripe.net> Please remove me from this list. Thank you. Best regards Stefano Venditti ATTENZIONE: le informazioni contenute in questo messaggio sono da considerarsi confidenziali ed il loro utilizzo ? riservato unicamente al destinatario sopra indicato. Chi dovesse ricevere questo messaggio per errore ? tenuto ad informare il mittente ed a rimuoverlo definitivamente da ogni supporto elettronico o cartaceo. WARNING: This message contains confidential and/or proprietary information which may be subject to privilege or immunity and which is intended for use of its addressee only. Should you receive this message in error, you are kindly requested to inform the sender and to definitively remove it from any paper or electronic format. From rhe at nosc.ja.net Fri Jun 19 14:41:11 2009 From: rhe at nosc.ja.net (Rob Evans) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:41:11 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <1245395785.4209.9.camel@ws> <21E803F2-1CDE-4542-BEC8-C80EA9478330@exa-networks.co.uk> <7BAD68A5-3171-463B-9BD7-51F71336E47D@fido.net> Message-ID: <4A3B8767.70800@nosc.ja.net> Hi, > voting through the lir portal, great idea. > (first on the agenda, the correction of 2007-01).. Could you clarify what you want electronic voting for? The policy development process? Which doesn't have any voting at the moment, it is a consensus-based approach on open mailing lists -- please read the link that Andy Davidson sent around earlier for more information. Or the General Meeting where decisions are made relating to the RIPE NCC? (Voting on the RIPE NCC executive board, accepting the charging scheme and budget, etc.) The former is a major change to policy development, the latter is something that comes up periodically. Rob -- JANET(UK) is a trading name of The JNT Association, a company limited by guarantee which is registered in England under No. 2881024 and whose Registered Office is at Lumen House, Library Avenue, Harwell Science and Innovation Campus, Didcot, Oxfordshire. OX11 0SG From rhe at nosc.ja.net Fri Jun 19 14:33:22 2009 From: rhe at nosc.ja.net (Rob Evans) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:33:22 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <4A3B8154.3010100@grafix.nl> References: <4A3B75D1.3010309@grafix.nl> <4A3B7CB3.2020609@airwire.ie> <4A3B8154.3010100@grafix.nl> Message-ID: <4A3B8592.2080201@nosc.ja.net> > Those were examples/indications at the GM held at 6th of May 2009, while > the PI policy 2007-01 is in effect since 3rd of March 2009. And even now > the charging scheme for 2010 is still a draft, it should have been final > at the introduction of PI policy 2007-01 at 3rd of March. The charging scheme is always voted on in the autumn GM. The address policy working group could not dictate the charges as that is not their decision. 2007-01 was accepted in October 2008 following extended discussions on the Address Policy working group mailing list, which is open to join, and the interpretation at the time was that with it the RIPE community expected the charges to be implemented in the charging scheme for 2009. That wasn't possible due to the timescales involved and the high costs it would impose on members with customers that had many provider independent resources. However, the NCC is now doing what the community requested. Cheers, Rob -- JANET(UK) is a trading name of The JNT Association, a company limited by guarantee which is registered in England under No. 2881024 and whose Registered Office is at Lumen House, Library Avenue, Harwell Science and Innovation Campus, Didcot, Oxfordshire. OX11 0SG From sven at cyberbunker.com Fri Jun 19 15:10:13 2009 From: sven at cyberbunker.com (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:10:13 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <1245395785.4209.9.camel@ws> <21E803F2-1CDE-4542-BEC8-C80EA9478330@exa-networks.co.uk> <7BAD68A5-3171-463B-9BD7-51F71336E47D@fido.net> Message-ID: > Hi, > > > voting through the lir portal, great idea. > > (first on the agenda, the correction of 2007-01).. > > Could you clarify what you want electronic voting for? > > The policy development process? Which doesn't have any voting at the > moment, it is a consensus-based approach on open mailing lists -- please > read the link that Andy Davidson sent around earlier for more information. > > Or the General Meeting where decisions are made relating to the RIPE > NCC? (Voting on the RIPE NCC executive board, accepting the charging > scheme and budget, etc.) > > The former is a major change to policy development, the latter is > something that comes up periodically. > > Rob the general meetings would be a start (lirportal voting after the GM, based on the papers and/or stream of the GM) -- Sven Olaf Kamphuis CB3ROB DataServices Phone: +31/87-8747479 Skype: CB3ROB MSN: sven at cb3rob.net C.V.: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cb3rob Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Rob Evans wrote: > Hi, > > > voting through the lir portal, great idea. > > (first on the agenda, the correction of 2007-01).. > > Could you clarify what you want electronic voting for? > > The policy development process? Which doesn't have any voting at the > moment, it is a consensus-based approach on open mailing lists -- please > read the link that Andy Davidson sent around earlier for more information. > > Or the General Meeting where decisions are made relating to the RIPE > NCC? (Voting on the RIPE NCC executive board, accepting the charging > scheme and budget, etc.) > > The former is a major change to policy development, the latter is > something that comes up periodically. > > Rob > > -- > JANET(UK) is a trading name of The JNT Association, a company limited > by guarantee which is registered in England under No. 2881024 and whose > Registered Office is at Lumen House, Library Avenue, Harwell Science > and Innovation Campus, Didcot, Oxfordshire. OX11 0SG > > > X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "limited" > X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "ripe.net" > From rhe at nosc.ja.net Fri Jun 19 15:07:28 2009 From: rhe at nosc.ja.net (Rob Evans) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 19:07:28 +0600 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <1245395785.4209.9.camel@ws> <21E803F2-1CDE-4542-BEC8-C80EA9478330@exa-networks.co.uk> <7BAD68A5-3171-463B-9BD7-51F71336E47D@fido.net> Message-ID: Hi, > voting through the lir portal, great idea. > (first on the agenda, the correction of 2007-01).. Could you clarify what you want electronic voting for? The policy development process? Which doesn't have any voting at the moment, it is a consensus-based approach on open mailing lists -- please read the link that Andy Davidson sent around earlier for more information. Or the General Meeting where decisions are made relating to the RIPE NCC? (Voting on the RIPE NCC executive board, accepting the charging scheme and budget, etc.) The former is a major change to policy development, the latter is something that comes up periodically. Rob -- JANET(UK) is a trading name of The JNT Association, a company limited by guarantee which is registered in England under No. 2881024 and whose Registered Office is at Lumen House, Library Avenue, Harwell Science and Innovation Campus, Didcot, Oxfordshire. OX11 0SG From martin at airwire.ie Fri Jun 19 17:44:07 2009 From: martin at airwire.ie (Martin List-Petersen) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:44:07 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <20090619152555.GW32028@wssyg117.sygroup-int.ch> References: <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <20090619071043.GR32028@wssyg117.sygroup-int.ch> <4A3B625C.6080503@airwire.ie> <20090619152555.GW32028@wssyg117.sygroup-int.ch> Message-ID: <4A3BB247.1030000@airwire.ie> Tonnerre Lombard wrote: > Salut, > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 11:03:08AM +0100, Martin List-Petersen wrote: >> Tonnerre Lombard wrote: >>> In that case it is difficult to change a policy which previously held >>> unlimited validity. If there was however a clause defining that the >>> policy may be superseeded at any time, then it can be debated that it was >>> the responsibility of the sponsoring LIR to make corresponding contracts. >> Can you point out to me, where it said unlimited ? > > The answer lies in the lack of limitation. > > As far as I know, any type of agreement cannot be changed unilaterally unless > that was clearly provided for. This has not been the case with old RIPE PI > ressource agreements as far as I know. Any agreement in any case would be until further notice. As there was no contract and thus no way of telling how long you'd have the ressources. Matter of fact is, that nobody owns the number-ressources. If it was a matter of ownership, sure, but it's not. It's a service. At any given time, you'll have the number-ressources on borrowed time and can be happy if you have them free for as long as you had them free. But there has at no time been the case of ownership. And with a service, that can change, be there a written contract or not. It just has to be announced in due time and that has been done. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968 From martin at airwire.ie Fri Jun 19 17:59:47 2009 From: martin at airwire.ie (Martin List-Petersen) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:59:47 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <20090619155610.GX32028@wssyg117.sygroup-int.ch> References: <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <20090619071043.GR32028@wssyg117.sygroup-int.ch> <4A3B625C.6080503@airwire.ie> <20090619152555.GW32028@wssyg117.sygroup-int.ch> <4A3BB247.1030000@airwire.ie> <20090619155610.GX32028@wssyg117.sygroup-int.ch> Message-ID: <4A3BB5F3.2010208@airwire.ie> Tonnerre Lombard wrote: > Salut, > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 04:44:07PM +0100, Martin List-Petersen wrote: >> Any agreement in any case would be until further notice. As there was no >> contract and thus no way of telling how long you'd have the ressources. >> Matter of fact is, that nobody owns the number-ressources. >> >> If it was a matter of ownership, sure, but it's not. It's a service. At >> any given time, you'll have the number-ressources on borrowed time and >> can be happy if you have them free for as long as you had them free. >> >> But there has at no time been the case of ownership. And with a service, >> that can change, be there a written contract or not. It just has to be >> announced in due time and that has been done. > > The question in times of customary trademark claims and everything is more > like, would a LIR bet the existence of their company (potentially) on the > likelyhood that any given judge agrees with the RIPEs vision of their > services and their obligation to provide them. > > But hey, legal uncertainty is modern, so I see RIPE seems to be doing well. Again. Differentiate between RIPE and the RIPE NCC. RIPE is the LIR membership. The RIPE NCC handles the ressources and actions the policies, that have been worked out by the RIPE membership (the LIRs). If you don't like it, participate in the workgroups. I'd say with a contractual relationship, there's actually certainty. Because before that, if you had PI and ASN ressources from a LIR that has gone bust, you'd never know how long you'd keep them after the other ressources are returned due to liquidation. Now there is at least a clear procedure and you can even choose to have a relationship with the RIPE NCC and not a LIR. It just has a price tag. The upside of that, if a lot of organisations do that, it'll drive our LIR fee's down. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968 From martin at airwire.ie Fri Jun 19 18:10:32 2009 From: martin at airwire.ie (Martin List-Petersen) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:10:32 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <20090619180745.0c558c49@wssyg117.sygroup-int.ch> References: <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <20090619071043.GR32028@wssyg117.sygroup-int.ch> <4A3B625C.6080503@airwire.ie> <20090619152555.GW32028@wssyg117.sygroup-int.ch> <4A3BB247.1030000@airwire.ie> <20090619155610.GX32028@wssyg117.sygroup-int.ch> <4A3BB5F3.2010208@airwire.ie> <20090619180745.0c558c49@wssyg117.sygroup-int.ch> Message-ID: <4A3BB878.6080801@airwire.ie> Tonnerre Lombard wrote: > That's perfectly fine with me (except that I think exceptions should be > made for organizations like SwissIX). I am merely suggesting that there > are going to be problems with the fact that these fees are also > going to be applied to existing assignments, and that "IP addresses are > not property" may not be the opinion a judge chooses to share. > > As I said before, the RIPE NCC is no legislative power. > > But I guess there really is no need to debate that, it's more like a > "sit back and watch" situation. No, actually, I think you are making a perfect point, that IXP ressources maybe should be excempt. But again, this could be raised as a proposal in the address working group and then pushed through as a seperate policy or addendum to 2007-01. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968 From president at ukraine.su Fri Jun 19 20:40:38 2009 From: president at ukraine.su (Max Tulyev) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 21:40:38 +0300 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <93809.1245328585@xciv.org> References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <93809.1245328585@xciv.org> Message-ID: <4A3BDBA6.2000703@ukraine.su> Paul, as I can see, it is clear: Paul Civati wrote: > 1. 50 EUR per what time period? Annual. > 2. It's not clear if this is the LIR fee or end user fee? LIR. As 2007-01 it is on the LIR decision how much to charge their DA customer. We decided to charge 100 EUR, for example. > 3. If the charging score is only going to be based on PA > space then some re-jigging of the numbers might be in order. The main score is only going from PA allocations. -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO) From president at ukraine.su Fri Jun 19 20:47:12 2009 From: president at ukraine.su (Max Tulyev) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 21:47:12 +0300 Subject: [ncc-announce] Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <1568564407.20090618174557@net-art.cz> References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <1568564407.20090618174557@net-art.cz> Message-ID: <4A3BDD30.6040204@ukraine.su> sergey, it is possible and legal, but smells very very bad. I thing we should do something against it. sergey myasoedov wrote: > Dear Andrea, > > will be implemented 'LIR change' for DA holders? > > It is possible for the LIR owner to register a new LIR for a new company, then to sign new > contracts with DA holders (transfer DA to new LIR), and do not pay the yearly invoice? > > > > You wrote Thursday, June 18, 2009, 2:49:00 PM: > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 > >> Dear Natalya, > >> Natalya Petrova wrote: >>> RegID: kz.kazaktelecom >>> >>> Good morning, dear colleagues! >>> Thanks for your message. >>> I have read on a site the information be relative Charging Scheme >>> 2010. There are some questions for me. >>> I ask the help in the explanatory. >>> Questions: >>> 1) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment and the >>> fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It mentions only PI? or >>> PA? or PI+PA? > >> According to the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 the 50 Euro per resource >> applies to IPv4 and IPv6 PI Assignments, AS numbers, Internet Exchange >> Point and Anycasting Assignments. > >> PA IPv4 and IPv6 Allocations will instead determine the member billing >> category. > >>> 2) "fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It every month a >>> payment? or every quarter? or for a year? > >> The 50 Euro fee per Assignment would be charged on a yearly basis. >> With regards to payment terms, you will receive the invoice according to >> the Billing scheme chosen by your LIR (quarterly, half-yearly, yearly >> invoices). > >>> 3) "fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It is payment for what >>> quantity of addresses (50EUR= ? IPs)? > >> According to the current proposal, the 50 Euro fee will be charged per >> Assignment. The charge will not depend on the number of IP Addresses the >> Assignment is made of. > >>> 4) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment and the >>> fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - Operates for all direct >>> assignments? or Only new direct assignments (included after 3 May, >>> 2009)? > >> All Assignments made since 1992 will be included. > >> With the implementation of RIPE Policy "Direct Internet Resource >> Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC", LIRs have the possibility >> to inform the RIPE NCC which independent resources should stay with the >> LIR and which should be moved (End User not their customer). > >> The resources which will be moved, will be marked and excluded from your >> LIR's 2010 invoice. Please see: >> http://www.ripe.net/rs/pi-existing-assignments.html > > >> I hope this clarifies. >> Kind regards, > >> Andrea Cima >> Customer Services Manager >> RIPE NCC > > >>> I shall be very grateful for explanatories. >>> Thanks for the help and understanding. >>> Yours faithfully, >>> Natalya >>> > > > -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO) From president at ukraine.su Fri Jun 19 20:32:13 2009 From: president at ukraine.su (Max Tulyev) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 21:32:13 +0300 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> Message-ID: <4A3BD9AD.8010504@ukraine.su> Sven, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: > Instead of asking 50 euros per assignment per ??year/month/cow/whatever??, > it would make more sense to check if assignments are actually > announced and if they are not, delete them after 3 years or so. this is the key point. Visibility of any (including PA) network from $point_of_Internet is NOT a mandatory. Some PI is only from interconnecting N networks and not for global routing. And also, due to current Internet structure, you can't garant global reachability of any network. You can see it through looking glassess - "full view" size some times more than 10% different from LG to LG. > so this is a "solution" to a non-existing "problem".. If you know how to catch dead DAs other than recurring fee - where you was when 2007-01 was in discussion phase? > besides, anyone looked at their concept-contract? it's like 3 meters long! We have own contract for DAs, it is accepted by RIPE NCC hostmasters. It has only 4 pages. > our "contracts" are usually verbal and go like "we will register some PI > space for you, if you pay us EUR 2500 "Administration fee" for the work OMG! Our fee is 10 times less :) and 100 EUR annual as for the biggest case in 2010 charging scheme proposal. Anyone are welcome! =) Anyway, how you are catching your dead DAs, if any? -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO) From president at ukraine.su Fri Jun 19 22:50:28 2009 From: president at ukraine.su (Max Tulyev) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 23:50:28 +0300 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <4A3AB9AA.4000904@airwire.ie> Message-ID: <4A3BFA14.10508@ukraine.su> +1 It is a good idea to make voting process through the LIR portal. Hank Nussbacher wrote: > On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Martin List-Petersen wrote: > >> Anyhow, this whole matter was also already raised at the GM. > > And who ever heard that 50 LIR members vote on behalf of 5000 (as was at > the last GM)? Why can't proxy voting or Internet voting be allowed? > Why does a non-profit LIR have to travel to the GM in order to discuss > this and to be able to vote? > > -Hank > -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO) From president at ukraine.su Fri Jun 19 23:01:47 2009 From: president at ukraine.su (Max Tulyev) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 00:01:47 +0300 Subject: AW: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <227142482560EF458FF1F7E784E26AB8A456EA@FLBVEXCH01.versatel.local> References: <227142482560EF458FF1F7E784E26AB8A456EA@FLBVEXCH01.versatel.local> Message-ID: <4A3BFCBB.60607@ukraine.su> Marcus, it was mine idea about contractual relationship between DA user and LIR, not hostmasters'. You can look into 2007-01 discussion thread ;) The idea is for some regions (i.e. ex-USSR) is very difficult (and in some cases - military and goverment organizations for example - just impossible) to sign international contracts and pay even 0.01 EUR abroad. And this is only for helping them to save their DAs, nothing else. Marcus.Gerdon wrote: > So that would be an easy one: > > To receive provider-independent resources get into contract with RIPE-NCC. Without any other way. > > Only problem with this 'Direct End User Assignment' is the horrible, far to high fee NCC want's to invoice. > > My theory: our dear hostmasters don't want to have the typical end-user hassle themselves and simply go for keeping that which has been made possible by 2007-01 far away by simply setting the fee high enough. > > Being forced to have a LIR handle a independent resource makes that resource dependent. -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO) From president at ukraine.su Fri Jun 19 23:21:15 2009 From: president at ukraine.su (Max Tulyev) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 00:21:15 +0300 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <4A3B75D1.3010309@grafix.nl> <4A3B7CB3.2020609@airwire.ie> <4A3B8154.3010100@grafix.nl> Message-ID: <4A3C014B.8000000@ukraine.su> Oh, you just released TheBiggestSecret of the RIPE NCC (and other RIRs): THEY REALLY CAN'T RECLAIM ANY NET OR ASN without an agreement with the resource holder. Just technically can't ;-) They can only scare them or their upstreams, but not to enforce stop routing. Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: > fact remains, the regulation of internet addresses by ripe and the > outsource of such power is a "courtesy" rahter than actual "law". > > should any of our clients prefixes be deleted if they refuse to pay, we > shall just continue to announce them. > > -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO) From president at ukraine.su Fri Jun 19 23:28:43 2009 From: president at ukraine.su (Max Tulyev) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 00:28:43 +0300 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <4A3BB5F3.2010208@airwire.ie> References: <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <20090619071043.GR32028@wssyg117.sygroup-int.ch> <4A3B625C.6080503@airwire.ie> <20090619152555.GW32028@wssyg117.sygroup-int.ch> <4A3BB247.1030000@airwire.ie> <20090619155610.GX32028@wssyg117.sygroup-int.ch> <4A3BB5F3.2010208@airwire.ie> Message-ID: <4A3C030B.9090908@ukraine.su> Martin List-Petersen wrote: > Again. Differentiate between RIPE and the RIPE NCC. RIPE is the LIR > membership. The RIPE NCC handles the ressources and actions the > policies, that have been worked out by the RIPE membership (the LIRs). Wrong. RIPE is an open community, anyone can join for free just by signing on the interesting lists. You don't have to be a LIR representative for that. LIRs are stakeholders of RIPE _NCC_ ;) -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO) From batatia at sbm.com.sa Sat Jun 20 00:29:02 2009 From: batatia at sbm.com.sa (Abdullah Al-Batati) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 01:29:02 +0300 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <4A3C030B.9090908@ukraine.su> Message-ID: Gentlemen, Kindly remove my name from list. it's too much e-mail I'm receiving daily with no action is required from my side. Regards, Abdullah Al-Batati Acting Field Manager, Integrated Technology Services Western Region Tel : 966-2-6104163 Mobile: 0503678658 Saudi Business Machines, Ltd. General Marketing & Services Representative of IBM WTC Max Tulyev Sent by: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net 06/20/2009 12:32 AM To members-discuss at ripe.net cc Subject Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 Martin List-Petersen wrote: > Again. Differentiate between RIPE and the RIPE NCC. RIPE is the LIR > membership. The RIPE NCC handles the ressources and actions the > policies, that have been worked out by the RIPE membership (the LIRs). Wrong. RIPE is an open community, anyone can join for free just by signing on the interesting lists. You don't have to be a LIR representative for that. LIRs are stakeholders of RIPE _NCC_ ;) -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gpashollari at it-tel.com.al Sat Jun 20 09:35:36 2009 From: gpashollari at it-tel.com.al (Gerhard Pashollari) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 09:35:36 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 References: <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <20090619071043.GR32028@wssyg117.sygroup-int.ch> <4A3B625C.6080503@airwire.ie> <20090619152555.GW32028@wssyg117.sygroup-int.ch> <4A3BB247.1030000@airwire.ie> <20090619155610.GX32028@wssyg117.sygroup-int.ch> <4A3BB5F3.2010208@airwire.ie> <4A3C030B.9090908@ukraine.su> Message-ID: <517FE1EC274540ABBE38C40473A7D5CA@GERTI> Please remove gpashollari at it-tel.com.al ----- Original Message ----- From: "Max Tulyev" To: Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 11:28 PM Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 > Martin List-Petersen wrote: >> Again. Differentiate between RIPE and the RIPE NCC. RIPE is the LIR >> membership. The RIPE NCC handles the ressources and actions the >> policies, that have been worked out by the RIPE membership (the LIRs). > > Wrong. > RIPE is an open community, anyone can join for free just by signing on > the interesting lists. You don't have to be a LIR representative for that. > > LIRs are stakeholders of RIPE _NCC_ ;) > > -- > WBR, > Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO) From martin at airwire.ie Sat Jun 20 09:59:39 2009 From: martin at airwire.ie (Martin List-Petersen) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 08:59:39 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <517FE1EC274540ABBE38C40473A7D5CA@GERTI> References: <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <20090619071043.GR32028@wssyg117.sygroup-int.ch> <4A3B625C.6080503@airwire.ie> <20090619152555.GW32028@wssyg117.sygroup-int.ch> <4A3BB247.1030000@airwire.ie> <20090619155610.GX32028@wssyg117.sygroup-int.ch> <4A3BB5F3.2010208@airwire.ie> <4A3C030B.9090908@ukraine.su> <517FE1EC274540ABBE38C40473A7D5CA@GERTI> Message-ID: <4A3C96EB.3060704@airwire.ie> Gerhard Pashollari wrote: > Please remove gpashollari at it-tel.com.al > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Max Tulyev" > To: > Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 11:28 PM > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 > > >> Martin List-Petersen wrote: >>> Again. Differentiate between RIPE and the RIPE NCC. RIPE is the LIR >>> membership. The RIPE NCC handles the ressources and actions the >>> policies, that have been worked out by the RIPE membership (the LIRs). >> >> Wrong. >> RIPE is an open community, anyone can join for free just by signing on >> the interesting lists. You don't have to be a LIR representative for >> that. >> >> LIRs are stakeholders of RIPE _NCC_ ;) Thanks for correcting me on that one. I tend to forget that. Doesn't change the fact though, that the policies actioned by the NCC are worked out by RIPE, which is the community, not the NCC. It also remains the fact, that if more money is generated from this charging scheme and the NCC turns out to make a profit, the LIR fee's will have to go down. So at the end of the day it's only about reclaiming unused PI. The balance on the money for LIRs will stay about the same unless you abused the system. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968 From saeed.khalid at etisalcom.com Sat Jun 20 10:38:06 2009 From: saeed.khalid at etisalcom.com (Saeed Khalid) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 11:38:06 +0300 Subject: [SPAM] - Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 - Email found in subject In-Reply-To: References: <4A3C030B.9090908@ukraine.su> Message-ID: <6887BD368B010C4E897611B0E28F431510F8F9A5BC@etsezzex01.etisalcom.local> Please also remove my address on urgent basis Best Regards, Saeed Khalid Head of Technical & Network Services Etisalcom Bahrain W.L.L. Cell +973 36070205 ________________________________ From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Abdullah Al-Batati Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 1:29 AM To: Max Tulyev Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net; members-discuss-admin at ripe.net Subject: [SPAM] - Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 - Email found in subject Gentlemen, Kindly remove my name from list. it's too much e-mail I'm receiving daily with no action is required from my side. Regards, Abdullah Al-Batati Acting Field Manager, Integrated Technology Services Western Region Tel : 966-2-6104163 Mobile: 0503678658 Saudi Business Machines, Ltd. General Marketing & Services Representative of IBM WTC Max Tulyev Sent by: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net 06/20/2009 12:32 AM To members-discuss at ripe.net cc Subject Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 Martin List-Petersen wrote: > Again. Differentiate between RIPE and the RIPE NCC. RIPE is the LIR > membership. The RIPE NCC handles the ressources and actions the > policies, that have been worked out by the RIPE membership (the LIRs). Wrong. RIPE is an open community, anyone can join for free just by signing on the interesting lists. You don't have to be a LIR representative for that. LIRs are stakeholders of RIPE _NCC_ ;) -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO) __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4173 (20090620) __________ The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alopez at adif.es Sat Jun 20 11:35:41 2009 From: alopez at adif.es (alopez at adif.es) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 11:35:41 +0200 Subject: [SPAM] - Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 - Email found in subject Message-ID: Please remove my address I did not request to be included ----- Mensaje original ----- De: Saeed Khalid [saeed.khalid at etisalcom.com] Enviado: 20/06/2009 11:38 ZE3 Para: Abdullah Al-Batati ; Max Tulyev CC: "members-discuss at ripe.net" ; "members-discuss-admin at ripe.net" Asunto: RE: [SPAM] - Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 - Email found in subject Please also remove my address on urgent basis Best Regards, Saeed Khalid Head of Technical & Network Services Etisalcom Bahrain W.L.L. Cell +973 36070205 ________________________________ From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Abdullah Al-Batati Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 1:29 AM To: Max Tulyev Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net; members-discuss-admin at ripe.net Subject: [SPAM] - Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 - Email found in subject Gentlemen, Kindly remove my name from list. it's too much e-mail I'm receiving daily with no action is required from my side. Regards, Abdullah Al-Batati Acting Field Manager, Integrated Technology Services Western Region Tel : 966-2-6104163 Mobile: 0503678658 Saudi Business Machines, Ltd. General Marketing & Services Representative of IBM WTC Max Tulyev Sent by: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net 06/20/2009 12:32 AM To members-discuss at ripe.net cc Subject Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 Martin List-Petersen wrote: > Again. Differentiate between RIPE and the RIPE NCC. RIPE is the LIR > membership. The RIPE NCC handles the ressources and actions the > policies, that have been worked out by the RIPE membership (the LIRs). Wrong. RIPE is an open community, anyone can join for free just by signing on the interesting lists. You don't have to be a LIR representative for that. LIRs are stakeholders of RIPE _NCC_ ;) -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO) __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4173 (20090620) __________ The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From f.herman at kosmozz.com Sat Jun 20 12:14:06 2009 From: f.herman at kosmozz.com (KOSMOZZ - Filip Herman) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 12:14:06 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <4A3C030B.9090908@ukraine.su> Message-ID: Please remove my address from this list: f.herman at kosmozz.com Filip Herman Network & Software Architect KOSMOZZ Internet Solution Provider From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Abdullah Al-Batati Sent: zaterdag 20 juni 2009 0:29 To: Max Tulyev Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net; members-discuss-admin at ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 Gentlemen, Kindly remove my name from list. it's too much e-mail I'm receiving daily with no action is required from my side. Regards, Abdullah Al-Batati Acting Field Manager, Integrated Technology Services Western Region Tel : 966-2-6104163 Mobile: 0503678658 Saudi Business Machines, Ltd. General Marketing & Services Representative of IBM WTC Max Tulyev Sent by: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net 06/20/2009 12:32 AM To members-discuss at ripe.net cc Subject Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 Martin List-Petersen wrote: > Again. Differentiate between RIPE and the RIPE NCC. RIPE is the LIR > membership. The RIPE NCC handles the ressources and actions the > policies, that have been worked out by the RIPE membership (the LIRs). Wrong. RIPE is an open community, anyone can join for free just by signing on the interesting lists. You don't have to be a LIR representative for that. LIRs are stakeholders of RIPE _NCC_ ;) -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mhabaq at neutelecom.com Sat Jun 20 14:36:34 2009 From: mhabaq at neutelecom.com (Mohannad Habaq) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 15:36:34 +0300 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <4A3C030B.9090908@ukraine.su> Message-ID: <16D374348D988A44B16225B8EB76660D1FD2F9B285@exchange.neutelecom.loc> Please remove me too From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of KOSMOZZ - Filip Herman Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 1:14 PM To: members-discuss at ripe.net; members-discuss-admin at ripe.net Subject: RE: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 Please remove my address from this list: f.herman at kosmozz.com Filip Herman Network & Software Architect KOSMOZZ Internet Solution Provider From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Abdullah Al-Batati Sent: zaterdag 20 juni 2009 0:29 To: Max Tulyev Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net; members-discuss-admin at ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 Gentlemen, Kindly remove my name from list. it's too much e-mail I'm receiving daily with no action is required from my side. Regards, Abdullah Al-Batati Acting Field Manager, Integrated Technology Services Western Region Tel : 966-2-6104163 Mobile: 0503678658 Saudi Business Machines, Ltd. General Marketing & Services Representative of IBM WTC Max Tulyev Sent by: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net 06/20/2009 12:32 AM To members-discuss at ripe.net cc Subject Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 Martin List-Petersen wrote: > Again. Differentiate between RIPE and the RIPE NCC. RIPE is the LIR > membership. The RIPE NCC handles the ressources and actions the > policies, that have been worked out by the RIPE membership (the LIRs). Wrong. RIPE is an open community, anyone can join for free just by signing on the interesting lists. You don't have to be a LIR representative for that. LIRs are stakeholders of RIPE _NCC_ ;) -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sven at cb3rob.net Sat Jun 20 15:48:19 2009 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 13:48:19 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <16D374348D988A44B16225B8EB76660D1FD2F9B285@exchange.neutelecom.loc> References: <4A3C030B.9090908@ukraine.su> <16D374348D988A44B16225B8EB76660D1FD2F9B285@exchange.neutelecom.loc> Message-ID: whomever wants to be removed should log into the RIPE LIR portal, as a user (not with the admin account) http://lirportal.ripe.net/ click general click edit Subscribed Mailing Lists NCC members discussion (plus, people that don't know how to do this should probably not be on the list in the first place, as your IT department's hostmaster(s) to fix it :P -- Sven Olaf Kamphuis CB3ROB DataServices Phone: +31/87-8747479 Skype: CB3ROB MSN: sven at cb3rob.net C.V.: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cb3rob Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Sat, 20 Jun 2009, Mohannad Habaq wrote: > Please remove me too > > From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of KOSMOZZ - Filip Herman > Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 1:14 PM > To: members-discuss at ripe.net; members-discuss-admin at ripe.net > Subject: RE: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 > > Please remove my address from this list: f.herman at kosmozz.com > > Filip Herman > Network & Software Architect > KOSMOZZ > Internet Solution Provider > > From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Abdullah Al-Batati > Sent: zaterdag 20 juni 2009 0:29 > To: Max Tulyev > Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net; members-discuss-admin at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 > > > Gentlemen, > Kindly remove my name from list. it's too much e-mail I'm receiving daily with no action is required from my side. > > Regards, > > Abdullah Al-Batati > Acting Field Manager, > Integrated Technology Services Western Region > Tel : 966-2-6104163 > Mobile: 0503678658 > > Saudi Business Machines, Ltd. > General Marketing & Services Representative of IBM WTC > > > Max Tulyev > Sent by: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net > > 06/20/2009 12:32 AM > > To > > members-discuss at ripe.net > > cc > > Subject > > Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 > > > > > > > > Martin List-Petersen wrote: > > Again. Differentiate between RIPE and the RIPE NCC. RIPE is the LIR > > membership. The RIPE NCC handles the ressources and actions the > > policies, that have been worked out by the RIPE membership (the LIRs). > > Wrong. > RIPE is an open community, anyone can join for free just by signing on > the interesting lists. You don't have to be a LIR representative for that. > > LIRs are stakeholders of RIPE _NCC_ ;) > > -- > WBR, > Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO) > From hank at efes.iucc.ac.il Sat Jun 20 23:53:48 2009 From: hank at efes.iucc.ac.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 00:53:48 +0300 (IDT) Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <4A3BFA14.10508@ukraine.su> References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <4A3AB9AA.4000904@airwire.ie> <4A3BFA14.10508@ukraine.su> Message-ID: On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Max Tulyev wrote: So how do we make that happen? -Hank > +1 > > It is a good idea to make voting process through the LIR portal. From hank at efes.iucc.ac.il Sun Jun 21 08:52:32 2009 From: hank at efes.iucc.ac.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 09:52:32 +0300 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <376D2CBD-1DA9-47DD-A409-460434DB8E17@nosignal.org> References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <1245395785.4209.9.camel@ws> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20090621094341.00af26b0@efes.iucc.ac.il> At 12:57 PM 19-06-09 +0100, Andy Davidson wrote: >On 19 Jun 2009, at 10:46, Thomas Mangin wrote: > >>RIPE policies are proposed and voted by the membership, it can not >>get any more democratic than that ! >>If you do not like them: VOTE - you do not have to be at the meeting >>to send a proxy, and I do not say this as I am in favor of charing >>for PI space (I am neutral on the point) - I say it as it is how >>working members organisation stay alive. > >Hi, > >A point of order if I may. > >RIPE policies are NOT decided by a vote, but by a general consensus at >meetings AND on the RIPE working group mailing lists. The mailing >lists are open to all. Some will benefit from increased participation >from genuinely interested sections of the community. ;-) I am on the address-policy mailing list but it was made very clear to me on that list last year: "...the address policy WG does not have the power to actually decide on the final charging scheme. We give input to the AGM (= annual general meeting of all NCC members), and the AGM decides on the final charging scheme to be implemented." I have no problem with cleaning up records and doing whatever is necessary. But the "policy" process is *totally* disconnected from the charging scheme - which is *only* discussed at the AGM and to quote Nick Hilliard "The final decision to put this into the charging scheme was made at the General Meeting in Dubai, but it was talked about at a couple of others." And when I pressed onward with: > Maybe I missed the discussion in regards to 2007-01 where it was stated > that the charging algorithm would change. The answer I got was "Yes, you missed the discussion. It took place at RIPE meetings, not on the mailing list, and for the reasons you specify: billing is outside the scope of apwg." So stating that the mailing lists are where we should go to discuss these issues is totally false. This issue of charging was covered TOTALLY outside the context of any mailing list. -Hank >You can read more about the process here http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/ > >Kind wishes, >Andy From hank at efes.iucc.ac.il Sun Jun 21 08:54:22 2009 From: hank at efes.iucc.ac.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 09:54:22 +0300 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <4A3B8767.70800@nosc.ja.net> References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <1245395785.4209.9.camel@ws> <21E803F2-1CDE-4542-BEC8-C80EA9478330@exa-networks.co.uk> <7BAD68A5-3171-463B-9BD7-51F71336E47D@fido.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20090621095253.00b1fd10@efes.iucc.ac.il> At 01:41 PM 19-06-09 +0100, Rob Evans wrote: >Hi, > > > voting through the lir portal, great idea. > > (first on the agenda, the correction of 2007-01).. > >Could you clarify what you want electronic voting for? > >The policy development process? Which doesn't have any voting at the >moment, it is a consensus-based approach on open mailing lists -- please >read the link that Andy Davidson sent around earlier for more information. > >Or the General Meeting where decisions are made relating to the RIPE >NCC? (Voting on the RIPE NCC executive board, accepting the charging >scheme and budget, etc.) Budgets, charging schemes, etc. If a vote is called for at an AGM and 50 out of 5000 people vote, there should be the ability to submit ones vote via the LIR Portal as well. It is called democracy. -Hank >The former is a major change to policy development, the latter is >something that comes up periodically. > >Rob > >-- >JANET(UK) is a trading name of The JNT Association, a company limited >by guarantee which is registered in England under No. 2881024 and whose >Registered Office is at Lumen House, Library Avenue, Harwell Science >and Innovation Campus, Didcot, Oxfordshire. OX11 0SG From hank at efes.iucc.ac.il Sun Jun 21 09:19:20 2009 From: hank at efes.iucc.ac.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 13:19:20 +0600 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <4A3B8767.70800@nosc.ja.net> References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <1245395785.4209.9.camel@ws> <21E803F2-1CDE-4542-BEC8-C80EA9478330@exa-networks.co.uk> <7BAD68A5-3171-463B-9BD7-51F71336E47D@fido.net> Message-ID: At 01:41 PM 19-06-09 +0100, Rob Evans wrote: >Hi, > > > voting through the lir portal, great idea. > > (first on the agenda, the correction of 2007-01).. > >Could you clarify what you want electronic voting for? > >The policy development process? Which doesn't have any voting at the >moment, it is a consensus-based approach on open mailing lists -- please >read the link that Andy Davidson sent around earlier for more information. > >Or the General Meeting where decisions are made relating to the RIPE >NCC? (Voting on the RIPE NCC executive board, accepting the charging >scheme and budget, etc.) Budgets, charging schemes, etc. If a vote is called for at an AGM and 50 out of 5000 people vote, there should be the ability to submit ones vote via the LIR Portal as well. It is called democracy. -Hank >The former is a major change to policy development, the latter is >something that comes up periodically. > >Rob > >-- >JANET(UK) is a trading name of The JNT Association, a company limited >by guarantee which is registered in England under No. 2881024 and whose >Registered Office is at Lumen House, Library Avenue, Harwell Science >and Innovation Campus, Didcot, Oxfordshire. OX11 0SG From martin at airwire.ie Sun Jun 21 14:04:01 2009 From: martin at airwire.ie (Martin List-Petersen) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 13:04:01 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <1245395785.4209.9.camel@ws> <21E803F2-1CDE-4542-BEC8-C80EA9478330@exa-networks.co.uk> <7BAD68A5-3171-463B-9BD7-51F71336E47D@fido.net> Message-ID: <4A3E21B1.5000607@airwire.ie> Hank Nussbacher wrote: > At 01:41 PM 19-06-09 +0100, Rob Evans wrote: >> Hi, >> >> > voting through the lir portal, great idea. >> > (first on the agenda, the correction of 2007-01).. >> >> Could you clarify what you want electronic voting for? >> >> The policy development process? Which doesn't have any voting at the >> moment, it is a consensus-based approach on open mailing lists -- please >> read the link that Andy Davidson sent around earlier for more >> information. >> >> Or the General Meeting where decisions are made relating to the RIPE >> NCC? (Voting on the RIPE NCC executive board, accepting the charging >> scheme and budget, etc.) > > Budgets, charging schemes, etc. If a vote is called for at an AGM and > 50 out of 5000 people vote, there should be the ability to submit ones > vote via the LIR Portal as well. It is called democracy. Well. It goes even further. At the AGM it was raised, if this should be done via a postal voting system, the LIRportal or an external open source system. And to be honest, the LIRportal is in control of the NCC. I made it very clear, that I'd prefer a) if we spend money/ressources on something to let anybody benefit from that, ergo send it towards and existing open source system, b) i'd like to be able to check myself, that the underlying voting system actually does, what it says on the tin. c) maybe we don't want to give the NCC any chance (we know they don't do it, but why tempt them), with tampering with the way the system counts the votes. The external open source system, maybe even handled by an external entity would cover all those 3 points. Now, the vote on that hasn't been done yet, but there was some clear opinions on where we go, because I didn't stand alone in the room with that opinion. As for budgets, charging schemes, etc., yes, that's up for vote/discussion at the AGM. Correct. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968 From hank at efes.iucc.ac.il Sun Jun 21 14:54:47 2009 From: hank at efes.iucc.ac.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 15:54:47 +0300 (IDT) Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <4A3E21B1.5000607@airwire.ie> References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <1245395785.4209.9.camel@ws> <21E803F2-1CDE-4542-BEC8-C80EA9478330@exa-networks.co.uk> <7BAD68A5-3171-463B-9BD7-51F71336E47D@fido.net> <4A3E21B1.5000607@airwire.ie> Message-ID: On Sun, 21 Jun 2009, Martin List-Petersen wrote: > b) i'd like to be able to check myself, that the underlying voting > system actually does, what it says on the tin. > > c) maybe we don't want to give the NCC any chance (we know they don't do > it, but why tempt them), with tampering with the way the system counts > the votes. > > The external open source system, maybe even handled by an external > entity would cover all those 3 points. I don't attribute malice to NCC just incompentence in this realm. Therefore, I have no problem with them running the voting system. -Hank From martin at airwire.ie Sun Jun 21 14:56:23 2009 From: martin at airwire.ie (Martin List-Petersen) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 13:56:23 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <1245395785.4209.9.camel@ws> <21E803F2-1CDE-4542-BEC8-C80EA9478330@exa-networks.co.uk> <7BAD68A5-3171-463B-9BD7-51F71336E47D@fido.net> <4A3E21B1.5000607@airwire.ie> Message-ID: <4A3E2DF7.70107@airwire.ie> Hank Nussbacher wrote: > On Sun, 21 Jun 2009, Martin List-Petersen wrote: > >> b) i'd like to be able to check myself, that the underlying voting >> system actually does, what it says on the tin. >> >> c) maybe we don't want to give the NCC any chance (we know they don't do >> it, but why tempt them), with tampering with the way the system counts >> the votes. >> >> The external open source system, maybe even handled by an external >> entity would cover all those 3 points. > > I don't attribute malice to NCC just incompentence in this realm. > Therefore, I have no problem with them running the voting system. I wasn't referring to malice nor imcompetence and I want to make that very clear. I was referring to openess and accountability. When it comes to votes, it has to be open and traceable. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968 From sven at cb3rob.net Sun Jun 21 16:20:02 2009 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 14:20:02 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <1245395785.4209.9.camel@ws> <21E803F2-1CDE-4542-BEC8-C80EA9478330@exa-networks.co.uk> <7BAD68A5-3171-463B-9BD7-51F71336E47D@fido.net> <4A3E21B1.5000607@airwire.ie> Message-ID: well, if you vote at meetings, usually those are not anonymous we could just publish the list of all lirs and what they have voted, either at the meeting or at the lirportal. votes do not nessesarily have to be anonymouse and everyone can just check their own vote being processed and those of others so the only way to mess with that would be to insert fake lirs, but that would show up in the annual profit report :P -- Sven Olaf Kamphuis CB3ROB DataServices Phone: +31/87-8747479 Skype: CB3ROB MSN: sven at cb3rob.net C.V.: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cb3rob Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Sun, 21 Jun 2009, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > On Sun, 21 Jun 2009, Martin List-Petersen wrote: > > > b) i'd like to be able to check myself, that the underlying voting > > system actually does, what it says on the tin. > > > > c) maybe we don't want to give the NCC any chance (we know they don't do > > it, but why tempt them), with tampering with the way the system counts > > the votes. > > > > The external open source system, maybe even handled by an external > > entity would cover all those 3 points. > > I don't attribute malice to NCC just incompentence in this realm. > Therefore, I have no problem with them running the voting system. > > -Hank > > > X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "ripe.net" > From president at ukraine.su Sun Jun 21 22:45:31 2009 From: president at ukraine.su (Max Tulyev) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 23:45:31 +0300 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <4A3E21B1.5000607@airwire.ie> References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <1245395785.4209.9.camel@ws> <21E803F2-1CDE-4542-BEC8-C80EA9478330@exa-networks.co.uk> <7BAD68A5-3171-463B-9BD7-51F71336E47D@fido.net> <4A3E21B1.5000607@airwire.ie> Message-ID: <4A3E9BEB.3060609@ukraine.su> Martin, Votes can be done as PGP signed e-mails. These e-mails can be published on web site or sent to all interesting people via e-mail. So everyone can check their votes are counted right. As anybody can check PGP signs, it is not a problem voting through RIPE NCC web site. P.S. Remember the board elections: people put ballots inside a hat, then a few guys went out with the hat, did something (probably counted ballots) and said the result. So the current voting system already not better than voting through the LIR portal ;) Martin List-Petersen wrote: > Hank Nussbacher wrote: >> At 01:41 PM 19-06-09 +0100, Rob Evans wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>>> voting through the lir portal, great idea. >>>> (first on the agenda, the correction of 2007-01).. >>> Could you clarify what you want electronic voting for? >>> >>> The policy development process? Which doesn't have any voting at the >>> moment, it is a consensus-based approach on open mailing lists -- please >>> read the link that Andy Davidson sent around earlier for more >>> information. >>> >>> Or the General Meeting where decisions are made relating to the RIPE >>> NCC? (Voting on the RIPE NCC executive board, accepting the charging >>> scheme and budget, etc.) >> Budgets, charging schemes, etc. If a vote is called for at an AGM and >> 50 out of 5000 people vote, there should be the ability to submit ones >> vote via the LIR Portal as well. It is called democracy. > > Well. It goes even further. > > At the AGM it was raised, if this should be done via a postal voting > system, the LIRportal or an external open source system. > > And to be honest, the LIRportal is in control of the NCC. > > I made it very clear, that I'd prefer > > a) if we spend money/ressources on something to let anybody benefit from > that, ergo send it towards and existing open source system, > > b) i'd like to be able to check myself, that the underlying voting > system actually does, what it says on the tin. > > c) maybe we don't want to give the NCC any chance (we know they don't do > it, but why tempt them), with tampering with the way the system counts > the votes. > > The external open source system, maybe even handled by an external > entity would cover all those 3 points. > > Now, the vote on that hasn't been done yet, but there was some clear > opinions on where we go, because I didn't stand alone in the room with > that opinion. > > As for budgets, charging schemes, etc., yes, that's up for > vote/discussion at the AGM. Correct. > > Kind regards, > Martin List-Petersen -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO) From president at ukraine.su Sun Jun 21 22:50:00 2009 From: president at ukraine.su (Max Tulyev) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 23:50:00 +0300 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <4A3AB9AA.4000904@airwire.ie> <4A3BFA14.10508@ukraine.su> Message-ID: <4A3E9CF8.8070703@ukraine.su> The first idea and the shortest way - via RIPE PDP process. The second is at the formal stakeholders (i.e. LIRs) gathering. Hank Nussbacher wrote: > On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Max Tulyev wrote: > > So how do we make that happen? -Hank > >> +1 >> >> It is a good idea to make voting process through the LIR portal. -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO) From martin at airwire.ie Sun Jun 21 22:52:20 2009 From: martin at airwire.ie (Martin List-Petersen) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 21:52:20 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <4A3E9BEB.3060609@ukraine.su> References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <1245395785.4209.9.camel@ws> <21E803F2-1CDE-4542-BEC8-C80EA9478330@exa-networks.co.uk> <7BAD68A5-3171-463B-9BD7-51F71336E47D@fido.net> <4A3E21B1.5000607@airwire.ie> <4A3E9BEB.3060609@ukraine.su> Message-ID: <4A3E9D84.6010607@airwire.ie> Max Tulyev wrote: > Martin, > > Votes can be done as PGP signed e-mails. These e-mails can be published > on web site or sent to all interesting people via e-mail. So everyone > can check their votes are counted right. As anybody can check PGP signs, > it is not a problem voting through RIPE NCC web site. > > P.S. Remember the board elections: people put ballots inside a hat, then > a few guys went out with the hat, did something (probably counted > ballots) and said the result. So the current voting system already not > better than voting through the LIR portal ;) Well, they didn't leave. They were in the back of the room. But yes, any online voting system will a) give more people a chance to vote and b) be more precise I just stated by personal preference and reasoning. Do what you want from there :) I know what I'm voting for, if it comes up to a vote. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968 > > Martin List-Petersen wrote: >> Hank Nussbacher wrote: >>> At 01:41 PM 19-06-09 +0100, Rob Evans wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>>> voting through the lir portal, great idea. >>>>> (first on the agenda, the correction of 2007-01).. >>>> Could you clarify what you want electronic voting for? >>>> >>>> The policy development process? Which doesn't have any voting at the >>>> moment, it is a consensus-based approach on open mailing lists -- please >>>> read the link that Andy Davidson sent around earlier for more >>>> information. >>>> >>>> Or the General Meeting where decisions are made relating to the RIPE >>>> NCC? (Voting on the RIPE NCC executive board, accepting the charging >>>> scheme and budget, etc.) >>> Budgets, charging schemes, etc. If a vote is called for at an AGM and >>> 50 out of 5000 people vote, there should be the ability to submit ones >>> vote via the LIR Portal as well. It is called democracy. >> Well. It goes even further. >> >> At the AGM it was raised, if this should be done via a postal voting >> system, the LIRportal or an external open source system. >> >> And to be honest, the LIRportal is in control of the NCC. >> >> I made it very clear, that I'd prefer >> >> a) if we spend money/ressources on something to let anybody benefit from >> that, ergo send it towards and existing open source system, >> >> b) i'd like to be able to check myself, that the underlying voting >> system actually does, what it says on the tin. >> >> c) maybe we don't want to give the NCC any chance (we know they don't do >> it, but why tempt them), with tampering with the way the system counts >> the votes. >> >> The external open source system, maybe even handled by an external >> entity would cover all those 3 points. >> >> Now, the vote on that hasn't been done yet, but there was some clear >> opinions on where we go, because I didn't stand alone in the room with >> that opinion. >> >> As for budgets, charging schemes, etc., yes, that's up for >> vote/discussion at the AGM. Correct. >> >> Kind regards, >> Martin List-Petersen > > -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968 From president at ukraine.su Sun Jun 21 23:37:24 2009 From: president at ukraine.su (Max Tulyev) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 00:37:24 +0300 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <4A3E9D84.6010607@airwire.ie> References: <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <1245395785.4209.9.camel@ws> <21E803F2-1CDE-4542-BEC8-C80EA9478330@exa-networks.co.uk> <7BAD68A5-3171-463B-9BD7-51F71336E47D@fido.net> <4A3E21B1.5000607@airwire.ie> <4A3E9BEB.3060609@ukraine.su> <4A3E9D84.6010607@airwire.ie> Message-ID: <4A3EA814.9000607@ukraine.su> Martin, I'm not about where they was, I'm about the count process is not under eyes of all interesting people ;) So, how to launch the formal process of making policy of implementing it? Martin List-Petersen wrote: > Well, > they didn't leave. They were in the back of the room. > > But yes, any online voting system will > > a) give more people a chance to vote > > and > > b) be more precise > > > I just stated by personal preference and reasoning. Do what you want > from there :) I know what I'm voting for, if it comes up to a vote. > > Kind regards, > Martin List-Petersen -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO) From hank at efes.iucc.ac.il Mon Jun 22 06:14:18 2009 From: hank at efes.iucc.ac.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 07:14:18 +0300 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <4A3E9D84.6010607@airwire.ie> References: <4A3E9BEB.3060609@ukraine.su> <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <1245395785.4209.9.camel@ws> <21E803F2-1CDE-4542-BEC8-C80EA9478330@exa-networks.co.uk> <7BAD68A5-3171-463B-9BD7-51F71336E47D@fido.net> <4A3E21B1.5000607@airwire.ie> <4A3E9BEB.3060609@ukraine.su> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20090622071307.00ac3590@efes.iucc.ac.il> At 09:52 PM 21-06-09 +0100, Martin List-Petersen wrote: >Max Tulyev wrote: > > Martin, > > > > Votes can be done as PGP signed e-mails. These e-mails can be published > > on web site or sent to all interesting people via e-mail. So everyone > > can check their votes are counted right. As anybody can check PGP signs, > > it is not a problem voting through RIPE NCC web site. > > > > P.S. Remember the board elections: people put ballots inside a hat, then > > a few guys went out with the hat, did something (probably counted > > ballots) and said the result. So the current voting system already not > > better than voting through the LIR portal ;) > > >Well, >they didn't leave. They were in the back of the room. > >But yes, any online voting system will > >a) give more people a chance to vote > >and > >b) be more precise > > >I just stated by personal preference and reasoning. Do what you want >from there :) I know what I'm voting for, if it comes up to a vote. Problem is it will probably brought for a vote at the next AGM where it will be defeated since the 50 LIRs who attend probably won't want their vote diluted by the unwashed masses. -Hank From hank at efes.iucc.ac.il Mon Jun 22 06:45:25 2009 From: hank at efes.iucc.ac.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 07:45:25 +0300 Subject: [members-discuss] RIPE NCC response time In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20090621094341.00af26b0@efes.iucc.ac.il> References: <376D2CBD-1DA9-47DD-A409-460434DB8E17@nosignal.org> <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <1245395785.4209.9.camel@ws> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20090622073638.00ae03e8@efes.iucc.ac.il> Judging by the RIPE statistics posted in regards to hostmaster response time everything is great: http://www.ripe.net/info/stats/rs/rt-hostmaster.html For the last 2 weeks response time is less than 1 day. Well due to the "2007-01 Phase 2 Implementation: Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC", I have been submitting tickets to move ASNs assigned to my LIR over a decade ago to other LIRs which are now the owner of that ASN (yet now is billed to my LIR). So starting on June 16 - 6 days ago I submitted 6 "move requests" and even got back ticket acknowledgments: 2009063188, 2009063190, etc. and yesterday a 7th request. Yet, I have not heard back from RIPE NCC. Yet, the stats graphs shows all ticket requests answered within 1 day. Is it just me?! -Hank From pkambach at kambach.net Mon Jun 22 07:45:02 2009 From: pkambach at kambach.net (Patrick Kambach) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 07:45:02 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] RIPE NCC response time In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20090622073638.00ae03e8@efes.iucc.ac.il> References: <376D2CBD-1DA9-47DD-A409-460434DB8E17@nosignal.org> <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <1245395785.4209.9.camel@ws> <5.1.0.14.2.20090622073638.00ae03e8@efes.iucc.ac.il> Message-ID: <4A3F1A5E.5030409@kambach.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 hi Hank, yes, the response time listed in the graph are not "accurate". Regarding the "moves" from LIR to LIR I got the following reply on my own request: - --- We did not forget about your request. We are currently drafting a procedure document for this process which will become publicly available soon. As soon as the procedure has been published we will move the resources in question from de.xxxxx over to de.connectingbytes as requested. - --- So I guess it will just take some time. That it didn't come into the RIPE's mind, that *some* LIR's will have to move some PI / ASN is "strange" ;) Cheers, Patrick Am 22.06.2009 06:45, schrieb Hank Nussbacher: > Judging by the RIPE statistics posted in regards to hostmaster response > time everything is great: > http://www.ripe.net/info/stats/rs/rt-hostmaster.html > > For the last 2 weeks response time is less than 1 day. > > Well due to the "2007-01 Phase 2 Implementation: Direct Internet > Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC", I have been > submitting tickets to move ASNs assigned to my LIR over a decade ago to > other LIRs which are now the owner of that ASN (yet now is billed to my > LIR). > > So starting on June 16 - 6 days ago I submitted 6 "move requests" and > even got back ticket acknowledgments: 2009063188, 2009063190, etc. and > yesterday a 7th request. Yet, I have not heard back from RIPE NCC. > > Yet, the stats graphs shows all ticket requests answered within 1 day. > > Is it just me?! > > -Hank > - -- ConnectingBytes GmbH - "www.kambach.net" | In der Steele 35, 40599 D?sseldorf, Germany | Telefon: 0800 / 900 2580 - 1, Fax: 0800 / 900 2580 - 2 | Email: pkambach at kambach.net | Web: http://www.kambach.net | | Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Patrick Kambach | Amtsgericht D?sseldorf, HRB 60009 | Ust-IdNr.: DE815028832, Steuernummer: 106/5736/0037 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iD8DBQFKPxpeCIR+kawbQF0RAoxhAKDJrSV4NkUGmM9FJgeAsbeyJH7XWACdG+qp mO21ll8ODhmSUWw3nHccxig= =y/lH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From hank at efes.iucc.ac.il Mon Jun 22 08:04:13 2009 From: hank at efes.iucc.ac.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 09:04:13 +0300 Subject: [members-discuss] RIPE NCC response time In-Reply-To: <4A3F1A5E.5030409@kambach.net> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20090622073638.00ae03e8@efes.iucc.ac.il> <376D2CBD-1DA9-47DD-A409-460434DB8E17@nosignal.org> <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <1245395785.4209.9.camel@ws> <5.1.0.14.2.20090622073638.00ae03e8@efes.iucc.ac.il> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20090622085859.05842d50@efes.iucc.ac.il> At 07:45 AM 22-06-09 +0200, Patrick Kambach wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >hi Hank, > >yes, the response time listed in the graph are not "accurate". Regarding >the "moves" from LIR to LIR I got the following reply on my own request: > >- --- >We did not forget about your request. We are currently drafting a >procedure document for this process which will become publicly >available soon. As soon as the procedure has been published we will >move the resources in question from de.xxxxx over to >de.connectingbytes as requested. >- --- > >So I guess it will just take some time. That it didn't come into the >RIPE's mind, that *some* LIR's will have to move some PI / ASN is >"strange" ;) They did consider it as detailed in section B of Impact of Policy on RIPE NCC Operations/Services inside: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-01.html I guess from Aug 2008 till now hasn't been enough time for RIPE NCC to get up to speed on this. Nonetheless, that doesn't excuse their "altering" their response time stats to show stellar response time. -Hank From aaldafiri at gic.com.kw Mon Jun 22 07:48:17 2009 From: aaldafiri at gic.com.kw (aaldafiri at gic.com.kw) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 08:48:17 +0300 Subject: [members-discuss] Remove My Name. Message-ID: Hello, Can you please Unsubscribe my email address from the above list please ? Thank You. Ahmed Al-Dafiri Enterprise Network Manager Information Technology Department Office : +(965) 222-5082 Fax: +(965) 222-5010 Email :aaldafiri at gic.com.kw Gulf investment Corporation. This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is protected by copyright, is privileged confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, please return this message to the sender at the email address of the sender and destroy any copies of the message you may have. Please not: The electronic communication may not be secured and therefore Gulf Investment Corporation does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hank at efes.iucc.ac.il Mon Jun 22 08:33:12 2009 From: hank at efes.iucc.ac.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 09:33:12 +0300 Subject: Fwd: Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20090622093032.00ac33c0@efes.iucc.ac.il> >> >>Well, >>they didn't leave. They were in the back of the room. >> >>But yes, any online voting system will >> >>a) give more people a chance to vote >> >>and >> >>b) be more precise >> >> >>I just stated by personal preference and reasoning. Do what you want >>from there :) I know what I'm voting for, if it comes up to a vote. > >Problem is it will probably brought for a vote at the next AGM where it >will be defeated since the 50 LIRs who attend probably won't want their >vote diluted by the unwashed masses. > >-Hank To change voting: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/articles-association.html#seventeen we have to go via: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/articles-association.html#twenty and will require 2/3 of those voting to be in favor of the change! -Hank From nph at energimidt.dk Mon Jun 22 08:18:21 2009 From: nph at energimidt.dk (Niels-Peter Hansen) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 08:18:21 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Please remove my address Message-ID: <862675A9CB0EC648B9BAE4168A52C7200131E089@EMEXCH2.em.dk> Med venlig hilsen Niels-Peter Hansen Netv?rksspecialist http://www.energimidt.dk/signature/black_spacer_1_1.gif Telefon +45 7015 1560 Bredb?nd Teknik Direkte +45 87226856 EnergiMidt Mobil +45 2054 9712 Tietgensvej 2-4 Fax +45 8600 Silkeborg E-mail nph at energimidt.dk Web http://www.energimidt.dk/ Kun synlig n?r du er online -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Wouter.DeClercq at infrax.be Mon Jun 22 08:43:02 2009 From: Wouter.DeClercq at infrax.be (Wouter De Clercq) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 08:43:02 +0200 Subject: Betr.: [members-discuss] Please remove my address In-Reply-To: <862675A9CB0EC648B9BAE4168A52C7200131E089@EMEXCH2.em.dk> Message-ID: Please remove my address ! Wouter De Clercq wouter.declercq at infrax.be -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tonnerre.lombard at sygroup.ch Fri Jun 19 17:25:55 2009 From: tonnerre.lombard at sygroup.ch (Tonnerre Lombard) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:25:55 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <4A3B625C.6080503@airwire.ie> References: <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <20090619071043.GR32028@wssyg117.sygroup-int.ch> <4A3B625C.6080503@airwire.ie> Message-ID: <20090619152555.GW32028@wssyg117.sygroup-int.ch> Salut, On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 11:03:08AM +0100, Martin List-Petersen wrote: > Tonnerre Lombard wrote: > > In that case it is difficult to change a policy which previously held > > unlimited validity. If there was however a clause defining that the > > policy may be superseeded at any time, then it can be debated that it was > > the responsibility of the sponsoring LIR to make corresponding contracts. > > Can you point out to me, where it said unlimited ? The answer lies in the lack of limitation. As far as I know, any type of agreement cannot be changed unilaterally unless that was clearly provided for. This has not been the case with old RIPE PI ressource agreements as far as I know. Kind regards, Tonnerre -- SyGroup GmbH Tonnerre Lombard Solutions Systematiques Tel:+41 61 333 80 33 G?terstrasse 86 Fax:+41 61 383 14 67 4053 Basel Web:www.sygroup.ch tonnerre.lombard at sygroup.ch -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 835 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From tonnerre.lombard at sygroup.ch Fri Jun 19 17:56:10 2009 From: tonnerre.lombard at sygroup.ch (Tonnerre Lombard) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:56:10 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <4A3BB247.1030000@airwire.ie> References: <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <20090619071043.GR32028@wssyg117.sygroup-int.ch> <4A3B625C.6080503@airwire.ie> <20090619152555.GW32028@wssyg117.sygroup-int.ch> <4A3BB247.1030000@airwire.ie> Message-ID: <20090619155610.GX32028@wssyg117.sygroup-int.ch> Salut, On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 04:44:07PM +0100, Martin List-Petersen wrote: > Any agreement in any case would be until further notice. As there was no > contract and thus no way of telling how long you'd have the ressources. > Matter of fact is, that nobody owns the number-ressources. > > If it was a matter of ownership, sure, but it's not. It's a service. At > any given time, you'll have the number-ressources on borrowed time and > can be happy if you have them free for as long as you had them free. > > But there has at no time been the case of ownership. And with a service, > that can change, be there a written contract or not. It just has to be > announced in due time and that has been done. The question in times of customary trademark claims and everything is more like, would a LIR bet the existence of their company (potentially) on the likelyhood that any given judge agrees with the RIPEs vision of their services and their obligation to provide them. But hey, legal uncertainty is modern, so I see RIPE seems to be doing well. Kind regards, Tonnerre -- SyGroup GmbH Tonnerre Lombard Solutions Systematiques Tel:+41 61 333 80 33 G?terstrasse 86 Fax:+41 61 383 14 67 4053 Basel Web:www.sygroup.ch tonnerre.lombard at sygroup.ch -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 835 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From tonnerre.lombard at sygroup.ch Fri Jun 19 18:07:45 2009 From: tonnerre.lombard at sygroup.ch (Tonnerre Lombard) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 18:07:45 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <4A3BB5F3.2010208@airwire.ie> References: <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <20090619071043.GR32028@wssyg117.sygroup-int.ch> <4A3B625C.6080503@airwire.ie> <20090619152555.GW32028@wssyg117.sygroup-int.ch> <4A3BB247.1030000@airwire.ie> <20090619155610.GX32028@wssyg117.sygroup-int.ch> <4A3BB5F3.2010208@airwire.ie> Message-ID: <20090619180745.0c558c49@wssyg117.sygroup-int.ch> Salut, Martin, On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:59:47 +0100, Martin List-Petersen wrote: > Again. Differentiate between RIPE and the RIPE NCC. RIPE is the LIR > membership. The RIPE NCC handles the ressources and actions the > policies, that have been worked out by the RIPE membership (the LIRs). Of course, sorry. > I'd say with a contractual relationship, there's actually certainty. > Because before that, if you had PI and ASN ressources from a LIR that > has gone bust, you'd never know how long you'd keep them after the > other ressources are returned due to liquidation. > > Now there is at least a clear procedure and you can even choose to > have a relationship with the RIPE NCC and not a LIR. It just has a > price tag. That's perfectly fine with me (except that I think exceptions should be made for organizations like SwissIX). I am merely suggesting that there are going to be problems with the fact that these fees are also going to be applied to existing assignments, and that "IP addresses are not property" may not be the opinion a judge chooses to share. As I said before, the RIPE NCC is no legislative power. But I guess there really is no need to debate that, it's more like a "sit back and watch" situation. Kind regards, Tonnerre -- SyGroup GmbH Tonnerre Lombard Solutions Systematiques Tel:+41 61 333 80 33 G?terstrasse 86 Fax:+41 61 383 14 67 4053 Basel Web:www.sygroup.ch tonnerre.lombard at sygroup.ch -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 835 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rhe at nosc.ja.net Mon Jun 22 09:12:28 2009 From: rhe at nosc.ja.net (Rob Evans) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 08:12:28 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20090622071307.00ac3590@efes.iucc.ac.il> References: <4A3E9BEB.3060609@ukraine.su> <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <1245395785.4209.9.camel@ws> <21E803F2-1CDE-4542-BEC8-C80EA9478330@exa-networks.co.uk> <7BAD68A5-3171-463B-9BD7-51F71336E47D@fido.net> <4A3E21B1.5000607@airwire.ie> <4A3E9BEB.3060609@ukraine.su> <5.1.0.14.2.20090622071307.00ac3590@efes.iucc.ac.il> Message-ID: > Problem is it will probably brought for a vote at the next AGM where > it will be defeated since the 50 LIRs who attend probably won't want > their vote diluted by the unwashed masses. I think you may misunderstand. There is some enthusiasm for changing the voting process, at least for the executive board (which is what the paper at the last meeting concentrated on), and especially among those who attend the General Meetings because if there are several candidates with some support standing for two open board seats, the election process can take a couple of hours of sitting in a room for round after round of voting. If you think the GMs are 'smoky room' affairs with everyone of one mind to get their drinking buddies in, let me assure you it isn't that way. That isn't to say, of course, that 50 people should be representing 5,000. See my presentation at last July's APM meeting, Hank. :) Rob From mmajor at coprosys.cz Mon Jun 22 09:25:17 2009 From: mmajor at coprosys.cz (Michal Major) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 09:25:17 +0200 Subject: [SPAM] - Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 - Email found in subject In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A3F31DD.40208@coprosys.cz> Please remove my address from this discussion. Thanks alopez at adif.es napsal(a): > > Please remove my address > I did not request to be included > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ----- Mensaje original ----- > * De: *Saeed Khalid [saeed.khalid at etisalcom.com] > * Enviado: *20/06/2009 11:38 ZE3 > * Para: *Abdullah Al-Batati ; Max Tulyev > > * CC: *"members-discuss at ripe.net" ; > "members-discuss-admin at ripe.net" > * Asunto: *RE: [SPAM] - Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme > 2010 - Email found in subject > > > Please also remove my address on urgent basis > > > > > > > > Best Regards, > > **Saeed** **Khalid** > > Head of Technical & Network Services > > Etisalcom Bahrain W.L.L. > > Cell +973 36070205 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* members-discuss-admin at ripe.net > [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] *On Behalf Of *Abdullah Al-Batati > *Sent:* Saturday, June 20, 2009 1:29 AM > *To:* Max Tulyev > *Cc:* members-discuss at ripe.net; members-discuss-admin at ripe.net > *Subject:* [SPAM] - Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 > - Email found in subject > > > > > Gentlemen, > Kindly remove my name from list. it's too much e-mail I'm receiving > daily with no action is required from my side. > > Regards, > > Abdullah Al-Batati > Acting Field Manager, > Integrated Technology Services Western Region > Tel : 966-2-6104163 > Mobile: 0503678658 > > Saudi Business Machines, Ltd. > General Marketing & Services Representative of IBM WTC > > > > *Max Tulyev * > Sent by: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net > > 06/20/2009 12:32 AM > > > > To > > > > members-discuss at ripe.net > > cc > > > > > > Subject > > > > Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 > > > > > > > > > > > > > Martin List-Petersen wrote: > > Again. Differentiate between RIPE and the RIPE NCC. RIPE is the LIR > > membership. The RIPE NCC handles the ressources and actions the > > policies, that have been worked out by the RIPE membership (the LIRs). > > Wrong. > RIPE is an open community, anyone can join for free just by signing on > the interesting lists. You don't have to be a LIR representative for that. > > LIRs are stakeholders of RIPE _NCC_ ;) > > -- > WBR, > Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO) > > > > __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus > signature database 4173 (20090620) __________ > > > > The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. > > > > http://www.eset.com > -- Michal Major Technicke oddeleni ---------------------------- CoProSys, a.s. Kloknerova 9, 148 00 PRAHA 4 e-mail: mmajor at coprosys.cz tel: +420 255 701 354 fax: +420 255 701 343 ---------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From domain at nitec.kz Mon Jun 22 07:39:41 2009 From: domain at nitec.kz (Administrative contact Nurusheva_a) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:39:41 +0600 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 Message-ID: <1672998970.20090622113941@nitec.kz> Dear Members-discuss. Please also remove my address on urgent basis -- Best Regards, Assel Nurusheva NIT JSC Cell +7 701 997 53 73 mailto:domain at nitec.kz From Roman.K at orange.co.il Mon Jun 22 10:12:03 2009 From: Roman.K at orange.co.il (Roman Kalendaryov) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:12:03 +0300 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 Message-ID: <85D338B55B701345945BE2F7BA45035B02A88775@AFRODITA.partnergsm.co.il> Please remove my e-mail address from this discussion. Regards, Roman Kalendaryov * Email: roman.k at orange.co.il * Tel: +972-54-7812385 * Mobile: +972-54-5942385 IP Advanced Solutions & Security Manager Technologies Division Partner Communications Company Ltd. ------------------------------------------------------------ This message contains information that may be confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone any of the information in this message. If you have received this message and are not the intended recipient, kindly notify the sender and delete this message from your computer. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: imp_orange_DBUa0.gif Type: image/gif Size: 12465 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jon at fido.net Mon Jun 22 10:31:19 2009 From: jon at fido.net (Jon Morby) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 10:31:19 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] RIPE NCC response time In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20090622073638.00ae03e8@efes.iucc.ac.il> References: <376D2CBD-1DA9-47DD-A409-460434DB8E17@nosignal.org> <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <1245395785.4209.9.camel@ws> <5.1.0.14.2.20090622073638.00ae03e8@efes.iucc.ac.il> Message-ID: On 22 Jun 2009, at 06:45, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > Judging by the RIPE statistics posted in regards to hostmaster > response time everything is great: > http://www.ripe.net/info/stats/rs/rt-hostmaster.html > > For the last 2 weeks response time is less than 1 day. I think that relates to the speed at which your auto response was despatched :( J Regards, Jon Morby FidoNet Registration Services Ltd web: www.fido.net tel: +44 (0) 845 004 3050 fax: +44 (0) 845 004 3051 From Emma.Fitzgerald at colt.net Mon Jun 22 10:35:32 2009 From: Emma.Fitzgerald at colt.net (Fitzgerald, Emma) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 09:35:32 +0100 Subject: Betr.: [members-discuss] Please remove my address In-Reply-To: References: <862675A9CB0EC648B9BAE4168A52C7200131E089@EMEXCH2.em.dk> Message-ID: Please remove my address ! emma.fitzgerald at colt.net ************************************************************************************* The message is intended for the named addressee only and may not be disclosed to or used by anyone else, nor may it be copied in any way. The contents of this message and its attachments are confidential and may also be subject to legal privilege. If you are not the named addressee and/or have received this message in error, please advise us by e-mailing security at colt.net and delete the message and any attachments without retaining any copies. Internet communications are not secure and COLT does not accept responsibility for this message, its contents nor responsibility for any viruses. No contracts can be created or varied on behalf of COLT Telecommunications, its subsidiaries or affiliates ("COLT") and any other party by email Communications unless expressly agreed in writing with such other party. Please note that incoming emails will be automatically scanned to eliminate potential viruses and unsolicited promotional emails. For more information refer to www.colt.net or contact us on +44(0)20 7390 3900. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From omar at sama.jo Mon Jun 22 10:55:47 2009 From: omar at sama.jo (Omar Awwad) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:55:47 +0300 Subject: Betr.: [members-discuss] Please remove my address In-Reply-To: References: <862675A9CB0EC648B9BAE4168A52C7200131E089@EMEXCH2.em.dk> Message-ID: <008b01c9f317$3e3248d0$ba96da70$@jo> Please remove my address from this discussion omar at sama.jo omar at samatelecom.com From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Fitzgerald, Emma Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 11:36 AM To: members-discuss at ripe.net; members-discuss-admin at ripe.net Subject: RE: Betr.: [members-discuss] Please remove my address Please remove my address ! emma.fitzgerald at colt.net **************************************************************************** ********* The message is intended for the named addressee only and may not be disclosed to or used by anyone else, nor may it be copied in any way. The contents of this message and its attachments are confidential and may also be subject to legal privilege. If you are not the named addressee and/or have received this message in error, please advise us by e-mailing security at colt.net and delete the message and any attachments without retaining any copies. Internet communications are not secure and COLT does not accept responsibility for this message, its contents nor responsibility for any viruses. No contracts can be created or varied on behalf of COLT Telecommunications, its subsidiaries or affiliates ("COLT") and any other party by email Communications unless expressly agreed in writing with such other party. Please note that incoming emails will be automatically scanned to eliminate potential viruses and unsolicited promotional emails. For more information refer to www.colt.net or contact us on +44(0)20 7390 3900. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arjan.van.der.oest at worldmax.nl Mon Jun 22 10:52:30 2009 From: arjan.van.der.oest at worldmax.nl (Arjan van der Oest) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 10:52:30 +0200 Subject: Betr.: [members-discuss] Please remove my address In-Reply-To: References: <862675A9CB0EC648B9BAE4168A52C7200131E089@EMEXCH2.em.dk> Message-ID: *arf* -- Met vriendelijke groet / Kind Regards, Worldmax Operations B.V. Arjan van der Oest Network Design Engineer T.: +31 (0) 88 001 7912 F.: +31 (0) 88 001 7902 M.: +31 (0) 6 10 62 58 46 E.: arjan.van.der.oest at worldmax.nl W.:www.worldmax.nl W.:www.aerea.nl GPG: https://keyserver.pgp.com/ (Key ID: 07286F78, fingerprint: 2E9F 3AE2 0A8B 7579 75A9 169F 5D9E 5312 0728 6F78) ________________________________ From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Fitzgerald, Emma Sent: maandag 22 juni 2009 10:36 To: members-discuss at ripe.net; members-discuss-admin at ripe.net Subject: RE: Betr.: [members-discuss] Please remove my address Please remove my address ! emma.fitzgerald at colt.net ************************************************************************ ************* The message is intended for the named addressee only and may not be disclosed to or used by anyone else, nor may it be copied in any way. The contents of this message and its attachments are confidential and may also be subject to legal privilege. If you are not the named addressee and/or have received this message in error, please advise us by e-mailing security at colt.net and delete the message and any attachments without retaining any copies. Internet communications are not secure and COLT does not accept responsibility for this message, its contents nor responsibility for any viruses. No contracts can be created or varied on behalf of COLT Telecommunications, its subsidiaries or affiliates ("COLT") and any other party by email Communications unless expressly agreed in writing with such other party. Please note that incoming emails will be automatically scanned to eliminate potential viruses and unsolicited promotional emails. For more information refer to www.colt.net or contact us on +44(0)20 7390 3900. Internet communications are not secure; therefore, the integrity of this e-mail cannot be guaranteed following transmission on the Internet. This e-mail may contain confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender and erase this e-mail. Use of this e-mail by any person other than the addressee is strictly forbidden. This e-mail is believed to be free of any virus that might adversely affect the addressee's computer system; however, no responsibility is accepted for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use. All the preceding disclaimers also apply to any possible attachments to this e-mail. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1992 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From ondrej.sury at nic.cz Mon Jun 22 11:09:14 2009 From: ondrej.sury at nic.cz (=?UTF-8?B?T25kxZllaiBTdXLDvQ==?=) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:09:14 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Filter your mail and don't spam this list with unsubscribe requests (you can unsubscribe via LIR Portal) Message-ID: People, are you aware that your unsubscribe request goes to all people subscribed to this list? Please don't send unsusbcribe requests to this list. There are headers in each message from this list: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , And if you open that address you will discover that: "Subscription to this list is for RIPE NCC members only and can be done through the LIR Portal." So please, if you want to be unsubscribed from this list, go to your account in LIR Portal and unsubscribe there Also please how to use filtering in your mail client - in case you don't want to follow-up heated debate, just create filter on subject of this discussion, and you will still receive all other emails. Ondrej On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Omar Awwad wrote: > Please remove my address from this discussion > > omar at sama.jo > > omar at samatelecom.com > > > > > > From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] > On Behalf Of Fitzgerald, Emma > Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 11:36 AM > To: members-discuss at ripe.net; members-discuss-admin at ripe.net > Subject: RE: Betr.: [members-discuss] Please remove my address > > > > Please remove my address ! > > > > emma.fitzgerald at colt.net > > > > ************************************************************************************* > The message is intended for the named addressee only and may not be > disclosed to or used by anyone else, nor may it be copied in any way. > > The contents of this message and its attachments are confidential and may > also be subject to legal privilege. If you are not the named addressee > and/or have received this message in error, please advise us by e-mailing > security at colt.net and delete the message and any attachments without > retaining any copies. > > Internet communications are not secure and COLT does not accept > responsibility for this message, its contents nor responsibility for any > viruses. > > No contracts can be created or varied on behalf of COLT Telecommunications, > its subsidiaries or affiliates ("COLT") and any other party by email > Communications unless expressly agreed in writing with such other party. > > Please note that incoming emails will be automatically scanned to eliminate > potential viruses and unsolicited promotional emails. For more information > refer to www.colt.net or contact us on +44(0)20 7390 3900. -- Ondrej Sury technicky reditel/Chief Technical Officer ----------------------------------------- CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- .cz domain registry Americka 23,120 00 Praha 2,Czech Republic mailto:ondrej.sury at nic.cz http://nic.cz/ sip:ondrej.sury at nic.cz tel:+420.222745110 mob:+420.739013699 fax:+420.222745112 ----------------------------------------- From mohammad.nakhalah at kulacom.jo Mon Jun 22 11:14:25 2009 From: mohammad.nakhalah at kulacom.jo (Mohammad Nakhalah) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 12:14:25 +0300 Subject: Betr.: [members-discuss] Please remove my address In-Reply-To: References: <862675A9CB0EC648B9BAE4168A52C7200131E089@EMEXCH2.em.dk> Message-ID: <005901c9f319$d85d1280$89173780$@nakhalah@kulacom.jo> Please remove my address Mohammad.nakhalah at kulacom.jo Thanks Mohammad Nakhalah From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Fitzgerald, Emma Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 11:36 AM To: members-discuss at ripe.net; members-discuss-admin at ripe.net Subject: RE: Betr.: [members-discuss] Please remove my address Please remove my address ! emma.fitzgerald at colt.net **************************************************************************** ********* The message is intended for the named addressee only and may not be disclosed to or used by anyone else, nor may it be copied in any way. The contents of this message and its attachments are confidential and may also be subject to legal privilege. If you are not the named addressee and/or have received this message in error, please advise us by e-mailing security at colt.net and delete the message and any attachments without retaining any copies. Internet communications are not secure and COLT does not accept responsibility for this message, its contents nor responsibility for any viruses. No contracts can be created or varied on behalf of COLT Telecommunications, its subsidiaries or affiliates ("COLT") and any other party by email Communications unless expressly agreed in writing with such other party. Please note that incoming emails will be automatically scanned to eliminate potential viruses and unsolicited promotional emails. For more information refer to www.colt.net or contact us on +44(0)20 7390 3900. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From martin at airwire.ie Mon Jun 22 11:50:03 2009 From: martin at airwire.ie (Martin List-Petersen) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 10:50:03 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20090622071307.00ac3590@efes.iucc.ac.il> References: <4A3E9BEB.3060609@ukraine.su> <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <1245395785.4209.9.camel@ws> <21E803F2-1CDE-4542-BEC8-C80EA9478330@exa-networks.co.uk> <7BAD68A5-3171-463B-9BD7-51F71336E47D@fido.net> <4A3E21B1.5000607@airwire.ie> <4A3E9BEB.3060609@ukraine.su> <5.1.0.14.2.20090622071307.00ac3590@efes.iucc.ac.il> Message-ID: <4A3F53CB.3030806@airwire.ie> Hank Nussbacher wrote: > At 09:52 PM 21-06-09 +0100, Martin List-Petersen wrote: >> Max Tulyev wrote: >> > Martin, >> > >> > Votes can be done as PGP signed e-mails. These e-mails can be published >> > on web site or sent to all interesting people via e-mail. So everyone >> > can check their votes are counted right. As anybody can check PGP >> signs, >> > it is not a problem voting through RIPE NCC web site. >> > >> > P.S. Remember the board elections: people put ballots inside a hat, >> then >> > a few guys went out with the hat, did something (probably counted >> > ballots) and said the result. So the current voting system already not >> > better than voting through the LIR portal ;) >> >> >> Well, >> they didn't leave. They were in the back of the room. >> >> But yes, any online voting system will >> >> a) give more people a chance to vote >> >> and >> >> b) be more precise >> >> >> I just stated by personal preference and reasoning. Do what you want >> from there :) I know what I'm voting for, if it comes up to a vote. > > Problem is it will probably brought for a vote at the next AGM where it > will be defeated since the 50 LIRs who attend probably won't want their > vote diluted by the unwashed masses. Actually, I think you are pretty wrong there. There was a few proxies at the meeting and there's quite a bit of interest to make it possible for more people to vote between the people that actually show for the AGM. Don't make such assumptions if you don't know, whats going on at the AGM. Show up for the AGM. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968 From martin at airwire.ie Mon Jun 22 11:53:08 2009 From: martin at airwire.ie (Martin List-Petersen) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 10:53:08 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] RIPE NCC response time In-Reply-To: References: <376D2CBD-1DA9-47DD-A409-460434DB8E17@nosignal.org> <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <1245395785.4209.9.camel@ws> <5.1.0.14.2.20090622073638.00ae03e8@efes.iucc.ac.il> Message-ID: <4A3F5484.6040201@airwire.ie> Jon Morby wrote: > > On 22 Jun 2009, at 06:45, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > >> Judging by the RIPE statistics posted in regards to hostmaster >> response time everything is great: >> http://www.ripe.net/info/stats/rs/rt-hostmaster.html >> >> For the last 2 weeks response time is less than 1 day. > > I think that relates to the speed at which your auto response was > despatched :( > No it relates to hostmaster related requests and their response. They actually respond within 1-2 days in general to requests. Doesn't mean that your issue is solved then. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968 From andrea at ripe.net Mon Jun 22 11:55:08 2009 From: andrea at ripe.net (Andrea Cima) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:55:08 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Re: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE NCC response time In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20090622073638.00ae03e8@efes.iucc.ac.il> References: <376D2CBD-1DA9-47DD-A409-460434DB8E17@nosignal.org> <597173539.20090618162903@telecom.kz> <4A3A37BC.6010504@ripe.net> <4A3AA802.2020208@airwire.ie> <4A3AB6B0.1050502@airwire.ie> <1245395785.4209.9.camel@ws> <5.1.0.14.2.20090622073638.00ae03e8@efes.iucc.ac.il> Message-ID: <4A3F54FC.5080508@ripe.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear Hank, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > Judging by the RIPE statistics posted in regards to hostmaster response > time everything is great: > http://www.ripe.net/info/stats/rs/rt-hostmaster.html > > For the last 2 weeks response time is less than 1 day. > > Well due to the "2007-01 Phase 2 Implementation: Direct Internet > Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC", I have been > submitting tickets to move ASNs assigned to my LIR over a decade ago to > other LIRs which are now the owner of that ASN (yet now is billed to my > LIR). > > So starting on June 16 - 6 days ago I submitted 6 "move requests" and > even got back ticket acknowledgments: 2009063188, 2009063190, etc. and > yesterday a 7th request. Yet, I have not heard back from RIPE NCC. > > Yet, the stats graphs shows all ticket requests answered within 1 day. In order not to disrupt day-to-day operations like resource requests, which have the highest priority, we have created a separate ticket queue with lower priority for End User contracts. We have mentioned this at http://www.ripe.net/rs/pi-existing-assignments.html. We will take your feedback into account and add more information on the statistics page and acknowledgments sent to the LIR. With regards to the billing of resources, Up to September, LIRs can indicate which resources should stay with their LIR and which not. If in the interface provided through the LIR Portal you select 'Not My End User', you will not be billed for the specific resource in 2010. Move requests are taken into account but will be handled over a longer period of time. I hope this clarifies, however if you have any further questions or feedback don't hesitate to contact me. Kind regards, Andrea Cima RIPE NCC > Is it just me?! > > -Hank > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.11 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAko/VPwACgkQXOgsmPkFrjMsRwCgjVZvVmi20qf9n+qOMC01tCtn JCAAn2BbgKOij34nxLfi5jIGCH1k9NZ4 =6lAN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From dragan.mudric at mozzartbet.com Mon Jun 22 12:44:34 2009 From: dragan.mudric at mozzartbet.com (Mudric Dragan) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 12:44:34 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 In-Reply-To: <1672998970.20090622113941@nitec.kz> References: <1672998970.20090622113941@nitec.kz> Message-ID: <36857EC618F742E3BA5F293A9E2E194A@mozzart.co.yu> Dear Members-discuss. Please remove my address from this discussion. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Administrative contact Nurusheva_a" To: Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 7:39 AM Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 Dear Members-discuss. Please also remove my address on urgent basis -- Best Regards, Assel Nurusheva NIT JSC Cell +7 701 997 53 73 mailto:domain at nitec.kz __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4176 (20090622) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4177 (20090622) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From martin.bartz at ch.abb.com Mon Jun 22 12:16:00 2009 From: martin.bartz at ch.abb.com (Martin Bartz) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 12:16:00 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Please remove my address In-Reply-To: <005901c9f319$d85d1280$89173780$@nakhalah@kulacom.jo> References: <862675A9CB0EC648B9BAE4168A52C7200131E089@EMEXCH2.em.dk> <005901c9f319$d85d1280$89173780$@nakhalah@kulacom.jo> Message-ID: Please remove my adress martin.bartz at ch.abb.com Martin Bartz IS Service Manager ABB Schweiz ISI Segelhofstrasse 1K 5405, Baden-D?ttwil, Aargau, SWITZERLAND Phone: +41 58 585 33 39 Telefax: +41 58 586 8888 email: martin.bartz at ch.abb.com "Mohammad Nakhalah" Sent by: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net 2009-06-22 11:22 To "'Fitzgerald, Emma'" , , cc Subject RE: Betr.: [members-discuss] Please remove my address Please remove my address Mohammad.nakhalah at kulacom.jo Thanks Mohammad Nakhalah From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [ mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Fitzgerald, Emma Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 11:36 AM To: members-discuss at ripe.net; members-discuss-admin at ripe.net Subject: RE: Betr.: [members-discuss] Please remove my address Please remove my address ! emma.fitzgerald at colt.net ************************************************************************************* The message is intended for the named addressee only and may not be disclosed to or used by anyone else, nor may it be copied in any way. The contents of this message and its attachments are confidential and may also be subject to legal privilege. If you are not the named addressee and/or have received this message in error, please advise us by e-mailing security at colt.net and delete the message and any attachments without retaining any copies. Internet communications are not secure and COLT does not accept responsibility for this message, its contents nor responsibility for any viruses. No contracts can be created or varied on behalf of COLT Telecommunications, its subsidiaries or affiliates ("COLT") and any other party by email Communications unless expressly agreed in writing with such other party. Please note that incoming emails will be automatically scanned to eliminate potential viruses and unsolicited promotional emails. For more information refer to www.colt.net or contact us on +44(0)20 7390 3900. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 441 bytes Desc: not available URL: From waleed.oriny at sa.zain.com Mon Jun 22 13:14:06 2009 From: waleed.oriny at sa.zain.com (Waleed S. AlOriny) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:14:06 +0300 Subject: [members-discuss] Please remove my address In-Reply-To: References: <862675A9CB0EC648B9BAE4168A52C7200131E089@EMEXCH2.em.dk> <005901c9f319$d85d1280$89173780$@nakhalah@kulacom.jo> Message-ID: <6F475DBDC0EF8A4DA2BB658F7963419D018EE412347A@ZAINKSAEXCH01.CORP.SA.ZAIN.COM> Dears; Please remove my address waleed.oriny at sa.zain.com BR; Regards, [cid:image001.jpg at 01C9F343.B3C21810] Waleed S Aloriny Manager, IP/MPLS Zain - Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Mobile: +966 59 244 0043 Telephone: +966 59241 0043 eMail: waleedd.oriny at sa.zain.com From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Martin Bartz Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 1:16 PM To: members-discuss at ripe.net; members-discuss-admin at ripe.net Subject: RE: [members-discuss] Please remove my address Please remove my adress martin.bartz at ch.abb.com [cid:image002.gif at 01C9F343.B3C21810] Martin Bartz IS Service Manager ABB Schweiz ISI Segelhofstrasse 1K 5405, Baden-D?ttwil, Aargau, SWITZERLAND Phone: +41 58 585 33 39 Telefax: +41 58 586 8888 email: martin.bartz at ch.abb.com "Mohammad Nakhalah" Sent by: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net 2009-06-22 11:22 To "'Fitzgerald, Emma'" , , cc Subject RE: Betr.: [members-discuss] Please remove my address Please remove my address Mohammad.nakhalah at kulacom.jo Thanks Mohammad Nakhalah From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Fitzgerald, Emma Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 11:36 AM To: members-discuss at ripe.net; members-discuss-admin at ripe.net Subject: RE: Betr.: [members-discuss] Please remove my address Please remove my address ! emma.fitzgerald at colt.net ************************************************************************************* The message is intended for the named addressee only and may not be disclosed to or used by anyone else, nor may it be copied in any way. The contents of this message and its attachments are confidential and may also be subject to legal privilege. If you are not the named addressee and/or have received this message in error, please advise us by e-mailing security at colt.net and delete the message and any attachments without retaining any copies. Internet communications are not secure and COLT does not accept responsibility for this message, its contents nor responsibility for any viruses. No contracts can be created or varied on behalf of COLT Telecommunications, its subsidiaries or affiliates ("COLT") and any other party by email Communications unless expressly agreed in writing with such other party. Please note that incoming emails will be automatically scanned to eliminate potential viruses and unsolicited promotional emails. For more information refer to www.colt.net or contact us on +44(0)20 7390 3900. ________________________________ Disclaimer This communication is intended for the above named person and is confidential and / or legally privileged. Any opinion(s) expressed in this communication are not necessarily those of Zain. If it has come to you in error you must take no action based upon it, nor must you print it, copy it, forward it, or show it to anyone. Please delete and destroy the e-mail and any attachments and inform the sender immediately. Thank you. Zain is not responsible for the political, religious, racial or partisan opinion in any correspondence conducted by its domain users. Therefore, any such opinion expressed, whether explicitly or implicitly, in any said correspondence is not to be interpreted as that of Zain. Zain may monitor all incoming and outgoing e-mails in line with Zain business practice. Although Zain has taken steps to ensure that e-mails and attachments are free from any virus, we advise that, in keeping with best business practice, the recipient must ensure they are actually virus free. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2814 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.gif Type: image/gif Size: 441 bytes Desc: image002.gif URL: From drift at bredbaandnord.dk Mon Jun 22 13:16:52 2009 From: drift at bredbaandnord.dk (Drift) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 13:16:52 +0200 Subject: SV: [members-discuss] Please remove my address In-Reply-To: <6F475DBDC0EF8A4DA2BB658F7963419D018EE412347A@ZAINKSAEXCH01.CORP.SA.ZAIN.COM> References: <862675A9CB0EC648B9BAE4168A52C7200131E089@EMEXCH2.em.dk> <005901c9f319$d85d1280$89173780$@nakhalah@kulacom.jo> <6F475DBDC0EF8A4DA2BB658F7963419D018EE412347A@ZAINKSAEXCH01.CORP.SA.ZAIN.COM> Message-ID: Please also remove: drift at bredbaandnord.dk Thomas B?tzau Olsen Driftstekniker Bredb?nd Nord I/S Tlf.: 98 88 99 90 Email: drift at bredbaandnord.dk www.bredbaandnord.dk Fra: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] P? vegne af Waleed S. AlOriny Sendt: 22. juni 2009 13:14 Til: members-discuss at ripe.net; members-discuss-admin at ripe.net Emne: RE: [members-discuss] Please remove my address Dears; Please remove my address waleed.oriny at sa.zain.com BR; Regards, Waleed S Aloriny Manager, IP/MPLS Zain - Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Mobile: +966 59 244 0043 Telephone: +966 59241 0043 eMail: waleedd.oriny at sa.zain.com From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Martin Bartz Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 1:16 PM To: members-discuss at ripe.net; members-discuss-admin at ripe.net Subject: RE: [members-discuss] Please remove my address Please remove my adress martin.bartz at ch.abb.com Martin Bartz IS Service Manager ABB Schweiz ISI Segelhofstrasse 1K 5405, Baden-D?ttwil, Aargau, SWITZERLAND Phone: +41 58 585 33 39 Telefax: +41 58 586 8888 email: martin.bartz at ch.abb.com "Mohammad Nakhalah" Sent by: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net 2009-06-22 11:22 To "'Fitzgerald, Emma'" , , cc Subject RE: Betr.: [members-discuss] Please remove my address Please remove my address Mohammad.nakhalah at kulacom.jo Thanks Mohammad Nakhalah From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net ] On Behalf Of Fitzgerald, Emma Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 11:36 AM To: members-discuss at ripe.net; members-discuss-admin at ripe.net Subject: RE: Betr.: [members-discuss] Please remove my address Please remove my address ! emma.fitzgerald at colt.net ************************************************************************************* The message is intended for the named addressee only and may not be disclosed to or used by anyone else, nor may it be copied in any way. The contents of this message and its attachments are confidential and may also be subject to legal privilege. If you are not the named addressee and/or have received this message in error, please advise us by e-mailing security at colt.net and delete the message and any attachments without retaining any copies. Internet communications are not secure and COLT does not accept responsibility for this message, its contents nor responsibility for any viruses. No contracts can be created or varied on behalf of COLT Telecommunications, its subsidiaries or affiliates ("COLT") and any other party by email Communications unless expressly agreed in writing with such other party. Please note that incoming emails will be automatically scanned to eliminate potential viruses and unsolicited promotional emails. For more information refer to www.colt.net or contact us on +44(0)20 7390 3900. ________________________________ Disclaimer This communication is intended for the above named person and is confidential and / or legally privileged. Any opinion(s) expressed in this communication are not necessarily those of Zain. If it has come to you in error you must take no action based upon it, nor must you print it, copy it, forward it, or show it to anyone. Please delete and destroy the e-mail and any attachments and inform the sender immediately. Thank you. Zain is not responsible for the political, religious, racial or partisan opinion in any correspondence conducted by its domain users. Therefore, any such opinion expressed, whether explicitly or implicitly, in any said correspondence is not to be interpreted as that of Zain. Zain may monitor all incoming and outgoing e-mails in line with Zain business practice. Although Zain has taken steps to ensure that e-mails and attachments are free from any virus, we advise that, in keeping with best business practice, the recipient must ensure they are actually virus free. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 19571 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2814 bytes Desc: image004.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image005.gif Type: image/gif Size: 441 bytes Desc: image005.gif URL: From maxim at sinet.ru Mon Jun 22 13:17:55 2009 From: maxim at sinet.ru (Milyh Maxim Vadimovich) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:17:55 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 Message-ID: <36972282.20090622151755@sinet.ru> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sajjad.n at mtnirancell.ir Mon Jun 22 13:31:06 2009 From: sajjad.n at mtnirancell.ir (Sajjad Najafizadeh [ MTNIrancell - Head Office ]) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:01:06 +0430 Subject: [members-discuss] Please remove my address In-Reply-To: References: <862675A9CB0EC648B9BAE4168A52C7200131E089@EMEXCH2.em.dk> <005901c9f319$d85d1280$89173780$@nakhalah@kulacom.jo> <6F475DBDC0EF8A4DA2BB658F7963419D018EE412347A@ZAINKSAEXCH01.CORP.SA.ZAIN.COM> Message-ID: <5FE2F2A71ADB534FA5D0CDF5EA009CF2193971@dc1w002.mtnirancell.ir> Also mine : Sajjad.n at mtnirancell.ir Regards From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Drift Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 3:47 PM To: Waleed S. AlOriny; members-discuss at ripe.net; members-discuss-admin at ripe.net Subject: SV: [members-discuss] Please remove my address Please also remove: drift at bredbaandnord.dk Thomas B?tzau Olsen Driftstekniker Bredb?nd Nord I/S Tlf.: 98 88 99 90 Email: drift at bredbaandnord.dk www.bredbaandnord.dk Fra: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] P? vegne af Waleed S. AlOriny Sendt: 22. juni 2009 13:14 Til: members-discuss at ripe.net; members-discuss-admin at ripe.net Emne: RE: [members-discuss] Please remove my address Dears; Please remove my address waleed.oriny at sa.zain.com BR; Regards, Waleed S Aloriny Manager, IP/MPLS Zain - Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Mobile: +966 59 244 0043 Telephone: +966 59241 0043 eMail: waleedd.oriny at sa.zain.com From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Martin Bartz Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 1:16 PM To: members-discuss at ripe.net; members-discuss-admin at ripe.net Subject: RE: [members-discuss] Please remove my address Please remove my adress martin.bartz at ch.abb.com Martin Bartz IS Service Manager ABB Schweiz ISI Segelhofstrasse 1K 5405, Baden-D?ttwil, Aargau, SWITZERLAND Phone: +41 58 585 33 39 Telefax: +41 58 586 8888 email: martin.bartz at ch.abb.com "Mohammad Nakhalah" Sent by: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net 2009-06-22 11:22 To "'Fitzgerald, Emma'" , , cc Subject RE: Betr.: [members-discuss] Please remove my address Please remove my address Mohammad.nakhalah at kulacom.jo Thanks Mohammad Nakhalah From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net ] On Behalf Of Fitzgerald, Emma Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 11:36 AM To: members-discuss at ripe.net; members-discuss-admin at ripe.net Subject: RE: Betr.: [members-discuss] Please remove my address Please remove my address ! emma.fitzgerald at colt.net ************************************************************************************* The message is intended for the named addressee only and may not be disclosed to or used by anyone else, nor may it be copied in any way. The contents of this message and its attachments are confidential and may also be subject to legal privilege. If you are not the named addressee and/or have received this message in error, please advise us by e-mailing security at colt.net and delete the message and any attachments without retaining any copies. Internet communications are not secure and COLT does not accept responsibility for this message, its contents nor responsibility for any viruses. No contracts can be created or varied on behalf of COLT Telecommunications, its subsidiaries or affiliates ("COLT") and any other party by email Communications unless expressly agreed in writing with such other party. Please note that incoming emails will be automatically scanned to eliminate potential viruses and unsolicited promotional emails. For more information refer to www.colt.net or contact us on +44(0)20 7390 3900. ________________________________ Disclaimer This communication is intended for the above named person and is confidential and / or legally privileged. Any opinion(s) expressed in this communication are not necessarily those of Zain. If it has come to you in error you must take no action based upon it, nor must you print it, copy it, forward it, or show it to anyone. Please delete and destroy the e-mail and any attachments and inform the sender immediately. Thank you. Zain is not responsible for the political, religious, racial or partisan opinion in any correspondence conducted by its domain users. Therefore, any such opinion expressed, whether explicitly or implicitly, in any said correspondence is not to be interpreted as that of Zain. Zain may monitor all incoming and outgoing e-mails in line with Zain business practice. Although Zain has taken steps to ensure that e-mails and attachments are free from any virus, we advise that, in keeping with best business practice, the recipient must ensure they are actually virus free. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 19571 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2814 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.gif Type: image/gif Size: 441 bytes Desc: image003.gif URL: From jernej.horvat at amis.si Mon Jun 22 13:42:57 2009 From: jernej.horvat at amis.si (Jernej Horvat) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 13:42:57 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] HOW-TO unsubscribe In-Reply-To: <5FE2F2A71ADB534FA5D0CDF5EA009CF2193971@dc1w002.mtnirancell.ir> References: <862675A9CB0EC648B9BAE4168A52C7200131E089@EMEXCH2.em.dk> <005901c9f319$d85d1280$89173780$@nakhalah@kulacom.jo> <6F475DBDC0EF8A4DA2BB658F7963419D018EE412347A@ZAINKSAEXCH01.CORP.SA.ZAIN.COM> <5FE2F2A71ADB534FA5D0CDF5EA009CF2193971@dc1w002.mtnirancell.ir> Message-ID: <4A3F6E41.5000301@amis.si> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 There are headers in *each* message from this list: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , whomever wants to be removed should log into the RIPE LIR portal, as a user (not with the admin account) https://lirportal.ripe.net/ click general click edit Subscribed Mailing Lists NCC members discussion (people that don't know how to do this should probably not be on the list in the first place, ask YOUR IT department's hostmaster(s) to fix it) - -- A: It's against natural order of reading. Q: Why is that? A: People answering above quoted text. Q: What's the most annoying on e-mails? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) iEYEARECAAYFAko/bkEACgkQm9g8WASujlXC0gCfcM+p030F5gWbyijARiscYMqY O9cAoI1gZ99lXHKKQvdjDo8RXHolqpOE =qEnW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From president at ukraine.su Tue Jun 23 13:34:15 2009 From: president at ukraine.su (Max Tulyev) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:34:15 +0300 Subject: [members-discuss] HOW-TO unsubscribe In-Reply-To: <4A3F6E41.5000301@amis.si> References: <862675A9CB0EC648B9BAE4168A52C7200131E089@EMEXCH2.em.dk> <005901c9f319$d85d1280$89173780$@nakhalah@kulacom.jo> <6F475DBDC0EF8A4DA2BB658F7963419D018EE412347A@ZAINKSAEXCH01.CORP.SA.ZAIN.COM> <5FE2F2A71ADB534FA5D0CDF5EA009CF2193971@dc1w002.mtnirancell.ir> <4A3F6E41.5000301@amis.si> Message-ID: <4A40BDB7.8010903@ukraine.su> Jernej, sure most of people wants to be unsubscribed by posting e-mail here don't know what headers are ;) Jernej Horvat wrote: > There are headers in *each* message from this list: > > List-Subscribe: , > > List-Unsubscribe: , > > > > whomever wants to be removed should log into the RIPE LIR portal, as a > user (not with the admin account) > > https://lirportal.ripe.net/ > > click general > click edit > > Subscribed Mailing Lists > NCC members discussion > > > > (people that don't know how to do this should probably not be on the > list in the first place, ask YOUR IT department's hostmaster(s) to fix it) > > > > -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO) From sven at cb3rob.net Tue Jun 23 14:00:30 2009 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:00:30 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [members-discuss] HOW-TO unsubscribe In-Reply-To: <4A40BDB7.8010903@ukraine.su> References: <862675A9CB0EC648B9BAE4168A52C7200131E089@EMEXCH2.em.dk> <005901c9f319$d85d1280$89173780$@nakhalah@kulacom.jo> <6F475DBDC0EF8A4DA2BB658F7963419D018EE412347A@ZAINKSAEXCH01.CORP.SA.ZAIN.COM> <5FE2F2A71ADB534FA5D0CDF5EA009CF2193971@dc1w002.mtnirancell.ir> <4A3F6E41.5000301@amis.si> <4A40BDB7.8010903@ukraine.su> Message-ID: > sure most of people wants to be unsubscribed by posting e-mail here > don't know what headers are ;) *kuch* incompetence. -- Sven Olaf Kamphuis CB3ROB DataServices Phone: +31/87-8747479 Skype: CB3ROB MSN: sven at cb3rob.net C.V.: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cb3rob Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Max Tulyev wrote: > Jernej, > > sure most of people wants to be unsubscribed by posting e-mail here > don't know what headers are ;) > > Jernej Horvat wrote: > > There are headers in *each* message from this list: > > > > List-Subscribe: , > > > > List-Unsubscribe: , > > > > > > > > whomever wants to be removed should log into the RIPE LIR portal, as a > > user (not with the admin account) > > > > https://lirportal.ripe.net/ > > > > click general > > click edit > > > > Subscribed Mailing Lists > > NCC members discussion > > > > > > > > (people that don't know how to do this should probably not be on the > > list in the first place, ask YOUR IT department's hostmaster(s) to fix it) > > > > > > > > > > -- > WBR, > Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO) > > ---- > If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ > First click on General and then click on Edit. > At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses. > > X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "ripe.net" >