From ripe-lir at speednic.eu Sun Oct 2 16:10:23 2011 From: ripe-lir at speednic.eu (SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling) Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2011 11:10:23 -0300 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments In-Reply-To: <1317369198.9999.92.camel@ntitley-laptop> References: <1317369198.9999.92.camel@ntitley-laptop> Message-ID: <4E8870CF.4070702@speednic.eu> Dear Nigel, thank you first of all for your update about the charing scheme. Some point we can confirm but not all of them as the charging scheme for 2012 looks like as a billing of ip-addresses as there are a lot of "XS" categories. Otherwise - as we told time before - why the smaller LIR must have to pay a lot more instead of the big player who will crunch IPv4 ?? The calculated scheme means for us that we will increase from category "SMALL" to "L" which means a increase of our costs from 1800 EUR to 3000 EUR per year or +70% more costs which can bring a lot of members in trouble as they don't have a budget for that high increase equal which category they will have for 2012 !!! As revewed the change matrix it means that like all membres will increase one or two categories in the charging scheme. Only a very small amount will decrease. This guess to us that the budget will increase a lot too ?? Why RIPE NCC will need a so high budget for 2012 instead of 2011 ?? Other stuff is that many companies have a PI assigment but will pay only 50 EUR as a 3XS member must pay 250 EUR which means 5 times more. It should be better to ask for PI space instead of PA space as the costs are much lower !!! Only think we know is that we will VOTE contra this charging scheme. thx Alexander Schoberl SPEEDNIC S.R.L. Am 30.09.2011 03:53, schrieb Nigel Titley: > Dear all, > > I would like to update you about the RIPE NCC Executive Board > deliberations regarding the draft charging scheme for 2012. > > We presented you with two draft schemes, in early summer, to gather > feedback from you. We did this as we wanted to hear your opinions on > measures we want to take which are designed to keep the RIPE NCC > financially stable and capable of serving its members as it should. > > You engaged in a lively discussion on this mailing list, and even ran a > mini-survey. We followed the exchanges closely and as result asked > RIPE NCC staff to provide the board with another charging scheme option, > based on a sliding scale scheme that eliminated the membership > categories we currently use. > > During the board meeting of last Friday, 23 September, we discussed the > merits as well as some of the issues of that model. Obviously a sliding > scale model as its main benefit does away with the fee jumps of the > category based model. We were pleased with the model that we developed > with the NCC staff and felt that it addressed many of the issues raised > by you, the members. > > However, in consultation with our tax lawyers we have had to think > again. Because it brings a "fee-per-address" flavour to the charging > model of the RIPE NCC it fundamentally alters the tax scheme under which > we operate. The current "category" model allows us to argue that we are > a membership association with different categories of membership. This > brings substantial tax advantages. > > As you know, for a long time the RIPE NCC tax situation has been > extremely favourable, as we don't have to pay corporation tax, based on > an agreement made with the Dutch tax authorities many years ago. We are > advised that the envisaged change in the charging scheme would lead to a > re-assessment of that agreement, with the likely outcome that the > association's surplus would have to be taxed, leading to a significant > financial liability, with an obvious knock-on effect to the member fees. > > In the light of this, the board members have agreed not to expose our > organisation to that risk, staying with a category based system. We have > however noted your preference for reduced "fee jumps" between > categories, and have instructed NCC staff to produce a charging scheme > model based on 10 categories, doubling the current category number. > Category divisions will be based on a count of address space held. > > This revised Charging Scheme 2012 we will publish, as usual, prior to > the General Meeting in November, for approval by the members during the > General Meeting. We can advise you already that we are opening up the > voting mechanism for all resolutions to include electronic voting, so > that all members of the association have a good opportunity to take a > full part in the proceedings. > > At this time, I would like to thank you all, on behalf of the RIPE NCC > Executive Board, for participating in the discussion. I look forward to > seeing as many of you as possible at the next General Meeting. > > Best regards, > > Nigel Titley > Chairman > RIPE NCC Executive Board > > > > > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From gert at space.net Sun Oct 2 19:39:56 2011 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2011 19:39:56 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments In-Reply-To: <4E8870CF.4070702@speednic.eu> References: <1317369198.9999.92.camel@ntitley-laptop> <4E8870CF.4070702@speednic.eu> Message-ID: <20111002173956.GW72014@Space.Net> Hi, On Sun, Oct 02, 2011 at 11:10:23AM -0300, SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling wrote: > As revewed the change matrix it means that like all membres will > increase one or two categories in the charging scheme. Only a very small > amount will decrease. This guess to us that the budget will increase a > lot too ?? Why RIPE NCC will need a so high budget for 2012 instead of > 2011 ?? The distribution of LIRs to charging categories happens in such a way that the resulting income will match the budget. Normally the budget for 2012 should not be much higher than for 2011 (detailed numbers will usually be published before the AGM), so it looks like you have not used fully correct numbers. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 From erik at bais.name Sun Oct 2 20:03:30 2011 From: erik at bais.name (Erik Bais) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2011 20:03:30 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments In-Reply-To: <1317369198.9999.92.camel@ntitley-laptop> References: <1317369198.9999.92.camel@ntitley-laptop> Message-ID: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698CF@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> Hi Nigel, To my understanding and as stated on the website, Ripe Ncc is a not for profit org. Under Dutch law. Basically a 'vereniging' as we call that in Dutch. the difference between a 'vereniging' and a Stichting (Foundation) is that a stichting doesn't have members (according to the Dutch IRS website). Both type of organizations can be under Dutch law free of profit (income) tax. Called vpb tax (vennootsschapsbelasting) or corporate tax. It depends if the goal of the organization is to make a profit. It is allowed, but if you do, you need to pay vpb and you are not allowed to divide the profit under its members. You can however reduce the cost for the members to leverage that profit to a nil profit. The question that came to my mind was how a category model would alter the current tax situation. Or is that only the case in a pay per ip model ? If one would ( as I suggested ) go to a single fee per member and everyone is the same, regardless of size / color whatever. It would probably reduce the administrative hassle within the ripe ncc backoffice a lot, resulting also in a reduced membership fee. A fee structure based on an obsolete ( and almost depleted ) technology is soo 2000 ... We need to evolve and like with the transition to ipv6, change is good. Bite the bullet once and enjoy the result after work done. How easy would it be to just divide the total budget across the total number of lirs and we all know what the cost for next year is. ( roughly 17.5 Milj. Euro divided by 7746 members .. = 2250 euro cost per LIR ). My 2?cent on a sunny Sunday afternoon, Erik Bais > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss- > bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Nigel Titley > Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 9:53 AM > To: members-discuss at ripe.net > Subject: [members-discuss] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board > comments > > Dear all, > > I would like to update you about the RIPE NCC Executive Board > deliberations regarding the draft charging scheme for 2012. > > We presented you with two draft schemes, in early summer, to gather > feedback from you. We did this as we wanted to hear your opinions on > measures we want to take which are designed to keep the RIPE NCC > financially stable and capable of serving its members as it should. > > You engaged in a lively discussion on this mailing list, and even ran a > mini-survey. We followed the exchanges closely and as result asked > RIPE NCC staff to provide the board with another charging scheme > option, > based on a sliding scale scheme that eliminated the membership > categories we currently use. > > During the board meeting of last Friday, 23 September, we discussed the > merits as well as some of the issues of that model. Obviously a sliding > scale model as its main benefit does away with the fee jumps of the > category based model. We were pleased with the model that we developed > with the NCC staff and felt that it addressed many of the issues raised > by you, the members. > > However, in consultation with our tax lawyers we have had to think > again. Because it brings a "fee-per-address" flavour to the charging > model of the RIPE NCC it fundamentally alters the tax scheme under > which > we operate. The current "category" model allows us to argue that we are > a membership association with different categories of membership. This > brings substantial tax advantages. > > As you know, for a long time the RIPE NCC tax situation has been > extremely favourable, as we don't have to pay corporation tax, based on > an agreement made with the Dutch tax authorities many years ago. We are > advised that the envisaged change in the charging scheme would lead to > a > re-assessment of that agreement, with the likely outcome that the > association's surplus would have to be taxed, leading to a significant > financial liability, with an obvious knock-on effect to the member > fees. > > In the light of this, the board members have agreed not to expose our > organisation to that risk, staying with a category based system. We > have > however noted your preference for reduced "fee jumps" between > categories, and have instructed NCC staff to produce a charging scheme > model based on 10 categories, doubling the current category number. > Category divisions will be based on a count of address space held. > > This revised Charging Scheme 2012 we will publish, as usual, prior to > the General Meeting in November, for approval by the members during the > General Meeting. We can advise you already that we are opening up the > voting mechanism for all resolutions to include electronic voting, so > that all members of the association have a good opportunity to take a > full part in the proceedings. > > At this time, I would like to thank you all, on behalf of the RIPE NCC > Executive Board, for participating in the discussion. I look forward to > seeing as many of you as possible at the next General Meeting. > > Best regards, > > Nigel Titley > Chairman > RIPE NCC Executive Board > > > > > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the > general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From > here, you can add or remove addresses. > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1410 / Virus Database: 1520/3929 - Release Date: 09/30/11 From sven at cb3rob.net Sun Oct 2 20:44:39 2011 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2011 18:44:39 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [members-discuss] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments In-Reply-To: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698CF@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> References: <1317369198.9999.92.camel@ntitley-laptop> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698CF@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> Message-ID: *fully agree with erik* ipv4 is obsolete and should not be used as a billing basis. and indeed, if the "Average" is 2250/yr, that doesn't differ that much from what direct-pi-with-ripe non-lirs, small and extra small lirs pay anyway (guess there are not that many extra large lirs then ;) so everyone-pays-the-same would make sense. less overhead. On Sun, 2 Oct 2011, Erik Bais wrote: > Hi Nigel, > > To my understanding and as stated on the website, Ripe Ncc is a not for > profit org. Under Dutch law. Basically a 'vereniging' as we call that in > Dutch. the difference between a 'vereniging' and a Stichting > (Foundation) is that a stichting doesn't have members (according to the > Dutch IRS website). > > Both type of organizations can be under Dutch law free of profit > (income) tax. Called vpb tax (vennootsschapsbelasting) or corporate tax. > It depends if the goal of the organization is to make a profit. It is > allowed, but if you do, you need to pay vpb and you are not allowed to > divide the profit under its members. You can however reduce the cost for > the members to leverage that profit to a nil profit. > > The question that came to my mind was how a category model would alter the current tax situation. Or is that only the case in a pay per ip model ? > > If one would ( as I suggested ) go to a single fee per member and everyone is the same, regardless of size / color whatever. It would probably reduce the administrative hassle within the ripe ncc backoffice a lot, resulting also in a reduced membership fee. > > A fee structure based on an obsolete ( and almost depleted ) technology is soo 2000 ... > > We need to evolve and like with the transition to ipv6, change is good. Bite the bullet once and enjoy the result after work done. How easy would it be to just divide the total budget across the total number of lirs and we all know what the cost for next year is. ( roughly 17.5 Milj. Euro divided by 7746 members .. = 2250 euro cost per LIR ). > > My 2?cent on a sunny Sunday afternoon, > > Erik Bais > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss- >> bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Nigel Titley >> Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 9:53 AM >> To: members-discuss at ripe.net >> Subject: [members-discuss] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board >> comments >> >> Dear all, >> >> I would like to update you about the RIPE NCC Executive Board >> deliberations regarding the draft charging scheme for 2012. >> >> We presented you with two draft schemes, in early summer, to gather >> feedback from you. We did this as we wanted to hear your opinions on >> measures we want to take which are designed to keep the RIPE NCC >> financially stable and capable of serving its members as it should. >> >> You engaged in a lively discussion on this mailing list, and even ran a >> mini-survey. We followed the exchanges closely and as result asked >> RIPE NCC staff to provide the board with another charging scheme >> option, >> based on a sliding scale scheme that eliminated the membership >> categories we currently use. >> >> During the board meeting of last Friday, 23 September, we discussed the >> merits as well as some of the issues of that model. Obviously a sliding >> scale model as its main benefit does away with the fee jumps of the >> category based model. We were pleased with the model that we developed >> with the NCC staff and felt that it addressed many of the issues raised >> by you, the members. >> >> However, in consultation with our tax lawyers we have had to think >> again. Because it brings a "fee-per-address" flavour to the charging >> model of the RIPE NCC it fundamentally alters the tax scheme under >> which >> we operate. The current "category" model allows us to argue that we are >> a membership association with different categories of membership. This >> brings substantial tax advantages. >> >> As you know, for a long time the RIPE NCC tax situation has been >> extremely favourable, as we don't have to pay corporation tax, based on >> an agreement made with the Dutch tax authorities many years ago. We are >> advised that the envisaged change in the charging scheme would lead to >> a >> re-assessment of that agreement, with the likely outcome that the >> association's surplus would have to be taxed, leading to a significant >> financial liability, with an obvious knock-on effect to the member >> fees. >> >> In the light of this, the board members have agreed not to expose our >> organisation to that risk, staying with a category based system. We >> have >> however noted your preference for reduced "fee jumps" between >> categories, and have instructed NCC staff to produce a charging scheme >> model based on 10 categories, doubling the current category number. >> Category divisions will be based on a count of address space held. >> >> This revised Charging Scheme 2012 we will publish, as usual, prior to >> the General Meeting in November, for approval by the members during the >> General Meeting. We can advise you already that we are opening up the >> voting mechanism for all resolutions to include electronic voting, so >> that all members of the association have a good opportunity to take a >> full part in the proceedings. >> >> At this time, I would like to thank you all, on behalf of the RIPE NCC >> Executive Board, for participating in the discussion. I look forward to >> seeing as many of you as possible at the next General Meeting. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Nigel Titley >> Chairman >> RIPE NCC Executive Board >> >> >> >> >> >> ---- >> If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss >> mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the >> general page: >> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view >> >> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From >> here, you can add or remove addresses. >> >> ----- >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 10.0.1410 / Virus Database: 1520/3929 - Release Date: 09/30/11 > ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From ripe-lir at speednic.eu Sun Oct 2 20:51:08 2011 From: ripe-lir at speednic.eu (SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling) Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2011 15:51:08 -0300 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments In-Reply-To: <20111002173956.GW72014@Space.Net> References: <1317369198.9999.92.camel@ntitley-laptop> <4E8870CF.4070702@speednic.eu> <20111002173956.GW72014@Space.Net> Message-ID: <4E88B29C.4060207@speednic.eu> Hi Gert, Am 02.10.2011 14:39, schrieb Gert Doering: > Hi, > > On Sun, Oct 02, 2011 at 11:10:23AM -0300, SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling wrote: >> As revewed the change matrix it means that like all membres will >> increase one or two categories in the charging scheme. Only a very small >> amount will decrease. This guess to us that the budget will increase a >> lot too ?? Why RIPE NCC will need a so high budget for 2012 instead of >> 2011 ?? > > The distribution of LIRs to charging categories happens in such a way > that the resulting income will match the budget. Normally the budget > for 2012 should not be much higher than for 2011 (detailed numbers will > usually be published before the AGM), so it looks like you have not used > fully correct numbers. > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster sorry but I must tell you that you're wrong. I have based the members (Budget 2011 - 7725 Members - from RIPE document https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/november-2010/ChargingSchemeslides.pdf) with the change matrix of 2012 and have recalculated the fees with the following result : Based on a calculation of 7725 members in Year 2011 the budget was about 15.190.750 EUR (based on 2011 charging prices) for the member fees. Based on the new 2012 scheme the budget will be about 18.538.000 EUR (+/- a little bit in fact of rounding difference). So in total we can speak about an increase of more than 3.000.000 EUR (about +20% as for 2011) of the member fees !?!?!?! In my calculation I don't putting in the PI space because the price of 50 EUR hasn't changed. I never seen that the costs will increase 20% within one year. So what you mean now ?? Best regards, Alexander Schoberl SPEEDNIC S.R.L. From info at lidertelecom.ru Sun Oct 2 23:14:46 2011 From: info at lidertelecom.ru (LeaderTelecom Ltd.) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 01:14:46 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2011100201000839] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments In-Reply-To: <4E8870CF.4070702@speednic.eu> References: <4E8870CF.4070702@speednic.eu><1317369198.9999.92.camel@ntitley-laptop> Message-ID: <1317590086.495364.463378258.154491.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Dear Nigel, It is impossible to change price model for next year.? Each LIR had to give to RIPE information about signed agreement for next year with end users. As a result we have signed contracts with prices from old charing scheme. If you will increase prices then next year we have to work without profit. It is very difficult time for European?region and we have to cut costs next year. I suggest: 1.?Leave charging shema for 2012 year the same as in 2011. 2.?Increase prices for 2013.?But we have to?approve new?charing scheme?before 1 July 2012.?Then we will have about 3 month for changing in contracts with our customers. I already sent documents for electronic voting. I'll vote first time in RIPE. And I'm going to vote?against new?charing scheme?for 2012. It's too late to change it.? --? Best regards, Alexey Ivanov General Director LeaderTelecom Ltd ???.: 8(495)778-98-51 Am 30.09.2011 03:53, schrieb Nigel Titley: > Dear all, > > I would like to update you about the RIPE NCC Executive Board > deliberations regarding the draft charging scheme for 2012. > > We presented you with two draft schemes, in early summer, to gather > feedback from you. We did this as we wanted to hear your opinions on > measures we want to take which are designed to keep the RIPE NCC > financially stable and capable of serving its members as it should. > > You engaged in a lively discussion on this mailing list, and even ran a > mini-survey. We followed the exchanges closely and as result asked > RIPE NCC staff to provide the board with another charging scheme option, > based on a sliding scale scheme that eliminated the membership > categories we currently use. > > During the board meeting of last Friday, 23 September, we discussed the > merits as well as some of the issues of that model. Obviously a sliding > scale model as its main benefit does away with the fee jumps of the > category based model. We were pleased with the model that we developed > with the NCC staff and felt that it addressed many of the issues raised > by you, the members. > > However, in consultation with our tax lawyers we have had to think > again. Because it brings a "fee-per-address" flavour to the charging > model of the RIPE NCC it fundamentally alters the tax scheme under which > we operate. The current "category" model allows us to argue that we are > a membership association with different categories??of membership. This > brings substantial tax advantages. > > As you know, for a long time the RIPE NCC tax situation has been > extremely favourable, as we don't have to pay corporation tax, based on > an agreement made with the Dutch tax authorities many years ago. We are > advised that the envisaged change in the charging scheme would lead to a > re-assessment of that agreement, with the likely outcome that the > association's surplus would have to be taxed, leading to a significant > financial liability, with an obvious knock-on effect to the member fees. > > In the light of this, the board members have agreed not to expose our > organisation to that risk, staying with a category based system. We have > however noted your preference for reduced "fee jumps" between > categories, and have instructed NCC staff to produce a charging scheme > model based on 10 categories, doubling the current category number. > Category divisions will be based on a count of address space held. > > This revised Charging Scheme 2012 we will publish, as usual, prior to > the General Meeting in November, for approval by the members during the > General Meeting. We can advise you already that we are opening up the > voting mechanism for all resolutions to include electronic voting, so > that all members of the association have a good opportunity to take a > full part in the proceedings. > > At this time, I would like to thank you all, on behalf of the RIPE NCC > Executive Board, for participating in the discussion. I look forward to > seeing as many of you as possible at the next General Meeting. > > Best regards, > > Nigel Titley > Chairman > RIPE NCC Executive Board > > > > > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > [1]https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: [2]https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. ? [1] https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view [2] https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From liman at netnod.se Mon Oct 3 10:00:19 2011 From: liman at netnod.se (Lars-Johan Liman) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 10:00:19 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments In-Reply-To: (Sven Olaf Kamphuis's message of "Sun, 2 Oct 2011 18:44:39 +0000 (UTC)") References: <1317369198.9999.92.camel@ntitley-laptop> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698CF@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> Message-ID: <22sjnapkrw.fsf@ziptop.autonomica.net> sven at cb3rob.net: > ipv4 is obsolete and should not be used as a billing basis. I disagree strongly here. IPv4 is not obsolete - yet! We may be past "peak IPv4" (to borrow a term from the oil industry ;-) and it may have started its descent towards obsolescence, but it will remain in use for a long time to come. A lot of administrative work remains with IPv4 before we can say "over and done with", and for that reason IPv4 should be _PART_OF_ the basis for billing. As things evolve, it's quite possible that the IPv4 fraction of the basis will decrease, as, eventually, the "IPv12" (or whatever the next generation will be called) fraction increases, but IPv4 hasn't dropped dead yet. Cheers, /Liman #---------------------------------------------------------------------- # Lars-Johan Liman, M.Sc. ! E-mail: liman at netnod.se # Senior Systems Specialist ! Tel: +46 8 - 562 860 12 # Netnod Internet Exchange, Stockholm ! http://www.netnod.se/ #---------------------------------------------------------------------- From jon at fido.net Mon Oct 3 09:35:19 2011 From: jon at fido.net (Jon Morby) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 07:35:19 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments In-Reply-To: <4E88B29C.4060207@speednic.eu> References: <1317369198.9999.92.camel@ntitley-laptop> <4E8870CF.4070702@speednic.eu> <20111002173956.GW72014@Space.Net>,<4E88B29C.4060207@speednic.eu> Message-ID: <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> 18m Euro? Perhaps in these times of austerity we should be looking at reducing operating costs not increasing them. Even ?15m seems somewhat excessive in my mind despite the numerous benefits RIPE brings to the Internet as a whole (most of which we don't realise or see) :( Sent from my iPhone On 2 Oct 2011, at 19:51, "SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling" wrote: > Hi Gert, > > Am 02.10.2011 14:39, schrieb Gert Doering: >> Hi, >> >> On Sun, Oct 02, 2011 at 11:10:23AM -0300, SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling wrote: >>> As revewed the change matrix it means that like all membres will >>> increase one or two categories in the charging scheme. Only a very small >>> amount will decrease. This guess to us that the budget will increase a >>> lot too ?? Why RIPE NCC will need a so high budget for 2012 instead of >>> 2011 ?? >> >> The distribution of LIRs to charging categories happens in such a way >> that the resulting income will match the budget. Normally the budget >> for 2012 should not be much higher than for 2011 (detailed numbers will >> usually be published before the AGM), so it looks like you have not used >> fully correct numbers. >> >> Gert Doering >> -- NetMaster > > sorry but I must tell you that you're wrong. I have based the members > (Budget 2011 - 7725 Members - from RIPE document > https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/november-2010/ChargingSchemeslides.pdf) > with the change matrix of 2012 and have recalculated the fees with the > following result : > > Based on a calculation of 7725 members in Year 2011 the budget was about > 15.190.750 EUR (based on 2011 charging prices) for the member fees. > > Based on the new 2012 scheme the budget will be about 18.538.000 EUR > (+/- a little bit in fact of rounding difference). So in total we can > speak about an increase of more than 3.000.000 EUR (about +20% as for > 2011) of the member fees !?!?!?! > > In my calculation I don't putting in the PI space because the price of > 50 EUR hasn't changed. I never seen that the costs will increase 20% > within one year. So what you mean now ?? > > Best regards, > Alexander Schoberl > SPEEDNIC S.R.L. > > > > > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From s.lockhart at cablecomnetworking.co.uk Mon Oct 3 10:40:11 2011 From: s.lockhart at cablecomnetworking.co.uk (Simon Lockhart) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 09:40:11 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments In-Reply-To: <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> References: <1317369198.9999.92.camel@ntitley-laptop> <4E8870CF.4070702@speednic.eu> <20111002173956.GW72014@Space.Net> <4E88B29C.4060207@speednic.eu> <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> Message-ID: <20111003084011.GG3312@simonl.cablecomnetworking.co.uk> Has anyone from RIPE said that the budget is 12M? 15M? 18M? Is just just speculation on the part of one member? Has RIPE actually said what the cost per member is going to be? I've not seen anything sent to the list, but there seems to be plenty of bad feeling about supposed massive price increases. Simon On Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 08:35:19AM +0100, Jon Morby wrote: > 18m Euro? > > Perhaps in these times of austerity we should be looking at reducing operating costs not increasing them. > > Even ?15m seems somewhat excessive in my mind despite the numerous benefits RIPE brings to the Internet as a whole (most of which we don't realise or see) :( > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 2 Oct 2011, at 19:51, "SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling" wrote: > > > Hi Gert, > > > > Am 02.10.2011 14:39, schrieb Gert Doering: > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Sun, Oct 02, 2011 at 11:10:23AM -0300, SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling wrote: > >>> As revewed the change matrix it means that like all membres will > >>> increase one or two categories in the charging scheme. Only a very small > >>> amount will decrease. This guess to us that the budget will increase a > >>> lot too ?? Why RIPE NCC will need a so high budget for 2012 instead of > >>> 2011 ?? > >> > >> The distribution of LIRs to charging categories happens in such a way > >> that the resulting income will match the budget. Normally the budget > >> for 2012 should not be much higher than for 2011 (detailed numbers will > >> usually be published before the AGM), so it looks like you have not used > >> fully correct numbers. > >> > >> Gert Doering > >> -- NetMaster > > > > sorry but I must tell you that you're wrong. I have based the members > > (Budget 2011 - 7725 Members - from RIPE document > > https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/november-2010/ChargingSchemeslides.pdf) > > with the change matrix of 2012 and have recalculated the fees with the > > following result : > > > > Based on a calculation of 7725 members in Year 2011 the budget was about > > 15.190.750 EUR (based on 2011 charging prices) for the member fees. > > > > Based on the new 2012 scheme the budget will be about 18.538.000 EUR > > (+/- a little bit in fact of rounding difference). So in total we can > > speak about an increase of more than 3.000.000 EUR (about +20% as for > > 2011) of the member fees !?!?!?! > > > > In my calculation I don't putting in the PI space because the price of > > 50 EUR hasn't changed. I never seen that the costs will increase 20% > > within one year. So what you mean now ?? > > > > Best regards, > > Alexander Schoberl > > SPEEDNIC S.R.L. > > > > > > > > > > > > ---- > > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. -- Simon Lockhart | Tel: +44 1275 793 400 | Si fractum Technical Director | Mob: +44 7789 913304 | non sit, noli Cablecom Networking Ltd | WWW: www.cablecomnetworking.co.uk | id reficere Unit 3-5 Windmill Business Park, Windmill Road, Kenn. BS21 6SR. UK From erik at bais.name Mon Oct 3 11:16:19 2011 From: erik at bais.name (Erik Bais) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 11:16:19 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments In-Reply-To: <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> References: <1317369198.9999.92.camel@ntitley-laptop> <4E8870CF.4070702@speednic.eu> <20111002173956.GW72014@Space.Net>,<4E88B29C.4060207@speednic.eu> <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> Message-ID: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698D2@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> Hi Jon, Without repeating myself in this discussion, I'll just post a url for you to read from earlier this year on the topic. http://www.ripe.net/maillists/ncc-archives/members-discuss/2011/msg00154.html Basically, the members approve the activity schedule for the RIPE NCC. That means that we also shouldn't bitch about a certain cost, not for profit doesn't mean free :) If we don't agree..either we should have a look at how certain costs are being made or we should scrap certain activities. In the end.. we're only talking about 6.25 euro per LIR per day. Regards, Erik Bais From hank at efes.iucc.ac.il Mon Oct 3 10:56:50 2011 From: hank at efes.iucc.ac.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 10:56:50 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments In-Reply-To: <20111003084011.GG3312@simonl.cablecomnetworking.co.uk> References: <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <1317369198.9999.92.camel@ntitley-laptop> <4E8870CF.4070702@speednic.eu> <20111002173956.GW72014@Space.Net> <4E88B29C.4060207@speednic.eu> <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20111003105228.00c218f8@efes.iucc.ac.il> At 09:40 03/10/2011 +0100, Simon Lockhart wrote: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-507 2010: 16.5M 2011: 17.9M During 2002-2006 the budget was under or close to 10M and since 2007 the budget has gone up and up. You can assume 2012 will be well over 18M. -Hank >Has anyone from RIPE said that the budget is 12M? 15M? 18M? Is just just >speculation on the part of one member? > >Has RIPE actually said what the cost per member is going to be? > >I've not seen anything sent to the list, but there seems to be plenty of >bad feeling about supposed massive price increases. > >Simon > >On Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 08:35:19AM +0100, Jon Morby wrote: > > 18m Euro? > > > > Perhaps in these times of austerity we should be looking at reducing > operating costs not increasing them. > > > > Even ?15m seems somewhat excessive in my mind despite the numerous > benefits RIPE brings to the Internet as a whole (most of which we don't > realise or see) :( > > > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > On 2 Oct 2011, at 19:51, "SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling" > wrote: > > > > > Hi Gert, > > > > > > Am 02.10.2011 14:39, schrieb Gert Doering: > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> On Sun, Oct 02, 2011 at 11:10:23AM -0300, SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE > Handling wrote: > > >>> As revewed the change matrix it means that like all membres will > > >>> increase one or two categories in the charging scheme. Only a very > small > > >>> amount will decrease. This guess to us that the budget will increase a > > >>> lot too ?? Why RIPE NCC will need a so high budget for 2012 instead of > > >>> 2011 ?? > > >> > > >> The distribution of LIRs to charging categories happens in such a way > > >> that the resulting income will match the budget. Normally the budget > > >> for 2012 should not be much higher than for 2011 (detailed numbers will > > >> usually be published before the AGM), so it looks like you have not used > > >> fully correct numbers. > > >> > > >> Gert Doering > > >> -- NetMaster > > > > > > sorry but I must tell you that you're wrong. I have based the members > > > (Budget 2011 - 7725 Members - from RIPE document > > > > https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/november-2010/ChargingSchemeslides.pdf) > > > > with the change matrix of 2012 and have recalculated the fees with the > > > following result : > > > > > > Based on a calculation of 7725 members in Year 2011 the budget was about > > > 15.190.750 EUR (based on 2011 charging prices) for the member fees. > > > > > > Based on the new 2012 scheme the budget will be about 18.538.000 EUR > > > (+/- a little bit in fact of rounding difference). So in total we can > > > speak about an increase of more than 3.000.000 EUR (about +20% as for > > > 2011) of the member fees !?!?!?! > > > > > > In my calculation I don't putting in the PI space because the price of > > > 50 EUR hasn't changed. I never seen that the costs will increase 20% > > > within one year. So what you mean now ?? > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Alexander Schoberl > > > SPEEDNIC S.R.L. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---- > > > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > > > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the > general page: > > > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > > > > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". > From here, you can add or remove addresses. > > > > ---- > > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the > general page: > > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From > here, you can add or remove addresses. > >-- >Simon Lockhart | Tel: +44 1275 793 400 | Si fractum >Technical Director | Mob: +44 7789 913304 | non sit, noli >Cablecom Networking Ltd | WWW: www.cablecomnetworking.co.uk | id reficere >Unit 3-5 Windmill Business Park, Windmill Road, Kenn. BS21 6SR. UK > >---- >If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss >mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the >general page: >https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > >Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From >here, you can add or remove addresses. From hank at efes.iucc.ac.il Mon Oct 3 11:26:07 2011 From: hank at efes.iucc.ac.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 11:26:07 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments In-Reply-To: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698D2@EXVS002.netso urcing.lan> References: <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <1317369198.9999.92.camel@ntitley-laptop> <4E8870CF.4070702@speednic.eu> <20111002173956.GW72014@Space.Net> <4E88B29C.4060207@speednic.eu> <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20111003112228.00c36948@efes.iucc.ac.il> At 11:16 03/10/2011 +0200, Erik Bais wrote: >Hi Jon, > >Without repeating myself in this discussion, I'll just post a url for you >to read from earlier this year on the topic. >http://www.ripe.net/maillists/ncc-archives/members-discuss/2011/msg00154.html > >Basically, the members approve the activity schedule for the RIPE NCC. >That means that we also shouldn't bitch about a certain cost, not for >profit doesn't mean free :) We do not get much of a say as to how much budget should be applied for regional meetings, consultancy, training courses, RIPE meetings, marketing, r&d, etc. We are given a budget that increases every year and are told to ratify it - of which only 5% of the membership vote. Most LIRs don't care if the fee is 3KEuro or 10KEuro since it just gets absorbed as a minor cost overhead as passed on to customers. And RIPE knows it. -Hank >If we don't agree..either we should have a look at how certain costs are >being made or we should scrap certain activities. > >In the end.. we're only talking about 6.25 euro per LIR per day. > >Regards, >Erik Bais > >---- >If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss >mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the >general page: >https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > >Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From >here, you can add or remove addresses. From erik at bais.name Mon Oct 3 12:53:06 2011 From: erik at bais.name (Erik Bais) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 12:53:06 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20111003112228.00c36948@efes.iucc.ac.il> References: <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <1317369198.9999.92.camel@ntitley-laptop> <4E8870CF.4070702@speednic.eu> <20111002173956.GW72014@Space.Net> <4E88B29C.4060207@speednic.eu> <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20111003112228.00c36948@efes.iucc.ac.il> Message-ID: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698D6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> Hi Hank, > We do not get much of a say as to how much budget should be applied for > regional meetings, consultancy, training courses, RIPE meetings, > marketing, > r&d, etc. We are given a budget that increases every year and are told > to ratify it - of which only 5% of the membership vote. Most LIRs don't > care if the fee is 3KEuro or 10KEuro since it just gets absorbed as a minor > cost overhead as passed on to customers. And RIPE knows it. That means that you only need to convince a hand-full to get the votes your way. The majority of the members simply don't care to attend the RIPE meetings and/or vote .. (or both.) So the minority rules. However if you look at the more active players in the community, most of them represent a LIR that has been around for years. And most likely they are in the medium sized LIR or larger. (This is my gut feeling, not sure if that is actually the case..) Especially the smaller LIR members probably don't see RIPE as a vital part of the Regional Internet community and most likely see the extra activities diminished to a system where they would opt-in if they wanted to pay for a system like the Atlas system or training or RIPE meetings. Perhaps it will take some time (over a couple of years) for companies that start to appreciate those kind of services. Having said all this .. what RIPE NCC does with the memberships fee (based on the activity plan) is a separate discussion imho to how we get charged for it. Both should be discussed prior to the GM as they are related and one can't decide what the charging scheme would be if there isn't a consensus on where to spend it on. And I would like to see those split up in 2 separate discussion on the members-discussion list as well. 1) a discussion about what is the cost and do we want to keep the cost allocation as is. For instance, do we keep a 650k Euro loss a year for the RIPE meetings or is a change in operating / cost allocation required ? 2) a discussion about how the charging scheme should look like, regardless of the required budget. Regards, Erik Bais From farendse at ipphoneteam.nl Mon Oct 3 12:59:44 2011 From: farendse at ipphoneteam.nl (Fred Arendse) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 10:59:44 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments In-Reply-To: <1317369198.9999.92.camel@ntitley-laptop> References: <1317369198.9999.92.camel@ntitley-laptop> Message-ID: <82EEB5E6C903144C84F3128AF9205FE6275CA590@NLRT-IPT.ipphoneteam.nl> Dear Nigel, Implementing IPv6 only works if we use a "big bang policy" like the millennium problem or the Euro. That is not going to happen, because we cannot force members or their customers to go along at the same time. For that reason I believe the following situation is true: 1. IPv4 billing remains and IPv6 billing with much more address space opens the door for more members. For a non-profit organization that would mean lowering the membership fees and lowering the allocation fees... Did anyone made a calculation on how RIPE would benefit from a significant increase in members during 2012? 2. New members should have equal rights compared to current members to implement IPv4 and IPv6. Since last February the last /8's have been given to the RIR's. They are now almost depleted. This means new members can't have new IPv4 addresses and should right away start with implementing IPv6. The effects of that depletion is that among current members IPv4 address space is being sold/transferred. This works in hand a rise in cost for new members who need IPv4 and it starts looking like a trade floor which totally opposes the RIPE allocation policies. 3. The strongest shoulders should carry the heaviest load. I would like to suggest claiming back some old allocations, starting with the /8's which are also not used for more than 15 per cent at the most. Those companies/institutions have much more resources to implement IPv6 faster than most of us. More members would avoid increase in membership fees, but this is actually hold back due to lack of IPv4 and the backdoor trade which start to flourish wildly ... Regards, Fred Arendse -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Nigel Titley Sent: vrijdag 30 september 2011 9:53 To: members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: [members-discuss] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments Dear all, I would like to update you about the RIPE NCC Executive Board deliberations regarding the draft charging scheme for 2012. We presented you with two draft schemes, in early summer, to gather feedback from you. We did this as we wanted to hear your opinions on measures we want to take which are designed to keep the RIPE NCC financially stable and capable of serving its members as it should. You engaged in a lively discussion on this mailing list, and even ran a mini-survey. We followed the exchanges closely and as result asked RIPE NCC staff to provide the board with another charging scheme option, based on a sliding scale scheme that eliminated the membership categories we currently use. During the board meeting of last Friday, 23 September, we discussed the merits as well as some of the issues of that model. Obviously a sliding scale model as its main benefit does away with the fee jumps of the category based model. We were pleased with the model that we developed with the NCC staff and felt that it addressed many of the issues raised by you, the members. However, in consultation with our tax lawyers we have had to think again. Because it brings a "fee-per-address" flavour to the charging model of the RIPE NCC it fundamentally alters the tax scheme under which we operate. The current "category" model allows us to argue that we are a membership association with different categories of membership. This brings substantial tax advantages. As you know, for a long time the RIPE NCC tax situation has been extremely favourable, as we don't have to pay corporation tax, based on an agreement made with the Dutch tax authorities many years ago. We are advised that the envisaged change in the charging scheme would lead to a re-assessment of that agreement, with the likely outcome that the association's surplus would have to be taxed, leading to a significant financial liability, with an obvious knock-on effect to the member fees. In the light of this, the board members have agreed not to expose our organisation to that risk, staying with a category based system. We have however noted your preference for reduced "fee jumps" between categories, and have instructed NCC staff to produce a charging scheme model based on 10 categories, doubling the current category number. Category divisions will be based on a count of address space held. This revised Charging Scheme 2012 we will publish, as usual, prior to the General Meeting in November, for approval by the members during the General Meeting. We can advise you already that we are opening up the voting mechanism for all resolutions to include electronic voting, so that all members of the association have a good opportunity to take a full part in the proceedings. At this time, I would like to thank you all, on behalf of the RIPE NCC Executive Board, for participating in the discussion. I look forward to seeing as many of you as possible at the next General Meeting. Best regards, Nigel Titley Chairman RIPE NCC Executive Board ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From erik at bais.name Mon Oct 3 14:26:22 2011 From: erik at bais.name (Erik Bais) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 14:26:22 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments In-Reply-To: <82EEB5E6C903144C84F3128AF9205FE6275CA590@NLRT-IPT.ipphoneteam.nl> References: <1317369198.9999.92.camel@ntitley-laptop> <82EEB5E6C903144C84F3128AF9205FE6275CA590@NLRT-IPT.ipphoneteam.nl> Message-ID: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DC@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> Hi Fred, > Did anyone made a calculation on how RIPE would benefit from a > significant increase in members during 2012? We are probably in the depletion phase for v4 by 2012. So each /21 that is handed out to a new LIR is gone from the last /8. Why should we give that last /8 away for membership fees at just 500 euro while everyone else pays between 1800 and 3000 a year ? There is no way to request PI anymore when v4 is depleted.. but that doesn't mean that we should hand out LIR's for that same (or almost similar) price as cost is probably one of the only reasons why certain companies opt for PI vs a LIR status atm. > 2. New members should have equal rights compared to current members to > implement IPv4 and IPv6. > > Since last February the last /8's have been given to the RIR's. They > are now almost depleted. This means new members can't have new IPv4 > addresses and should right away start with implementing IPv6. The > effects of that depletion is that among current members IPv4 address > space is being sold/transferred. This works in hand a rise in cost for > new members who need IPv4 and it starts looking like a trade floor > which totally opposes the RIPE allocation policies. Each current LIR member has their v4. When the RIPE pool is done and we are going to chip into the last /8, each current member gets 1 /21 from the that /8. Each new lir (after that moment) also only gets 1 /21. So it is not that nobody can't have anything anymore.. There is enough to supply new LIR's for some years .. However, if someone thinks they can request or require a /16 because they are the next Facebook or Netflix or something else.. That is when they need to become creative as RIPE can't help them at that moment anymore.. > 3. The strongest shoulders should carry the heaviest load. > > I would like to suggest claiming back some old allocations, starting > with the /8's which are also not used for more than 15 per cent at the > most. Those companies/institutions have much more resources to > implement IPv6 faster than most of us. You mean the legacy allocations ? that have been around even longer than RIPE ? How can you claim something back that wasn't yours to begin with ? Most of the legacy space /8's has been around longer than ARIN / RIPE have been around. One of those legacy holders said to me once ... IPv4 is going to be depleted anyway .. why prolong the inevitable ?? Their extra /10 or something that they could give back, will only delay the whole depletion with 1 or 2 months .. > More members would avoid increase in membership fees, but this is > actually hold back due to lack of IPv4 and the backdoor trade which > start to flourish wildly ... I just finished a request for a /22 PI for a customer last week through RIPE. As long as the pool isn't finished yet, the only thing that flourishes wildly is the media speculation on IP trading ... That will / might change later, but currently it isn't the case. I haven't had anyone come up to me offering X amount for the IP's we have in use.. did you ? Erik Bais From stolpe at resilans.se Mon Oct 3 14:03:53 2011 From: stolpe at resilans.se (Daniel Stolpe) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 14:03:53 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [members-discuss] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments In-Reply-To: <22sjnapkrw.fsf@ziptop.autonomica.net> References: <1317369198.9999.92.camel@ntitley-laptop> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698CF@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <22sjnapkrw.fsf@ziptop.autonomica.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 3 Oct 2011, Lars-Johan Liman wrote: > sven at cb3rob.net: >> ipv4 is obsolete and should not be used as a billing basis. > > I disagree strongly here. IPv4 is not obsolete - yet! We may be past > "peak IPv4" (to borrow a term from the oil industry ;-) and it may have > started its descent towards obsolescence, but it will remain in use for > a long time to come. A lot of administrative work remains with IPv4 > before we can say "over and done with", and for that reason IPv4 should > be _PART_OF_ the basis for billing. As things evolve, it's quite > possible that the IPv4 fraction of the basis will decrease, as, > eventually, the "IPv12" (or whatever the next generation will be called) > fraction increases, but IPv4 hasn't dropped dead yet. Well said Lars-Johan. I totally agree. Best Regards, Daniel Stolpe _________________________________________________________________________________ Daniel Stolpe Tel: 08 - 688 11 81 stolpe at resilans.se Resilans AB Fax: 08 - 55 00 21 63 http://www.resilans.se/ Box 13 054 556741-1193 103 02 Stockholm From info at lidertelecom.ru Mon Oct 3 14:38:35 2011 From: info at lidertelecom.ru (LeaderTelecom Ltd.) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 16:38:35 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2011100301001283] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments In-Reply-To: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698D6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> References: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698D6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan><81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <1317369198.9999.92.camel@ntitley-laptop> <4E8870CF.4070702@speednic.eu> <20111002173956.GW72014@Space.Net> <4E88B29C.4060207@speednic.eu> <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20111003112228.00c36948@efes.iucc.ac.il> Message-ID: <1317645515.981585.606389867.154645.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Hello! > And I would like to see those split up in 2 separate discussion on the > members-discussion list as well. Great idea! > 1) a discussion about what is the cost and do we want to keep the cost allocation > as is. For instance, do we keep a 650k Euro loss a year for the RIPE meetings or > is a change in operating / cost allocation required ? I see that in budget for 2011 year scheduled expenditure: RIPE meeting - 875 kEUR Training Courses - 383 kEUR Regional Meetings - 263 kEUR, Summary meeting cost: 1521kEUR. Now we have the following situation: each LIR pays defined cost for all of meetings which are being hold during whole year. But actually not every LIR-representative visits such meetings. So there is a question: Maybe there is no need to hold such meetings and trainings while we could run a lot of Webinars. Webinars would not be such cost-based as real meetings, but could be such useful as them. --? ? Alexey S Ivanov General Director LeaderTelecom Ltd ???.: 8(495)778-98-51 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ripe-lir at speednic.eu Mon Oct 3 14:44:42 2011 From: ripe-lir at speednic.eu (SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 09:44:42 -0300 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments In-Reply-To: <20111003084011.GG3312@simonl.cablecomnetworking.co.uk> References: <1317369198.9999.92.camel@ntitley-laptop> <4E8870CF.4070702@speednic.eu> <20111002173956.GW72014@Space.Net> <4E88B29C.4060207@speednic.eu> <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <20111003084011.GG3312@simonl.cablecomnetworking.co.uk> Message-ID: <4E89AE3A.6070006@speednic.eu> Dear Simon, Am 03.10.2011 05:40, schrieb Simon Lockhart: > Has anyone from RIPE said that the budget is 12M? 15M? 18M? Is just just > speculation on the part of one member? thats not a speculation of my part. It is - as told - based on the actual members and the matrix chart. You can calculate it by your own if you want. 2011 2012 3XS about 82 - 2XS about 66 - XS about 1567 1601 S about 1440 4201 M about 1458 1525 L about 2222 304 XL about 538 75 2XL about 208 - 3XL about 126 - 4XL about 18 - ---------------------- 7725 7725 So you will see that the most changing was that from "S" to "L" and above. Only few were going down. So even the "S" is cheaper for 2012 but hasn't any effect that the budget only for member fee increase from 15M to over 18M (PI Space not included). > > Has RIPE actually said what the cost per member is going to be? The highest part of costs are "personal costs". You can look at the old meeting reports and balance which RIPE has on their website. > > I've not seen anything sent to the list, but there seems to be plenty of > bad feeling about supposed massive price increases. Thinking about you will pay car insurance of 1800 EUR per year. Would you be happy if your company tells you for next year you must pay 3000 EUR even your car isn't still a Lada and don't move to a Ferrari ?? :D I wouldn't be happy with this and this year I will use the electronic voting - and hope a lot of LIR will do it - to say "STOP HERE". Best regards, Alexander Schoberl SPEEDNIC S.R.L. > > Simon > > On Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 08:35:19AM +0100, Jon Morby wrote: >> 18m Euro? >> >> Perhaps in these times of austerity we should be looking at reducing operating costs not increasing them. >> >> Even ?15m seems somewhat excessive in my mind despite the numerous benefits RIPE brings to the Internet as a whole (most of which we don't realise or see) :( >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 2 Oct 2011, at 19:51, "SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling" wrote: >> >>> Hi Gert, >>> >>> Am 02.10.2011 14:39, schrieb Gert Doering: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> On Sun, Oct 02, 2011 at 11:10:23AM -0300, SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling wrote: >>>>> As revewed the change matrix it means that like all membres will >>>>> increase one or two categories in the charging scheme. Only a very small >>>>> amount will decrease. This guess to us that the budget will increase a >>>>> lot too ?? Why RIPE NCC will need a so high budget for 2012 instead of >>>>> 2011 ?? >>>> >>>> The distribution of LIRs to charging categories happens in such a way >>>> that the resulting income will match the budget. Normally the budget >>>> for 2012 should not be much higher than for 2011 (detailed numbers will >>>> usually be published before the AGM), so it looks like you have not used >>>> fully correct numbers. >>>> >>>> Gert Doering >>>> -- NetMaster >>> >>> sorry but I must tell you that you're wrong. I have based the members >>> (Budget 2011 - 7725 Members - from RIPE document >>> https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/november-2010/ChargingSchemeslides.pdf) >>> with the change matrix of 2012 and have recalculated the fees with the >>> following result : >>> >>> Based on a calculation of 7725 members in Year 2011 the budget was about >>> 15.190.750 EUR (based on 2011 charging prices) for the member fees. >>> >>> Based on the new 2012 scheme the budget will be about 18.538.000 EUR >>> (+/- a little bit in fact of rounding difference). So in total we can >>> speak about an increase of more than 3.000.000 EUR (about +20% as for >>> 2011) of the member fees !?!?!?! >>> >>> In my calculation I don't putting in the PI space because the price of >>> 50 EUR hasn't changed. I never seen that the costs will increase 20% >>> within one year. So what you mean now ?? >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Alexander Schoberl >>> SPEEDNIC S.R.L. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ---- >>> If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss >>> mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: >>> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view >>> >>> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. >> >> ---- >> If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss >> mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: >> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view >> >> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. > From ripe-lir at speednic.eu Mon Oct 3 14:51:23 2011 From: ripe-lir at speednic.eu (SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 09:51:23 -0300 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments In-Reply-To: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DC@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> References: <1317369198.9999.92.camel@ntitley-laptop> <82EEB5E6C903144C84F3128AF9205FE6275CA590@NLRT-IPT.ipphoneteam.nl> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DC@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> Message-ID: <4E89AFCB.7030102@speednic.eu> Hi Erik, Am 03.10.2011 09:26, schrieb Erik Bais: > Hi Fred, > >> Did anyone made a calculation on how RIPE would benefit from a >> significant increase in members during 2012? > > We are probably in the depletion phase for v4 by 2012. So each /21 that is handed out to a new LIR is gone from the last /8. > > Why should we give that last /8 away for membership fees at just 500 euro while everyone else pays between 1800 and 3000 a year ? > There is no way to request PI anymore when v4 is depleted.. but that doesn't mean that we should hand out LIR's for that same (or almost similar) price as cost is probably one of the only reasons why certain companies opt for PI vs a LIR status atm. Thats I told. I know a company who have a /22 PI-Space. He must pay only 50 EUR / year. A LIR must pay 750 for that range. Sorry but is this real ?? Where is democracy that each part must pay the same for what he gets ?? Maybe better to include the PI space in the scheme with 50% discount as they don't can use courses/etc. ?? RIPE was thinking about that ?? >> More members would avoid increase in membership fees, but this is >> actually hold back due to lack of IPv4 and the backdoor trade which >> start to flourish wildly ... > > I just finished a request for a /22 PI for a customer last week through RIPE. As long as the pool isn't finished yet, the only thing that flourishes wildly is the media speculation on IP trading ... That will / might change later, but currently it isn't the case. > I haven't had anyone come up to me offering X amount for the IP's we have in use.. did you ? Yes we must do like same for a /23 for a new customer because now everybody knows that IPs are rare. We got only one SPAM mail where they bid for 8x/24 in one block but nothing true behind. Best regards, Alexander Schoberl SPEEDNIC S.R.L. > > Erik Bais > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From erik at bais.name Mon Oct 3 16:00:18 2011 From: erik at bais.name (Erik Bais) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 16:00:18 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Discussion : Cost allocation In-Reply-To: <1317645515.981585.606389867.154645.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> References: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698D6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan><81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <1317369198.9999.92.camel@ntitley-laptop> <4E8870CF.4070702@speednic.eu> <20111002173956.GW72014@Space.Net> <4E88B29C.4060207@speednic.eu> <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20111003112228.00c36948@efes.iucc.ac.il> <1317645515.981585.606389867.154645.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Message-ID: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DD@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> Hi Alexey, >> 1) a discussion about what is the cost and do we want to keep the cost allocation >> as is. For instance, do we keep a 650k Euro loss a year for the RIPE meetings or >> is a change in operating / cost allocation required ? > >I see that in budget for 2011 year scheduled expenditure: > >RIPE meeting - 875 kEUR >Training Courses - 383 kEUR >Regional Meetings - 263 kEUR, > >Summary meeting cost: 1521kEUR. > >Now we have the following situation: each LIR pays defined cost for all of meetings which are being hold during whole year. But actually not every LIR->representative visits such meetings. >So there is a question: Maybe there is no need to hold such meetings and trainings while we could run a lot of Webinars. Webinars would not be such >cost-based as real meetings, but could be such useful as them. If you look closer to the RIPE meetings for instance, there is also an income to the RIPE meetings. It is about 250k Euro a year if I'm correct. And the RIPE meetings are in fact, open to members and none-members ... Question that I would have : Is it required to hire a boat / hotel etc for a week to accommodate the number to participants including full service (foot and free drinks) in order to have the meetings. And why should the membership fee pay for this 625k Euro yearly loss? I see no shame in using a way of recovering for the open bars .. For instance by the use of tickets / chips. X free drinks per RIPE attendee, additional chips at 2.50 euro per chip. And those chips can be used for food and/or drinks. Do I even dare to ask what the cost is going to be for the temp setup of free wifi in the venue's for only 1 week for about 400 people with each (on average) 3 wifi capable devices each ? On the training courses, it is my personal view that the setup fee should cover a part of the training cost. That means that per new lir there should be a limited number of free seats for each training.. and every additional consumed training seat should be paid for. The companies that have lots of changes in their trained employees, that they should also pay for additional seats used during the trainings. I'm pretty sure that if the board would look at other expenditures in a similar fashion, that there might be a different outcome to what is currently projected. I'm not suggesting to look towards a type of membership that just uses RIPE just for the registration services and a full membership that actually uses the other services, but the current way of operating might could be a bit less 'not for profit' by checking to see if there is an earlier break-even point or a way to avoid a loss on certain activities. Regards, Erik Bais From admin at intl-alliance.com Mon Oct 3 16:02:31 2011 From: admin at intl-alliance.com (IAPS Security Services, L.L.C. (Administrative Correspondence)) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 08:02:31 -0600 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2011100301001283] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments In-Reply-To: <1317645515.981585.606389867.154645.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> References: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698D6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan><81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <1317369198.9999.92.camel@ntitley-laptop> <4E8870CF.4070702@speednic.eu> <20111002173956.GW72014@Space.Net> <4E88B29C.4060207@speednic.eu> <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20111003112228.00c36948@efes.iucc.ac.il> <1317645515.981585.606389867.154645.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Message-ID: <4E89C077.9030100@intl-alliance.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I think webinars are a great idea. It lets all the members go back and watch it as much as needed. Plus it would be great to have an expanded library of webinar training videos. On 10/3/2011 6:38 AM, LeaderTelecom Ltd. wrote: > Hello! > >> And I would like to see those split up in 2 separate discussion >> on the members-discussion list as well. > > Great idea! > >> 1) a discussion about what is the cost and do we want to keep the >> cost > allocation >> as is. For instance, do we keep a 650k Euro loss a year for the >> RIPE > meetings or >> is a change in operating / cost allocation required ? > > I see that in budget for 2011 year scheduled expenditure: > > RIPE meeting - 875 kEUR Training Courses - 383 kEUR Regional > Meetings - 263 kEUR, > > Summary meeting cost: 1521kEUR. > > Now we have the following situation: each LIR pays defined cost for > all of meetings which are being hold during whole year. But > actually not every LIR-representative visits such meetings. So > there is a question: *Maybe there is no need to hold such meetings > and trainings while we could run a lot of Webinars.* Webinars would > not be such cost-based as real meetings, but could be such useful > as them. > > -- > > Alexey S Ivanov General Director LeaderTelecom Ltd > > ???.: 8(495)778-98-51 > > > ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC > members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal > account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". > From here, you can add or remove addresses. - -- Jared Twyler Chief Executive Officer IAPS Security Services, L.L.C. Web: https://www.intl-alliance.com/store Forum: http://www.intl-alliance.com/forum/forum.php Skype: iaps_support -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJOicB3AAoJEKYLW3S0MQiqyGcP/2CxP3mZnHxByxWf2rPWv+aq cbjuea/ocLzTKeopxVX2PSEZs1pfS8d3dmKskR//kuHMgDmQ7oI5GvK86Axa517P HsckY4bn9+Ci5Rt3qtZXwcZAYIkqFNOmpRtBpaQPj53J7Rg3Vd1C7Bu9qRMYIqnR 8AItC706oGNYVutqa+kuNKUuf2jXS4T1gJ6D9K6QOlNfMBfEZ5Ti5CD/ZzosvWOV DY+FOWRx+MRvFFAxv4r6luESqvGTSKqfXOWcMwB+uLwjS1q+oMTOO3E6jRRqx5F8 InPnRlm6vXzOXSmq2C3tmHa9u10gsdy6fK7lGHPlXoOT0ppSxJG6YsIntH9aFGQk rrp8zxqzf9GhOKqTzsFv7wO6HFPxtSFixjc9NhfHbly+Aa+N1i6O2ra6xZroq5ao Sxs+X5nigMk6wdp0Nb+kBvREzXnRB+NOE7P5CFJ6Zbgsq/TfaLjI4P66ffG9QKcU 69M8WogokbrbpA49uHAaEQU10Vwv6Zhks3PhQ9KGB4eMI786ts1BulQBoEzV9ppz iRA7Q4MYwyV0ae/L1we9qP2FbFw43p/LYmhVo7XLIsWPe6KmA/amR4fadmWdPE0Y CRbnQLFGmO6bRzP1S4yynbHHwsBKOCvmjYOoSqpKH/MxyP1I+QZeQWnC9bX/WL8Q spxkM1BshZ4/xZJDSTqX =0Gmr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From erik at bais.name Mon Oct 3 16:42:50 2011 From: erik at bais.name (Erik Bais) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 16:42:50 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2011100301001283] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments In-Reply-To: <4E89C077.9030100@intl-alliance.com> References: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698D6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan><81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <1317369198.9999.92.camel@ntitley-laptop> <4E8870CF.4070702@speednic.eu> <20111002173956.GW72014@Space.Net> <4E88B29C.4060207@speednic.eu> <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20111003112228.00c36948@efes.iucc.ac.il> <1317645515.981585.606389867.154645.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <4E89C077.9030100@intl-alliance.com> Message-ID: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DE@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> Hi Jared, The RIPE meetings are mostly taped and broadcasted online already ... The benefit of having the RIPE meetings in person is that people actually have a better interaction than with a webinar. > I think webinars are a great idea. It lets all the members go back and > watch it as much as needed. Plus it would be great to have an expanded > library of webinar training videos. It is the option of full-duplex communication (the discussion) that adds value where you won't have that with a webinar is my experience. Replacing the actual meeting itself 100% by a webinar is contra productive I think. Erik From tomasz.paszkowski at nasza-klasa.pl Mon Oct 3 16:49:01 2011 From: tomasz.paszkowski at nasza-klasa.pl (Tomasz Paszkowski) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 16:49:01 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2011100301001283] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments In-Reply-To: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DE@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> References: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698D6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <1317369198.9999.92.camel@ntitley-laptop> <4E8870CF.4070702@speednic.eu> <20111002173956.GW72014@Space.Net> <4E88B29C.4060207@speednic.eu> <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20111003112228.00c36948@efes.iucc.ac.il> <1317645515.981585.606389867.154645.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <4E89C077.9030100@intl-alliance.com> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DE@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> Message-ID: I agree that meeting can bring more value to their attendants than webinar. But in my opinion they can be fully paid by their participants. On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Erik Bais wrote: > Hi Jared, > > The RIPE meetings are mostly taped and broadcasted online already ... > > The benefit of having the RIPE meetings in person is that people actually > have a better interaction than with a webinar. > > > I think webinars are a great idea. It lets all the members go back and > > watch it as much as needed. Plus it would be great to have an expanded > > library of webinar training videos. > > It is the option of full-duplex communication (the discussion) that adds > value where you won't have that with a webinar is my experience. > > Replacing the actual meeting itself 100% by a webinar is contra productive > I think. > > Erik > > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the > general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From > here, you can add or remove addresses. > -- Tomasz Paszkowski Dyrektor Infrastruktury IT nasza-klasa.pl tel./phone: +48 500 166 299 Nasza Klasa Sp. z o.o., ul. Gen. J. Bema 2, 50-265 Wroc?aw, S?d Rejonowy dla Wroc?awia-Fabrycznej we Wroc?awiu, VI Wydzia? Gospodarczy Krajowego Rejestru S?dowego, nr KRS:0000289629, NIP:898-21-22-104, REGON:020586020 Kapita? zak?adowy: 67850 PLN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ccavadore at yacast.fr Mon Oct 3 17:00:37 2011 From: ccavadore at yacast.fr (Clement Cavadore) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 17:00:37 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2011100301001283] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments In-Reply-To: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DE@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> References: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698D6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <1317369198.9999.92.camel@ntitley-laptop> <4E8870CF.4070702@speednic.eu> <20111002173956.GW72014@Space.Net> <4E88B29C.4060207@speednic.eu> <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20111003112228.00c36948@efes.iucc.ac.il> <1317645515.981585.606389867.154645.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <4E89C077.9030100@intl-alliance.com> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DE@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> Message-ID: <1317654037.24766.34.camel@palao.yacast.fr> Hi, On Mon, 2011-10-03 at 16:42 +0200, Erik Bais wrote: > The benefit of having the RIPE meetings in person is that people actually have a better interaction than with a webinar. > > > I think webinars are a great idea. It lets all the members go back and > > watch it as much as needed. Plus it would be great to have an expanded > > library of webinar training videos. > > It is the option of full-duplex communication (the discussion) that adds value where you won't have that with a webinar is my experience. > > Replacing the actual meeting itself 100% by a webinar is contra productive I think. Even if I have never attended a RIPE meeting (for various reasons), I completely agree with that. Meetings are, imho, mostly a social event. There would be less interest in simple webinars. Regards, -- Cl?ment Cavadore Yacast Media From info at leadertelecom.ru Mon Oct 3 17:01:30 2011 From: info at leadertelecom.ru (LeaderTelecom Ltd.) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 19:01:30 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2011100301001792] Discussion : Cost allocation In-Reply-To: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DD@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> References: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DD@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan><3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698D6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan><81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <1317369198.9999.92.camel@ntitley-laptop> <4E8870CF.4070702@speednic.eu> <20111002173956.GW72014@Space.Net> <4E88B29C.4060207@speednic.eu> <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20111003112228.00c36948@efes.iucc.ac.il> <1317645515.981585.606389867.154645.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Message-ID: <1317654090.518735.6992069.154696.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Hi, Erik! >> 1) a discussion about what is the cost and do we want to keep the cost allocation >> as is. For instance, do we keep a 650k Euro loss a year for the RIPE meetings or >> is a change in operating / cost allocation required ? > >I see that in budget for 2011 year scheduled expenditure: > >RIPE meeting - 875 kEUR >Training Courses - 383 kEUR >Regional Meetings - 263 kEUR, > >Summary meeting cost: 1521kEUR. > >Now we have the following situation: each LIR pays defined cost for all of meetings which are being hold during whole year. But actually not every LIR->representative visits such meetings. >So there is a question: Maybe there is no need to hold such meetings and trainings while we could run a lot of Webinars. Webinars would not be such >cost-based as real meetings, but could be such useful as them. If you look closer to the RIPE meetings for instance, there is also an income to the RIPE meetings. It is about 250k Euro a year if I'm correct. And the RIPE meetings are in fact, open to members and none-members ... Yes. 1521 - 250 = 1271 kEUR. Is it required to hire a boat / hotel etc for a week to accommodate the number to participants including full service (foot and free drinks) in order to have the meetings. And why should the membership fee pay for this 625k Euro yearly loss? I see no shame in using a way of recovering for the open bars .. For instance by the use of tickets / chips. X free drinks per RIPE attendee, additional chips at 2.50 euro per chip. And those chips can be used for food and/or drinks. I sure that if someone need this service - they can pay it. It is not right to distribute expenses to all members. I think each person who will drink and eat can buy what they will. Do I even dare to ask what the cost is going to be for the temp setup of free wifi in the venue's for only 1 week for about 400 people with each (on average) 3 wifi capable devices each ? The same. I suggest to buy it if they need. I cost too much. Why should pay for that member which don't need it. On the training courses, it is my personal view that the setup fee should cover a part of the training cost. That means that per new lir there should be a limited number of free seats for each training.. and every additional consumed training seat should be paid for. The companies that have lots of changes in their trained employees, that they should also pay for additional seats used during the trainings. Why part? Setup fee for trainings should cover all training cost. If I need this service - I'll buy it. We don't have to distribute this expeneses to all LIRs. It is logical. -- Alexey S Ivanov General Director LeaderTelecom Ltd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From info at leadertelecom.ru Mon Oct 3 17:16:33 2011 From: info at leadertelecom.ru (LeaderTelecom Ltd.) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 19:16:33 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2011100301001283] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments In-Reply-To: References: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698D6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <1317369198.9999.92.camel@ntitley-laptop> <4E8870CF.4070702@speednic.eu> <20111002173956.GW72014@Space.Net> <4E88B29C.4060207@speednic.eu> <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20111003112228.00c36948@efes.iucc.ac.il> <1317645515.981585.606389867.154645.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <4E89C077.9030100@intl-alliance.com> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DE@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> Message-ID: <1317654993.591982.560419097.154645.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> > I agree that meeting can bring more value to their attendants than webinar. But in my opinion they can > be fully paid by their participants. Yes! In general I mean that meetings should be paid by people who will go to this meetings, but I believe that in this case cost per person of meeting will rapidly increase. And in this case we can use webinars. I often use webinars IBM, Symantec and etc and I think that it is very convenient. Most of questions we can solve faster using internet communications while meetings rarely performed. It is impossible to wait half year for meeting. ? -- Alexey S Ivanov General Director LeaderTelecom Ltd. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From erik at bais.name Mon Oct 3 17:31:18 2011 From: erik at bais.name (Erik Bais) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 17:31:18 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Discussion : Cost allocation In-Reply-To: <1317654090.518735.6992069.154696.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> References: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DD@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan><3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698D6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan><81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <1317369198.9999.92.camel@ntitley-laptop> <4E8870CF.4070702@speednic.eu> <20111002173956.GW72014@Space.Net> <4E88B29C.4060207@speednic.eu> <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20111003112228.00c36948@efes.iucc.ac.il> <1317645515.981585.606389867.154645.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <1317654090.518735.6992069.154696.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Message-ID: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DF@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> Hi Alexey, >> 1) a discussion about what is the cost and do we want to keep the cost allocation >> as is. For instance, do we keep a 650k Euro loss a year for the RIPE meetings or >> is a change in operating / cost allocation required ? >Yes. 1521 - 250 = 1271 kEUR. >Is it required to hire a boat / hotel etc for a week to accommodate the number to >participants including full service (foot and free drinks) in order to have the >meetings. And why should the membership fee pay for this 625k Euro yearly loss? >I see no shame in using a way of recovering for the open bars .. For instance by >the use of tickets / chips. X free drinks per RIPE attendee, additional chips at >2.50 euro per chip. And those chips can be used for food and/or drinks. > >I sure that if someone need this service - they can pay it. It is not right to distribute >expenses to all members. I think each person who will drink and eat can buy what they will. There is some middle ground here .. I do think that the meetings by itself bring value .. and some of the cost will be paid for by the membership as those meetings are also for RIPE NCC the way to interface with its target audience. The people they work for ( yes. That US!) But by for instance internet access could be provided by sponsoring of some of the local LIRS. Via sponsored data-only sim cards to avoid data-roaming or a temp wifi infrastructure. And yes, drinks could be (and perhaps even SHOULD be) paid for by the attendees themselves. >On the training courses, it is my personal view that the setup fee should cover a >part of the training cost. >That means that per new lir there should be a limited number of free seats for >each training.. and every additional consumed training seat should be paid for. >The companies that have lots of changes in their trained employees, that they >should also pay for additional seats used during the trainings. >Why part? Setup fee for trainings should cover all training cost. If I need this service - I'll buy it. >We don't have to distribute this expenses to all LIRs. It is logical. There is a cultural difference within the region on the part of training. There should be some training that is provided as part of the service (let's say those initial 2 seats.) and the remaining seats should be paid for. Those 2 seats could be covered by the setup cost of a LIR. And if additional seats are required, a cost per day per training is quite easy to calculate. So who would pay for this ? In the end, each LIR would pay for his/her own training. Either you limit it to your own staff within the 2 seats.. or if you have a high rotation of trained people, you will pay a bit more as you consume more seats. One of the reasons why one might want to avoid only paid seats for the training, is that you might end up with nobody from a new LIR going to a training, which will increase the number of tickets and not understanding why someone doesn't get the resources due to the way they requested it. Some people actually have the idea that if they pay their LIR fee, that they buy resources and get whatever they request. The up-front paid seats in the setup fee is to educate the masses in how the process works. Erik PS. Can someone kill the auto-responding ticket systems that are on this list.. I have about 25 outstanding tickets atm because of my blabbering today :) From Hostmaster at NbIServ.de Mon Oct 3 17:34:36 2011 From: Hostmaster at NbIServ.de (Erik Bais) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 17:34:36 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [#14514]: Discussion : Cost allocation Message-ID: <1317656076.4e89d60c274cd@support.nbiserv.de> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Hostmaster at NbIServ.de Mon Oct 3 17:54:39 2011 From: Hostmaster at NbIServ.de (hostmaster@lumison.net) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 17:54:39 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [#14514]: Discussion : Cost allocation Message-ID: <1317657279.4e89dabf7b949@support.nbiserv.de> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From riccardo at e4a.it Mon Oct 3 17:49:30 2011 From: riccardo at e4a.it (Riccardo Losselli) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 17:49:30 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2011100301001792] Discussion : Cost allocation In-Reply-To: <1317654090.518735.6992069.154696.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> References: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DD@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan><3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698D6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan><81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <1317369198.9999.92.camel@ntitley-laptop> <4E8870CF.4070702@speednic.eu> <20111002173956.GW72014@Space.Net> <4E88B29C.4060207@speednic.eu> <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20111003112228.00c36948@efes.iucc.ac.il> <1317645515.981585.606389867.154645.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <1317654090.518735.6992069.154696.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Message-ID: <4E89D98A.1070003@e4a.it> Sorry, but i feel the need to jump in... > >Now we have the following situation: each LIR pays defined cost for > all of meetings which are being hold during whole year. But actually not > every LIR->representative visits such meetings. that's up to the LIR to partecipate or not, and take advantage of it... still, the whole yearly fee of an LIR won't perhaps pay even of couple of days of support by some (i would say most) of the people that partecipate in the Ripe meeting and with their effort help developing the policies and sort out the issues which involve our business.. I'm i the only one who feels weird to hear the proposal of "let them pay if they want to eat and drink" when in the end they are volunteering their work for us, and perhaps without them our business, if not the Internet as we know, wouldn't even exits? doh! How much does the ripe meetings and training costs account in the whole budget... 10% more or less? Are you really saying that something like 20-30-40 euros per MONTH is too much to support the activities of the people that in one way or the other are enabling your whole business to exist!? C'mon.. we should actually grab them a beer, not thinking about asking them to pay it for themselves... PS: Note, anyone who attendend a Ripe meeting knows, the Ripe meeting is not a "free food, drink and a vacation" for everyone ... each one pays for the travel, accomodation AND food (yes, lunch may be free, you got free coffe breaks, but dinner is up to you, except the Ripe dinner, which btw is not free either). Please... Ricky From hostmaster at solutios.com Mon Oct 3 17:32:02 2011 From: hostmaster at solutios.com (Erik Bais) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 15:32:02 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] [#34560]: Discussion : Cost allocation Message-ID: <1317655922.4e89d572c3e0b@www.help.solutios.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hostmaster at solutios.com Mon Oct 3 18:00:03 2011 From: hostmaster at solutios.com (hostmaster@lumison.net) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 16:00:03 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] [#34560]: Discussion : Cost allocation Message-ID: <1317657603.4e89dc03f26f9@www.help.solutios.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hostmaster at solutios.com Mon Oct 3 18:00:04 2011 From: hostmaster at solutios.com (lir.nic) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 16:00:04 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] [#34560]: Discussion : Cost allocation Message-ID: <1317657604.4e89dc04bd212@www.help.solutios.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Hostmaster at NbIServ.de Mon Oct 3 18:00:05 2011 From: Hostmaster at NbIServ.de (lir.nic) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 18:00:05 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [#14514]: Discussion : Cost allocation Message-ID: <1317657605.4e89dc0573daa@support.nbiserv.de> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Hostmaster at NbIServ.de Mon Oct 3 18:38:56 2011 From: Hostmaster at NbIServ.de (hostmaster@lumison.net) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 18:38:56 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [#14514]: Discussion : Cost allocation Message-ID: <1317659936.4e89e520b5d15@support.nbiserv.de> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hostmaster at solutios.com Mon Oct 3 18:45:02 2011 From: hostmaster at solutios.com (hostmaster@lumison.net) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 16:45:02 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] [#34560]: Discussion : Cost allocation Message-ID: <1317660302.4e89e68ebaf2d@www.help.solutios.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ripe-lir at speednic.eu Mon Oct 3 19:00:30 2011 From: ripe-lir at speednic.eu (SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 14:00:30 -0300 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2011100301001792] Discussion : Cost allocation In-Reply-To: <4E89D98A.1070003@e4a.it> References: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DD@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan><3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698D6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan><81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <1317369198.9999.92.camel@ntitley-laptop> <4E8870CF.4070702@speednic.eu> <20111002173956.GW72014@Space.Net> <4E88B29C.4060207@speednic.eu> <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20111003112228.00c36948@efes.iucc.ac.il> <1317645515.981585.606389867.154645.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <1317654090.518735.6992069.154696.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <4E89D98A.1070003@e4a.it> Message-ID: <4E89EA2E.5070809@speednic.eu> hi, Am 03.10.2011 12:49, schrieb Riccardo Losselli: > > How much does the ripe meetings and training costs account in the whole > budget... 10% more or less? Personnel 65,3% Travel 4,7% Meeting 3,9% Training 2,2% Regional Meeting 1,6% If you will count also travel costs, all meetings and training you will have 12,4% of the budget (based on Q1-Q3/2010). Personnel will be 5 times more of budget costs !!! I guess we don't need to talk about the meetings because this costs are the smallest of all. Sure training could be less with webinar but will be work too and the costs will go into other budget category. Better questions are : Does anybody know how much people will working @ RIPE NCC ?? What income they will have per year ?? Because we guess that this is the "big player" to decrease the whole budget costs ;) Best regards, Alexander Schoberl SPEEDNIC S.R.L. From Hostmaster at NbIServ.de Mon Oct 3 19:09:56 2011 From: Hostmaster at NbIServ.de (hostmaster@lumison.net) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 19:09:56 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [#14514]: Discussion : Cost allocation Message-ID: <1317661796.4e89ec649f61b@support.nbiserv.de> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Hostmaster at NbIServ.de Mon Oct 3 19:19:59 2011 From: Hostmaster at NbIServ.de (lir.nic) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 19:19:59 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [#14514]: Discussion : Cost allocation Message-ID: <1317662399.4e89eebfb857d@support.nbiserv.de> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Hostmaster at NbIServ.de Mon Oct 3 19:30:01 2011 From: Hostmaster at NbIServ.de (lir.nic) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 19:30:01 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [#14514]: Discussion : Cost allocation Message-ID: <1317663001.4e89f119abe4b@support.nbiserv.de> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nigel at titley.com Mon Oct 3 19:32:31 2011 From: nigel at titley.com (Nigel Titley) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 18:32:31 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments In-Reply-To: <4E89AE3A.6070006@speednic.eu> References: <1317369198.9999.92.camel@ntitley-laptop> <4E8870CF.4070702@speednic.eu> <20111002173956.GW72014@Space.Net> <4E88B29C.4060207@speednic.eu> <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <20111003084011.GG3312@simonl.cablecomnetworking.co.uk> <4E89AE3A.6070006@speednic.eu> Message-ID: <4E89F1AF.3000705@titley.com> On 03/10/2011 13:44, SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling wrote: > Dear Simon, > > Am 03.10.2011 05:40, schrieb Simon Lockhart: >> Has anyone from RIPE said that the budget is 12M? 15M? 18M? Is just just >> speculation on the part of one member? > thats not a speculation of my part. It is - as told - based on the > actual members and the matrix chart. You can calculate it by your own if > you want. > We are looking at increased costs largely because we expect the "run out fairly" and IPv4 depletion measures to result in much more work for registration services. In addition we are throwing more resources at Ipv6 outreach. We've set a deficit budget to try and compensate and reduce the fees to the members. Full budget (and charging scheme details) will be available well in time for the AGM. As has been mentioned, though, the budget and charging scheme are actually separate (although related) issues. Nigel From nigel at titley.com Mon Oct 3 19:41:33 2011 From: nigel at titley.com (Nigel Titley) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 18:41:33 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Discussion : Cost allocation In-Reply-To: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DD@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> References: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698D6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan><81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <1317369198.9999.92.camel@ntitley-laptop> <4E8870CF.4070702@speednic.eu> <20111002173956.GW72014@Space.Net> <4E88B29C.4060207@speednic.eu> <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20111003112228.00c36948@efes.iucc.ac.il> <1317645515.981585.606389867.154645.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DD@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> Message-ID: <4E89F3CD.1060106@titley.com> On 03/10/2011 15:00, Erik Bais wrote: > Hi Alexey, > > If you look closer to the RIPE meetings for instance, there is also an income to the RIPE meetings. It is about 250k Euro a year if I'm correct. > And the RIPE meetings are in fact, open to members and none-members ... > > Question that I would have : > > Is it required to hire a boat / hotel etc for a week to accommodate the number to participants including full service (foot and free drinks) in order to have the meetings. And why should the membership fee pay for this 625k Euro yearly loss? The evening events are all sponsored and the dinner is sponsored and tickets are charged for. Having said that, yes, the RIPE meeting makes a loss and has done for many years. We are very happy to take an action to reduce the cost to the membership of the RIPE meeting either by fully charging for the cost (in which case it will roughly double the ticket cost), or by trying to reduce costs. Reducing costs will probably mean using a dedicated conference venue far from hotels (we've done a lot of work on this over the years), but if members want this then we are very happy to consider it. > I see no shame in using a way of recovering for the open bars .. For instance by the use of tickets / chips. X free drinks per RIPE attendee, additional chips at 2.50 euro per chip. And those chips can be used for food and/or drinks. Well, as I say. All bars are actually fully paid for by sponsors. > > Do I even dare to ask what the cost is going to be for the temp setup of free wifi in the venue's for only 1 week for about 400 people with each (on average) 3 wifi capable devices each ? The cost of setting up wifi is a long ago sunk cost. We've got all the kit and it doesn't get significantly upgraded. > > On the training courses, it is my personal view that the setup fee should cover a part of the training cost. > That means that per new lir there should be a limited number of free seats for each training.. and every additional consumed training seat should be paid for. The companies that have lots of changes in their trained employees, that they should also pay for additional seats used during the trainings. We've done this in the past, and the members have objected. We can easily go back to this. It wouldn't make a significant difference in costs, but we can certainly do it. > > I'm pretty sure that if the board would look at other expenditures in a similar fashion, that there might be a different outcome to what is currently projected. We do in fact examine costs extensively. By far the major cost in the budget is personnel and we've cut the number of FTEs this year. > > I'm not suggesting to look towards a type of membership that just uses RIPE just for the registration services and a full membership that actually uses the other services, but the current way of operating might could be a bit less 'not for profit' by checking to see if there is an earlier break-even point or a way to avoid a loss on certain activities. > Nigel From Hostmaster at NbIServ.de Mon Oct 3 19:45:04 2011 From: Hostmaster at NbIServ.de (hostmaster@lumison.net) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 19:45:04 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [#14514]: Discussion : Cost allocation Message-ID: <1317663904.4e89f4a0ebc83@support.nbiserv.de> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nigel at titley.com Mon Oct 3 19:45:57 2011 From: nigel at titley.com (Nigel Titley) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 18:45:57 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Please take your ticket systems OFF this mailing list Message-ID: <4E89F4D5.7090308@titley.com> Those of you who are feeding this mailing list into your ticket systems ***PLEASE DON'T*** This list is for discussion of RIPE NCC membership matters and unless your trouble ticket robot is a very advanced AI it isn't going to contribute much to the discussion. Neither is it going to vote (we haven't updated the Articles to allow robots to vote yet). Nigel From heczko at silesnet.cz Mon Oct 3 19:30:16 2011 From: heczko at silesnet.cz (Roman Heczko) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 19:30:16 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2011100301001792] Discussion : Cost allocation In-Reply-To: <4E89EA2E.5070809@speednic.eu> References: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DD@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan><3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698D6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan><81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <1317369198.9999.92.camel@ntitley-laptop> <4E8870CF.4070702@speednic.eu> <20111002173956.GW72014@Space.Net> <4E88B29C.4060207@speednic.eu> <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20111003112228.00c36948@efes.iucc.ac.il> <1317645515.981585.606389867.154645.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <1317654090.518735.6992069.154696.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <4E89D98A.1070003@e4a.it> <4E89EA2E.5070809@speednic.eu> Message-ID: <4E89F128.1080208@silesnet.cz> Hello, Dne 3.10.2011 19:00, SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling napsal(a): > hi, > > Am 03.10.2011 12:49, schrieb Riccardo Losselli: >> >> How much does the ripe meetings and training costs account in the whole >> budget... 10% more or less? > > Personnel 65,3% > Travel 4,7% > Meeting 3,9% > Training 2,2% > Regional Meeting 1,6% > > If you will count also travel costs, all meetings and training you will > have 12,4% of the budget (based on Q1-Q3/2010). Personnel will be 5 > times more of budget costs !!! > > I guess we don't need to talk about the meetings because this costs are > the smallest of all. Sure training could be less with webinar but will > be work too and the costs will go into other budget category. > > Better questions are : Does anybody know how much people will working @ > RIPE NCC ?? What income they will have per year ?? Because we guess that > this is the "big player" to decrease the whole budget costs ;) - yes, I agree, nowadays IT reduce expenditures and RIPE should exemplify this in action :-) e.g. in 2007 there was 7ME and in 2010 was above 9ME despite IT cost decrease ... Regards, Roman Heczko - SilesNet Czech Republic > > Best regards, > Alexander Schoberl > SPEEDNIC S.R.L. > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. > > From Hostmaster at NbIServ.de Mon Oct 3 19:50:06 2011 From: Hostmaster at NbIServ.de (lir.nic) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 19:50:06 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [#14514]: Discussion : Cost allocation Message-ID: <1317664206.4e89f5cea49c1@support.nbiserv.de> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Sergey.Shulyakovsky at life.com.by Mon Oct 3 19:53:48 2011 From: Sergey.Shulyakovsky at life.com.by (Shulyakovsky Sergey) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 17:53:48 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2011100301001792] Discussion : Cost allocation In-Reply-To: <4E89F128.1080208@silesnet.cz> References: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DD@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan><3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698D6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan><81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <1317369198.9999.92.camel@ntitley-laptop> <4E8870CF.4070702@speednic.eu> <20111002173956.GW72014@Space.Net> <4E88B29C.4060207@speednic.eu> <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20111003112228.00c36948@efes.iucc.ac.il> <1317645515.981585.606389867.154645.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <1317654090.518735.6992069.154696.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <4E89D98A.1070003@e4a.it> <4E89EA2E.5070809@speednic.eu>,<4E89F128.1080208@silesnet.cz> Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, Sorry for my letter. Could you help me please. I need not get these messages. Thanks in advance! BR Sergey. 03.10.2011, ? 20:48, "Roman Heczko" ???????(?): > Hello, > > Dne 3.10.2011 19:00, SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling napsal(a): >> hi, >> >> Am 03.10.2011 12:49, schrieb Riccardo Losselli: >>> >>> How much does the ripe meetings and training costs account in the whole >>> budget... 10% more or less? >> >> Personnel 65,3% >> Travel 4,7% >> Meeting 3,9% >> Training 2,2% >> Regional Meeting 1,6% >> >> If you will count also travel costs, all meetings and training you will >> have 12,4% of the budget (based on Q1-Q3/2010). Personnel will be 5 >> times more of budget costs !!! >> >> I guess we don't need to talk about the meetings because this costs are >> the smallest of all. Sure training could be less with webinar but will >> be work too and the costs will go into other budget category. >> >> Better questions are : Does anybody know how much people will working @ >> RIPE NCC ?? What income they will have per year ?? Because we guess that >> this is the "big player" to decrease the whole budget costs ;) > > - yes, I agree, nowadays IT reduce expenditures and RIPE should > exemplify this in action :-) e.g. in 2007 there was 7ME and in 2010 was > above 9ME despite IT cost decrease ... > > Regards, > Roman Heczko - SilesNet Czech Republic > > >> >> Best regards, >> Alexander Schoberl >> SPEEDNIC S.R.L. >> >> ---- >> If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss >> mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: >> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view >> >> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. >> >> > > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. __ [http://life.com.by/upload/content/Image/footer.gif]> ????????! ????????? ??????????? ?????? ? ????? ????????????? ? ???? ????? ???????? ???????????????? ?????????? ? ????????????? ????????????? ??? ????????????? ????? ??? ????????????, ??????? ?????? ??????????. ???? ?? ?? ????????? ????????? ????????? ????? ?????????, ??????????, ???????? ???????? ?? ??, ??? ????? ???????????????, ???????????????, ??????????? ??? ????????????? ??????????, ??????? ?????????? ? ??????, ?????? ?????????, ??????? ????? ?????? ?????? ???? ?????????? ??????????. life:) ?? ??????????? ???????? ??? ??????? ????? ??????????, ??????????? ? ????????? ??????. ?????? ?? ?????, life:) ?? ????? ??????? ??????????????? ?? ??????????, ??????? ?????????? ? ????????? ??????, ? ????? ?? ?? ????????, ?????????, ???????? ??? ????????????? ????? ????????. ?????, ?????????? ? ????????? ?????????, ??????????? ????????????? ??????????? ? life:) ????? ?? ?? ?????????. ????????? ??????????? ?????? ???? ????????? ?? ?????????? ???? ????????? ???????????? ???????. Attention! This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, forwarding, copying or use of any of the information is strictly prohibited, and the e-mail should immediately be deleted. life:) makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of any information contained in this message and hereby excludes any liability of any kind for the information contained therein or for the information transmission, reception, storage or use of such in any way whatsoever. The opinions expressed in this message belong to sender alone and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of life:). This e-mail has been scanned for all known computer viruses. From info at leadertelecom.ru Mon Oct 3 19:59:01 2011 From: info at leadertelecom.ru (LeaderTelecom Ltd.) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 21:59:01 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2011100301002013] Discussion : Cost allocation In-Reply-To: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DF@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> References: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DF@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan><3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DD@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan><3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698D6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan><81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <1317369198.9999.92.camel@ntitley-laptop> <4E8870CF.4070702@speednic.eu> <20111002173956.GW72014@Space.Net> <4E88B29C.4060207@speednic.eu> <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20111003112228.00c36948@efes.iucc.ac.il> <1317645515.981585.606389867.154645.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <1317654090.518735.6992069.154696.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Message-ID: <1317664741.843853.407732323.154718.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Hi,?Erik! > >I sure that if someone need this service - they can pay it. It is not right to distribute > >expenses to all members. I think each person who will drink and eat can buy what they will. > > There is some middle ground here .. > I do think that the meetings by itself bring value .. and some of the cost will be > paid for by the membership as those meetings are also for RIPE NCC the way to > interface with its target audience. The people they work for ( yes. That US!) It's very important. In my opinion money from membership should be used for service which need each member - technical infrastructure, developing, support etc.? Learning course via internet should be free too.? Offline courses should be paid by members which need this service while it need travel expenses, hotels, etc. > >Why part? Setup fee for trainings should cover all training cost. If I need this service - I'll > buy it. > >We don't have to distribute this expenses to all LIRs. It is logical. > There is a cultural difference within the region on the part of training. There > should be some training that is provided as part of the service (let's say those > initial 2 seats.) and the remaining seats should be paid for. > Those 2 seats could be covered by the setup cost of a LIR. And if additional seats > are required, a cost per day per training is quite easy to calculate. We can give 2 initial seats for free for learning in Amsterdam. And if LIR will have training course in another country - he should paid for this service (travel, visa support, hotels for RIPE people).? > One of the reasons why one might want to avoid only paid seats for the training, > is that you might end up with nobody from a new LIR going to a training, which > will increase the number of tickets and not understanding why someone doesn't get > the resources due to the way they requested it. It was important for IPv4. For IPv6 it doesn't play any role. -- Alexey S Ivanov General Director? LeaderTelecom Ltd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Sergey.Shulyakovsky at life.com.by Mon Oct 3 20:03:31 2011 From: Sergey.Shulyakovsky at life.com.by (Shulyakovsky Sergey) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 18:03:31 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2011100301001792] Discussion : Cost allocation In-Reply-To: <7689A3143F9B7B4D9C1B3CD68913FFAB5B00E5@anexia-2k3.ANEXIA.local> References: <7689A3143F9B7B4D9C1B3CD68913FFAB5B00E5@anexia-2k3.ANEXIA.local> Message-ID: Hello, Thanks for your answer. I deleted my e-mail from RIPE few month ago. But I receive mail from RIPE. BR Sergey. 03.10.2011, ? 20:55, "J?rgen Jaritsch" ???????(?): > Dear Sergey, > > > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > > > Mit freundlichen Gr??en // best regards > > J?rgen Jaritsch, Leitung Technik (CTO), Prokurist (registered manager) > > ___________________________________ > ANEXIA Internetdienstleistungs GmbH > > Telefon: 0043 463 208501-300 > Telefax: 0043 463 208502 > E-Mail: jj at anexia.at > Web: http://www.anexia.at > ___________________________________ > > >> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss- >> bounces at ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Shulyakovsky Sergey >> Gesendet: Montag, 03. Oktober 2011 19:54 >> An: >> Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net >> Betreff: Re: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2011100301001792] Discussion : Cost >> allocation >> >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> Sorry for my letter. Could you help me please. I need not get these >> messages. Thanks in advance! >> >> BR Sergey. >> >> 03.10.2011, ? 20:48, "Roman Heczko" ???????(?): >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> Dne 3.10.2011 19:00, SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling napsal(a): >>>> hi, >>>> >>>> Am 03.10.2011 12:49, schrieb Riccardo Losselli: >>>>> >>>>> How much does the ripe meetings and training costs account in the >> whole >>>>> budget... 10% more or less? >>>> >>>> Personnel 65,3% >>>> Travel 4,7% >>>> Meeting 3,9% >>>> Training 2,2% >>>> Regional Meeting 1,6% >>>> >>>> If you will count also travel costs, all meetings and training you will >>>> have 12,4% of the budget (based on Q1-Q3/2010). Personnel will be 5 >>>> times more of budget costs !!! >>>> >>>> I guess we don't need to talk about the meetings because this costs are >>>> the smallest of all. Sure training could be less with webinar but will >>>> be work too and the costs will go into other budget category. >>>> >>>> Better questions are : Does anybody know how much people will working >> @ >>>> RIPE NCC ?? What income they will have per year ?? Because we guess >> that >>>> this is the "big player" to decrease the whole budget costs ;) >>> >>> - yes, I agree, nowadays IT reduce expenditures and RIPE should >>> exemplify this in action :-) e.g. in 2007 there was 7ME and in 2010 was >>> above 9ME despite IT cost decrease ... >>> >>> Regards, >>> Roman Heczko - SilesNet Czech Republic >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> Alexander Schoberl >>>> SPEEDNIC S.R.L. >>>> >>>> ---- >>>> If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss >>>> mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general >> page: >>>> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view >>>> >>>> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, >> you can add or remove addresses. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> ---- >>> If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss >>> mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general >> page: >>> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view >>> >>> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, >> you can add or remove addresses. >> __ >> [http://life.com.by/upload/content/Image/footer.gif]> /corp_clients/> >> ????????! >> ????????? ??????????? ?????? ? ????? ????????????? ? ???? ????? >> ???????? ???????????????? ?????????? ? ????????????? >> ????????????? ??? ????????????? ????? ??? ????????????, ??????? >> ?????? ??????????. ???? ?? ?? ????????? ????????? ????????? ????? >> ?????????, ??????????, ???????? ???????? ?? ??, ??? ????? >> ???????????????, ???????????????, ??????????? ??? ????????????? >> ??????????, ??????? ?????????? ? ??????, ?????? ?????????, ??????? >> ????? ?????? ?????? ???? ?????????? ??????????. life:) ?? >> ??????????? ???????? ??? ??????? ????? ??????????, ??????????? ? >> ????????? ??????. ?????? ?? ?????, life:) ?? ????? ??????? >> ??????????????? ?? ??????????, ??????? ?????????? ? ????????? >> ??????, ? ????? ?? ?? ????????, ?????????, ???????? ??? >> ????????????? ????? ????????. ?????, ?????????? ? ????????? >> ?????????, ??????????? ????????????? ??????????? ? life:) ????? ?? >> ?? ?????????. ????????? ??????????? ?????? ???? ????????? ?? >> ?????????? ???? ????????? ???????????? ???????. >> >> Attention! >> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended >> solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If >> you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any >> dissemination, forwarding, copying or use of any of the information is strictly >> prohibited, and the e-mail should immediately be deleted. life:) makes no >> warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of any information contained in >> this message and hereby excludes any liability of any kind for the information >> contained therein or for the information transmission, reception, storage or >> use of such in any way whatsoever. The opinions expressed in this message >> belong to sender alone and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of life:). >> This e-mail has been scanned for all known computer viruses. >> >> >> ---- >> If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss >> mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general >> page: >> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view >> >> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, >> you can add or remove addresses. __ [http://life.com.by/upload/content/Image/footer.gif]> ????????! ????????? ??????????? ?????? ? ????? ????????????? ? ???? ????? ???????? ???????????????? ?????????? ? ????????????? ????????????? ??? ????????????? ????? ??? ????????????, ??????? ?????? ??????????. ???? ?? ?? ????????? ????????? ????????? ????? ?????????, ??????????, ???????? ???????? ?? ??, ??? ????? ???????????????, ???????????????, ??????????? ??? ????????????? ??????????, ??????? ?????????? ? ??????, ?????? ?????????, ??????? ????? ?????? ?????? ???? ?????????? ??????????. life:) ?? ??????????? ???????? ??? ??????? ????? ??????????, ??????????? ? ????????? ??????. ?????? ?? ?????, life:) ?? ????? ??????? ??????????????? ?? ??????????, ??????? ?????????? ? ????????? ??????, ? ????? ?? ?? ????????, ?????????, ???????? ??? ????????????? ????? ????????. ?????, ?????????? ? ????????? ?????????, ??????????? ????????????? ??????????? ? life:) ????? ?? ?? ?????????. ????????? ??????????? ?????? ???? ????????? ?? ?????????? ???? ????????? ???????????? ???????. Attention! This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, forwarding, copying or use of any of the information is strictly prohibited, and the e-mail should immediately be deleted. life:) makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of any information contained in this message and hereby excludes any liability of any kind for the information contained therein or for the information transmission, reception, storage or use of such in any way whatsoever. The opinions expressed in this message belong to sender alone and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of life:). This e-mail has been scanned for all known computer viruses. From Hostmaster at NbIServ.de Mon Oct 3 20:10:09 2011 From: Hostmaster at NbIServ.de (hostmaster@lumison.net) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 20:10:09 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [#14514]: Discussion : Cost allocation Message-ID: <1317665409.4e89fa81e1703@support.nbiserv.de> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Hostmaster at NbIServ.de Mon Oct 3 20:20:14 2011 From: Hostmaster at NbIServ.de (lir.nic) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 20:20:14 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [#14514]: Discussion : Cost allocation Message-ID: <1317666014.4e89fcde8fa18@support.nbiserv.de> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Hostmaster at NbIServ.de Mon Oct 3 20:30:04 2011 From: Hostmaster at NbIServ.de (=?utf-8?Q?J=C3=BCrgen?= Jaritsch) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 20:30:04 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [#14514]: Discussion : Cost allocation Message-ID: <1317666604.4e89ff2c6828c@support.nbiserv.de> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Hostmaster at NbIServ.de Mon Oct 3 20:30:16 2011 From: Hostmaster at NbIServ.de (hostmaster@lumison.net) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 20:30:16 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [#14514]: Discussion : Cost allocation Message-ID: <1317666616.4e89ff389f703@support.nbiserv.de> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ccavadore at yacast.fr Mon Oct 3 20:06:21 2011 From: ccavadore at yacast.fr (Clement Cavadore) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 20:06:21 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments In-Reply-To: <4E89F1AF.3000705@titley.com> References: <1317369198.9999.92.camel@ntitley-laptop> <4E8870CF.4070702@speednic.eu> <20111002173956.GW72014@Space.Net> <4E88B29C.4060207@speednic.eu> <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <20111003084011.GG3312@simonl.cablecomnetworking.co.uk> <4E89AE3A.6070006@speednic.eu> <4E89F1AF.3000705@titley.com> Message-ID: <1317665181.3023.6.camel@puisard> Hi Nigel, On Mon, 2011-10-03 at 19:32 +0200, Nigel Titley wrote: > We are looking at increased costs largely because we expect the "run out > fairly" and IPv4 depletion measures to result in much more work for > registration services. In addition we are throwing more resources at > Ipv6 outreach. We've set a deficit budget to try and compensate and > reduce the fees to the members. Full budget (and charging scheme > details) will be available well in time for the AGM. What will happen to those resources when the available IPv4 resources will be definitely ran out ? Regards, -- Cl?ment Cavadore From erik at bais.name Mon Oct 3 20:38:46 2011 From: erik at bais.name (Erik Bais) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 20:38:46 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Please take your ticket systems OFF this mailing list In-Reply-To: <4E89F4D5.7090308@titley.com> References: <4E89F4D5.7090308@titley.com> Message-ID: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698E7@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> Hi Nigel, > Those of you who are feeding this mailing list into your ticket systems > > ***PLEASE DON'T*** > > This list is for discussion of RIPE NCC membership matters and unless > your trouble ticket robot is a very advanced AI it isn't going to > contribute much to the discussion. Neither is it going to vote (we > haven't updated the Articles to allow robots to vote yet). Perhaps we can revoke membership of the offending LIR and their provided resources if someone keeps their ticket system on the lists. I'm pretty sure Deutsche Telecom (to name just one of them...) doesn't mind if their resources are revoked.. it is not like they want to peer with anyone ... Regards, Erik Bais From Hostmaster at NbIServ.de Mon Oct 3 20:41:28 2011 From: Hostmaster at NbIServ.de (hostmaster@lumison.net) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 20:41:28 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [#14514]: Discussion : Cost allocation Message-ID: <1317667288.4e8a01d8f1e7e@support.nbiserv.de> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From info at leadertelecom.ru Mon Oct 3 20:44:15 2011 From: info at leadertelecom.ru (LeaderTelecom Ltd.) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 22:44:15 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2011100301002157] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments In-Reply-To: <4E89F1AF.3000705@titley.com> References: <4E89F1AF.3000705@titley.com><1317369198.9999.92.camel@ntitley-laptop> <4E8870CF.4070702@speednic.eu> <20111002173956.GW72014@Space.Net> <4E88B29C.4060207@speednic.eu> <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <20111003084011.GG3312@simonl.cablecomnetworking.co.uk> <4E89AE3A.6070006@speednic.eu> Message-ID: <1317667455.853593.936979163.154732.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Dear?Nigel, > We are looking at increased costs largely because we expect the "run out > fairly" and IPv4 depletion measures to result in much more work for > registration services. Could you tell what you mean when you tell about "much more work for registration services" ? > ?Full budget (and charging scheme > details) will be available well in time for the AGM. New?charging scheme in not very good balanced.?IP-address have very high value. AS - not. When end user need IP-addresses - most of time needs for understand how customer will use IP-addresses and ASN RIPE give automatic and as a result cost of assignment ASN is not the same as assigment IP-addreses. I think cost of ASN assignment?should be 0 euro. As a result this resource should'n included on calculating size of LIR. I suggest to remove this column from charging scheme. -- Alexey S Ivanov General Director LeaderTelecom Ltd. ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ripe-lir at speednic.eu Mon Oct 3 20:54:01 2011 From: ripe-lir at speednic.eu (SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 15:54:01 -0300 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments In-Reply-To: <4E89F1AF.3000705@titley.com> References: <1317369198.9999.92.camel@ntitley-laptop> <4E8870CF.4070702@speednic.eu> <20111002173956.GW72014@Space.Net> <4E88B29C.4060207@speednic.eu> <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <20111003084011.GG3312@simonl.cablecomnetworking.co.uk> <4E89AE3A.6070006@speednic.eu> <4E89F1AF.3000705@titley.com> Message-ID: <4E8A04C9.2060709@speednic.eu> Dear Nigel, Am 03.10.2011 14:32, schrieb Nigel Titley: > On 03/10/2011 13:44, SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling wrote: >> Dear Simon, >> >> Am 03.10.2011 05:40, schrieb Simon Lockhart: >>> Has anyone from RIPE said that the budget is 12M? 15M? 18M? Is just just >>> speculation on the part of one member? >> thats not a speculation of my part. It is - as told - based on the >> actual members and the matrix chart. You can calculate it by your own if >> you want. >> > We are looking at increased costs largely because we expect the "run out > fairly" and IPv4 depletion measures to result in much more work for > registration services. In addition we are throwing more resources at > Ipv6 outreach. We've set a deficit budget to try and compensate and > reduce the fees to the members. Full budget (and charging scheme > details) will be available well in time for the AGM. I can't confirm you wrote. Maybe the "run out of IPv4" can be effected into a shorter time but the registration will still the same work as right now up IPv4 is "sold out". As for IPv6 - if RIPE NCC will be inteligent - the work can be reduced to a minimum as putting into an automatic job which will delegate for all IPv4 members a similar IPv6 range (based on the IPv4 block they will have). With that method you will delegate for all members - which don't have - a IPv6 range within 1 day instead of a lot of manual work ;) Same for PI space members as RIPE has the "Addressing Plan" for that resources. Otherwise it is not up-to-date talking about "reduce the fees to members" as like for all there is a big increase. But let us know where +/- 3M EUR will going into ? new services, personnal, etc. ??? I guess it would be important to know it before the AGM as all members can thinking about what happend. > > As has been mentioned, though, the budget and charging scheme are > actually separate (although related) issues. Sure both are spearated but the charging scheme - as the incoming fees - will be into the budget to be sure that it isn't deficit ;) Best regards, Alexander Schoberl SPEEDNIC S.R.L. > > Nigel > > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From info at leadertelecom.ru Mon Oct 3 20:58:00 2011 From: info at leadertelecom.ru (LeaderTelecom Ltd.) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 22:58:00 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2011100301001792] Discussion : Cost allocation In-Reply-To: <4E89EA2E.5070809@speednic.eu> References: <4E89EA2E.5070809@speednic.eu><3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DD@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan><3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698D6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan><81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <1317369198.9999.92.camel@ntitley-laptop> <4E8870CF.4070702@speednic.eu> <20111002173956.GW72014@Space.Net> <4E88B29C.4060207@speednic.eu> <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20111003112228.00c36948@efes.iucc.ac.il> <1317645515.981585.606389867.154645.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <1317654090.518735.6992069.154696.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <4E89D98A.1070003@e4a.it> Message-ID: <1317668280.289017.085450298.154696.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Hi! > Personnel 65,3% > Travel 4,7% > Meeting 3,9% > Training 2,2% > Regional Meeting 1,6% > If you will count also travel costs, all meetings and training you will > have 12,4% of the budget (based on Q1-Q3/2010). Personnel will be 5 > times more of budget costs !!! It is typical for IT companies. It is very important to have professional staff. As a result we have to pay good money for a good job. But we can cut costs I think about 1000 kEUR per year without travel, meeting and offline trainings. I think it is very important for next 2-3 years while we have global problems in economic. -- Alexey S Ivanov General Director LeaderTelecom Ltd. ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Hostmaster at NbIServ.de Mon Oct 3 21:00:04 2011 From: Hostmaster at NbIServ.de (lir.nic) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 21:00:04 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [#14514]: Discussion : Cost allocation Message-ID: <1317668404.4e8a063445579@support.nbiserv.de> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Hostmaster at NbIServ.de Mon Oct 3 21:32:24 2011 From: Hostmaster at NbIServ.de (hostmaster@lumison.net) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 21:32:24 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [#14514]: Discussion : Cost allocation Message-ID: <1317670344.4e8a0dc8c0c39@support.nbiserv.de> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Hostmaster at NbIServ.de Mon Oct 3 21:45:05 2011 From: Hostmaster at NbIServ.de (lir.nic) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 21:45:05 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [#14514]: Discussion : Cost allocation Message-ID: <1317671105.4e8a10c1d0bd2@support.nbiserv.de> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ripe-lir at speednic.eu Mon Oct 3 21:53:09 2011 From: ripe-lir at speednic.eu (SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 16:53:09 -0300 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2011100301001792] Discussion : Cost allocation In-Reply-To: <1317668280.289017.085450298.154696.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> References: <4E89EA2E.5070809@speednic.eu><3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DD@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan><3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698D6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan><81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <1317369198.9999.92.camel@ntitley-laptop> <4E8870CF.4070702@speednic.eu> <20111002173956.GW72014@Space.Net> <4E88B29C.4060207@speednic.eu> <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20111003112228.00c36948@efes.iucc.ac.il> <1317645515.981585.606389867.154645.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <1317654090.518735.6992069.154696.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <4E89D98A.1070003@e4a.it> <1317668280.289017.085450298.154696.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Message-ID: <4E8A12A5.8040209@speednic.eu> Hi, Am 03.10.2011 15:58, schrieb LeaderTelecom Ltd.: > Hi! > >> Personnel 65,3% >> Travel 4,7% >> Meeting 3,9% >> Training 2,2% >> Regional Meeting 1,6% > >> If you will count also travel costs, all meetings and training you will >> have 12,4% of the budget (based on Q1-Q3/2010). Personnel will be 5 >> times more of budget costs !!! > > It is typical for IT companies. It is very important to have professional > staff. As a result we have to pay good money for a good job. Sure but we are talking about 10 mEUR. I don't know the earnings but if we say they will have 50k/year + double costs for taxes/insurance/etc. one person will cost 100k/year. So we can speak about 100 workers. Is it true ?? For my mind it is important to know because often the "lower professional" will earn 25k/year and some "manager/positions" will earn 250k/year. Maybe it is more transparency but better to know which scheme RIPE NCC will have for their staff ;) > > But we can cut costs I think about 1000 kEUR per year without travel, meeting > and offline trainings. I think it is very important for next 2-3 years while > we have global problems in economic. You can be sure the "virtual global problems" will still be with us for many years up to any goverments will do a lot of things but I guess it will never be done. Best regards, Alexander Schoberl SPEEDNIC S.R.L. From Hostmaster at NbIServ.de Mon Oct 3 22:03:03 2011 From: Hostmaster at NbIServ.de (hostmaster@lumison.net) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 22:03:03 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [#14514]: Discussion : Cost allocation Message-ID: <1317672183.4e8a14f71e828@support.nbiserv.de> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chris at filoo.de Mon Oct 3 22:22:33 2011 From: chris at filoo.de (Christopher Kunz) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 22:22:33 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Please take your ticket systems OFF this mailing list In-Reply-To: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698E7@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> References: <4E89F4D5.7090308@titley.com> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698E7@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> Message-ID: <4E8A1989.4050103@filoo.de> Hey all, >> Those of you who are feeding this mailing list into your ticket systems >> >> ***PLEASE DON'T*** >> >> This list is for discussion of RIPE NCC membership matters and unless >> your trouble ticket robot is a very advanced AI it isn't going to >> contribute much to the discussion. Neither is it going to vote (we >> haven't updated the Articles to allow robots to vote yet). I have to second this. It's really, really, really annoying. In the first round of this discussion, I pointed the problem out already and as it seems, there was ZERO reaction on behalf of the offending LIRs. Dear colleagues at: - Lumison UK - Deutsche Telekom, Technischer Service and everyone else who has obviously not yet understood what a mailing list is and how Precedence:Bulk headers work. You are showing the entire community of European network administrators that you are technically incompetent. Is that the image you want to bring across of your company/corporation? At the very least, I propose that the offenders buy a round of drinks each at the next RIPE meeting. I think it's really common courtesy for everyone, from X-SMALL to X-LARGE (Mr. Reis, I'm looking at _you_ here!) to adhere to basic netiquette rules, especially on lists that touch the technical, political and administrative core of Internet policy-making. Gru?, --ck -- Filoo GmbH Christopher Kunz, Gesch?ftsf?hrer Web: http://www.filoo.de/ E-Mail: chris at filoo.de Tel.: (+49) 0 52 48 / 1 89 84 -11 Fax: (+49) 0 52 48 / 1 89 84 -20 Please sign & encrypt mail wherever possible, my key: C882 8ED1 7DD1 9011 C088 EA50 5CFA 2EEB 397A CAC1 Moltkestra?e 25a 33330 G?tersloh, Germany HRB4355, AG G?tersloh Gesch?ftsf?hrer: S.Grewing, J.Rehp?hler, C.Kunz Folgen Sie uns auf Twitter: http://twitter.com/filoogmbh From Hostmaster at NbIServ.de Mon Oct 3 22:45:24 2011 From: Hostmaster at NbIServ.de (lir.nic) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 22:45:24 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [#14514]: Discussion : Cost allocation Message-ID: <1317674724.4e8a1ee44b175@support.nbiserv.de> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Hostmaster at NbIServ.de Mon Oct 3 23:07:26 2011 From: Hostmaster at NbIServ.de (IPAdmin) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 23:07:26 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [#14514]: Discussion : Cost allocation Message-ID: <1317676046.4e8a240ec299a@support.nbiserv.de> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Hostmaster at NbIServ.de Mon Oct 3 23:20:54 2011 From: Hostmaster at NbIServ.de (Shinkarenko Viktor) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 23:20:54 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [#14514]: Discussion : Cost allocation Message-ID: <1317676854.4e8a27360b766@support.nbiserv.de> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paolo.difrancesco at level7.it Mon Oct 3 23:34:17 2011 From: paolo.difrancesco at level7.it (Paolo Di Francesco) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 23:34:17 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments In-Reply-To: <82EEB5E6C903144C84F3128AF9205FE6275CA590@NLRT-IPT.ipphoneteam.nl> References: <1317369198.9999.92.camel@ntitley-laptop> <82EEB5E6C903144C84F3128AF9205FE6275CA590@NLRT-IPT.ipphoneteam.nl> Message-ID: <4E8A2A59.8050700@level7.it> Dear All, I agree with what Fred wrote. As a small ISP (and also startup) I forecast troubles in the future for who wants to get into the business next year. Indeed I do not think that a "pure IPv6" operator-network is feasable for an Italian ISP, most of the content is still (and it will be) on IPv6 for a long time. Considering that in Italy we cannot (for legal reasons) to do nat or yes we can do but only a 1-to-1 nat, this means that a small ISP that starts the business when the IPv4 address space is gone would have huge difficulties in making that content reachable for its customers. In few words most of the techincal difficulties and issues would go to the small ISP while big and huge systems would still use their "IPv4 reserves" which not so many issues. My personal opinion is that, being IPv4 a scarse resource, the big systems/telco (who holds most of the content in most cases) should be pushed to implement IPv6 asap. And that would happen only with an aggressive (exponential) IPv4 fee plan that discourage the use of IPv4 address space. I find immoral and techincally > Dear Nigel, > > Implementing IPv6 only works if we use a "big bang policy" like the millennium problem or the Euro. That is not going to happen, because we cannot force members or their customers to go along at the same time. For that reason I believe the following situation is true: > > 1. IPv4 billing remains and IPv6 billing with much more address space opens the door for more members. > > For a non-profit organization that would mean lowering the membership fees and lowering the allocation fees... Did anyone made a calculation on how RIPE would benefit from a significant increase in members during 2012? > > 2. New members should have equal rights compared to current members to implement IPv4 and IPv6. > > Since last February the last /8's have been given to the RIR's. They are now almost depleted. This means new members can't have new IPv4 addresses and should right away start with implementing IPv6. The effects of that depletion is that among current members IPv4 address space is being sold/transferred. This works in hand a rise in cost for new members who need IPv4 and it starts looking like a trade floor which totally opposes the RIPE allocation policies. > > 3. The strongest shoulders should carry the heaviest load. > > I would like to suggest claiming back some old allocations, starting with the /8's which are also not used for more than 15 per cent at the most. Those companies/institutions have much more resources to implement IPv6 faster than most of us. > > More members would avoid increase in membership fees, but this is actually hold back due to lack of IPv4 and the backdoor trade which start to flourish wildly ... > > Regards, > > Fred Arendse > > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Nigel Titley > Sent: vrijdag 30 september 2011 9:53 > To: members-discuss at ripe.net > Subject: [members-discuss] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments > > Dear all, > > I would like to update you about the RIPE NCC Executive Board deliberations regarding the draft charging scheme for 2012. > > We presented you with two draft schemes, in early summer, to gather feedback from you. We did this as we wanted to hear your opinions on measures we want to take which are designed to keep the RIPE NCC financially stable and capable of serving its members as it should. > > You engaged in a lively discussion on this mailing list, and even ran a mini-survey. We followed the exchanges closely and as result asked RIPE NCC staff to provide the board with another charging scheme option, based on a sliding scale scheme that eliminated the membership categories we currently use. > > During the board meeting of last Friday, 23 September, we discussed the merits as well as some of the issues of that model. Obviously a sliding scale model as its main benefit does away with the fee jumps of the category based model. We were pleased with the model that we developed with the NCC staff and felt that it addressed many of the issues raised by you, the members. > > However, in consultation with our tax lawyers we have had to think again. Because it brings a "fee-per-address" flavour to the charging model of the RIPE NCC it fundamentally alters the tax scheme under which we operate. The current "category" model allows us to argue that we are a membership association with different categories of membership. This brings substantial tax advantages. > > As you know, for a long time the RIPE NCC tax situation has been extremely favourable, as we don't have to pay corporation tax, based on an agreement made with the Dutch tax authorities many years ago. We are advised that the envisaged change in the charging scheme would lead to a re-assessment of that agreement, with the likely outcome that the association's surplus would have to be taxed, leading to a significant financial liability, with an obvious knock-on effect to the member fees. > > In the light of this, the board members have agreed not to expose our organisation to that risk, staying with a category based system. We have however noted your preference for reduced "fee jumps" between categories, and have instructed NCC staff to produce a charging scheme model based on 10 categories, doubling the current category number. > Category divisions will be based on a count of address space held. > > This revised Charging Scheme 2012 we will publish, as usual, prior to the General Meeting in November, for approval by the members during the General Meeting. We can advise you already that we are opening up the voting mechanism for all resolutions to include electronic voting, so that all members of the association have a good opportunity to take a full part in the proceedings. > > At this time, I would like to thank you all, on behalf of the RIPE NCC Executive Board, for participating in the discussion. I look forward to seeing as many of you as possible at the next General Meeting. > > Best regards, > > Nigel Titley > Chairman > RIPE NCC Executive Board > > > > > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. > -- Ing. Paolo Di Francesco Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 Fax : +39-091-8772072 assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 web: http://www.level7.it From Hostmaster at NbIServ.de Tue Oct 4 01:07:55 2011 From: Hostmaster at NbIServ.de (Michel Maggi) Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 01:07:55 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [#14514]: Discussion : Cost allocation Message-ID: <1317683275.4e8a404b8af2a@support.nbiserv.de> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From info at leadertelecom.ru Tue Oct 4 04:35:53 2011 From: info at leadertelecom.ru (LeaderTelecom Ltd.) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 06:35:53 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2011100401000175] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments In-Reply-To: <4E8A2A59.8050700@level7.it> References: <4E8A2A59.8050700@level7.it><1317369198.9999.92.camel@ntitley-laptop> <82EEB5E6C903144C84F3128AF9205FE6275CA590@NLRT-IPT.ipphoneteam.nl> Message-ID: <1317695753.617175.891836309.154770.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Hello! > My personal opinion is that, being IPv4 a scarse resource, the big > systems/telco (who holds most of the content in most cases) should be > pushed to implement IPv6 asap. And that would happen only with an > aggressive (exponential) IPv4 fee plan that discourage the use of IPv4 > address space. In Russia big telco tell us that they have troubles with using IPv6. Often? often?the manufacturer write that IPv6 supported, but it doesn't work. And any aggressive fee plan will just increase costs and will not help with developing network. I think that big providers will make changes only when IP-adddresses in IPv4 will be finished. In this case telecom will request IPv6 support.? -- Alexey S Ivanov General Director LeaderTelecom Ltd. ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kurtis at netnod.se Tue Oct 4 08:47:29 2011 From: kurtis at netnod.se (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 08:47:29 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Discussion : Cost allocation In-Reply-To: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DF@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> References: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DD@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan><3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698D6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan><81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <1317369198.9999.92.camel@ntitley-laptop> <4E8870CF.4070702@speednic.eu> <20111002173956.GW72014@Space.Net> <4E88B29C.4060207@speednic.eu> <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20111003112228.00c36948@efes.iucc.ac.il> <1317645515.981585.606389867.154645.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <1317654090.518735.6992069.154696.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DF@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> Message-ID: On 3 okt 2011, at 17:31, Erik Bais wrote: >>> >>> 1) a discussion about what is the cost and do we want to keep the cost allocation >>> as is. For instance, do we keep a 650k Euro loss a year for the RIPE meetings or >>> is a change in operating / cost allocation required ? > >> Yes. 1521 - 250 = 1271 kEUR. > >> Is it required to hire a boat / hotel etc for a week to accommodate the number to >> participants including full service (foot and free drinks) in order to have the >> meetings. And why should the membership fee pay for this 625k Euro yearly loss? >> I see no shame in using a way of recovering for the open bars .. For instance by >> the use of tickets / chips. X free drinks per RIPE attendee, additional chips at >> 2.50 euro per chip. And those chips can be used for food and/or drinks. >> >> I sure that if someone need this service - they can pay it. It is not right to distribute >> expenses to all members. I think each person who will drink and eat can buy what they will. > > There is some middle ground here .. > I do think that the meetings by itself bring value .. and some of the cost will be paid for by the membership as those meetings are also for RIPE NCC the way to interface with its target audience. The people they work for ( yes. That US!) > > But by for instance internet access could be provided by sponsoring of some of the local LIRS. Via sponsored data-only sim cards to avoid data-roaming or a temp wifi infrastructure. And yes, drinks could be (and perhaps even SHOULD be) paid for by the attendees themselves. As someone who has sponsored several of the socials at RIPE meetings, I just wanted to point out that they are already sponsored and that the sponsorship opportunities tend to be pretty expensive. Admittedly these are for socials, and that one option would be to have sponsorship options for the meetings itself instead. The problem with that is that as a sponsor I then want to make sure I get return on the money in terms of exposure to the attendees instead. So there is a tradeoff. That said I am not sure that the subsidized meeting costs is what I would make members pay for first?see below. >> On the training courses, it is my personal view that the setup fee should cover a >> part of the training cost. >> That means that per new lir there should be a limited number of free seats for >> each training.. and every additional consumed training seat should be paid for. >> The companies that have lots of changes in their trained employees, that they >> should also pay for additional seats used during the trainings. > >> Why part? Setup fee for trainings should cover all training cost. If I need this service - I'll buy it. >> We don't have to distribute this expenses to all LIRs. It is logical. > > There is a cultural difference within the region on the part of training. There should be some training that is provided as part of the service (let's say those initial 2 seats.) and the remaining seats should be paid for. > Those 2 seats could be covered by the setup cost of a LIR. And if additional seats are required, a cost per day per training is quite easy to calculate. > > So who would pay for this ? In the end, each LIR would pay for his/her own training. Either you limit it to your own staff within the 2 seats.. or if you have a high rotation of trained people, you will pay a bit more as you consume more seats. > > One of the reasons why one might want to avoid only paid seats for the training, is that you might end up with nobody from a new LIR going to a training, which will increase the number of tickets and not understanding why someone doesn't get the resources due to the way they requested it. > Some people actually have the idea that if they pay their LIR fee, that they buy resources and get whatever they request. The up-front paid seats in the setup fee is to educate the masses in how the process works. From what I remember of the results of the membership surveys, training and meetings have been asked for as RIPE activities so this is actually doing what the membership asked for. Part of the problem with the RIPE NCC activity plan is that we actually don't' know much about what we are paying for. Meetings and trainings are broken out so therefor are easy to comment on. DNSMON, RIS, TTM, RIPE Labs, etc are activities where we do not see individual budgets or contributions from the users. Many of these projects are very long running or very new but where there is little discussion on the activity plans on wether the community want it or not. I am all for transparency and I think that a better evaluation process is needed and better reporting on the activities in the activity plan. Then again, when RIPE NCC does the membership surveys - there tend to be surprisingly little feedback. Even on this list there are very, very, very few who voice an opinion. Best regards, - kurtis - --- Kurt Erik Lindqvist, CEO kurtis at netnod.se, Direct: +46-8-562 860 11, Switch: +46-8-562 860 00 Franz?ngatan 5 | SE-112 51 Stockholm | Sweden -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 163 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From hank at efes.iucc.ac.il Tue Oct 4 09:39:42 2011 From: hank at efes.iucc.ac.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 09:39:42 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments In-Reply-To: <4E89F1AF.3000705@titley.com> References: <4E89AE3A.6070006@speednic.eu> <1317369198.9999.92.camel@ntitley-laptop> <4E8870CF.4070702@speednic.eu> <20111002173956.GW72014@Space.Net> <4E88B29C.4060207@speednic.eu> <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <20111003084011.GG3312@simonl.cablecomnetworking.co.uk> <4E89AE3A.6070006@speednic.eu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20111004093816.036b18e0@efes.iucc.ac.il> At 18:32 03/10/2011 +0100, Nigel Titley wrote: >As has been mentioned, though, the budget and charging scheme are >actually separate (although related) issues. Where can a discussion thread be started in regards to the budget (*not* charging scheme)? Thanks, Hank >Nigel > > >---- >If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss >mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the >general page: >https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > >Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From >here, you can add or remove addresses. From Chris.Russell at knowledgeit.co.uk Tue Oct 4 09:50:58 2011 From: Chris.Russell at knowledgeit.co.uk (Chris Russell) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 08:50:58 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2011100301002013] Discussion : Cost allocation In-Reply-To: <1317664741.843853.407732323.154718.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> References: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DF@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan><3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DD@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan><3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698D6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan><81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <1317369198.9999.92.camel@ntitley-laptop> <4E8870CF.4070702@speednic.eu> <20111002173956.GW72014@Space.Net> <4E88B29C.4060207@speednic.eu> <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20111003112228.00c36948@efes.iucc.ac.il> <1317645515.981585.606389867.154645.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <1317654090.518735.6992069.154696.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <1317664741.843853.407732323.154718.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Message-ID: <1E130DCA55D169479976824AA6D4DB332A050787CD@UKNEWK0999SV007.knowledgeit.co.uk> Alexey, ? We can give 2 initial seats for free for learning in Amsterdam. And if LIR will have training course in another country - he should paid for this service (travel, visa support, hotels for RIPE people). I would be completely opposed to this, RIPE has a duty to all European LIR?s and to me the availability of local training is certainly something that should come from the membership fees. In the UK RIPE have recently expanded training to encompass cities away from London, notably in the north of England ? something which we, being based in this area, are grateful for. With that said, I would not be averse to a nominal charge for attendance of RIPE meeting to cover costs of the facilities etc. Lunch, and any social activities should ideally be covered via Sponsorship. Chris ________________________________ Knowledge I.T. ?Unifying Business Technology? www.knowledgeit.co.uk ________________________________ Knowledge Limited, Company Registration: 1554385 Registered Office: New Century House, Crowther Road, Washington, Tyne & Wear. NE38 0AQ Leeds Office: Viscount Court, Leeds Road, Rothwell, Leeds. LS26 0GR Tel: 0845 142 0020. Fax: 0845 142 0021 E-Mail Disclaimer: This e-mail message is intended to be received only by persons entitled to receive the confidential information it may contain. E-mail messages to clients of Knowledge IT may contain information that is confidential and legally privileged. Please do not read, copy, forward, or store this message unless you are an intended recipient of it. If you have received this message in error, please forward it to the sender and delete it completely from your computer system. Please consider the environment before printing this email. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hank at efes.iucc.ac.il Tue Oct 4 09:58:58 2011 From: hank at efes.iucc.ac.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 09:58:58 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2011100301002013] Discussion : Cost allocation In-Reply-To: <1E130DCA55D169479976824AA6D4DB332A050787CD@UKNEWK0999SV007 .knowledgeit.co.uk> References: <1317664741.843853.407732323.154718.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DF@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DD@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698D6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <1317369198.9999.92.camel@ntitley-laptop> <4E8870CF.4070702@speednic.eu> <20111002173956.GW72014@Space.Net> <4E88B29C.4060207@speednic.eu> <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20111003112228.00c36948@efes.iucc.ac.il> <1317645515.981585.606389867.154645.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <1317654090.518735.6992069.154696.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <1317664741.843853.407732323.154718.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20111004095726.036db088@efes.iucc.ac.il> At 08:50 04/10/2011 +0100, Chris Russell wrote: >Content-Language: en-US >Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > >boundary="_000_1E130DCA55D169479976824AA6D4DB332A050787CDUKNEWK0999SV0_" > >Alexey, > > > >?? We can give 2 initial seats for free for learning in Amsterdam. And if >LIR will have training course in another country - he should paid for this >service (travel, visa support, hotels for RIPE people). > >I would be completely opposed to this, RIPE has a duty to all European >LIR???s and to me the availability of local training is certainly >something that should come from the membership fees. In the UK RIPE have >recently expanded training to encompass cities away from London, notably >in the north of England ??? something which we, being based in this area, >are grateful for. Some see it one way - you and others see it another way. Democracy means we vote and the majority wins. I hope RIPE takes that into account rather than making the decisions on their own. Regards, Hank > > >With that said, I would not be averse to a nominal charge for attendance >of RIPE meeting to cover costs of the facilities etc. Lunch, and any >social activities should ideally be covered via Sponsorship. > > > > > >Chris > > > > > > >---------- >Knowledge I.T. >???Unifying Business Technology??? >www.knowledgeit.co.uk > > >---------- >Knowledge Limited, Company Registration: 1554385 >Registered Office: New Century House, Crowther Road, Washington, Tyne & >Wear. NE38 0AQ >Leeds Office: Viscount Court, Leeds Road, Rothwell, Leeds. LS26 0GR > >Tel: 0845 142 0020. Fax: 0845 142 0021 > >E-Mail Disclaimer: This e-mail message is intended to be received only by >persons entitled to receive the confidential information it may contain. >E-mail messages to clients of Knowledge IT may contain information that is >confidential and legally privileged. Please do not read, copy, forward, or >store this message unless you are an intended recipient of it. If you have >received this message in error, please forward it to the sender and delete >it completely from your computer system. > >Please consider the environment before printing this email. >---- >If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss >mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the >general page: >https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > >Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From >here, you can add or remove addresses. From hank at efes.iucc.ac.il Tue Oct 4 10:03:45 2011 From: hank at efes.iucc.ac.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 10:03:45 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Discussion : Cost allocation In-Reply-To: References: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DF@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DD@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698D6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <1317369198.9999.92.camel@ntitley-laptop> <4E8870CF.4070702@speednic.eu> <20111002173956.GW72014@Space.Net> <4E88B29C.4060207@speednic.eu> <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20111003112228.00c36948@efes.iucc.ac.il> <1317645515.981585.606389867.154645.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <1317654090.518735.6992069.154696.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DF@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20111004100131.03756120@efes.iucc.ac.il> At 08:47 04/10/2011 +0200, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: >That said I am not sure that the subsidized meeting costs is what I would >make members pay for first see below. RIPE often sends out extensive surveys to all the LIRs. It would be nice if the next survey were to ask questions like "I am in favor of subsidized meeting costs". This way, if the majority vote in favor then the meetings should be subsidized. > > So who would pay for this ? In the end, each LIR would pay for his/her > own training. Either you limit it to your own staff within the 2 seats.. > or if you have a high rotation of trained people, you will pay a bit more > as you consume more seats. Next survey questions: "I am in favor of RIPE funding costs for regional training sessions" or "LIRs should totally fund all costs of their training sessions with RIPE" > > > > One of the reasons why one might want to avoid only paid seats for the > training, is that you might end up with nobody from a new LIR going to a > training, which will increase the number of tickets and not understanding > why someone doesn't get the resources due to the way they requested it. > > Some people actually have the idea that if they pay their LIR fee, that > they buy resources and get whatever they request. The up-front paid seats > in the setup fee is to educate the masses in how the process works. > > From what I remember of the results of the membership surveys, training > and meetings have been asked for as RIPE activities so this is actually > doing what the membership asked for. If I remember correctly, the surveys never worded the questions in regards to costs but rather "I am in favor of RIPE doing regional training" or "I am in favor of RIPE doing IP research". This needs to corrected for the next survey. >Part of the problem with the RIPE NCC activity plan is that we actually >don't' know much about what we are paying for. Meetings and trainings are >broken out so therefor are easy to comment on. DNSMON, RIS, TTM, RIPE >Labs, etc are activities where we do not see individual budgets or >contributions from the users. Many of these projects are very long running >or very new but where there is little discussion on the activity plans on >wether the community want it or not. +1. How many people are doing research (RIPE Labs)? What is the budget? Who decides what is needed? Has the membership asked (and paid for) for RIPEstat Mobile or Data Repository ? How many LIRs use these resources? If 100 LIRs use the resource - it is worth the investment. If 15 use the resource - it should be terminated. >I am all for transparency and I think that a better evaluation process is >needed and better reporting on the activities in the activity plan. Then >again, when RIPE NCC does the membership surveys - there tend to be >surprisingly little feedback. Even on this list there are very, very, very >few who voice an opinion. Transparency = +1. That means reports and excels produced by RIPE. Regards, Hank >Best regards, > >- kurtis - > >--- >Kurt Erik Lindqvist, CEO >kurtis at netnod.se, Direct: +46-8-562 860 11, Switch: +46-8-562 860 00 >Franz?ngatan 5 | SE-112 51 Stockholm | Sweden > > > > > > > >---- >If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss >mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the >general page: >https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > >Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From >here, you can add or remove addresses. From farendse at ipphoneteam.nl Tue Oct 4 01:10:16 2011 From: farendse at ipphoneteam.nl (Fred Arendse) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 23:10:16 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments In-Reply-To: <4E8A2A59.8050700@level7.it> References: <1317369198.9999.92.camel@ntitley-laptop> <82EEB5E6C903144C84F3128AF9205FE6275CA590@NLRT-IPT.ipphoneteam.nl>, <4E8A2A59.8050700@level7.it> Message-ID: <82EEB5E6C903144C84F3128AF9205FE6275CADC3@NLRT-IPT.ipphoneteam.nl> Dear all, this reaction has in basic little to do with charging scheme, but is significant to the whole operation and the charging schemes now discussed. A little history: I'm professionally behind computers/desk calculators since 1974, so I have seen some things in the past 35+ years... The whole issue of LIR's staring up is the fact that those out there in the field (hosters), come with servers which require IPv4. Start with checking shells like Direct Admin. IP NAT translation is already putting a problem on the licensing of that application. Now try to register a native IPv6 server... I also have been behind Cisco for the last 17 years, so I have made some tests... NAT-PT for IPv4 in IPv6 addressing will not solve the problem for those hosters. NAT remains NAT. So, their door will be passed to someone who has ample IPv4 address space... Here we have an unequal battle on our hands. Moreover, what about customers which want to switch hoster? Will they stop with their server in their hands at a new hoster with little IPv4 space to devide? I have checked many applications and there are lots around which pose the same problem... Is it not the software which puts limits, then the registration processes at the developer side is not ready for an IPv6 address... What does this mean for the remaining IPv4 space? Who do we give it? Now start looking at current situation with much legacy IPv4 in hands of just a handfull companies/institutions. Wether someone tells me that this has been given out before RIPE or ARIN even existed, those ranges still eat up my memory in my BGP router... If they want to keep it, guys, put it behind your MPLS network and let the 5 RIR's handle the needed IPv4 space... Lots of software still out there is not ready for switching to IPv6 given the example of Direct Admin. Have a look at large operating systems like TPF (airlines/IBM) for instance. If there was a reason some parts would not be ready to run IPv6 now, do you think it will be tomorrow? How many workstations are connected to those reservation systems from United Airlines, Galileo, Amadeus, etc, etc worldwide? Now analize networks. Most of them are already able to work with IPv6. We have mechanisms like MPLS whch enables us to even use fictitious protocols like smoke signals or tam-tam protocol. We can run all if we want anywhere. Are we limited by any reasons not to roll out IPv6? No, we can do it. Servers and developed applications cannot. Simply we could have a customer who spend a lot of money in developing an application which runs on an operating system just not quite ready for IPv6. Upgrading the OS to be able to do it, would cost him a tremendous amount of money because it means work on his application. In basic such a customer will use a LIR/hoster which has enough IPv4 and not the newer kids on the block which are kept happy with a bar of chocolate... Now back to the charging scheme; how does it look effectively? No gain in new LIR's since they can offer a small amount of IPv4 resources, putting them behind the net... I feel that RIPE (and other RIR's) should be able to increase the number of LIR's, not to keep the same numbers and simply devide the rising costs between the existing LIR's. My recommendations are: - Stop giving away IP (PI) space to non-LIR members for a little fee; let LIR's handle the customers. Compare this with ccTLD SIDN. Works with members only; - claim back /8 networks. We are bothered by them, so they should obey the rules of IPv4 instead of sitting on huge piles of addresses without being used at all; - focus on the large LIR's first. They have means to increase IPv6 (core) and thus would be able to donate back IPv4. Remember, I am from a time when a computer was more like a calculator and brand names were HP model 9825 and 9830. My mouse that time used to be a soldering iron fixing problems in external I/O interfaces... The enormous growth we have now, also due to Virtualization will require IPv6 implementation FAST, but not without having new LIR's be able to compete with the existing ones. Any discussion on pricing model is senseless if you don't solve that issue FIRST! Regards, Fred ________________________________________ From: Paolo Di Francesco [paolo.difrancesco at level7.it] Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 23:34 To: Fred Arendse Cc: Nigel Titley; members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments Dear All, I agree with what Fred wrote. As a small ISP (and also startup) I forecast troubles in the future for who wants to get into the business next year. Indeed I do not think that a "pure IPv6" operator-network is feasable for an Italian ISP, most of the content is still (and it will be) on IPv6 for a long time. Considering that in Italy we cannot (for legal reasons) to do nat or yes we can do but only a 1-to-1 nat, this means that a small ISP that starts the business when the IPv4 address space is gone would have huge difficulties in making that content reachable for its customers. In few words most of the techincal difficulties and issues would go to the small ISP while big and huge systems would still use their "IPv4 reserves" which not so many issues. My personal opinion is that, being IPv4 a scarse resource, the big systems/telco (who holds most of the content in most cases) should be pushed to implement IPv6 asap. And that would happen only with an aggressive (exponential) IPv4 fee plan that discourage the use of IPv4 address space. I find immoral and techincally > Dear Nigel, > > Implementing IPv6 only works if we use a "big bang policy" like the millennium problem or the Euro. That is not going to happen, because we cannot force members or their customers to go along at the same time. For that reason I believe the following situation is true: > > 1. IPv4 billing remains and IPv6 billing with much more address space opens the door for more members. > > For a non-profit organization that would mean lowering the membership fees and lowering the allocation fees... Did anyone made a calculation on how RIPE would benefit from a significant increase in members during 2012? > > 2. New members should have equal rights compared to current members to implement IPv4 and IPv6. > > Since last February the last /8's have been given to the RIR's. They are now almost depleted. This means new members can't have new IPv4 addresses and should right away start with implementing IPv6. The effects of that depletion is that among current members IPv4 address space is being sold/transferred. This works in hand a rise in cost for new members who need IPv4 and it starts looking like a trade floor which totally opposes the RIPE allocation policies. > > 3. The strongest shoulders should carry the heaviest load. > > I would like to suggest claiming back some old allocations, starting with the /8's which are also not used for more than 15 per cent at the most. Those companies/institutions have much more resources to implement IPv6 faster than most of us. > > More members would avoid increase in membership fees, but this is actually hold back due to lack of IPv4 and the backdoor trade which start to flourish wildly ... > > Regards, > > Fred Arendse > > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Nigel Titley > Sent: vrijdag 30 september 2011 9:53 > To: members-discuss at ripe.net > Subject: [members-discuss] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments > > Dear all, > > I would like to update you about the RIPE NCC Executive Board deliberations regarding the draft charging scheme for 2012. > > We presented you with two draft schemes, in early summer, to gather feedback from you. We did this as we wanted to hear your opinions on measures we want to take which are designed to keep the RIPE NCC financially stable and capable of serving its members as it should. > > You engaged in a lively discussion on this mailing list, and even ran a mini-survey. We followed the exchanges closely and as result asked RIPE NCC staff to provide the board with another charging scheme option, based on a sliding scale scheme that eliminated the membership categories we currently use. > > During the board meeting of last Friday, 23 September, we discussed the merits as well as some of the issues of that model. Obviously a sliding scale model as its main benefit does away with the fee jumps of the category based model. We were pleased with the model that we developed with the NCC staff and felt that it addressed many of the issues raised by you, the members. > > However, in consultation with our tax lawyers we have had to think again. Because it brings a "fee-per-address" flavour to the charging model of the RIPE NCC it fundamentally alters the tax scheme under which we operate. The current "category" model allows us to argue that we are a membership association with different categories of membership. This brings substantial tax advantages. > > As you know, for a long time the RIPE NCC tax situation has been extremely favourable, as we don't have to pay corporation tax, based on an agreement made with the Dutch tax authorities many years ago. We are advised that the envisaged change in the charging scheme would lead to a re-assessment of that agreement, with the likely outcome that the association's surplus would have to be taxed, leading to a significant financial liability, with an obvious knock-on effect to the member fees. > > In the light of this, the board members have agreed not to expose our organisation to that risk, staying with a category based system. We have however noted your preference for reduced "fee jumps" between categories, and have instructed NCC staff to produce a charging scheme model based on 10 categories, doubling the current category number. > Category divisions will be based on a count of address space held. > > This revised Charging Scheme 2012 we will publish, as usual, prior to the General Meeting in November, for approval by the members during the General Meeting. We can advise you already that we are opening up the voting mechanism for all resolutions to include electronic voting, so that all members of the association have a good opportunity to take a full part in the proceedings. > > At this time, I would like to thank you all, on behalf of the RIPE NCC Executive Board, for participating in the discussion. I look forward to seeing as many of you as possible at the next General Meeting. > > Best regards, > > Nigel Titley > Chairman > RIPE NCC Executive Board > > > > > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. > -- Ing. Paolo Di Francesco Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 Fax : +39-091-8772072 assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 web: http://www.level7.it From fweimer at bfk.de Tue Oct 4 09:52:25 2011 From: fweimer at bfk.de (Florian Weimer) Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 07:52:25 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments In-Reply-To: <1317665181.3023.6.camel@puisard> (Clement Cavadore's message of "Mon, 03 Oct 2011 20:06:21 +0200") References: <1317369198.9999.92.camel@ntitley-laptop> <4E8870CF.4070702@speednic.eu> <20111002173956.GW72014@Space.Net> <4E88B29C.4060207@speednic.eu> <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <20111003084011.GG3312@simonl.cablecomnetworking.co.uk> <4E89AE3A.6070006@speednic.eu> <4E89F1AF.3000705@titley.com> <1317665181.3023.6.camel@puisard> Message-ID: <82mxdhqjly.fsf@mid.bfk.de> * Clement Cavadore: > What will happen to those resources when the available IPv4 resources > will be definitely ran out ? IPv4 addresses will never run out as such. It just will become increasingly difficult to recover and reassign address space. If we don't put an artificial stop to this, costs will continue to skyrocket. -- 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 Chris.Russell at knowledgeit.co.uk Tue Oct 4 10:10:08 2011 From: Chris.Russell at knowledgeit.co.uk (Chris Russell) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 09:10:08 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2011100301002013] Discussion : Cost allocation In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20111004095726.036db088@efes.iucc.ac.il> References: <1317664741.843853.407732323.154718.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DF@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DD@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698D6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <1317369198.9999.92.camel@ntitley-laptop> <4E8870CF.4070702@speednic.eu> <20111002173956.GW72014@Space.Net> <4E88B29C.4060207@speednic.eu> <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20111003112228.00c36948@efes.iucc.ac.il> <1317645515.981585.606389867.154645.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <1317654090.518735.6992069.154696.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <1317664741.843853.407732323.154718.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <5.1.0.14.2.20111004095726.036db088@efes.iucc.ac.il> Message-ID: <1E130DCA55D169479976824AA6D4DB332A050787D5@UKNEWK0999SV007.knowledgeit.co.uk> Hank, > Some see it one way - you and others see it another way. Democracy means > we vote and the majority wins. I hope RIPE takes that into account rather > than making the decisions on their own. Agreed, however one thing I'd be interested to see is to what percentage of the staffing costs are spent on those working on the labs projects. Thanks Chris Knowledge I.T. 'Unifying Business Technology' www.knowledgeit.co.uk Knowledge Limited, Company Registration: 1554385 Registered Office: New Century House, Crowther Road, Washington, Tyne & Wear. NE38 0AQ Leeds Office: Viscount Court, Leeds Road, Rothwell, Leeds. LS26 0GR Tel: 0845 142 0020. Fax: 0845 142 0021 E-Mail Disclaimer: This e-mail message is intended to be received only by persons entitled to receive the confidential information it may contain. E-mail messages to clients of Knowledge IT may contain information that is confidential and legally privileged. Please do not read, copy, forward, or store this message unless you are an intended recipient of it. If you have received this message in error, please forward it to the sender and delete it completely from your computer system. Please consider the environment before printing this email. From info at leadertelecom.ru Tue Oct 4 18:47:04 2011 From: info at leadertelecom.ru (LeaderTelecom Ltd.) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 20:47:04 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2011100301002013] Discussion : Cost allocation In-Reply-To: <1E130DCA55D169479976824AA6D4DB332A050787CD@UKNEWK0999SV007.knowledgeit.co.uk> References: <1E130DCA55D169479976824AA6D4DB332A050787CD@UKNEWK0999SV007.knowledgeit.co.uk><3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DF@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan><3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DD@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan><3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698D6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan><81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <1317369198.9999.92.camel@ntitley-laptop> <4E8870CF.4070702@speednic.eu> <20111002173956.GW72014@Space.Net> <4E88B29C.4060207@speednic.eu> <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20111003112228.00c36948@efes.iucc.ac.il> <1317645515.981585.606389867.154645.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <1317654090.518735.6992069.154696.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <1317664741.843853.407732323.154718.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Message-ID: <1317746823.882733.555743675.154718.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Chris, I would be completely opposed to this, RIPE has a duty to all European LIR?s and to me the availability of local training is certainly something that should come from the membership fees. ??In the UK RIPE have recently expanded training to encompass cities away from London, notably in the north of England ? something which we, being based in this area, are grateful for. It is very convinient for new LIR, but doesn't need for most LIRs. I sure that it is better use this service only if some LIR need it. RIPE can organise trening in offices in companies. It will be more personal and much more effective It will be very convinient for peolpe who prefer personal learning. But it should be paid service for LIR. -- Alexey S Ivanov General Director LeaderTelecom Ltd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From markel.stefo at plus.al Tue Oct 4 20:50:14 2011 From: markel.stefo at plus.al (Markel Stefo) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 18:50:14 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2011100301002013] Discussion : Cost allocation In-Reply-To: <1317746823.882733.555743675.154718.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> References: <1E130DCA55D169479976824AA6D4DB332A050787CD@UKNEWK0999SV007.knowledgeit.co.uk><3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DF@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan><3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DD@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan><3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698D6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan><81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <1317369198.9999.92.camel@ntitley-laptop> <4E8870CF.4070702@speednic.eu> <20111002173956.GW72014@Space.Net> <4E88B29C.4060207@speednic.eu> <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20111003112228.00c36948@efes.iucc.ac.il> <1317645515.981585.606389867.154645.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <1317654090.518735.6992069.154696.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <1317664741.843853.407732323.154718.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <1317746823.882733.555743675.154718.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Message-ID: <38078DF5B9A0984C8AC03AAEAB7BC1CE022BA692@EXCH-MBX02.plus.local> Dear all, It is very easy to say that new LIRS should pay for the RIPE training service since old LIRS have already taken advantage of this service when it was free from RIPE! RIPE trainings are a legacy service which in my humble opinion should not be changed. You should not have to pay to learn about public address management since every new LIR should be able to manage the address space assigned to them as best as they can considering the situation with IPv4. I hope this opinion will be considered in the voting. BR, Markel Markel Stefo IP Core Network Administrator IT Operations and Maintenance Department Plus Communication Sh.A. Rr. ?D?shmor?t e 4 Shkurtit?, Tirana, Albania M: +355 (0)664066620 www.plus.al [Description: cid:image001.jpg at 01CAE79D.360F3B10] This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete this e-mail from your system. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the named addressee. Please note that disclosing, copying, any form of distribution or taking any illegal action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. Ky e-mail dhe cdo dokument i bashkangjitur me te konsiderohen si konfidenciale dhe te destinuar vetem per perdorimin e individit apo entitetit ligjor te cilit i drejtohen. Nese ju keni marre kete e-mail gabimisht, ju lutemi te njoftoni menjehere derguesin, te ktheni e-mailin tek derguesi dhe te fshini/shkaterroni kete e-mail nga sistemi juaj. Ky komunikim permban informacion konfidencial dhe eshte i destinuar vetem per te adresuarin. Ju njoftojme se kopjimi,cdo forme e shperndarjes apo ndonje veprim tjeter i paligjshem ne lidhje me permbajtjen e ketij informacioni ndalohet rreptesisht. From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of LeaderTelecom Ltd. Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 6:47 PM To: Chris Russell Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2011100301002013] Discussion : Cost allocation Chris, I would be completely opposed to this, RIPE has a duty to all European LIR?s and to me the availability of local training is certainly something that should come from the membership fees. In the UK RIPE have recently expanded training to encompass cities away from London, notably in the north of England ? something which we, being based in this area, are grateful for. It is very convinient for new LIR, but doesn't need for most LIRs. I sure that it is better use this service only if some LIR need it. RIPE can organise trening in offices in companies. It will be more personal and much more effective It will be very convinient for peolpe who prefer personal learning. But it should be paid service for LIR. -- Alexey S Ivanov General Director LeaderTelecom Ltd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1646 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From info at leadertelecom.ru Tue Oct 4 21:05:14 2011 From: info at leadertelecom.ru (LeaderTelecom Ltd.) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 23:05:14 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2011100301002013] Discussion : Cost allocation In-Reply-To: <38078DF5B9A0984C8AC03AAEAB7BC1CE022BA692@EXCH-MBX02.plus.local> References: <38078DF5B9A0984C8AC03AAEAB7BC1CE022BA692@EXCH-MBX02.plus.local><1E130DCA55D169479976824AA6D4DB332A050787CD@UKNEWK0999SV007.knowledgeit.co.uk><3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DF@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan><3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DD@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan><3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698D6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan><81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <1317369198.9999.92.camel@ntitley-laptop> <4E8870CF.4070702@speednic.eu> <20111002173956.GW72014@Space.Net> <4E88B29C.4060207@speednic.eu> <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20111003112228.00c36948@efes.iucc.ac.il> <1317645515.981585.606389867.154645.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <1317654090.518735.6992069.154696.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <1317664741.843853.407732323.154718.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <1317746823.882733.555743675.154718.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Message-ID: <1317755114.371300.831428228.154718.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Dear Markel, It is very easy to say that new LIRS should pay for the RIPE training service since old LIRS have already taken advantage of this service when it was free from RIPE! It's realy not easy. I was wondered when we received status of LIR. RIPE great company with good service. Free Meetings, Lerning. It was very helpful for us. I very thanks RIPE and all members for that. But anyway we ready to pay for course when we need. May be you can suggest how can we cut costs without any changing? -- Alexey S Ivanov General Director LeaderTelecom Ltd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From franz at bett.ag Tue Oct 4 21:09:46 2011 From: franz at bett.ag (Franz Bettag) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 21:09:46 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2011100301002013] Discussion : Cost allocation In-Reply-To: <38078DF5B9A0984C8AC03AAEAB7BC1CE022BA692@EXCH-MBX02.plus.local> References: <1E130DCA55D169479976824AA6D4DB332A050787CD@UKNEWK0999SV007.knowledgeit.co.uk><3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DF@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan><3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DD@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan><3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698D6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan><81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <1317369198.9999.92.camel@ntitley-laptop> <4E8870CF.4070702@speednic.eu> <20111002173956.GW72014@Space.Net> <4E88B29C.4060207@speednic.eu> <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20111003112228.00c36948@efes.iucc.ac.il> <1317645515.981585.606389867.154645.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <1317654090.518735.6992069.154696.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <1317664741.843853.407732323.154718.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <1317746823.882733.555743675.154718.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <38078DF5B9A0984C8AC03AAEAB7BC1CE022BA692@EXCH-MBX02.plus.local> Message-ID: I completely agree with Markel on this. Mit freundlichen Gr??en / best regards Franz Bettag Gesch?ftsf?hrer Bettag Systems UG (haftungsbeschr?nkt) Ludwigstrasse 45-47 90402, N?rnberg Germany Fon: +49 911 217570 Fax: +49 911 217571 Web: http://www.bett.ag/ Registergericht: N?rnberg, HRB 27088 Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Franz Bettag On Oct 4, 2011, at 8:50 PM, Markel Stefo wrote: > Dear all, > > It is very easy to say that new LIRS should pay for the RIPE training service since old LIRS have already taken advantage of this service when it was free from RIPE! RIPE trainings are a legacy service which in my humble opinion should not be changed. You should not have to pay to learn about public address management since every new LIR should be able to manage the address space assigned to them as best as they can considering the situation with IPv4. I hope this opinion will be considered in the voting. > > BR, > Markel > > Markel Stefo > IP Core Network Administrator > IT Operations and Maintenance Department > > Plus Communication Sh.A. > Rr. ?D?shmor?t e 4 Shkurtit?, Tirana, Albania > M: +355 (0)664066620 > www.plus.al > > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete this e-mail from your system. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the named addressee. Please note that disclosing, copying, any form of distribution or taking any illegal action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. > > Ky e-mail dhe cdo dokument i bashkangjitur me te konsiderohen si konfidenciale dhe te destinuar vetem per perdorimin e individit apo entitetit ligjor te cilit i drejtohen. Nese ju keni marre kete e-mail gabimisht, ju lutemi te njoftoni menjehere derguesin, te ktheni e-mailin tek derguesi dhe te fshini/shkaterroni kete e-mail nga sistemi juaj. Ky komunikim permban informacion konfidencial dhe eshte i destinuar vetem per te adresuarin. Ju njoftojme se kopjimi,cdo forme e shperndarjes apo ndonje veprim tjeter i paligjshem ne lidhje me permbajtjen e ketij informacioni ndalohet rreptesisht. > > > > > From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of LeaderTelecom Ltd. > Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 6:47 PM > To: Chris Russell > Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2011100301002013] Discussion : Cost allocation > > Chris, > > I would be completely opposed to this, RIPE has a duty to all European LIR?s and to me the availability of local training is certainly something that should come from the membership fees. In the UK RIPE have recently expanded training to encompass cities away from London, notably in the north of England ? something which we, being based in this area, are grateful for. > > It is very convinient for new LIR, but doesn't need for most LIRs. I sure that it is better use this service only if some LIR need it. RIPE can organise trening in offices in companies. It will be more personal and much more effective It will be very convinient for peolpe who prefer personal learning. But it should be paid service for LIR. > > -- > Alexey S Ivanov > General Director > LeaderTelecom Ltd > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lists-ripe at c4inet.net Tue Oct 4 22:28:43 2011 From: lists-ripe at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 20:28:43 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments In-Reply-To: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DE@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> References: <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <1317369198.9999.92.camel@ntitley-laptop> <4E8870CF.4070702@speednic.eu> <20111002173956.GW72014@Space.Net> <4E88B29C.4060207@speednic.eu> <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20111003112228.00c36948@efes.iucc.ac.il> <1317645515.981585.606389867.154645.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <4E89C077.9030100@intl-alliance.com> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DE@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> Message-ID: <20111004202843.GA65575@cilantro.c4inet.net> Hi, On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 04:42:50PM +0200, Erik Bais wrote: >The RIPE meetings are mostly taped and broadcasted online already ... >The benefit of having the RIPE meetings in person is that people >actually have a better interaction than with a webinar. Indeed. In fact, I'd like to see more of the membership/community encouraged to come to RIPE meetings because, as much as has changed, "The Internet" is still a cooperative effort on the IP layer. I'd think though, that, if the cost of holding meetings in faraway places is more than inconsiderable, it may be worth thinking about holding all of them in Amsterdam - the NCC is there and it is easily reached from most places. What worries me more about the continuing budget increases, is that money is spent on an ever increasing range of activities that, strictly speaking, are not relevant to the RIR function. I will probably comment more on that once I've actually seen the proposed budget 2012. In general, given that probably every member is feeling the current economic crisis and the NCC budget is rising steadily as if nothing had happened, something will have to give eventually... rgds, Sascha Luck From lists-ripe at c4inet.net Tue Oct 4 22:36:00 2011 From: lists-ripe at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 20:36:00 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] Discussion : Cost allocation In-Reply-To: <4E89D98A.1070003@e4a.it> References: <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <1317369198.9999.92.camel@ntitley-laptop> <4E8870CF.4070702@speednic.eu> <20111002173956.GW72014@Space.Net> <4E88B29C.4060207@speednic.eu> <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20111003112228.00c36948@efes.iucc.ac.il> <1317645515.981585.606389867.154645.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <1317654090.518735.6992069.154696.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <4E89D98A.1070003@e4a.it> Message-ID: <20111004203600.GB65575@cilantro.c4inet.net> On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 05:49:30PM +0200, Riccardo Losselli wrote: >I'm i the only one who feels weird to hear the proposal of "let them pay >if they want to eat and drink" when in the end they are volunteering >their work for us, and perhaps without them our business, if not the >Internet as we know, wouldn't even exits? doh! The food/drink issue is a red herring anyway, IMO. As far as I remember, every social event I've been at has always been sponsored by some company or the other. AFAIK that has not changed since I last went to a meeting. Lunch/coffee is most likely part of the conference bundles that hotels sell. rgds, Sascha Luck From chris at filoo.de Tue Oct 4 22:57:49 2011 From: chris at filoo.de (Christopher Kunz) Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 22:57:49 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments In-Reply-To: <20111004202843.GA65575@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <1317369198.9999.92.camel@ntitley-laptop> <4E8870CF.4070702@speednic.eu> <20111002173956.GW72014@Space.Net> <4E88B29C.4060207@speednic.eu> <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20111003112228.00c36948@efes.iucc.ac.il> <1317645515.981585.606389867.154645.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <4E89C077.9030100@intl-alliance.com> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DE@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <20111004202843.GA65575@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <4E8B734D.6060002@filoo.de> Hi all, > In general, given that probably every member is feeling the current > economic crisis and the NCC budget is rising steadily as if nothing > had happened, something will have to give eventually... Is it really that big a deal? We are a fairly small LIR, but even in our yearly spendings, RIPE membership fees are one of the smaller factors. Even in the current climate, I'd probably look at other possibilities to save money before thinking about where I can squeeze 500 bucks a year from my RIPE membership. I think the meeting and trainings offered by RIPE shouldn't be seen with the attitude of "I never used it, so you should pay for it". IMHO, the trainings (of which I never could attend one due to lack of a travel budget) and the meetings (ditto) serve a very important purpose for the community: They make it easier for new LIRs to receive the know-how necessary to run their services smoothly. By learning the ropes, they save all the other LIRs time and subsequently, money. Why? Because, for instance, in a largely saturated market like colo/hosting/isp stuff, you are constantly interacting with "the old provider" and "the new provider". And it's a real PITA if you have to tell those guys what an inetnum object is and how to send a PGP signed message to auto-dbm while you are actually *losing a customer* to them. I bet everyone of you can find a dozen similar examples. That's why I'll agree to pay for trainings I never use - because I can be fairly certain I'll benefit indirectly. And to the people who want RIPE to cut costs by not offering free Wi-fi at their events (etc.): Please tell me that was a joke. In my book that's like not offering complimentary seats during a train ride. Just my two cents, --ck -- Filoo GmbH Christopher Kunz, Gesch?ftsf?hrer Web: http://www.filoo.de/ E-Mail: chris at filoo.de Tel.: (+49) 0 52 48 / 1 89 84 -11 Fax: (+49) 0 52 48 / 1 89 84 -20 Please sign & encrypt mail wherever possible, my key: C882 8ED1 7DD1 9011 C088 EA50 5CFA 2EEB 397A CAC1 Moltkestra?e 25a 33330 G?tersloh, Germany HRB4355, AG G?tersloh Gesch?ftsf?hrer: S.Grewing, J.Rehp?hler, C.Kunz Folgen Sie uns auf Twitter: http://twitter.com/filoogmbh From lists-ripe at c4inet.net Tue Oct 4 23:10:17 2011 From: lists-ripe at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 21:10:17 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments In-Reply-To: <4E8B734D.6060002@filoo.de> References: <4E8870CF.4070702@speednic.eu> <20111002173956.GW72014@Space.Net> <4E88B29C.4060207@speednic.eu> <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20111003112228.00c36948@efes.iucc.ac.il> <1317645515.981585.606389867.154645.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <4E89C077.9030100@intl-alliance.com> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DE@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <20111004202843.GA65575@cilantro.c4inet.net> <4E8B734D.6060002@filoo.de> Message-ID: <20111004211017.GC65575@cilantro.c4inet.net> Hi, On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 10:57:49PM +0200, Christopher Kunz wrote: >I think the meeting and trainings offered by RIPE shouldn't be seen with >the attitude of "I never used it, so you should pay for it". IMHO, the >trainings (of which I never could attend one due to lack of a travel >budget) and the meetings (ditto) serve a very important purpose for the >community: They make it easier for new LIRs to receive the know-how >necessary to run their services smoothly. By learning the ropes, they >save all the other LIRs time and subsequently, money. Training and meetings are two things I'd never argue for the cutting of. Centralising training is also not really an option as the RIPE membership exceeds well beyond the borders of the EU and I do not expect inbound travel to get any easier for non-EU residents due to political mood swings within the EU. Since the meetings are usuall held in EU cities anyway, I'd argue for centralising them in NL *if* it would save a significant amount of money. >That's why I'll agree to pay for trainings I never use - because I can >be fairly certain I'll benefit indirectly. Fully agree. And a suggestion to the NCC: Maybe incorporating a tutorial on subscribing to RIPE mailing lists into the LIR training would be a good idea ;) >And to the people who want RIPE to cut costs by not offering free Wi-fi >at their events (etc.): Please tell me that was a joke. In my book >that's like not offering complimentary seats during a train ride. I blame Ryanair and Michael O'Leary for bringing that attitude into the world... cheers, Sascha Luck From MB.Registryno at tdc.no Wed Oct 5 11:55:53 2011 From: MB.Registryno at tdc.no (MB Registryno) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 09:55:53 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments In-Reply-To: <20111004211017.GC65575@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <4E8870CF.4070702@speednic.eu> <20111002173956.GW72014@Space.Net> <4E88B29C.4060207@speednic.eu> <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20111003112228.00c36948@efes.iucc.ac.il> <1317645515.981585.606389867.154645.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <4E89C077.9030100@intl-alliance.com> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DE@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <20111004202843.GA65575@cilantro.c4inet.net> <4E8B734D.6060002@filoo.de> <20111004211017.GC65575@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: Hi Shooting at the meeting cost and training cost is an easy target, but in my opinion slightly silly. RIPE NCC does live in the same economical reality as the rest of us. They can implement bugdet cuts like everyone else, so look hard at your costs and come up with cost-saving measure and let your members vote on it like they usually do at the RIPE meeting. Mvh stj. TDC AS Mobile: + 47 40 00 02 94 Direct: + 47 38 05 81 44 Fax : + 47 38 05 81 47 ?girsv 10 N-4632 Kristiansand, Norway mailto:svein.tjemsland at tdc.no http://www.tdc.no -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Sascha Luck Sent: 4. oktober 2011 23:10 To: Christopher Kunz Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments Hi, On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 10:57:49PM +0200, Christopher Kunz wrote: >I think the meeting and trainings offered by RIPE shouldn't be seen with >the attitude of "I never used it, so you should pay for it". IMHO, the >trainings (of which I never could attend one due to lack of a travel >budget) and the meetings (ditto) serve a very important purpose for the >community: They make it easier for new LIRs to receive the know-how >necessary to run their services smoothly. By learning the ropes, they >save all the other LIRs time and subsequently, money. Training and meetings are two things I'd never argue for the cutting of. Centralising training is also not really an option as the RIPE membership exceeds well beyond the borders of the EU and I do not expect inbound travel to get any easier for non-EU residents due to political mood swings within the EU. Since the meetings are usuall held in EU cities anyway, I'd argue for centralising them in NL *if* it would save a significant amount of money. >That's why I'll agree to pay for trainings I never use - because I can >be fairly certain I'll benefit indirectly. Fully agree. And a suggestion to the NCC: Maybe incorporating a tutorial on subscribing to RIPE mailing lists into the LIR training would be a good idea ;) >And to the people who want RIPE to cut costs by not offering free Wi-fi >at their events (etc.): Please tell me that was a joke. In my book >that's like not offering complimentary seats during a train ride. I blame Ryanair and Michael O'Leary for bringing that attitude into the world... cheers, Sascha Luck ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From Robert.Guentensperger at swisscom.com Wed Oct 5 12:19:49 2011 From: Robert.Guentensperger at swisscom.com (Robert.Guentensperger at swisscom.com) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 10:19:49 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments In-Reply-To: References: <4E8870CF.4070702@speednic.eu> <20111002173956.GW72014@Space.Net> <4E88B29C.4060207@speednic.eu> <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20111003112228.00c36948@efes.iucc.ac.il> <1317645515.981585.606389867.154645.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <4E89C077.9030100@intl-alliance.com> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DE@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <20111004202843.GA65575@cilantro.c4inet.net> <4E8B734D.6060002@filoo.de> <20111004211017.GC65575@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <28505590.33063.1317809996033.JavaMail.trustmail@ss000807> Hi, Fully agree. Best regards, Robert Robert G?ntensperger Swisscom (Schweiz) AG Product IT Access Plattforms |-----Original Message----- |From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss- |bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of MB Registryno |Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 11:56 AM |Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net |Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board |comments | |Hi | |Shooting at the meeting cost and training cost is an easy target, but in |my opinion slightly silly. | |RIPE NCC does live in the same economical reality as the rest of us. | |They can implement bugdet cuts like everyone else, so look hard at your |costs and come up with cost-saving measure and let your members vote on |it like they usually do at the RIPE meeting. | |Mvh | |stj. | |TDC AS |Mobile: + 47 40 00 02 94 |Direct: + 47 38 05 81 44 |Fax : + 47 38 05 81 47 |?girsv 10 |N-4632 Kristiansand, Norway |mailto:svein.tjemsland at tdc.no |http://www.tdc.no |-----Original Message----- |From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss- |bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Sascha Luck |Sent: 4. oktober 2011 23:10 |To: Christopher Kunz |Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net |Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board |comments | |Hi, | |On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 10:57:49PM +0200, Christopher Kunz wrote: |>I think the meeting and trainings offered by RIPE shouldn't be seen |with |>the attitude of "I never used it, so you should pay for it". IMHO, the |>trainings (of which I never could attend one due to lack of a travel |>budget) and the meetings (ditto) serve a very important purpose for the |>community: They make it easier for new LIRs to receive the know-how |>necessary to run their services smoothly. By learning the ropes, they |>save all the other LIRs time and subsequently, money. | |Training and meetings are two things I'd never argue for the cutting of. |Centralising training is also not really an option as the RIPE |membership exceeds well beyond the borders of the EU and I do not expect |inbound travel to get any easier for non-EU residents due to political |mood swings within the EU. |Since the meetings are usuall held in EU cities anyway, I'd argue for |centralising them in NL *if* it would save a significant amount of |money. | |>That's why I'll agree to pay for trainings I never use - because I can |>be fairly certain I'll benefit indirectly. | |Fully agree. And a suggestion to the NCC: Maybe incorporating a tutorial |on subscribing to RIPE mailing lists into the LIR training would be a |good |idea ;) | |>And to the people who want RIPE to cut costs by not offering free Wi-fi |>at their events (etc.): Please tell me that was a joke. In my book |>that's like not offering complimentary seats during a train ride. | |I blame Ryanair and Michael O'Leary for bringing that attitude into the |world... | |cheers, |Sascha Luck | |---- |If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss |mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the |general page: |https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view | |Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From |here, you can add or remove addresses. | |---- |If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss |mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the |general page: |https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view | |Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From |here, you can add or remove addresses. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5255 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From m.klaver at luna.nl Wed Oct 5 13:23:36 2011 From: m.klaver at luna.nl (Michiel Klaver) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 11:23:36 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments In-Reply-To: <1317369198.9999.92.camel@ntitley-laptop> Message-ID: Dear Nigel, After some considerations I would like to propose another charging scheme alternative, one that could comply with the current tax regulations. The basic idea is to treat all members and all their registered objects as equal. The scheme would look something like this: - one basic membership fee for all LIR members; - a fee for each registered object, regardless of their size; This is something comparable like we are already doing with PI objects, which already get charged 50 eur/year each. This model just stretches it to other objects too (PA ipv4/ipv6 and ASN). Exact values of these fees have to be calculated by RIPE NCC treasurer to match the budget, but the basic membership fee should be kept low enough to match something like the current extra-small category for starting LIRs. Hoping for some support from other RIPE members and the community, and awaiting to see some calculations what values these fees could be set at. With kind regards, Michiel Klaver At Fri, 30 Sep 2011 08:53:18 +0100, Nigel Titley wrote: > Dear all, > > I would like to update you about the RIPE NCC Executive Board > deliberations regarding the draft charging scheme for 2012. > > We presented you with two draft schemes, in early summer, to gather > feedback from you. We did this as we wanted to hear your opinions on > measures we want to take which are designed to keep the RIPE NCC > financially stable and capable of serving its members as it should. > > You engaged in a lively discussion on this mailing list, and even ran a > mini-survey. We followed the exchanges closely and as result asked > RIPE NCC staff to provide the board with another charging scheme option, > based on a sliding scale scheme that eliminated the membership > categories we currently use. > > During the board meeting of last Friday, 23 September, we discussed the > merits as well as some of the issues of that model. Obviously a sliding > scale model as its main benefit does away with the fee jumps of the > category based model. We were pleased with the model that we developed > with the NCC staff and felt that it addressed many of the issues raised > by you, the members. > > However, in consultation with our tax lawyers we have had to think > again. Because it brings a "fee-per-address" flavour to the charging > model of the RIPE NCC it fundamentally alters the tax scheme under which > we operate. The current "category" model allows us to argue that we are > a membership association with different categories of membership. This > brings substantial tax advantages. > > As you know, for a long time the RIPE NCC tax situation has been > extremely favourable, as we don't have to pay corporation tax, based on > an agreement made with the Dutch tax authorities many years ago. We are > advised that the envisaged change in the charging scheme would lead to a > re-assessment of that agreement, with the likely outcome that the > association's surplus would have to be taxed, leading to a significant > financial liability, with an obvious knock-on effect to the member fees. > > In the light of this, the board members have agreed not to expose our > organisation to that risk, staying with a category based system. We have > however noted your preference for reduced "fee jumps" between > categories, and have instructed NCC staff to produce a charging scheme > model based on 10 categories, doubling the current category number. > Category divisions will be based on a count of address space held. > > This revised Charging Scheme 2012 we will publish, as usual, prior to > the General Meeting in November, for approval by the members during the > General Meeting. We can advise you already that we are opening up the > voting mechanism for all resolutions to include electronic voting, so > that all members of the association have a good opportunity to take a > full part in the proceedings. > > At this time, I would like to thank you all, on behalf of the RIPE NCC > Executive Board, for participating in the discussion. I look forward to > seeing as many of you as possible at the next General Meeting. > > Best regards, > > Nigel Titley > Chairman > RIPE NCC Executive Board > From jon at fido.net Wed Oct 5 13:36:07 2011 From: jon at fido.net (Jon Morby) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 11:36:07 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments In-Reply-To: References: <4E8870CF.4070702@speednic.eu> <20111002173956.GW72014@Space.Net> <4E88B29C.4060207@speednic.eu> <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20111003112228.00c36948@efes.iucc.ac.il> <1317645515.981585.606389867.154645.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <4E89C077.9030100@intl-alliance.com> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DE@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <20111004202843.GA65575@cilantro.c4inet.net> <4E8B734D.6060002@filoo.de> <20111004211017.GC65575@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: Saving 2-3% isn't going to cut it really .. so cutting training completely wouldn't help - and I think that would also be an exceptionally bad idea. Training is good, we need more of it, it needs to be visible online so it can be used internally and without necessarily the need to send someone out for 2 days when the course could be run internally or at least pre-studied before candidates turn up. With overheads growing from ?10m to ?15m in 5 years, this continued pattern of growth seems pretty unsustainable (unless we are prepared to see fees continue to increase every year by 10-20%?) and I think we need to look at where that growth in spend has really come from, and why/how .. plus what can be done to reduce the overheads down to more sensible levels if not at least to the 2007-2008 levels Meetings are good, and need to be more readily accessible to the membership not less ... we need better / more improved resources, and to ensure that if we include remote participation that we stick to schedules and deadlines defined (no starting early so joiners miss vital presentations or proposals). Another question which may need more clearly explaining ... What is RIPE doing for us now in 2011 that it wasn't doing for us in 2007 which justifies a 50% increase in budget over that time? Are all of these functions / services a truly valuable commitment of membership funds? Compare the value / services RIPE offers to those that say ARIN offer and what are the differences in membership fees between these two organisations? RIPE seems to be charging for resources (might only be ?50 .. although who knows it could be ?250 in 5 years time) ... is this a valid method of charging with hindsight? Are there yet better ways of doing all of this? Perhaps every member should pay 1c per IP address assigned (might need to be more than 1c as a /20 would cost ?41/year but you get the point)? That may go against the RIPE model of charging for IP addresses, but it is in fact what happens regardless as a resource cost is a resource cost, no matter how you describe it. I should note I am looking at all of this purely from a business perspective (almost as an accountant) trying to understand why we've gone from ?10m to ?15m in 5 years (50% increase) with only a 25% increase in the size of the membership base over the same period of time. It would also be interesting to see a report on the volume of tickets created over the same period of time and any metrics on the number of assignments and increases in workload / etc Jon On 5 Oct 2011, at 10:55, MB Registryno wrote: > Hi > > Shooting at the meeting cost and training cost is an easy target, but in my opinion slightly silly. > > RIPE NCC does live in the same economical reality as the rest of us. > > They can implement bugdet cuts like everyone else, so look hard at your costs and come up with cost-saving measure and let your members vote on it like they usually do at the RIPE meeting. > > Mvh > > stj. > > TDC AS > Mobile: + 47 40 00 02 94 > Direct: + 47 38 05 81 44 > Fax : + 47 38 05 81 47 > ?girsv 10 > N-4632 Kristiansand, Norway > mailto:svein.tjemsland at tdc.no > http://www.tdc.no > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Sascha Luck > Sent: 4. oktober 2011 23:10 > To: Christopher Kunz > Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments > > Hi, > > On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 10:57:49PM +0200, Christopher Kunz wrote: >> I think the meeting and trainings offered by RIPE shouldn't be seen with >> the attitude of "I never used it, so you should pay for it". IMHO, the >> trainings (of which I never could attend one due to lack of a travel >> budget) and the meetings (ditto) serve a very important purpose for the >> community: They make it easier for new LIRs to receive the know-how >> necessary to run their services smoothly. By learning the ropes, they >> save all the other LIRs time and subsequently, money. > > Training and meetings are two things I'd never argue for the cutting of. > Centralising training is also not really an option as the RIPE > membership exceeds well beyond the borders of the EU and I do not expect > inbound travel to get any easier for non-EU residents due to political > mood swings within the EU. > Since the meetings are usuall held in EU cities anyway, I'd argue for > centralising them in NL *if* it would save a significant amount of money. > >> That's why I'll agree to pay for trainings I never use - because I can >> be fairly certain I'll benefit indirectly. > > Fully agree. And a suggestion to the NCC: Maybe incorporating a tutorial > on subscribing to RIPE mailing lists into the LIR training would be a good > idea ;) > >> And to the people who want RIPE to cut costs by not offering free Wi-fi >> at their events (etc.): Please tell me that was a joke. In my book >> that's like not offering complimentary seats during a train ride. > > I blame Ryanair and Michael O'Leary for bringing that attitude into the > world... > > cheers, > Sascha Luck > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From ripe-lir at speednic.eu Wed Oct 5 14:14:45 2011 From: ripe-lir at speednic.eu (SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 09:14:45 -0300 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E8C4A35.4030902@speednic.eu> Hi Michiel, 100% agree. That would be better charging scheme ;) Best regards, Alexander Schoberl SPEEDNIC S.R.L. Am 05.10.2011 08:23, schrieb Michiel Klaver: > Dear Nigel, > > After some considerations I would like to propose another charging scheme > alternative, one that could comply with the current tax regulations. The > basic idea is to treat all members and all their registered objects as > equal. The scheme would look something like this: > > - one basic membership fee for all LIR members; > - a fee for each registered object, regardless of their size; > > This is something comparable like we are already doing with PI objects, > which already get charged 50 eur/year each. This model just stretches it > to other objects too (PA ipv4/ipv6 and ASN). Exact values of these fees > have to be calculated by RIPE NCC treasurer to match the budget, but the > basic membership fee should be kept low enough to match something like the > current extra-small category for starting LIRs. > > Hoping for some support from other RIPE members and the community, and > awaiting to see some calculations what values these fees could be set at. > > With kind regards, > Michiel Klaver > > > > At Fri, 30 Sep 2011 08:53:18 +0100, Nigel Titley wrote: > >> Dear all, >> > >> I would like to update you about the RIPE NCC Executive Board >> deliberations regarding the draft charging scheme for 2012. >> >> We presented you with two draft schemes, in early summer, to gather >> feedback from you. We did this as we wanted to hear your opinions on >> measures we want to take which are designed to keep the RIPE NCC >> financially stable and capable of serving its members as it should. >> >> You engaged in a lively discussion on this mailing list, and even ran a >> mini-survey. We followed the exchanges closely and as result asked >> RIPE NCC staff to provide the board with another charging scheme option, >> based on a sliding scale scheme that eliminated the membership >> categories we currently use. >> >> During the board meeting of last Friday, 23 September, we discussed the >> merits as well as some of the issues of that model. Obviously a sliding >> scale model as its main benefit does away with the fee jumps of the >> category based model. We were pleased with the model that we developed >> with the NCC staff and felt that it addressed many of the issues raised >> by you, the members. >> >> However, in consultation with our tax lawyers we have had to think >> again. Because it brings a "fee-per-address" flavour to the charging >> model of the RIPE NCC it fundamentally alters the tax scheme under which >> we operate. The current "category" model allows us to argue that we are >> a membership association with different categories of membership. This >> brings substantial tax advantages. >> >> As you know, for a long time the RIPE NCC tax situation has been >> extremely favourable, as we don't have to pay corporation tax, based on >> an agreement made with the Dutch tax authorities many years ago. We are >> advised that the envisaged change in the charging scheme would lead to a >> re-assessment of that agreement, with the likely outcome that the >> association's surplus would have to be taxed, leading to a significant >> financial liability, with an obvious knock-on effect to the member fees. >> >> In the light of this, the board members have agreed not to expose our >> organisation to that risk, staying with a category based system. We have >> however noted your preference for reduced "fee jumps" between >> categories, and have instructed NCC staff to produce a charging scheme >> model based on 10 categories, doubling the current category number. >> Category divisions will be based on a count of address space held. >> >> This revised Charging Scheme 2012 we will publish, as usual, prior to >> the General Meeting in November, for approval by the members during the >> General Meeting. We can advise you already that we are opening up the >> voting mechanism for all resolutions to include electronic voting, so >> that all members of the association have a good opportunity to take a >> full part in the proceedings. >> >> At this time, I would like to thank you all, on behalf of the RIPE NCC >> Executive Board, for participating in the discussion. I look forward to >> seeing as many of you as possible at the next General Meeting. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Nigel Titley >> Chairman >> RIPE NCC Executive Board >> > > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From gert at space.net Wed Oct 5 14:23:59 2011 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 14:23:59 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments In-Reply-To: References: <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20111003112228.00c36948@efes.iucc.ac.il> <1317645515.981585.606389867.154645.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <4E89C077.9030100@intl-alliance.com> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DE@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <20111004202843.GA65575@cilantro.c4inet.net> <4E8B734D.6060002@filoo.de> <20111004211017.GC65575@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <20111005122359.GM72014@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 11:36:07AM +0000, Jon Morby wrote: > With overheads growing from ?10m to ?15m in 5 years, this continued > pattern of growth seems pretty unsustainable (unless we are prepared > to see fees continue to increase every year by 10-20%?) and I think > we need to look at where that growth in spend has really come from, > and why/how .. plus what can be done to reduce the overheads down > to more sensible levels if not at least to the 2007-2008 levels I hope folks are aware that the number of *LIR*s has also grown in similar dimensions. Which is why the fees actually went down, not up, over the last few years. [..] > Another question which may need more clearly explaining ... What > is RIPE doing for us now in 2011 that it wasn't doing for us in > 2007 which justifies a 50% increase in budget over that time? Are > all of these functions / services a truly valuable commitment of > membership funds? There's a lot more of "us" these days. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 From info at leadertelecom.ru Wed Oct 5 15:10:31 2011 From: info at leadertelecom.ru (LeaderTelecom Ltd.) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 17:10:31 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2011100501001154] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1317820231.766363.316187131.155057.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Dear Michie, Great IDEA! 05.10.2011 15:55 - Michiel Klaver ???????(?): Dear Nigel, After some considerations I would like to propose another charging scheme alternative, one that could comply with the current tax regulations. The basic idea is to treat all members and all their registered objects as equal. The scheme would look something like this: - one basic membership fee for all LIR members; - a fee for each registered object, regardless of their size; This is something comparable like we are already doing with PI objects, which already get charged 50 eur/year each. This model just stretches it to other objects too (PA ipv4/ipv6 and ASN). Exact values of these fees have to be calculated by RIPE NCC treasurer to match the budget, but the basic membership fee should be kept low enough to match something like the current extra-small category for starting LIRs. Hoping for some support from other RIPE members and the community, and awaiting to see some calculations what values these fees could be set at. With kind regards, Michiel Klaver At Fri, 30 Sep 2011 08:53:18 +0100, Nigel Titley wrote: > Dear all, > > I would like to update you about the RIPE NCC Executive Board > deliberations regarding the draft charging scheme for 2012. > > We presented you with two draft schemes, in early summer, to gather > feedback from you. We did this as we wanted to hear your opinions on > measures we want to take which are designed to keep the RIPE NCC > financially stable and capable of serving its members as it should. > > You engaged in a lively discussion on this mailing list, and even ran a > mini-survey. We followed the exchanges closely and as result asked > RIPE NCC staff to provide the board with another charging scheme option, > based on a sliding scale scheme that eliminated the membership > categories we currently use. > > During the board meeting of last Friday, 23 September, we discussed the > merits as well as some of the issues of that model. Obviously a sliding > scale model as its main benefit does away with the fee jumps of the > category based model. We were pleased with the model that we developed > with the NCC staff and felt that it addressed many of the issues raised > by you, the members. > > However, in consultation with our tax lawyers we have had to think > again. Because it brings a "fee-per-address" flavour to the charging > model of the RIPE NCC it fundamentally alters the tax scheme under which > we operate. The current "category" model allows us to argue that we are > a membership association with different categories??of membership. This > brings substantial tax advantages. > > As you know, for a long time the RIPE NCC tax situation has been > extremely favourable, as we don't have to pay corporation tax, based on > an agreement made with the Dutch tax authorities many years ago. We are > advised that the envisaged change in the charging scheme would lead to a > re-assessment of that agreement, with the likely outcome that the > association's surplus would have to be taxed, leading to a significant > financial liability, with an obvious knock-on effect to the member fees. > > In the light of this, the board members have agreed not to expose our > organisation to that risk, staying with a category based system. We have > however noted your preference for reduced "fee jumps" between > categories, and have instructed NCC staff to produce a charging scheme > model based on 10 categories, doubling the current category number. > Category divisions will be based on a count of address space held. > > This revised Charging Scheme 2012 we will publish, as usual, prior to > the General Meeting in November, for approval by the members during the > General Meeting. We can advise you already that we are opening up the > voting mechanism for all resolutions to include electronic voting, so > that all members of the association have a good opportunity to take a > full part in the proceedings. > > At this time, I would like to thank you all, on behalf of the RIPE NCC > Executive Board, for participating in the discussion. I look forward to > seeing as many of you as possible at the next General Meeting. > > Best regards, > > Nigel Titley > Chairman > RIPE NCC Executive Board > ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: [1]https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. [1] https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chris at filoo.de Wed Oct 5 15:28:01 2011 From: chris at filoo.de (Christopher Kunz (Filoo GmbH)) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 15:28:01 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2011100501001154] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments In-Reply-To: <1317820231.766363.316187131.155057.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> References: <1317820231.766363.316187131.155057.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Message-ID: <4E8C5B61.3000407@filoo.de> Am 05.10.2011 15:10, schrieb LeaderTelecom Ltd.: > Dear Michie, > > Great IDEA! > Err... Great idea... or is it? Really, cui bono? This scheme has been proposed numerous times, IIRC even in this very discussion. In my perception, Small LIRs will not really profit from it, as they typically have a small network (1 or 2 allocations, 1 ASN, X-SMALL category). They'll pay roughly the same because the annual membership fee will have to be adjusted to account for the losses accrued by your idea. Medium LIRs might pay slightly less, I guess... There's probably a sweet spot somewhere (and I'll assume you calculated it so you're in it ;) ). Big LIRs however, with their multiple 12's, large AS sets and network allocations would probably pay drastically less than before. This would shift the weight off those who massively profit from the resources administrated by RIPE NCC onto those who take up less resources. I don't consider this to be very fair. On the contrary: Those who use up large portions of the address space should damn well pay large portions of the NCC's bills. In addition, charging per resource allocation, be it one address or 65K, looks like "per address" charging to the tax authorities. And this is specifically what RIPE is looking to avoid. Gru?, --ck PS: To the colleagues at Telekom and PrivateLayer: GET YOUR DAMN TICKET SYSTEMS OFF THIS LIST! -- Filoo GmbH Christopher Kunz, Gesch?ftsf?hrer Web: http://www.filoo.de/ E-Mail: chris at filoo.de Tel.: (+49) 0 52 48 / 1 89 84 -11 Fax: (+49) 0 52 48 / 1 89 84 -20 Please sign & encrypt mail wherever possible, my key: C882 8ED1 7DD1 9011 C088 EA50 5CFA 2EEB 397A CAC1 [Achtung, neue Firmenadresse!] Moltkestra?e 25a 33330 G?tersloh HRB4355, AG G?tersloh Gesch?ftsf?hrer: S.Grewing, J.Rehp?hler, C.Kunz Folgen Sie uns auf Twitter: http://twitter.com/filoogmbh From john.fitzgerald at internet.de Wed Oct 5 16:05:52 2011 From: john.fitzgerald at internet.de (John Fitzgerald) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 16:05:52 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2011100501001154] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments In-Reply-To: <4E8C5B61.3000407@filoo.de> References: <1317820231.766363.316187131.155057.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <4E8C5B61.3000407@filoo.de> Message-ID: <003301cc8367$e49d3580$add7a080$@fitzgerald@internet.de> > > Am 05.10.2011 15:10, schrieb LeaderTelecom Ltd.: > > Dear Michie, > > Great IDEA! > Err... Great idea... or is it? Really, cui bono? [...] > Big LIRs however, with their multiple 12's, large AS sets and network > allocations would probably pay drastically less than before. This would > shift the weight off those who massively profit from the resources > administrated by RIPE NCC onto those who take up less resources. I don't > consider this to be very fair. I agree as well. For Big ISPs, the RIPE fee divided by customer is not a big issue. To preserve diversity in the internet, I is important to have small ISPs. If we just pamper the big ones, internet will change to a more and more monopolistic place. Have a look at the aggregation taking place at the moment and just imagine what the internet will be in 4-5 years... > On the contrary: Those who use up large portions of the address space > should damn well pay large portions of the NCC's bills. I'm with you. Kind regards, John Fitzgerald ---------------------------------------------------------------- John Fitzgerald Interactive Network GmbH MD/Geschaeftsfuehrer Jahnstrasse 15 http://www.internet.de D-60318 Frankfurt am Main mailto:john.fitzgerald at internet.de Tel.: +49 69 1336-0 PGP-KEY: on request Fax.: +49 69 1336-1000 HRB 47625 USt.ID-Nr. DE 202192770 Gesch?ftsf?hrer Ralf Herrmann, John Fitzgerald Handelsregister Amtsgericht Frankfurt am Main Registriert bei Bundesnetzagentur seit 1996 als Internet Service Provider (ISP) (http://www.bundesnetzagentur.de) Regnr. 96/142 ---------------------------------------------------------------- From alfredo at solucionesdinamicas.net Wed Oct 5 16:22:50 2011 From: alfredo at solucionesdinamicas.net (Alfredo Sola) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 16:22:50 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2011100501001154] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments In-Reply-To: <003301cc8367$e49d3580$add7a080$@fitzgerald@internet.de> References: <1317820231.766363.316187131.155057.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <4E8C5B61.3000407@filoo.de> <003301cc8367$e49d3580$add7a080$@fitzgerald@internet.de> Message-ID: >> On the contrary: Those who use up large portions of the address space >> should damn well pay large portions of the NCC's bills. > I'm with you. I agree, too. This is actually part of my proposal for fee calculation, which is also philosophically aligned to the "wiwi proposal" which was well received and discussed not long ago. Looking back, I see a broad feeling towards "the bigger the use (of resorces), the higher the fee". I merely proposed a simple mathemathical formula to take all the relevant parameters into account. I am happy with any practical approach that implements this idea. -- Alfredo Sola ASP5-RIPE http://www.solucionesdinamicas.net/ From info at leadertelecom.ru Wed Oct 5 16:28:14 2011 From: info at leadertelecom.ru (LeaderTelecom Ltd.) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 18:28:14 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2011100501001172] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments In-Reply-To: References: <4E8870CF.4070702@speednic.eu> <20111002173956.GW72014@Space.Net> <4E88B29C.4060207@speednic.eu> <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20111003112228.00c36948@efes.iucc.ac.il> <1317645515.981585.606389867.154645.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <4E89C077.9030100@intl-alliance.com> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DE@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <20111004202843.GA65575@cilantro.c4inet.net> <4E8B734D.6060002@filoo.de> <20111004211017.GC65575@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <1317824894.281075.576489284.155059.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Dear Jon, > Saving 2-3% isn't going to cut it really .. so cutting training completely > wouldn't help - and I think that would also be an exceptionally bad idea. Please use real numbers from budget. Expenditure: Meeting + Courses = 857 + 383 + 263 = 1503 kEUR Income: 250 kEUR Total Expenditure: 1253 kEUR. Service Fees: 17,191 We can save: 7,3% ( or? 1253 kEUR. ) About free courses. Yes, we had free courses all time, but we changed Sign-up Fee. Lets look RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2011: [1]http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-499 Minimal Sign-up fee was 2000 euro. Minimal annual fee was 1,300 + 50 per independent resource assignment It was enough for free courses, meetings, etc. Let's lookRIPE NCC Proposed Charging Scheme 2012: [2]http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/november-2011/ripe-ncc-proposed-charging-scheme-2012 Minimal Sign-up Fee is 250 euro. Minimal Annual Fee is 250 euro. New LIR will pay only 500 euro. Now we can check cost of Meeting: [3]http://ripe63.ripe.net/registration/how-much-does-it-cost/ The regular meeting fee is EUR 400. However, you can get a EUR 50 discount if you register and pay by Friday, 28 October at 15:00 UTC. Wow! Great! RIPE will receive 500 euro from LIR and expenses for Meeting will be 400euro per person. Is It Logical? I have the same questions about RIPE developing activity. May be we can optimize expenses for developing services. May be not. Very simple stop developing, but it is very difficult to continue it later. Developing Services is similar startup activity. May be better to make this activity as another startup company. -- Alexey S Ivanov General Director LeaderTelecom Ltd [1] http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-499 [2] http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/november-2011/ripe-ncc-proposed-charging-scheme-2012 [3] http://ripe63.ripe.net/registration/how-much-does-it-cost/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From m.klaver at luna.nl Wed Oct 5 16:43:09 2011 From: m.klaver at luna.nl (Michiel Klaver) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 14:43:09 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2011100501001154] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments In-Reply-To: <4E8C5B61.3000407@filoo.de> Message-ID: Hi Christopher, Looking at the current (and past) charging fees, only 1% of all registered LIRs are category extra large, and they already pay 'peanuts' compared to their size: 5750 euro, not even the double of a medium size category LIR (2750 euro). I doubt those extra large companies would pay considerably less with this proposed scheme, as most of them have numerous registered objects. Just run an inverse lookup at the RIPE database for some of maintainer objects of the extra large category members to see big amounts of inetnum objects as result. https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-499 Some arguments in favour for this new scheme would be: - Ease of administration (and less costs for NCC); - Fair and transparent for every LIR, without complicated formula like the current scheme; - Future proof, not based on ipv4 address count; Please take a look at the current numbers or wait for the proper calculations before jumping to conclusions about this proposal. With kind regards, Michiel Klaver At Wed, 5 Oct 2011 15:28:01 +0200, "Christopher Kunz (Filoo GmbH)" wrote: Err... Great idea... or is it? Really, cui bono? This scheme has been proposed numerous times, IIRC even in this very discussion. In my perception, Small LIRs will not really profit from it, as they typically have a small network (1 or 2 allocations, 1 ASN, X-SMALL category). They'll pay roughly the same because the annual membership fee will have to be adjusted to account for the losses accrued by your idea. Medium LIRs might pay slightly less, I guess... There's probably a sweet spot somewhere (and I'll assume you calculated it so you're in it ;) ). Big LIRs however, with their multiple 12's, large AS sets and network allocations would probably pay drastically less than before. This would shift the weight off those who massively profit from the resources administrated by RIPE NCC onto those who take up less resources. I don't consider this to be very fair. On the contrary: Those who use up large portions of the address space should damn well pay large portions of the NCC's bills. In addition, charging per resource allocation, be it one address or 65K, looks like "per address" charging to the tax authorities. And this is specifically what RIPE is looking to avoid. Gru?, --ck PS: To the colleagues at Telekom and PrivateLayer: GET YOUR DAMN TICKET SYSTEMS OFF THIS LIST! From alfredo at solucionesdinamicas.net Wed Oct 5 16:59:18 2011 From: alfredo at solucionesdinamicas.net (Alfredo Sola) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 16:59:18 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [#17618] Re: [Ticket#2011100501001154] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0732B2B5-8715-4F9D-822E-24BDD445CDF6@solucionesdinamicas.net> > Dear Valued Private Layer Customer, I am not a private layer customer. You have sent to your ticketing system an e-mail address which you previously subscribed to a mailing list. Is your company managed by lawyers by any chance? -- Alfredo Sola ASP5-RIPE http://www.solucionesdinamicas.net/ From sven at cb3rob.net Wed Oct 5 17:04:33 2011 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 15:04:33 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2011100501001154] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: those "big amounts of inetnum objects" however are usually subnets of /16 , /15, /14 or even /8's so that won't change -much-. its not like they have significantly more objects, its just that they have larger ones. i'd say, like erik bais, flat-fee, and forget about this overhead. (oh and get rid of policy 2007-01 as a LIR is -supposed to be- an office that hands out ip space (registers pi for its customers)... policy 2007-01 is a pain in the butt ;) i'm more for scrapping the concept of PA space than for making it difficult to get PI for your customers. and "omg ipv4 will run out".. well ipv4 runs out anyway. lets get it over with. -- Greetings, Sven Olaf Kamphuis, CB3ROB Enterprises Ltc. ========================================================================= Address: One CyberBunker Avenue Registration: RCB00A3LE CB-10000 CyberBunker-1 Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 Republic-CyberBunker GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE e-Mail: sven at cb3rob.net ========================================================================= http://www.facebook.com/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 Wed, 5 Oct 2011, Michiel Klaver wrote: > Hi Christopher, > > Looking at the current (and past) charging fees, only 1% of all registered > LIRs are category extra large, and they already pay 'peanuts' compared to > their size: 5750 euro, not even the double of a medium size category LIR > (2750 euro). I doubt those extra large companies would pay considerably > less with this proposed scheme, as most of them have numerous registered > objects. Just run an inverse lookup at the RIPE database for some of > maintainer objects of the extra large category members to see big amounts > of inetnum objects as result. > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-499 > > Some arguments in favour for this new scheme would be: > - Ease of administration (and less costs for NCC); > - Fair and transparent for every LIR, without complicated formula like the > current scheme; > - Future proof, not based on ipv4 address count; > > > Please take a look at the current numbers or wait for the proper > calculations before jumping to conclusions about this proposal. > > > With kind regards, > Michiel Klaver > > > > At Wed, 5 Oct 2011 15:28:01 +0200, "Christopher Kunz (Filoo GmbH)" > wrote: > > Err... Great idea... or is it? Really, cui bono? > > This scheme has been proposed numerous times, IIRC even in this very > discussion. In my perception, Small LIRs will not really profit from it, > as they typically have a small network (1 or 2 allocations, 1 ASN, > X-SMALL category). They'll pay roughly the same because the annual > membership fee will have to be adjusted to account for the losses > accrued by your idea. > Medium LIRs might pay slightly less, I guess... There's probably a sweet > spot somewhere (and I'll assume you calculated it so you're in it ;) ). > Big LIRs however, with their multiple 12's, large AS sets and network > allocations would probably pay drastically less than before. This would > shift the weight off those who massively profit from the resources > administrated by RIPE NCC onto those who take up less resources. I don't > consider this to be very fair. > On the contrary: Those who use up large portions of the address space > should damn well pay large portions of the NCC's bills. > > In addition, charging per resource allocation, be it one address or 65K, > looks like "per address" charging to the tax authorities. And this is > specifically what RIPE is looking to avoid. > > Gru?, > > --ck > > PS: To the colleagues at Telekom and PrivateLayer: GET YOUR DAMN TICKET > SYSTEMS OFF THIS LIST! > > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. > From chris at filoo.de Wed Oct 5 17:18:05 2011 From: chris at filoo.de (Christopher Kunz (Filoo GmbH)) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 17:18:05 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2011100501001154] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E8C752D.3070208@filoo.de> Hi, let's keep aside the fact that charging per allocation ("per address") or similar measures seems to be a big problem, tax-wise. Let's look at your points: > Some arguments in favour for this new scheme would be: > - Ease of administration (and less costs for NCC); RIPE still need to keep track of every single assignment that's currently in use by a LIR. You still need this data as a basis for annual membership fee calculation. The only difference is a slightly easier algorithm (= changing 1 line of code) for that calculation. So how is your approach any easier for the NCC? > - Fair and transparent for every LIR, without complicated formula like the > current scheme; Same as above. I don't think transparency is improved by charging LIRs per allocation. The current calculation scheme is simple math. Not very convincing for me. > - Future proof, not based on ipv4 address count; I consider this point outright invalid and I'll gladly tell you why. As multiple postings have stated in this thread before: IPv4 is not going to go away. On the contrary: You'll see a lively trade of IPv4 address blocks in the next years - facilitated by the RIRs. There won't be any new IPv4 allocations due to depletion soon, but does that mean that RIPE NCC will stop charging everyone for their IPv4 allocations in 2012? No, it doesn't. We're not talking about the 2020 charging plan here, we're talking about _next year_! IMHO the only valid point in favor of your model, really, is the fact that the X-LARGE LIRs will also tend to have large numbers of resources in use (as opposed to few, but large allocations). I haven't looked that up and I'd love to see some figures. Maybe you can whip up some for one small, one medium, and one large LIR? Gru?, --ck -- Filoo GmbH Christopher Kunz, Gesch?ftsf?hrer Web: http://www.filoo.de/ E-Mail: chris at filoo.de Tel.: (+49) 0 52 48 / 1 89 84 -11 Fax: (+49) 0 52 48 / 1 89 84 -20 Please sign & encrypt mail wherever possible, my key: C882 8ED1 7DD1 9011 C088 EA50 5CFA 2EEB 397A CAC1 [Achtung, neue Firmenadresse!] Moltkestra?e 25a 33330 G?tersloh HRB4355, AG G?tersloh Gesch?ftsf?hrer: S.Grewing, J.Rehp?hler, C.Kunz Folgen Sie uns auf Twitter: http://twitter.com/filoogmbh From ripe-lir at speednic.eu Wed Oct 5 17:19:24 2011 From: ripe-lir at speednic.eu (SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 12:19:24 -0300 Subject: [members-discuss] budget 2012 In-Reply-To: <20111005122359.GM72014@Space.Net> References: <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20111003112228.00c36948@efes.iucc.ac.il> <1317645515.981585.606389867.154645.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <4E89C077.9030100@intl-alliance.com> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DE@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <20111004202843.GA65575@cilantro.c4inet.net> <4E8B734D.6060002@filoo.de> <20111004211017.GC65575@cilantro.c4inet.net> <20111005122359.GM72014@Space.Net> Message-ID: <4E8C757C.3040306@speednic.eu> Hi all, now the budget 2012 is online on RIPE website :) The incoming fee will be higher as I have calculated with 19M EUR. But why there are no more any "End User Fees" Incoming for 2012 ?? All will be billed through LIR's ?? I don't think that this will be true ;) One big point is that the personnel expenses will growing up by 6,3% !?!?! I don't guess that each one will get more money at this amount. But why we need that high increase - more personnel maybe - but why ?? The work at RIPE will be the same as before without needing more personnel because LIR can be waiting without problem like one day longer for some requests too - isn't it ? General Operating Expenses +10,8% ??? It is a joke not ? Best regards, Alexander Schoberl SPEEDNIC S.R.L. From mike at theinternet.org.uk Wed Oct 5 17:33:07 2011 From: mike at theinternet.org.uk (Mike Hollowell) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 16:33:07 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2011100501001154] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1317828787.7079.65.camel@wsk1-lm> I have always defending RIPE in discussions with interested parties, but I am not so sure any longer. One question, regardless of the level of spending, why is an LIR with 1 ASN and a /19 (standard allocation in '98) moving from the small to medium category? I should think that there are a fair few members in this situation, we train in house and haven't been to a meeting since '99 and only interact with RIPE robots. Looking at the proposed SSA and T&C's http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/november-2011/documents/proposed-changes-to-the-ripe-ncc-standard-service-agreement-and-the-ripe-ncc-standard-terms-and-conditions (RIPE admin, the document title is incorrectly labelled Articles of Association). The rising costs are probably going to be due to an intention to audit members, bad data will be a reason to cancel membership, with a sign up fee being applied for regaining membership.(6.3)(9.4i) A new article stating resources are not assets will stop trading, the above will reclaim unused resources, despite all the work needed to re-aggregate your network (the big legacy blocks accepted again, of course).(10.2) If you forget your invoice, no notice, but after 30 days your membership can be taken away with a sign up fee to re-instate.(5.3) There seems to be a fracture between what the membership wants and what the organisation are planning. Thanks for you time Mike On Wed, 2011-10-05 at 14:43 +0000, Michiel Klaver wrote: > Hi Christopher, > > Looking at the current (and past) charging fees, only 1% of all registered > LIRs are category extra large, and they already pay 'peanuts' compared to > their size: 5750 euro, not even the double of a medium size category LIR > (2750 euro). I doubt those extra large companies would pay considerably > less with this proposed scheme, as most of them have numerous registered > objects. Just run an inverse lookup at the RIPE database for some of > maintainer objects of the extra large category members to see big amounts > of inetnum objects as result. > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-499 > > Some arguments in favour for this new scheme would be: > - Ease of administration (and less costs for NCC); > - Fair and transparent for every LIR, without complicated formula like the > current scheme; > - Future proof, not based on ipv4 address count; > > > Please take a look at the current numbers or wait for the proper > calculations before jumping to conclusions about this proposal. > > > With kind regards, > Michiel Klaver > > > > At Wed, 5 Oct 2011 15:28:01 +0200, "Christopher Kunz (Filoo GmbH)" > wrote: > > Err... Great idea... or is it? Really, cui bono? > > This scheme has been proposed numerous times, IIRC even in this very > discussion. In my perception, Small LIRs will not really profit from it, > as they typically have a small network (1 or 2 allocations, 1 ASN, > X-SMALL category). They'll pay roughly the same because the annual > membership fee will have to be adjusted to account for the losses > accrued by your idea. > Medium LIRs might pay slightly less, I guess... There's probably a sweet > spot somewhere (and I'll assume you calculated it so you're in it ;) ). > Big LIRs however, with their multiple 12's, large AS sets and network > allocations would probably pay drastically less than before. This would > shift the weight off those who massively profit from the resources > administrated by RIPE NCC onto those who take up less resources. I don't > consider this to be very fair. > On the contrary: Those who use up large portions of the address space > should damn well pay large portions of the NCC's bills. > > In addition, charging per resource allocation, be it one address or 65K, > looks like "per address" charging to the tax authorities. And this is > specifically what RIPE is looking to avoid. > > Gru?, > > --ck > > PS: To the colleagues at Telekom and PrivateLayer: GET YOUR DAMN TICKET > SYSTEMS OFF THIS LIST! > > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. -- Mike Hollowell Arrowhead Systems Ltd http://www.theinternet.org.uk tel: +44 1782 747044 fax: +44 1782 410734 Arrowhead Systems Limited: A company registered in England and Wales, company number 02694760 Reg'd Office: 5 The Villas, Stoke-On-Trent, Staffordshire. ST4 5AQ. UK From brandon at rd.bbc.co.uk Wed Oct 5 18:10:21 2011 From: brandon at rd.bbc.co.uk (Brandon Butterworth) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 17:10:21 +0100 (BST) Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2011100501001154] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments Message-ID: <201110051610.RAA08319@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> > If you forget your invoice, no notice, but after 30 days your membership > can be taken away with a sign up fee to re-instate.(5.3) ORLY. It always takes a while to get these invoices paid (corporation with limited supplier list requiring an exception order that as there's only one invoice per year is starting again from fresh each time, and it's international payment to confuse matters). This is a crazy plan, unless you need the re-instate income. I, like many others I suspect, don't have time to pay attention to the details of RIPE operation and trust them and the members approving on my behalf to do the right thing. As with the PI end user contracts it seems that is an unsafe trust. I always saw RIPE as the sane version of ARIN, please no extra crazy. brandon From m.klaver at luna.nl Wed Oct 5 17:22:06 2011 From: m.klaver at luna.nl (Michiel Klaver) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 15:22:06 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2011100501001154] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Sven, This idea is just an expansion of Erik Bais' flat-fee proposal, a flat fee for all members plus an extra fee per registered object. This would fulfill NCC's wish to lower the costs for small LIRs who have only a few objects. As side effect it could slow-down those LIRs who 'give away' a PI /24 for each colo rack they sell. Registering large amounts of small objects then won't be profitable anymore. And it could accelerate the adoption of ipv6, as it mostly requires just 1 object. With kind regards, Michiel Klaver At Wed, 5 Oct 2011 15:04:33 +0000, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: > those "big amounts of inetnum objects" however are usually subnets of > /16 , /15, /14 or even /8's so that won't change -much-. > > its not like they have significantly more objects, its just that they >have > larger ones. > > i'd say, like erik bais, flat-fee, and forget about this overhead. > > (oh and get rid of policy 2007-01 as a LIR is -supposed to be- an office > that hands out ip space (registers pi for its customers)... policy >2007-01 > is a pain in the butt ;) > > i'm more for scrapping the concept of PA space than for making it > difficult to get PI for your customers. > > and "omg ipv4 will run out".. well ipv4 runs out anyway. > lets get it over with. From hank at efes.iucc.ac.il Thu Oct 6 09:30:32 2011 From: hank at efes.iucc.ac.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 09:30:32 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] budget 2012 In-Reply-To: <4E8C757C.3040306@speednic.eu> References: <20111005122359.GM72014@Space.Net> <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20111003112228.00c36948@efes.iucc.ac.il> <1317645515.981585.606389867.154645.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <4E89C077.9030100@intl-alliance.com> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DE@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <20111004202843.GA65575@cilantro.c4inet.net> <4E8B734D.6060002@filoo.de> <20111004211017.GC65575@cilantro.c4inet.net> <20111005122359.GM72014@Space.Net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20111006092806.036fda20@efes.iucc.ac.il> At 12:19 05/10/2011 -0300, SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling wrote: >One big point is that the personnel expenses will growing up by 6,3% >!?!?! I don't guess that each one will get more money at this amount. >But why we need that high increase - more personnel maybe - but why ?? >The work at RIPE will be the same as before without needing more >personnel because LIR can be waiting without problem like one day longer >for some requests too - isn't it ? > >General Operating Expenses +10,8% ??? It is a joke not ? Ask yourself, why no one from RIPE has over the past week added to the discussion here with the reasons and justifications for why they need to increase their budget. -Hank >Best regards, > Alexander Schoberl > SPEEDNIC S.R.L. From jj at streamnetworks.lv Thu Oct 6 09:37:46 2011 From: jj at streamnetworks.lv (=?UTF-8?B?SsSBbmlzIEphdW5vxaHEgW5z?=) Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 10:37:46 +0300 Subject: [members-discuss] budget 2012 In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20111006092806.036fda20@efes.iucc.ac.il> References: <20111005122359.GM72014@Space.Net> <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20111003112228.00c36948@efes.iucc.ac.il> <1317645515.981585.606389867.154645.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <4E89C077.9030100@intl-alliance.com> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DE@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <20111004202843.GA65575@cilantro.c4inet.net> <4E8B734D.6060002@filoo.de> <20111004211017.GC65575@cilantro.c4inet.net> <20111005122359.GM72014@Space.Net> <5.1.0.14.2.20111006092806.036fda20@efes.iucc.ac.il> Message-ID: <4E8D5ACA.8020206@streamnetworks.lv> good point, sir. :) On 10/6/11 10:30 , Hank Nussbacher wrote: > At 12:19 05/10/2011 -0300, SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling wrote: >> One big point is that the personnel expenses will growing up by 6,3% >> !?!?! I don't guess that each one will get more money at this amount. >> But why we need that high increase - more personnel maybe - but why ?? >> The work at RIPE will be the same as before without needing more >> personnel because LIR can be waiting without problem like one day longer >> for some requests too - isn't it ? >> >> General Operating Expenses +10,8% ??? It is a joke not ? > Ask yourself, why no one from RIPE has over the past week added to the > discussion here with the reasons and justifications for why they need to > increase their budget. > > -Hank > > >> Best regards, >> Alexander Schoberl >> SPEEDNIC S.R.L. > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From hank at efes.iucc.ac.il Thu Oct 6 10:59:45 2011 From: hank at efes.iucc.ac.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 10:59:45 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Fwd: Re: budget 2012 Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20111006105422.03675420@efes.iucc.ac.il> > >At 12:19 05/10/2011 -0300, SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling wrote: >>One big point is that the personnel expenses will growing up by 6,3% >>!?!?! I don't guess that each one will get more money at this amount. >>But why we need that high increase - more personnel maybe - but why ?? >>The work at RIPE will be the same as before without needing more >>personnel because LIR can be waiting without problem like one day longer >>for some requests too - isn't it ? >> >>General Operating Expenses +10,8% ??? It is a joke not ? > >Ask yourself, why no one from RIPE has over the past week added to the >discussion here with the reasons and justifications for why they need to >increase their budget. > >-Hank > > >>Best regards, >> Alexander Schoberl >> SPEEDNIC S.R.L. Also note that the 9% increased budget is not up for voting. The only thing up for voting is the charging scheme. The 19MEuro budget is fait accompli. -Hank From s.wiese at trabia.net Thu Oct 6 11:04:06 2011 From: s.wiese at trabia.net (Sven Wiese) Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 12:04:06 +0300 Subject: [members-discuss] Yet Another Proposal for the Charging Scheme 2012 Message-ID: <4E8D6F06.3090701@trabia.net> Hiya @everyone, I hope I didn't miss any of the last 108 E-Mails came through the mailing list these days. The current issues are concerning the charging scheme and the budget. Regarding the charging scheme, as I understood the RIPE NCC was interested in a "per IP" billing base, but this can't be done easily without risk due to tax issues. I hope no one proposed it yet and I didn't see it, so I don't bother people with my email now having a already existing proposal ;) In my opinion, the most fair solution for everyone would be if the RIPE removes the category based charging scheme and makes one member fee for everyone. Something like 500 EUR. Then there are no tax issues anymore, because RIPE takes a membership fee, so it has members. Additionally to this 500 EUR "base fee", every resource will be billed additionally, like currently with the IPv4-PI. I think that would solve all problems and we get our fair "per IP (resource)" billing. Something like: ASN = 50 EUR IPv4-PI /24 = 50 EUR IPv4-PI /23 = 100 EUR IPv4-PI /22 = 200 EUR IPv4-PI /21 = 400 EUR IPv4-PI /20 = 800 EUR [...] IPv4 alloc /22 = 50 EUR IPv4 alloc /21 = 100 EUR IPv4 alloc /20 = 200 EUR IPv4 alloc /19 = 400 EUR IPv4 alloc /18 = 800 EUR IPv4 alloc /17 = 1.600 EUR [...] IPv6 alloc /32 = 100 EUR [...] So, a LIR with a /17 IPv4 alloc, a /32 IPv6 alloc, a ASN and a /24 PI for his customer will pay 2.200 EUR. 500 EUR membership base fee + 1.600 EUR /17 alloc + 50 EUR ASN + 50 EUR /24 IPv4-PI. I just wrote some numbers down, without actually calculating a real price per allocation. The real prices have to be calculated based on the budget. But in my opinion this is the most fair way to bill its members. So everyone gets billed for the resources the he/she uses. Our own category wouldn't actually change with the proposal from RIPE, but still I'm concerned regarding our community. Cheers, Sven -- Sven Wiese CEO I.C.S. "Trabia-Network" S.R.L. [t] +373 (22) 844-844 [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 alfredo at solucionesdinamicas.net Thu Oct 6 11:33:22 2011 From: alfredo at solucionesdinamicas.net (Alfredo Sola) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 11:33:22 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Yet Another Proposal for the Charging Scheme 2012 In-Reply-To: <4E8D6F06.3090701@trabia.net> References: <4E8D6F06.3090701@trabia.net> Message-ID: > Regarding the charging scheme, as I understood the RIPE NCC was interested in a "per IP" > billing base, but this can't be done easily without risk due to tax issues. What tax issues are those? -- Alfredo Sola ASP5-RIPE http://www.solucionesdinamicas.net/ From s.wiese at trabia.net Thu Oct 6 11:38:18 2011 From: s.wiese at trabia.net (Sven Wiese) Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 12:38:18 +0300 Subject: [members-discuss] Yet Another Proposal for the Charging Scheme 2012 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E8D770A.7060006@trabia.net> On 06.10.2011 12:34 , Michiel Klaver wrote: > So, you first suggest a basic member fee to avoid billing per IP, but > then you move to a scheme where you actually suggest fees per block of > IP addresses. Tell me, how is this not billing per ip? It still looks > like RIPE will be 'selling' amounts of IP addresses, grouped in > blocks. And selling 'products' has to be taxed. As Nigel wrote, the issues is that the RIPE NCC need to have *Members* to keep its status within the tax authorities. It's the *exact* same model as we have already with IPv4-PI. You pay your category fee and additional per each IPv4-PI resource. With my proposal we would have all the same category and also get billed for each PA resource. Cheers, Sven -- Sven Wiese CEO I.C.S. "Trabia-Network" S.R.L. [t] +373 (22) 844-844 [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 s.wiese at trabia.net Thu Oct 6 11:40:26 2011 From: s.wiese at trabia.net (Sven Wiese) Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 12:40:26 +0300 Subject: [members-discuss] Yet Another Proposal for the Charging Scheme 2012 In-Reply-To: References: <4E8D6F06.3090701@trabia.net> Message-ID: <4E8D778A.7070907@trabia.net> On 06.10.2011 12:33 , Alfredo Sola wrote: >> Regarding the charging scheme, as I understood the RIPE NCC was interested in a "per IP" >> billing base, but this can't be done easily without risk due to tax issues. > What tax issues are those? As Nigel wrote in his E-Mail from September 30th, there is an issue with "having Members" and "Bill per IP". From kaa at net-art.cz Thu Oct 6 11:39:41 2011 From: kaa at net-art.cz (sergey myasoedov) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 11:39:41 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Yet Another Proposal for the Charging Scheme 2012 In-Reply-To: References: <4E8D6F06.3090701@trabia.net> Message-ID: <147260565.20111006113941@net-art.cz> Due to legal form (non-profit), RIPE NCC made some tricks to avoid corporate tax. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_tax_in_the_Netherlands Did the financial department perform the tax predictions in case of applicable corporate tax? You wrote Thursday, October 6, 2011, 11:33:22 AM: >> Regarding the charging scheme, as I understood the RIPE NCC was interested in a "per IP" >> billing base, but this can't be done easily without risk due to tax issues. > What tax issues are those? -- Kind regards, sergey myasoedov From ripe-lir at speednic.eu Thu Oct 6 14:04:53 2011 From: ripe-lir at speednic.eu (SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling) Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 09:04:53 -0300 Subject: [members-discuss] Fwd: Re: budget 2012 In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20111006105422.03675420@efes.iucc.ac.il> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20111006105422.03675420@efes.iucc.ac.il> Message-ID: <4E8D9965.80602@speednic.eu> Am 06.10.2011 05:59, schrieb Hank Nussbacher: > >> >> At 12:19 05/10/2011 -0300, SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling wrote: >>> One big point is that the personnel expenses will growing up by 6,3% >>> !?!?! I don't guess that each one will get more money at this amount. >>> But why we need that high increase - more personnel maybe - but why ?? >>> The work at RIPE will be the same as before without needing more >>> personnel because LIR can be waiting without problem like one day longer >>> for some requests too - isn't it ? >>> >>> General Operating Expenses +10,8% ??? It is a joke not ? >> >> Ask yourself, why no one from RIPE has over the past week added to the >> discussion here with the reasons and justifications for why they need to >> increase their budget. >> >> -Hank >> >> >>> Best regards, >>> Alexander Schoberl >>> SPEEDNIC S.R.L. > > Also note that the 9% increased budget is not up for voting. The only > thing up for voting is the charging scheme. The 19MEuro budget is fait > accompli. I don't guess that you don't know that the increased budget is an effect that the charging scheme/fees will increase too ?? Otherwise take a look to the budget over the last years. As some told after 2008 the budget goint to the moon instead of before - special the personnel costs which will make the big point in the budget. Best regards, Alexander Schoberl SPEEDNIC S.R.L. > > -Hank > > > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From jon at fido.net Thu Oct 6 14:20:32 2011 From: jon at fido.net (Jon Morby) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 12:20:32 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] Fwd: Re: budget 2012 In-Reply-To: <4E8D9965.80602@speednic.eu> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20111006105422.03675420@efes.iucc.ac.il> <4E8D9965.80602@speednic.eu> Message-ID: <4422511B-91CA-4791-936E-F73DC562C629@fido.net> The more I hear on the this (and the less I hear from RIPE themselves), the more I think that something is wrong at the heart of RIPE :( I have sadly sat on the sidelines (as have many I think) expecting / trusting RIPE and the members with the resources available to attend the meetings and focus on the regs and do the right thing. Sadly it seems that with both this budget and also 2007-01 my faith and trust has been misplaced :( The question is, without spending a fortune we don't have as a company to send people to Vienna, how do we address this and stop the moon shot before it gets really out of control? Also how do we take 2007-01 and abandon it??? Jon On 6 Oct 2011, at 13:04, SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling wrote: > Am 06.10.2011 05:59, schrieb Hank Nussbacher: >> >>> >>> At 12:19 05/10/2011 -0300, SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling wrote: >>>> One big point is that the personnel expenses will growing up by 6,3% >>>> !?!?! I don't guess that each one will get more money at this amount. >>>> But why we need that high increase - more personnel maybe - but why ?? >>>> The work at RIPE will be the same as before without needing more >>>> personnel because LIR can be waiting without problem like one day longer >>>> for some requests too - isn't it ? >>>> >>>> General Operating Expenses +10,8% ??? It is a joke not ? >>> >>> Ask yourself, why no one from RIPE has over the past week added to the >>> discussion here with the reasons and justifications for why they need to >>> increase their budget. >>> >>> -Hank >>> >>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> Alexander Schoberl >>>> SPEEDNIC S.R.L. >> >> Also note that the 9% increased budget is not up for voting. The only >> thing up for voting is the charging scheme. The 19MEuro budget is fait >> accompli. > > I don't guess that you don't know that the increased budget is an effect > that the charging scheme/fees will increase too ?? > > Otherwise take a look to the budget over the last years. As some told > after 2008 the budget goint to the moon instead of before - special the > personnel costs which will make the big point in the budget. > > Best regards, > Alexander Schoberl > SPEEDNIC S.R.L. > >> >> -Hank >> >> >> >> ---- >> If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss >> mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: >> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view >> >> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. > > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From lists-ripe at c4inet.net Thu Oct 6 14:31:37 2011 From: lists-ripe at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 12:31:37 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] Fwd: Re: budget 2012 In-Reply-To: <4422511B-91CA-4791-936E-F73DC562C629@fido.net> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20111006105422.03675420@efes.iucc.ac.il> <4E8D9965.80602@speednic.eu> <4422511B-91CA-4791-936E-F73DC562C629@fido.net> Message-ID: <20111006123137.GA75778@cilantro.c4inet.net> On Thu, Oct 06, 2011 at 12:20:32PM +0000, Jon Morby wrote: >Also how do we take 2007-01 and abandon it??? That one's easy. Generate a proposal to do away with 2007-01 and see whether it finds consensus. As for the corporate governance, at this AGM the resolutions are open to electronic voting, so no physical presence required. cheers, Sascha Luck From gert at space.net Thu Oct 6 15:54:18 2011 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 15:54:18 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Fwd: Re: budget 2012 In-Reply-To: <4422511B-91CA-4791-936E-F73DC562C629@fido.net> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20111006105422.03675420@efes.iucc.ac.il> <4E8D9965.80602@speednic.eu> <4422511B-91CA-4791-936E-F73DC562C629@fido.net> Message-ID: <20111006135418.GA72014@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Oct 06, 2011 at 12:20:32PM +0000, Jon Morby wrote: > Also how do we take 2007-01 and abandon it??? We don't. 2007-01 is working exactly as designed: it stops carelessness with valuable resources. It puts a name and a contract on a resource allocation, so that mis-use and waste can be stopped. I am well aware that people do not like *responsibility*, but that's exactly what 2007-01 is about. (If you want to get it removed, follow the RIPE policy development process - bring up a proposal what to change, and get community consensus that this is indeed the change that the community wants) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 From ripe-lir at speednic.eu Thu Oct 6 15:58:32 2011 From: ripe-lir at speednic.eu (SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling) Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 10:58:32 -0300 Subject: [members-discuss] Fwd: Re: budget 2012 In-Reply-To: <4422511B-91CA-4791-936E-F73DC562C629@fido.net> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20111006105422.03675420@efes.iucc.ac.il> <4E8D9965.80602@speednic.eu> <4422511B-91CA-4791-936E-F73DC562C629@fido.net> Message-ID: <4E8DB408.2050702@speednic.eu> Am 06.10.2011 09:20, schrieb Jon Morby: > The more I hear on the this (and the less I hear from RIPE themselves), the more I think that something is wrong at the heart of RIPE :( > > I have sadly sat on the sidelines (as have many I think) expecting / trusting RIPE and the members with the resources available to attend the meetings and focus on the regs and do the right thing. I guess a trust should be - as pointed to RIPE - that they will declare how much people will work for RIPE NCC and in which loan category they are declared because I guess that the "normal NCC worker" don't get an increase of 6% like each year - for me it is more that some "manager" will get much more cash. If it isn't true RIPE can declare the loan scheme to THEIR MEMBERS because we have a right to know that !!! > > Sadly it seems that with both this budget and also 2007-01 my faith and trust has been misplaced :( 100% agree - in my mind too if I will take a look to the old budget/balances ;( > > The question is, without spending a fortune we don't have as a company to send people to Vienna, how do we address this and stop the moon shot before it gets really out of control? electronic voting is the key to stop that :) > > Also how do we take 2007-01 and abandon it??? don't know. There are some stuff that don't work well @ RIPE NCC like the PI-IPv6 policy. Best regards, Alexander Schoberl SPEEDNIC S.R.L. > > Jon > > On 6 Oct 2011, at 13:04, SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling wrote: > >> Am 06.10.2011 05:59, schrieb Hank Nussbacher: >>> >>>> >>>> At 12:19 05/10/2011 -0300, SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling wrote: >>>>> One big point is that the personnel expenses will growing up by 6,3% >>>>> !?!?! I don't guess that each one will get more money at this amount. >>>>> But why we need that high increase - more personnel maybe - but why ?? >>>>> The work at RIPE will be the same as before without needing more >>>>> personnel because LIR can be waiting without problem like one day longer >>>>> for some requests too - isn't it ? >>>>> >>>>> General Operating Expenses +10,8% ??? It is a joke not ? >>>> >>>> Ask yourself, why no one from RIPE has over the past week added to the >>>> discussion here with the reasons and justifications for why they need to >>>> increase their budget. >>>> >>>> -Hank >>>> >>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Alexander Schoberl >>>>> SPEEDNIC S.R.L. >>> >>> Also note that the 9% increased budget is not up for voting. The only >>> thing up for voting is the charging scheme. The 19MEuro budget is fait >>> accompli. >> >> I don't guess that you don't know that the increased budget is an effect >> that the charging scheme/fees will increase too ?? >> >> Otherwise take a look to the budget over the last years. As some told >> after 2008 the budget goint to the moon instead of before - special the >> personnel costs which will make the big point in the budget. >> >> Best regards, >> Alexander Schoberl >> SPEEDNIC S.R.L. >> >>> >>> -Hank >>> >>> From axel.pawlik at ripe.net Thu Oct 6 16:46:57 2011 From: axel.pawlik at ripe.net (Axel Pawlik) Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 16:46:57 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Charging Scheme 2011, additional information Message-ID: <4E8DBF61.2070402@ripe.net> Dear all, Thank you all for your valuable feedback and your patience. Please find below some more information and clarification on some of the issues being raised on this mailing list. - Charging scheme The proposed charging scheme for 2012 was drafted after discussion with the membership, as Nigel said earlier. We avoided making any radical changes to the charging scheme as the current tax ruling is favourable. The tax ruling will have to be reviewed if any major change is made. Changing the charging scheme in the way that many of you are suggesting (sliding scale or fees per allocation) will almost certainly lead to the RIPE NCC incurring a corporate tax liability of 25.5% on any surplus and, in the worst case, on the organisation's reserves. - Using IPv4 as an indicator of involvement in Internet operations As we were thinking about fairness in the Charging Scheme, it was clear that a simple scheme in which each member pays the same amount would not be meeting the fairness target, as members of large corporate size are likely to benefit from RIPE NCC services more than the small local ISP - the more and deeply a member is involved in the operations of the Internet, the more it is likely to benefit from our services. In looking for a yardstick to measure "Involvement in the oparations of the Internet", we proposed that IPv4 serve as the basis because it is a known factor. This is fully independent of the impending IPv4 runout, or its technical relevance. See also my mail from August at: http://www.ripe.net/maillists/ncc-archives/members-discuss/2011/msg00174.html - The RIPE NCC budget There have been many opinions expressed about the RIPE NCC's budget and I'd like to add some facts and reasoning to the discussion: The RIPE NCC's budget has varied over the years, decreasing after 2002 for a couple of years and then increasing again since then. The receent increase is due to a continually strong membership growth, an increase in outreach activities across our service region and defending the bottom-up, industry self regulation in response to newly interested stakeholders. Looking at the last 10 years, the average cost per member decreased by more than 7 % from 2001. Measuring against 2005, it has increased again by just over 3 %. - Webinars vs face-to-face training Face to face trainings are extremely valuable for us; we need to engage with you to gather important feedback and to disseminate information. Trainings are also very popular with members, as has been indicated in our membership surveys. Online training also has been offered on our E-learning centre for several years: http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/training/e-learning - Meeting costs There is no large financial benefit from holding meetings in the same city. Spreading meetings across the region is important as some of the community are unable to travel easily and value the occasional closer RIPE meeting. - Budget and personnel costs A large part of the RIPE NCC's budget has always been personnel costs - there's no change there. Even thought we are a not-for-profit organisation, we still need to compete with commercial organisations to ensure that we have competent and experienced staff. We can only do this by offering comparable salary and benefit packages. Over the last couple of years, we've implemented some organisational changes in order to streamline our activities and have focused on attracting high calibre staff to serve our members and the community and to promote and defend our interests in regional and global arenas. - RIR activities The RIPE NCC has its roots in the technical coordination and operation of the Internet. The task of Internet number resource distribution was added later. In addition, we perform many more activities for the RIPE community and for the general well-being of the Internet, including operating the K-root server, operation and maintenance of the RIPE Database and performing Internet measurements. All our activities are outlined in the RIPE NCC Activity Plan: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-506 We strive to gather input and feedback from our members and the RIPE community by regularly surveying the membership and various stakeholder groups. We also use feedback gathered from face-to-face contact during training courses and meetings and your opinions and suggestions are reflected in the activity plan. It is a challenge to strike a balance between continuity of operations and reacting to what our numerous stakeholder groups expect of us and from us - but we are continually listening to what you need. I'm sure you understand that we cannot implement every idea that you bring forward; however I do believe that both RIPE NCC staff as well as the Executive Board have worked particularly hard this year to gather your opinions and ideas, to examine the risks, and to bring forward a Charging Scheme that combines known elements with a set of changes aiming to marry fairness to simplicity. We all look forward very much to see many of you personally at the Vienna RIPE meeting, and also are very excited to see that the ability to use electronic voting on all resolutions in the General Meeting has minimised the threshold for participation. kind regards, Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC From axel.pawlik at ripe.net Fri Oct 7 10:42:37 2011 From: axel.pawlik at ripe.net (Axel Pawlik) Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 10:42:37 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Charging Scheme 2011, additional information In-Reply-To: <4E8DBF61.2070402@ripe.net> References: <4E8DBF61.2070402@ripe.net> Message-ID: <4E8EBB7D.9060202@ripe.net> All, just to inform you that the complete set of documents for the upcoming General Meeting, including Charging Scheme, draft Budget and Activity Plan is available at http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/november-2011/documents/supporting-documents cheers, Axel From nigel at titley.com Mon Oct 10 23:39:10 2011 From: nigel at titley.com (Nigel Titley) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 22:39:10 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] budget 2012 In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20111006092806.036fda20@efes.iucc.ac.il> References: <20111005122359.GM72014@Space.Net> <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20111003112228.00c36948@efes.iucc.ac.il> <1317645515.981585.606389867.154645.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <4E89C077.9030100@intl-alliance.com> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DE@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <20111004202843.GA65575@cilantro.c4inet.net> <4E8B734D.6060002@filoo.de> <20111004211017.GC65575@cilantro.c4inet.net> <20111005122359.GM72014@Space.Net> <5.1.0.14.2.20111006092806.036fda20@efes.iucc.ac.il> Message-ID: <4E9365FE.6090900@titley.com> On 06/10/2011 08:30, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > > Ask yourself, why no one from RIPE has over the past week added to the > discussion here with the reasons and justifications for why they need to > increase their budget. > Well, speaking for myself, I have a day job. It was end of month and I was doing my end of month reporting. I'm now at NANOG with a bit of spare time to read the mailing lists. The board doesn't get paid... don't forget, we do this voluntarily, often in our own time. Nigel From fahad at gccix.net Mon Oct 10 23:50:29 2011 From: fahad at gccix.net (Fahad AlShirawi) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 21:50:29 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] budget 2012 In-Reply-To: <4E9365FE.6090900@titley.com> References: <20111005122359.GM72014@Space.Net> <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20111003112228.00c36948@efes.iucc.ac.il> <1317645515.981585.606389867.154645.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <4E89C077.9030100@intl-alliance.com> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DE@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <20111004202843.GA65575@cilantro.c4inet.net> <4E8B734D.6060002@filoo.de> <20111004211017.GC65575@cilantro.c4inet.net> <20111005122359.GM72014@Space.Net> <5.1.0.14.2.20111006092806.036fda20@efes.iucc.ac.il> <4E9365FE.6090900@titley.com> Message-ID: <452192318-1318283430-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-419742508-@b18.c11.bise7.blackberry> And on my side I am happy to monitor the members' discussion and see what it is the members want and then to bring it up internally. Rest assured Hank that we will consider all concerns where applicable and as much as possible within the constraints we have. Sent via BlackBerry? from GCCIX -----Original Message----- From: Nigel Titley Sender: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 22:39:10 To: Subject: Re: [members-discuss] budget 2012 On 06/10/2011 08:30, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > > Ask yourself, why no one from RIPE has over the past week added to the > discussion here with the reasons and justifications for why they need to > increase their budget. > Well, speaking for myself, I have a day job. It was end of month and I was doing my end of month reporting. I'm now at NANOG with a bit of spare time to read the mailing lists. The board doesn't get paid... don't forget, we do this voluntarily, often in our own time. Nigel ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From nigel at titley.com Tue Oct 11 00:01:17 2011 From: nigel at titley.com (Nigel Titley) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 23:01:17 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] budget 2012 In-Reply-To: <452192318-1318283430-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-419742508-@b18.c11.bise7.blackberry> References: <20111005122359.GM72014@Space.Net> <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20111003112228.00c36948@efes.iucc.ac.il> <1317645515.981585.606389867.154645.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <4E89C077.9030100@intl-alliance.com> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DE@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <20111004202843.GA65575@cilantro.c4inet.net> <4E8B734D.6060002@filoo.de> <20111004211017.GC65575@cilantro.c4inet.net> <20111005122359.GM72014@Space.Net> <5.1.0.14.2.20111006092806.036fda20@efes.iucc.ac.il> <4E9365FE.6090900@titley.com> <452192318-1318283430-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-419742508-@b18.c11.bise7.blackberry> Message-ID: <4E936B2D.9040608@titley.com> On 10/10/2011 22:50, Fahad AlShirawi wrote: > And on my side I am happy to monitor the members' discussion and see what it is the members want and then to bring it up internally. Rest assured Hank that we will consider all concerns where applicable and as much as possible within the constraints we have. Yes, thanks for making this clear, Fahad. As far as I am aware, all members of the board read this list and take notice of what the members want. Our sometimes difficult job is to try and sort out what the membership as a whole wants, rather than just the dozen or so active contributors to the list. Always feel free to send any of us a direct personal question or comment, especially if there is a period of quiet. As I've mentioned before, we all have day jobs which sometimes intrude on our board work. Nigel From fahad at gccix.net Tue Oct 11 00:09:55 2011 From: fahad at gccix.net (Fahad AlShirawi) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 22:09:55 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] budget 2012 In-Reply-To: <4E936B2D.9040608@titley.com> References: <20111005122359.GM72014@Space.Net> <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20111003112228.00c36948@efes.iucc.ac.il> <1317645515.981585.606389867.154645.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <4E89C077.9030100@intl-alliance.com> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DE@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <20111004202843.GA65575@cilantro.c4inet.net> <4E8B734D.6060002@filoo.de> <20111004211017.GC65575@cilantro.c4inet.net> <20111005122359.GM72014@Space.Net> <5.1.0.14.2.20111006092806.036fda20@efes.iucc.ac.il> <4E9365FE.6090900@titley.com> <452192318-1318283430-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-419742508-@b18.c11.bise7.blackberry> <4E936B2D.9040608@titley.com> Message-ID: <2005989260-1318284596-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-938778705-@b18.c11.bise7.blackberry> Truer words have not been spoken. Well summed. Sent via BlackBerry? from GCCIX -----Original Message----- From: Nigel Titley Sender: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 23:01:17 To: Subject: Re: [members-discuss] budget 2012 On 10/10/2011 22:50, Fahad AlShirawi wrote: > And on my side I am happy to monitor the members' discussion and see what it is the members want and then to bring it up internally. Rest assured Hank that we will consider all concerns where applicable and as much as possible within the constraints we have. Yes, thanks for making this clear, Fahad. As far as I am aware, all members of the board read this list and take notice of what the members want. Our sometimes difficult job is to try and sort out what the membership as a whole wants, rather than just the dozen or so active contributors to the list. Always feel free to send any of us a direct personal question or comment, especially if there is a period of quiet. As I've mentioned before, we all have day jobs which sometimes intrude on our board work. Nigel ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From dvburk at gmail.com Tue Oct 11 00:22:55 2011 From: dvburk at gmail.com (Burkov Dmitry) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 02:22:55 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] budget 2012 In-Reply-To: <4E936B2D.9040608@titley.com> References: <20111005122359.GM72014@Space.Net> <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20111003112228.00c36948@efes.iucc.ac.il> <1317645515.981585.606389867.154645.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <4E89C077.9030100@intl-alliance.com> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DE@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <20111004202843.GA65575@cilantro.c4inet.net> <4E8B734D.6060002@filoo.de> <20111004211017.GC65575@cilantro.c4inet.net> <20111005122359.GM72014@Space.Net> <5.1.0.14.2.20111006092806.036fda20@efes.iucc.ac.il> <4E9365FE.6090900@titley.com> <452192318-1318283430-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-419742508-@b18.c11.bise7.blackberry> <4E936B2D.9040608@titley.com> Message-ID: I can only confirm Nigel words. Dima On Oct 11, 2011, at 2:01 AM, Nigel Titley wrote: > On 10/10/2011 22:50, Fahad AlShirawi wrote: >> And on my side I am happy to monitor the members' discussion and see what it is the members want and then to bring it up internally. Rest assured Hank that we will consider all concerns where applicable and as much as possible within the constraints we have. > Yes, thanks for making this clear, Fahad. > > As far as I am aware, all members of the board read this list and take > notice of what the members want. Our sometimes difficult job is to try > and sort out what the membership as a whole wants, rather than just the > dozen or so active contributors to the list. > > Always feel free to send any of us a direct personal question or > comment, especially if there is a period of quiet. As I've mentioned > before, we all have day jobs which sometimes intrude on our board work. > > Nigel > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From ck at minxs.net Tue Oct 11 00:53:37 2011 From: ck at minxs.net (Christian Kaufmann) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 00:53:37 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] budget 2012 In-Reply-To: <4E936B2D.9040608@titley.com> References: <20111005122359.GM72014@Space.Net> <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20111003112228.00c36948@efes.iucc.ac.il> <1317645515.981585.606389867.154645.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <4E89C077.9030100@intl-alliance.com> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DE@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <20111004202843.GA65575@cilantro.c4inet.net> <4E8B734D.6060002@filoo.de> <20111004211017.GC65575@cilantro.c4inet.net> <20111005122359.GM72014@Space.Net> <5.1.0.14.2.20111006092806.036fda20@efes.iucc.ac.il> <4E9365FE.6090900@titley.com> <452192318-1318283430-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-419742508-@b18.c11.bise7.blackberry> <4E936B2D.9040608@titley.com> Message-ID: ...as Nigel and Fahad said, the board is very well paying attention to the list and what the members want. And for the ones who don't want to send an email to the list, feel free to send a direct email to us or even better feel free to talk to us in person at the next RIPE meeting.:-) Best regards, ck On Oct 11, 2011, at 12:01 AM, Nigel Titley wrote: > On 10/10/2011 22:50, Fahad AlShirawi wrote: >> And on my side I am happy to monitor the members' discussion and see what it is the members want and then to bring it up internally. Rest assured Hank that we will consider all concerns where applicable and as much as possible within the constraints we have. > Yes, thanks for making this clear, Fahad. > > As far as I am aware, all members of the board read this list and take > notice of what the members want. Our sometimes difficult job is to try > and sort out what the membership as a whole wants, rather than just the > dozen or so active contributors to the list. > > Always feel free to send any of us a direct personal question or > comment, especially if there is a period of quiet. As I've mentioned > before, we all have day jobs which sometimes intrude on our board work. > > Nigel > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From hank at efes.iucc.ac.il Tue Oct 11 09:10:01 2011 From: hank at efes.iucc.ac.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 09:10:01 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] budget 2012 In-Reply-To: References: <4E936B2D.9040608@titley.com> <20111005122359.GM72014@Space.Net> <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20111003112228.00c36948@efes.iucc.ac.il> <1317645515.981585.606389867.154645.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <4E89C077.9030100@intl-alliance.com> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DE@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <20111004202843.GA65575@cilantro.c4inet.net> <4E8B734D.6060002@filoo.de> <20111004211017.GC65575@cilantro.c4inet.net> <20111005122359.GM72014@Space.Net> <5.1.0.14.2.20111006092806.036fda20@efes.iucc.ac.il> <4E9365FE.6090900@titley.com> <452192318-1318283430-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-419742508-@b18.c11.bise7.blackberry> <4E936B2D.9040608@titley.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20111011090123.00c1d950@efes.iucc.ac.il> At 00:53 11/10/2011 +0200, Christian Kaufmann wrote: >...as Nigel and Fahad said, the board is very well paying attention to the >list and what the members want. >And for the ones who don't want to send an email to the list, feel free to >send a direct email to us or even better feel free to talk to us in person >at the next RIPE meeting.:-) Well I tried. I started with the draft agenda: http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/november-2011/draft-agenda Example extract: >6. Draft RIPE NCC Budget 2012 > >The RIPE NCC Executive Board welcomes any input about the Draft RIPE NCC >Budget 2012 prior to and during the General Meeting November 2011. I was glad to see that the EB welcomes input, but it didn't say "how" to provide that input. So I Googled and found the EB page at: http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/executive-board I didn't find any indidivual emails listed there but did see that it lists the way to contact the EB is via email to Sabine at sam at ripe.net. So I did just that 5 days and sent the following email: >Dear RIPE NCC Executive, > >Why is the budget not being voted upon? Where can an open discussion be >carried to discuss why a 9% budget increase is needed, when everyone is >cutting their budgets 10%? > >Regards, >Hank Nussbacher >il.iucc I still await a response. Perhaps the EB needs to examine itself as to why contacting the 5 members is made so difficult. Regards, Hank >Best regards, > >ck > > > > >On Oct 11, 2011, at 12:01 AM, Nigel Titley wrote: > > > On 10/10/2011 22:50, Fahad AlShirawi wrote: > >> And on my side I am happy to monitor the members' discussion and see > what it is the members want and then to bring it up internally. Rest > assured Hank that we will consider all concerns where applicable and as > much as possible within the constraints we have. > > Yes, thanks for making this clear, Fahad. > > > > As far as I am aware, all members of the board read this list and take > > notice of what the members want. Our sometimes difficult job is to try > > and sort out what the membership as a whole wants, rather than just the > > dozen or so active contributors to the list. > > > > Always feel free to send any of us a direct personal question or > > comment, especially if there is a period of quiet. As I've mentioned > > before, we all have day jobs which sometimes intrude on our board work. > > > > Nigel > > > > ---- > > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the > general page: > > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From > here, you can add or remove addresses. > > >---- >If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss >mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the >general page: >https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > >Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From >here, you can add or remove addresses. ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From maryin at corp.mail.ru Mon Oct 10 20:07:34 2011 From: maryin at corp.mail.ru (Timur Maryin) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 22:07:34 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] JUNOS and 128.0.0.0 martian (JFYI) Message-ID: <4E933466.7020908@corp.mail.ru> Hello! Recently RIPE NCC started to allocate addresses from 128/8 to end users, example: https://apps.db.ripe.net/whois/lookup/ripe/inetnum/128.0.0.0-128.0.7.255.html JunOS software (upto and including 11.1 version) blocks those addresses by default as martians: > show route martians inet.0: 0.0.0.0/0 exact -- allowed 0.0.0.0/8 orlonger -- disallowed 127.0.0.0/8 orlonger -- disallowed 128.0.0.0/16 orlonger -- disallowed In fact there will be no connectivity for newly allocates addresses and Juniper routers all around the world unless people change default behavior or juniper changes default settings for martians. We've opened JTAC case about it. P.S. In order to fix it you should implement set routing-options martians 128.0.0.0/16 orlonger allow on your juniper routers. ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From poty at iiat.ru Tue Oct 11 10:34:20 2011 From: poty at iiat.ru (poty at iiat.ru) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 12:34:20 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] budget 2012 Message-ID: As far as those not contributing in the list "not care" or "agreed with everything" it is unwise to predict "what the membership as a whole wants". All the more nobody can act as God to be able to say: "I know what everybody thinks and what everybody wants". I appreciate the answers of RIPE NCC, but "I am happy to monitor", "Rest assured", "the board is very well paying attention" are not answers the members of the list are waiting for and doesn't bring any clear vision on the process of determination of what changes we should welcomed at GM. The questions at the RIPE meeting will be late and not productive at all. Looking at the expenses in the proposed budget I can see the increase in all parts. I do not agree with the situation. Some time ago in 1998 I was in London attending the RIPE courses. It was 5* hotel and one of the natives said with some sadness, "We all do not live like that!" Maybe we'll look into decreasing the pomp for all our rather technical meetings/courses/hotels...? I'll look also into decreasing the stuff: as soon as it's said they are the best in the industry they can do more than average middle-salaried worker. Regards, Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss- > bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Christian Kaufmann > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 2:54 AM > To: Nigel Titley > Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] budget 2012 > > ...as Nigel and Fahad said, the board is very well paying attention to > the list and what the members want. > And for the ones who don't want to send an email to the list, feel free > to send a direct email to us or even better feel free to talk to us in > person at the next RIPE meeting.:-) > > Best regards, > > ck > > > > > On Oct 11, 2011, at 12:01 AM, Nigel Titley wrote: > > > On 10/10/2011 22:50, Fahad AlShirawi wrote: > >> And on my side I am happy to monitor the members' discussion and see > what it is the members want and then to bring it up internally. Rest > assured Hank that we will consider all concerns where applicable and as > much as possible within the constraints we have. > > Yes, thanks for making this clear, Fahad. > > > > As far as I am aware, all members of the board read this list and > take > > notice of what the members want. Our sometimes difficult job is to > try > > and sort out what the membership as a whole wants, rather than just > the > > dozen or so active contributors to the list. > > > > Always feel free to send any of us a direct personal question or > > comment, especially if there is a period of quiet. As I've mentioned > > before, we all have day jobs which sometimes intrude on our board > work. > > > > Nigel > > > > ---- > > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the > general page: > > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". > From here, you can add or remove addresses. > > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the > general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From > here, you can add or remove addresses. ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From jj at streamnetworks.lv Tue Oct 11 10:38:46 2011 From: jj at streamnetworks.lv (=?UTF-8?B?SsSBbmlzIEphdW5vxaHEgW5z?=) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:38:46 +0300 Subject: [members-discuss] JUNOS and 128.0.0.0 martian (JFYI) In-Reply-To: <4E933466.7020908@corp.mail.ru> References: <4E933466.7020908@corp.mail.ru> Message-ID: <4E940096.2020807@streamnetworks.lv> yeah, saw this in facebook :D On 10/10/11 21:07 , Timur Maryin wrote: > Hello! > > > Recently RIPE NCC started to allocate addresses from 128/8 to end users, > example: > > https://apps.db.ripe.net/whois/lookup/ripe/inetnum/128.0.0.0-128.0.7.255.html > > > JunOS software (upto and including 11.1 version) blocks those addresses > by default as martians: > > > show route martians > inet.0: > 0.0.0.0/0 exact -- allowed > 0.0.0.0/8 orlonger -- disallowed > 127.0.0.0/8 orlonger -- disallowed > 128.0.0.0/16 orlonger -- disallowed > > > > In fact there will be no connectivity for newly allocates addresses and > Juniper routers all around the world unless people change default > behavior or juniper changes default settings for martians. > > > We've opened JTAC case about it. > > > > P.S. > In order to fix it you should implement > set routing-options martians 128.0.0.0/16 orlonger allow > on your juniper routers. > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From matthew.hattersley at vaioni.com Tue Oct 11 10:38:41 2011 From: matthew.hattersley at vaioni.com (Matthew Hattersley) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 09:38:41 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] budget 2012 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8795FC63-2380-4D9E-B788-47CF14B61CD3@vaioni.com> +1 Wouldn't want to be one of the unheard that ripe claim to represent. Sent from my iPhone On 11 Oct 2011, at 10:35, "poty at iiat.ru" wrote: > As far as those not contributing in the list "not care" or "agreed with > everything" it is unwise to predict "what the membership as a whole > wants". All the more nobody can act as God to be able to say: "I know > what everybody thinks and what everybody wants". > I appreciate the answers of RIPE NCC, but "I am happy to monitor", "Rest > assured", "the board is very well paying attention" are not answers the > members of the list are waiting for and doesn't bring any clear vision > on the process of determination of what changes we should welcomed at > GM. The questions at the RIPE meeting will be late and not productive at > all. > Looking at the expenses in the proposed budget I can see the increase in > all parts. I do not agree with the situation. Some time ago in 1998 I > was in London attending the RIPE courses. It was 5* hotel and one of the > natives said with some sadness, "We all do not live like that!" Maybe > we'll look into decreasing the pomp for all our rather technical > meetings/courses/hotels...? I'll look also into decreasing the stuff: as > soon as it's said they are the best in the industry they can do more > than average middle-salaried worker. > > Regards, > Vladislav Potapov > Ru.iiat > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss- >> bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Christian Kaufmann >> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 2:54 AM >> To: Nigel Titley >> Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net >> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] budget 2012 >> >> ...as Nigel and Fahad said, the board is very well paying attention to >> the list and what the members want. >> And for the ones who don't want to send an email to the list, feel > free >> to send a direct email to us or even better feel free to talk to us in >> person at the next RIPE meeting.:-) >> >> Best regards, >> >> ck >> >> >> >> >> On Oct 11, 2011, at 12:01 AM, Nigel Titley wrote: >> >>> On 10/10/2011 22:50, Fahad AlShirawi wrote: >>>> And on my side I am happy to monitor the members' discussion and > see >> what it is the members want and then to bring it up internally. Rest >> assured Hank that we will consider all concerns where applicable and > as >> much as possible within the constraints we have. >>> Yes, thanks for making this clear, Fahad. >>> >>> As far as I am aware, all members of the board read this list and >> take >>> notice of what the members want. Our sometimes difficult job is to >> try >>> and sort out what the membership as a whole wants, rather than just >> the >>> dozen or so active contributors to the list. >>> >>> Always feel free to send any of us a direct personal question or >>> comment, especially if there is a period of quiet. As I've mentioned >>> before, we all have day jobs which sometimes intrude on our board >> work. >>> >>> Nigel >>> >>> ---- >>> If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC > members-discuss >>> mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the >> general page: >>> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view >>> >>> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". >> From here, you can add or remove addresses. >> >> >> ---- >> If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss >> mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the >> general page: >> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view >> >> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From >> here, you can add or remove addresses. > > > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From Fernando.Garcia at tecnocom.es Tue Oct 11 10:52:26 2011 From: Fernando.Garcia at tecnocom.es (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Garc=EDa_Fern=E1ndez=2C_Fernando?=) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 10:52:26 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] budget 2012 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <68972264-7374-4C7D-8C86-F8BFA0F1373E@tecnocom.es> I am part of the silent listeners, but at your request I will express my opinion: - I have used the RIPE training courses three times in Spain and probably if I had to move to Amsterdam or pay for them I would not have been able to attend them (at least not the three of them). - I have attended many RIPE meetings (in person and also remotely when I can't go). I don't go to a 5 star hotel, my budget is limited so I usualy go to a nearby hotel, but I appreciate that the RIPE meetings have very good facilities, between the hotel and the equipment provided by RIPE. Regarding the meetings themselves, they've been very interesting for me. Not only for what I learn and whay I've participated -believe it or not a lot of policies ares discused in the RIPE meetings, policies that affect all of us- but also for all the people that I have known. I have established some technical relations that probably couldn't been made by mail, so It's a well paid money for me. So I agree with the expenditures in trainings and meetings, but this is not a blank check to the RIPE NCC not to the board. As any other company we're on a strict budget and though RIPE NCC invoices are not our main expense (if RIPE NCC invoices have a great impact in your business, you should review your business plan) we must try to reduce everything and I think that in a 2/3 year timeframe, the RIPE NCC work as an addressing registry will be reduced (no or residual IPv4 addresing assignement, IPv6 assigned in /32 so fewer petitions asked) and a lowering of the budget should be observed, but me must wait and see. Regards, Fernando El 11/10/2011, a las 10:34, escribi?: > As far as those not contributing in the list "not care" or "agreed with > everything" it is unwise to predict "what the membership as a whole > wants". All the more nobody can act as God to be able to say: "I know > what everybody thinks and what everybody wants". > I appreciate the answers of RIPE NCC, but "I am happy to monitor", "Rest > assured", "the board is very well paying attention" are not answers the > members of the list are waiting for and doesn't bring any clear vision > on the process of determination of what changes we should welcomed at > GM. The questions at the RIPE meeting will be late and not productive at > all. > Looking at the expenses in the proposed budget I can see the increase in > all parts. I do not agree with the situation. Some time ago in 1998 I > was in London attending the RIPE courses. It was 5* hotel and one of the > natives said with some sadness, "We all do not live like that!" Maybe > we'll look into decreasing the pomp for all our rather technical > meetings/courses/hotels...? I'll look also into decreasing the stuff: as > soon as it's said they are the best in the industry they can do more > than average middle-salaried worker. > > Regards, > Vladislav Potapov > Ru.iiat > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss- >> bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Christian Kaufmann >> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 2:54 AM >> To: Nigel Titley >> Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net >> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] budget 2012 >> >> ...as Nigel and Fahad said, the board is very well paying attention to >> the list and what the members want. >> And for the ones who don't want to send an email to the list, feel > free >> to send a direct email to us or even better feel free to talk to us in >> person at the next RIPE meeting.:-) >> >> Best regards, >> >> ck >> >> >> >> >> On Oct 11, 2011, at 12:01 AM, Nigel Titley wrote: >> >>> On 10/10/2011 22:50, Fahad AlShirawi wrote: >>>> And on my side I am happy to monitor the members' discussion and > see >> what it is the members want and then to bring it up internally. Rest >> assured Hank that we will consider all concerns where applicable and > as >> much as possible within the constraints we have. >>> Yes, thanks for making this clear, Fahad. >>> >>> As far as I am aware, all members of the board read this list and >> take >>> notice of what the members want. Our sometimes difficult job is to >> try >>> and sort out what the membership as a whole wants, rather than just >> the >>> dozen or so active contributors to the list. >>> >>> Always feel free to send any of us a direct personal question or >>> comment, especially if there is a period of quiet. As I've mentioned >>> before, we all have day jobs which sometimes intrude on our board >> work. >>> >>> Nigel >>> >>> ---- >>> If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC > members-discuss >>> mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the >> general page: >>> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view >>> >>> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". >> From here, you can add or remove addresses. >> >> >> ---- >> If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss >> mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the >> general page: >> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view >> >> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From >> here, you can add or remove addresses. > > > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 27342 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ATT00001..txt URL: -------------- next part -------------- ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From geert.hauwaerts at cloudtech.be Tue Oct 11 11:18:13 2011 From: geert.hauwaerts at cloudtech.be (Geert Hauwaerts) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 09:18:13 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] budget 2012 In-Reply-To: <8795FC63-2380-4D9E-B788-47CF14B61CD3@vaioni.com> References: <8795FC63-2380-4D9E-B788-47CF14B61CD3@vaioni.com> Message-ID: Dear RIPE Board and Members, In line with recent events and out of respect for the members I strongly advise you to postpone the discussion about the amending of the membership fees and focus on the budgeting first. I strongly agree with the motions raised about maintaining a responsible budget; and perhaps in light of recent developments, we should take a moment and evaluate some of the projects the RIPE NCC has taken on itself. Additionally, and without any disrespect, if any of the Board Members feel they do not have adequate time to fulfill their duties; they might wish to vacate their seat in favor of somebody who does. Met Vriendelijke Groeten - Cordialement - Best Regards Geert Hauwaerts. From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Matthew Hattersley Sent: dinsdag 11 oktober 2011 10:39 Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] budget 2012 +1 Wouldn't want to be one of the unheard that ripe claim to represent. Sent from my iPhone On 11 Oct 2011, at 10:35, "poty at iiat.ru" > wrote: > As far as those not contributing in the list "not care" or "agreed with > everything" it is unwise to predict "what the membership as a whole > wants". All the more nobody can act as God to be able to say: "I know > what everybody thinks and what everybody wants". > I appreciate the answers of RIPE NCC, but "I am happy to monitor", "Rest > assured", "the board is very well paying attention" are not answers the > members of the list are waiting for and doesn't bring any clear vision > on the process of determination of what changes we should welcomed at > GM. The questions at the RIPE meeting will be late and not productive at > all. > Looking at the expenses in the proposed budget I can see the increase in > all parts. I do not agree with the situation. Some time ago in 1998 I > was in London attending the RIPE courses. It was 5* hotel and one of the > natives said with some sadness, "We all do not live like that!" Maybe > we'll look into decreasing the pomp for all our rather technical > meetings/courses/hotels...? I'll look also into decreasing the stuff: as > soon as it's said they are the best in the industry they can do more > than average middle-salaried worker. > > Regards, > Vladislav Potapov > Ru.iiat > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss- >> bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Christian Kaufmann >> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 2:54 AM >> To: Nigel Titley >> Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net >> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] budget 2012 >> >> ...as Nigel and Fahad said, the board is very well paying attention to >> the list and what the members want. >> And for the ones who don't want to send an email to the list, feel > free >> to send a direct email to us or even better feel free to talk to us in >> person at the next RIPE meeting.:-) >> >> Best regards, >> >> ck >> >> >> >> >> On Oct 11, 2011, at 12:01 AM, Nigel Titley wrote: >> >>> On 10/10/2011 22:50, Fahad AlShirawi wrote: >>>> And on my side I am happy to monitor the members' discussion and > see >> what it is the members want and then to bring it up internally. Rest >> assured Hank that we will consider all concerns where applicable and > as >> much as possible within the constraints we have. >>> Yes, thanks for making this clear, Fahad. >>> >>> As far as I am aware, all members of the board read this list and >> take >>> notice of what the members want. Our sometimes difficult job is to >> try >>> and sort out what the membership as a whole wants, rather than just >> the >>> dozen or so active contributors to the list. >>> >>> Always feel free to send any of us a direct personal question or >>> comment, especially if there is a period of quiet. As I've mentioned >>> before, we all have day jobs which sometimes intrude on our board >> work. >>> >>> Nigel >>> >>> ---- >>> If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC > members-discuss >>> mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the >> general page: >>> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view >>> >>> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". >> From here, you can add or remove addresses. >> >> >> ---- >> If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss >> mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the >> general page: >> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view >> >> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From >> here, you can add or remove addresses. > > > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From bangert at parknet.dk Tue Oct 11 12:23:10 2011 From: bangert at parknet.dk (Thilo Bangert) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 12:23:10 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] budget 2012 In-Reply-To: References: <8795FC63-2380-4D9E-B788-47CF14B61CD3@vaioni.com> Message-ID: <201110111223.10374.bangert@parknet.dk> On Tuesday, October 11, 2011 11:18:13 AM Geert Hauwaerts wrote: > Dear RIPE Board and Members, > > In line with recent events and out of respect for the members I strongly > advise you to postpone the discussion about the amending of the membership > fees and focus on the budgeting first. > > I strongly agree with the motions raised about maintaining a responsible > budget; and perhaps in light of recent developments, we should take a > moment and evaluate some of the projects the RIPE NCC has taken on itself. > > Additionally, and without any disrespect, if any of the Board Members feel > they do not have adequate time to fulfill their duties; they might wish to > vacate their seat in favor of somebody who does. > it's great to see people caring about issues at RIPE. IMHO it's not so great that some seem to derail the discussion on the membership fees. RIPE is growing and therefore they need more money. do the math - and listen to what other people on this list say: while the budget is increasing the individual membership fee is not (as much), since there're many more members to shoulder the burden. also the increased budget is necessary to fund the actions decided upon by the community. How many of those objecting the current budget have been involved in shaping these actions? Given that the only suggestions seem to be cutting meetings and trainings i get at strong impression that there has not been any involvement at all... run-out-fairly requires extra work - but its most definitively the small LIRs that profit from it and that is a good thing. the increased service level with the much improved database tools etc. are much welcome investments well worth their money. and no - this is no blank check for RIPE either. i still felt well represented as "the quiet majority" by the RIPE EB. thanks kind regards Thilo > Met Vriendelijke Groeten - Cordialement - Best Regards > Geert Hauwaerts. > > From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net > [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Matthew Hattersley > Sent: dinsdag 11 oktober 2011 10:39 > Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] budget 2012 > > > +1 > > Wouldn't want to be one of the unheard that ripe claim to represent. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 11 Oct 2011, at 10:35, "poty at iiat.ru" > wrote: > > As far as those not contributing in the list "not care" or "agreed with > > everything" it is unwise to predict "what the membership as a whole > > wants". All the more nobody can act as God to be able to say: "I know > > what everybody thinks and what everybody wants". > > I appreciate the answers of RIPE NCC, but "I am happy to monitor", "Rest > > assured", "the board is very well paying attention" are not answers the > > members of the list are waiting for and doesn't bring any clear vision > > on the process of determination of what changes we should welcomed at > > GM. The questions at the RIPE meeting will be late and not productive at > > all. > > Looking at the expenses in the proposed budget I can see the increase in > > all parts. I do not agree with the situation. Some time ago in 1998 I > > was in London attending the RIPE courses. It was 5* hotel and one of the > > natives said with some sadness, "We all do not live like that!" Maybe > > we'll look into decreasing the pomp for all our rather technical > > meetings/courses/hotels...? I'll look also into decreasing the stuff: as > > soon as it's said they are the best in the industry they can do more > > than average middle-salaried worker. > > > > Regards, > > Vladislav Potapov > > Ru.iiat > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: > >> members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net >> t> [mailto:members-discuss- bounces at ripe.net] > >> On Behalf Of Christian Kaufmann Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 2:54 AM > >> To: Nigel Titley > >> Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net > >> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] budget 2012 > >> > >> ...as Nigel and Fahad said, the board is very well paying attention to > >> the list and what the members want. > >> And for the ones who don't want to send an email to the list, feel > > > > free > > > >> to send a direct email to us or even better feel free to talk to us in > >> person at the next RIPE meeting.:-) > >> > >> Best regards, > >> > >> ck > >> > >> On Oct 11, 2011, at 12:01 AM, Nigel Titley wrote: > >>> On 10/10/2011 22:50, Fahad AlShirawi wrote: > >>>> And on my side I am happy to monitor the members' discussion and > > > > see > > > >> what it is the members want and then to bring it up internally. Rest > >> assured Hank that we will consider all concerns where applicable and > > > > as > > > >> much as possible within the constraints we have. > >> > >>> Yes, thanks for making this clear, Fahad. > >>> > >>> As far as I am aware, all members of the board read this list and > >> > >> take > >> > >>> notice of what the members want. Our sometimes difficult job is to > >> > >> try > >> > >>> and sort out what the membership as a whole wants, rather than just > >> > >> the > >> > >>> dozen or so active contributors to the list. > >>> > >>> Always feel free to send any of us a direct personal question or > >>> comment, especially if there is a period of quiet. As I've mentioned > >>> before, we all have day jobs which sometimes intrude on our board > >> > >> work. > >> > >>> Nigel > >>> > >>> ---- > >>> If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC > > > > members-discuss > > > >>> mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the > >> > >> general page: > >>> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > >>> > >>> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". > >> > >> From here, you can add or remove addresses. > >> > >> > >> ---- > >> If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > >> mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the > >> general page: > >> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > >> > >> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From > >> here, you can add or remove addresses. > > > > ---- > > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the > > general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From > > here, you can add or remove addresses. -- Thilo Bangert IT-Lauget Parknet ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From lists-ripe at c4inet.net Tue Oct 11 12:43:49 2011 From: lists-ripe at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 10:43:49 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] budget 2012 In-Reply-To: <201110111223.10374.bangert@parknet.dk> References: <8795FC63-2380-4D9E-B788-47CF14B61CD3@vaioni.com> <201110111223.10374.bangert@parknet.dk> Message-ID: <20111011104349.GA8764@cilantro.c4inet.net> Hi, On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 12:23:10PM +0200, Thilo Bangert wrote: >RIPE is growing and therefore they need more money. do the math That is some strange math. I would expect economies-of-scale for a growing membership. If more members mean rising costs per-member, when every resource user is a RIPE member -which I think would be a good thing- then nobody can afford membership anymore? rgds, Sascha Luck ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From bangert at parknet.dk Tue Oct 11 13:10:15 2011 From: bangert at parknet.dk (Thilo Bangert) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 13:10:15 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] budget 2012 In-Reply-To: <20111011104349.GA8764@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <201110111223.10374.bangert@parknet.dk> <20111011104349.GA8764@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <201110111310.15523.bangert@parknet.dk> On Tuesday, October 11, 2011 12:43:49 PM you wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 12:23:10PM +0200, Thilo Bangert wrote: > >RIPE is growing and therefore they need more money. do the math > > That is some strange math. I would expect economies-of-scale > for a growing membership. you are right - thats why i also pointed out other reasons for the increase, which you choose to omit in your quote. > If more members mean rising costs per-member, when every resource > user is a RIPE member -which I think would be a good thing- > then nobody can afford membership anymore? > that would indeed be weird, wouldn't it? ;-) > rgds, > Sascha Luck -- Thilo Bangert IT-Lauget Parknet ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From a.buglak at sumtel.ru Tue Oct 11 14:51:34 2011 From: a.buglak at sumtel.ru (Artem Buglak) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 16:51:34 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] budget 2012 In-Reply-To: <201110111223.10374.bangert@parknet.dk> References: <8795FC63-2380-4D9E-B788-47CF14B61CD3@vaioni.com> <201110111223.10374.bangert@parknet.dk> Message-ID: Dear mailing list, Thilo, *THUMBS-UP* from fellow lurking members! :) Going back to complaints on training activities and it's budget: I personally have an opinion that that sort of service is not actually delivered well enough in some areas of the RIPE service region - for instance, I haven't had a chance to catch routing registry training in Russia for last 3 years (on my memory neither Moscow nor St.Petersburg hosted those courses since 2008), not to mention how difficult it may be to attend any training courses for LIRs in far eastern parts of Russia. Understanding how overall Internet routing quality benefits from widely available trainings on the matter, I don't see it reasonable to discard that service just to slightly cut membership fees - I'd even welcome slight increase if the knowledge sharing services would get enhanced! 11.10.2011 14:23 ???????????? "Thilo Bangert" ???????: > > On Tuesday, October 11, 2011 11:18:13 AM Geert Hauwaerts wrote: > > Dear RIPE Board and Members, > > > > In line with recent events and out of respect for the members I strongly > > advise you to postpone the discussion about the amending of the membership > > fees and focus on the budgeting first. > > > > I strongly agree with the motions raised about maintaining a responsible > > budget; and perhaps in light of recent developments, we should take a > > moment and evaluate some of the projects the RIPE NCC has taken on itself. > > > > Additionally, and without any disrespect, if any of the Board Members feel > > they do not have adequate time to fulfill their duties; they might wish to > > vacate their seat in favor of somebody who does. > > > > it's great to see people caring about issues at RIPE. IMHO it's not so great > that some seem to derail the discussion on the membership fees. > > RIPE is growing and therefore they need more money. do the math - and listen > to what other people on this list say: while the budget is increasing the > individual membership fee is not (as much), since there're many more members > to shoulder the burden. also the increased budget is necessary to fund the > actions decided upon by the community. > > How many of those objecting the current budget have been involved in shaping > these actions? Given that the only suggestions seem to be cutting meetings and > trainings i get at strong impression that there has not been any involvement > at all... > > run-out-fairly requires extra work - but its most definitively the small LIRs > that profit from it and that is a good thing. > > the increased service level with the much improved database tools etc. are > much welcome investments well worth their money. > > and no - this is no blank check for RIPE either. i still felt well represented > as "the quiet majority" by the RIPE EB. > thanks > > kind regards > Thilo > > > > Met Vriendelijke Groeten - Cordialement - Best Regards > > Geert Hauwaerts. > > > > From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net > > [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Matthew Hattersley > > Sent: dinsdag 11 oktober 2011 10:39 > > Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net > > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] budget 2012 > > > > > > +1 > > > > Wouldn't want to be one of the unheard that ripe claim to represent. > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > On 11 Oct 2011, at 10:35, "poty at iiat.ru" > > wrote: > > > As far as those not contributing in the list "not care" or "agreed with > > > everything" it is unwise to predict "what the membership as a whole > > > wants". All the more nobody can act as God to be able to say: "I know > > > what everybody thinks and what everybody wants". > > > I appreciate the answers of RIPE NCC, but "I am happy to monitor", "Rest > > > assured", "the board is very well paying attention" are not answers the > > > members of the list are waiting for and doesn't bring any clear vision > > > on the process of determination of what changes we should welcomed at > > > GM. The questions at the RIPE meeting will be late and not productive at > > > all. > > > Looking at the expenses in the proposed budget I can see the increase in > > > all parts. I do not agree with the situation. Some time ago in 1998 I > > > was in London attending the RIPE courses. It was 5* hotel and one of the > > > natives said with some sadness, "We all do not live like that!" Maybe > > > we'll look into decreasing the pomp for all our rather technical > > > meetings/courses/hotels...? I'll look also into decreasing the stuff: as > > > soon as it's said they are the best in the industry they can do more > > > than average middle-salaried worker. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Vladislav Potapov > > > Ru.iiat > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: > > >> members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net > >> t> [mailto:members-discuss- bounces at ripe.net] > > >> On Behalf Of Christian Kaufmann Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 2:54 AM > > >> To: Nigel Titley > > >> Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net > > >> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] budget 2012 > > >> > > >> ...as Nigel and Fahad said, the board is very well paying attention to > > >> the list and what the members want. > > >> And for the ones who don't want to send an email to the list, feel > > > > > > free > > > > > >> to send a direct email to us or even better feel free to talk to us in > > >> person at the next RIPE meeting.:-) > > >> > > >> Best regards, > > >> > > >> ck > > >> > > >> On Oct 11, 2011, at 12:01 AM, Nigel Titley wrote: > > >>> On 10/10/2011 22:50, Fahad AlShirawi wrote: > > >>>> And on my side I am happy to monitor the members' discussion and > > > > > > see > > > > > >> what it is the members want and then to bring it up internally. Rest > > >> assured Hank that we will consider all concerns where applicable and > > > > > > as > > > > > >> much as possible within the constraints we have. > > >> > > >>> Yes, thanks for making this clear, Fahad. > > >>> > > >>> As far as I am aware, all members of the board read this list and > > >> > > >> take > > >> > > >>> notice of what the members want. Our sometimes difficult job is to > > >> > > >> try > > >> > > >>> and sort out what the membership as a whole wants, rather than just > > >> > > >> the > > >> > > >>> dozen or so active contributors to the list. > > >>> > > >>> Always feel free to send any of us a direct personal question or > > >>> comment, especially if there is a period of quiet. As I've mentioned > > >>> before, we all have day jobs which sometimes intrude on our board > > >> > > >> work. > > >> > > >>> Nigel > > >>> > > >>> ---- > > >>> If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC > > > > > > members-discuss > > > > > >>> mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the > > >> > > >> general page: > > >>> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > >>> > > >>> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". > > >> > > >> From here, you can add or remove addresses. > > >> > > >> > > >> ---- > > >> If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > > >> mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the > > >> general page: > > >> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > >> > > >> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From > > >> here, you can add or remove addresses. > > > > > > ---- > > > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > > > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the > > > general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > > > > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From > > > here, you can add or remove addresses. > > -- > Thilo Bangert > IT-Lauget Parknet > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. kind regards, Artem -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From jblessing at llnw.com Tue Oct 11 15:02:02 2011 From: jblessing at llnw.com (James Blessing) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 14:02:02 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] budget 2012 In-Reply-To: References: <8795FC63-2380-4D9E-B788-47CF14B61CD3@vaioni.com> <201110111223.10374.bangert@parknet.dk> Message-ID: <4E943E4A.4040207@llnw.com> On 11/10/2011 13:51, Artem Buglak wrote: >I haven't had a chance to catch routing registry training in > Russia for last 3 years (on my memory neither Moscow nor St.Petersburg > hosted those courses since 2008), not to mention how difficult it may be > to attend any training courses for LIRs in far eastern parts of Russia. Good thing there is one later this year then... https://lirportal.ripe.net/training/courses J -- James Blessing +44 7989 039 476 Strategic Relations Manager, EMEA Limelight Networks ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From a.buglak at sumtel.ru Tue Oct 11 15:32:15 2011 From: a.buglak at sumtel.ru (Artem Buglak) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:32:15 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] budget 2012 In-Reply-To: References: <8795FC63-2380-4D9E-B788-47CF14B61CD3@vaioni.com> <201110111223.10374.bangert@parknet.dk> <4E943E4A.4040207@llnw.com> Message-ID: 11.10.2011 17:02 ???????????? "James Blessing" ???????: > > On 11/10/2011 13:51, Artem Buglak wrote: > >I haven't had a chance to catch routing registry training in > > Russia for last 3 years (on my memory neither Moscow nor St.Petersburg > > hosted those courses since 2008), not to mention how difficult it may be > > to attend any training courses for LIRs in far eastern parts of Russia. > > Good thing there is one later this year then... > > https://lirportal.ripe.net/training/courses > > J Hmph... I've checked before sending =) no RR training for Moscow - just LIR and IPv6 for LIR > > > -- > James Blessing > +44 7989 039 476 > Strategic Relations Manager, EMEA > Limelight Networks > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From poty at iiat.ru Tue Oct 11 16:24:22 2011 From: poty at iiat.ru (poty at iiat.ru) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:24:22 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] budget 2012 Message-ID: See inline: > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss- > bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Thilo Bangert > it's great to see people caring about issues at RIPE. IMHO it's not so great > that some seem to derail the discussion on the membership fees. > > RIPE is growing and therefore they need more money. do the math - and listen > to what other people on this list say: while the budget is increasing the > individual membership fee is not (as much), since there're many more > members to shoulder the burden. Let's see what does it means for my company as small member in 2011: The budget should be increased by 100% * (19317-17891)/17891 ~ 8%. My membership fee should be increased (like 27% of other former small members according the charging scheme) from 1800 (+150 for my ASN+(ASN+PI)for a client) to 3000 (+150 for the same things). 100%*(3150-1950)/1950 ~61.5%. Can you prove your words about "the individual membership fee is not (as much) [increased]"? > also the increased budget is necessary to fund the > actions decided upon by the community. Maybe it's better to vote which actions should stay next year than just fiddling about immortal RIPE activity "decided by the community"? > > How many of those objecting the current budget have been involved in shaping > these actions? Given that the only suggestions seem to be cutting meetings and > trainings i get at strong impression that there has not been any involvement > at all... Wrong assumption (at least according to me). I don't like to have the conversations become personal. But could you explain - why the priceless RIPE staff can live only in 5* hotels while they are out of RIPE NCC office (for meetings, trainings, business)? Or why for a group of 12 people the training courses is planned in the 5* room facility? Nobody asked for full stop of meetings and trainings, just increasing the expenses seems chic at some time. And if you really read all messages here you should know, that there are many suggestions, not only optimizing trainings and meetings. I was at the GM where the fee for independent resources was introduced. Nobody answered plain questions asked by me about why the charging scheme should be changed (all had agreed that we could live with old one and have enough budget), why ASN selling is not "per resource" scheme (really the main argument of RIPE NCC against "flat fee" now) and so on. Empty meaning words as answers - the words we see here in the discussion again. > run-out-fairly requires extra work - but its most definitively the small LIRs > that profit from it and that is a good thing. Several people asked for EXACT COUNTINGS. As soon as you suggested doing math - give us problem situation! > the increased service level with the much improved database tools etc. The same as above - what is exact expenses and what for the increasing expenses will go? What are going to be "new level of service" in numbers? > are much welcome investments well worth their money. By whom? > and no - this is no blank check for RIPE either. i still felt well > represented as "the quiet majority" by the RIPE EB. You are going to feel trouble when at the next GM (maybe not the exactly next, but nearest) the quiet majority will be unable to outcount the active dissenting. I'm going to be at the incoming GM and will ask very uneasy questions. Regards, Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From gert at space.net Tue Oct 11 16:28:42 2011 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 16:28:42 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] budget 2012 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20111011142842.GT72014@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 06:24:22PM +0400, poty at iiat.ru wrote: > I was at the GM where the fee for independent resources was introduced. > Nobody answered plain questions asked by me about why the charging > scheme should be changed Not true. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From poty at iiat.ru Tue Oct 11 16:32:00 2011 From: poty at iiat.ru (poty at iiat.ru) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:32:00 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] budget 2012 Message-ID: It IS true. Several people can prove that. The answer of the RIPE NCC was - it is already late to change something. The presentation was forged - and personally you knew that. > -----Original Message----- > From: Gert Doering [mailto:gert at space.net] > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 6:29 PM > To: Potapov Vladislav > Cc: bangert at parknet.dk; members-discuss at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] budget 2012 > > Hi, > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 06:24:22PM +0400, poty at iiat.ru wrote: > > I was at the GM where the fee for independent resources was > introduced. > > Nobody answered plain questions asked by me about why the charging > > scheme should be changed > > Not true. > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? > > SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner- > Culemann > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From gert at space.net Tue Oct 11 16:38:12 2011 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 16:38:12 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] budget 2012 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20111011143812.GU72014@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 06:32:00PM +0400, poty at iiat.ru wrote: > It IS true. Several people can prove that. The answer of the RIPE NCC > was - it is already late to change something. The presentation was > forged - and personally you knew that. I was there, and the change of the charging scheme was discussed for *three* consecutive meetings, and it was voted for, and received the majority of votes. The change to per-piece billing for PI and AS is came with the adoption of 2007-01 and had nothing to do whatsoever with increasing the budget (which it didn't, the LIR categories and fees were adjusted to make this neutral in regards to the overall budget). Of course there are people that do not like any change that will directly affect their business model (getting lots of PI for free and selling for money) - and this is why the change was announced well in advance, and voted for(!). Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 306 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From mike at theinternet.org.uk Tue Oct 11 16:47:37 2011 From: mike at theinternet.org.uk (Mike Hollowell) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:47:37 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] budget 2012 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1318344457.7079.135.camel@wsk1-lm> Assuming I'm reading it correctly the draft charging scheme shows: 30% of XSmall members are moving to a higher cost category 59% of Small members are moving to a higher cost category 100% Medium members are moving to a higher cost category 100% Large members are moving to a higher cost category 100 XLarge members are moving to a higher cost category Only 9% of XSmall members and 14% Small are moving to a lower cost level. If there are more new members, then they are bringing both joining fees and membership fees to RIPE, why do we need to be raising so much more money? There is a global recession/problem/disaster (delete as needed) going on out there. Mike >From the On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 18:24 +0400, poty at iiat.ru wrote: > See inline: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss- > > bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Thilo Bangert > > > > it's great to see people caring about issues at RIPE. IMHO it's not so > great > > that some seem to derail the discussion on the membership fees. > > > > RIPE is growing and therefore they need more money. do the math - and > listen > > to what other people on this list say: while the budget is increasing > the > > individual membership fee is not (as much), since there're many more > > members to shoulder the burden. > Let's see what does it means for my company as small member in 2011: The > budget should be increased by 100% * (19317-17891)/17891 ~ 8%. My > membership fee should be increased (like 27% of other former small > members according the charging scheme) from 1800 (+150 for my > ASN+(ASN+PI)for a client) to 3000 (+150 for the same things). > 100%*(3150-1950)/1950 ~61.5%. Can you prove your words about "the > individual membership fee is not (as much) [increased]"? > > > also the increased budget is necessary to fund the > > actions decided upon by the community. > Maybe it's better to vote which actions should stay next year than just > fiddling about immortal RIPE activity "decided by the community"? > > > > > How many of those objecting the current budget have been involved in > shaping > > these actions? Given that the only suggestions seem to be cutting > meetings and > > trainings i get at strong impression that there has not been any > involvement > > at all... > Wrong assumption (at least according to me). I don't like to have the > conversations become personal. But could you explain - why the priceless > RIPE staff can live only in 5* hotels while they are out of RIPE NCC > office (for meetings, trainings, business)? Or why for a group of 12 > people the training courses is planned in the 5* room facility? Nobody > asked for full stop of meetings and trainings, just increasing the > expenses seems chic at some time. > And if you really read all messages here you should know, that there are > many suggestions, not only optimizing trainings and meetings. > I was at the GM where the fee for independent resources was introduced. > Nobody answered plain questions asked by me about why the charging > scheme should be changed (all had agreed that we could live with old one > and have enough budget), why ASN selling is not "per resource" scheme > (really the main argument of RIPE NCC against "flat fee" now) and so on. > Empty meaning words as answers - the words we see here in the discussion > again. > > > run-out-fairly requires extra work - but its most definitively the > small LIRs > > that profit from it and that is a good thing. > Several people asked for EXACT COUNTINGS. As soon as you suggested doing > math - give us problem situation! > > > the increased service level with the much improved database tools etc. > The same as above - what is exact expenses and what for the increasing > expenses will go? What are going to be "new level of service" in > numbers? > > > are much welcome investments well worth their money. > By whom? > > > and no - this is no blank check for RIPE either. i still felt well > > represented as "the quiet majority" by the RIPE EB. > You are going to feel trouble when at the next GM (maybe not the exactly > next, but nearest) the quiet majority will be unable to outcount the > active dissenting. I'm going to be at the incoming GM and will ask very > uneasy questions. > > Regards, > Vladislav Potapov > Ru.iiat > > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. -- Mike Hollowell Arrowhead Systems Ltd http://www.theinternet.org.uk tel: +44 1782 747044 fax: +44 1782 410734 Arrowhead Systems Limited: A company registered in England and Wales, company number 02694760 Reg'd Office: 5 The Villas, Stoke-On-Trent, Staffordshire. ST4 5AQ. UK ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From poty at iiat.ru Tue Oct 11 16:48:41 2011 From: poty at iiat.ru (poty at iiat.ru) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:48:41 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] budget 2012 Message-ID: Yes, it is voted for, but what was the words preceding the vote? In the slides there were many "proves" that the current scheme is a catastrophe (which was a complete lie, because the current scheme didn't use the right factors in the presentation intentionally - after the presentation we discussed the matter and many RIPE NCC members agreed that) and if we didn't vote for new scheme the world would die completely. :) I know also that there was big lobby in the GM. As soon as there was voting - nothing could be done against it, but many people know - the intention of the decision was bad! Regards, Vladislav Potapov > -----Original Message----- > From: Gert Doering [mailto:gert at space.net] > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 6:38 PM > To: Potapov Vladislav > Cc: gert at space.net; bangert at parknet.dk; members-discuss at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] budget 2012 > > Hi, > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 06:32:00PM +0400, poty at iiat.ru wrote: > > It IS true. Several people can prove that. The answer of the RIPE NCC > > was - it is already late to change something. The presentation was > > forged - and personally you knew that. > > I was there, and the change of the charging scheme was discussed for > *three* consecutive meetings, and it was voted for, and received the > majority of votes. > > The change to per-piece billing for PI and AS is came with the adoption > of 2007-01 and had nothing to do whatsoever with increasing the budget > (which it didn't, the LIR categories and fees were adjusted to make > this neutral in regards to the overall budget). > > Of course there are people that do not like any change that will > directly affect their business model (getting lots of PI for free and > selling for > money) - and this is why the change was announced well in advance, and > voted for(!). > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? > > SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner- > Culemann > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From poty at iiat.ru Tue Oct 11 17:01:51 2011 From: poty at iiat.ru (poty at iiat.ru) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:01:51 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] budget 2012 Message-ID: Dear Richard, You can look at the presentation by himself. It IS a fact of lie! The "current scheme" was not adopted for rising expenses while the other schemes - was. If you CAN read right - I'm not accusing Gert in the decision (it was not his decision anyway)- just in wrong position in the presenting of the possibilities. Regards, Vladislav Potapov > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Hartmann [mailto:richih.mailinglist at gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 6:54 PM > To: Potapov Vladislav > Cc: gert at space.net; bangert at parknet.dk; members-discuss at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] budget 2012 > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 16:32, wrote: > > > It IS true. Several people can prove that. The answer of the RIPE NCC > > was - it is already late to change something. The presentation was > > forged - and personally you knew that. > > While Gert did a good job of dismantling your factual points, I would > like to add a more personal/netiquette note. > > If you feel that you absolutely _have_ to accuse someone not only of > lying but of deliberate manipulation, please have some specific, > verifiable facts at the ready to back up your claim. In this specific > case, I highly doubt you have any. > > 2007-01 has been discussed at length prior to its voting. Coming late > to the game is not an excuse to pretend your voice was ignored on > purpose. > > > Richard ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From poty at iiat.ru Tue Oct 11 17:03:07 2011 From: poty at iiat.ru (poty at iiat.ru) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:03:07 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] budget 2012 Message-ID: Then - could you explain - why my question about why selling ASN per-number is not violating the current policy was not answered? Or you would deny this question too? > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Hartmann [mailto:richih.mailinglist at gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 6:54 PM > To: Potapov Vladislav > Cc: gert at space.net; bangert at parknet.dk; members-discuss at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] budget 2012 > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 16:32, wrote: > > > It IS true. Several people can prove that. The answer of the RIPE NCC > > was - it is already late to change something. The presentation was > > forged - and personally you knew that. > > While Gert did a good job of dismantling your factual points, I would > like to add a more personal/netiquette note. > > If you feel that you absolutely _have_ to accuse someone not only of > lying but of deliberate manipulation, please have some specific, > verifiable facts at the ready to back up your claim. In this specific > case, I highly doubt you have any. > > 2007-01 has been discussed at length prior to its voting. Coming late > to the game is not an excuse to pretend your voice was ignored on > purpose. > > > Richard ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From richih.mailinglist at gmail.com Tue Oct 11 16:53:49 2011 From: richih.mailinglist at gmail.com (Richard Hartmann) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 16:53:49 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] budget 2012 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 16:32, wrote: > It IS true. Several people can prove that. The answer of the RIPE NCC > was - it is already late to change something. The presentation was > forged - and personally you knew that. While Gert did a good job of dismantling your factual points, I would like to add a more personal/netiquette note. If you feel that you absolutely _have_ to accuse someone not only of lying but of deliberate manipulation, please have some specific, verifiable facts at the ready to back up your claim. In this specific case, I highly doubt you have any. 2007-01 has been discussed at length prior to its voting. Coming late to the game is not an excuse to pretend your voice was ignored on purpose. Richard ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From xavier.llongueras at infojobs.net Tue Oct 11 16:56:39 2011 From: xavier.llongueras at infojobs.net (Xavier Llongueras) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 16:56:39 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] budget 2012 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <716386A91DAF07479C48E3E9A2A9EEFCF118C0522D@DONPEPITO.barcelona.local> It?s possible not receive any mail from RIPPE ?? It?s a very fucky spam !!! Thanks -----Mensaje original----- De: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] En nombre de poty at iiat.ru Enviado el: martes, 11 de octubre de 2011 16:49 Para: gert at space.net CC: bangert at parknet.dk; members-discuss at ripe.net Asunto: Re: [members-discuss] budget 2012 Yes, it is voted for, but what was the words preceding the vote? In the slides there were many "proves" that the current scheme is a catastrophe (which was a complete lie, because the current scheme didn't use the right factors in the presentation intentionally - after the presentation we discussed the matter and many RIPE NCC members agreed that) and if we didn't vote for new scheme the world would die completely. :) I know also that there was big lobby in the GM. As soon as there was voting - nothing could be done against it, but many people know - the intention of the decision was bad! Regards, Vladislav Potapov > -----Original Message----- > From: Gert Doering [mailto:gert at space.net] > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 6:38 PM > To: Potapov Vladislav > Cc: gert at space.net; bangert at parknet.dk; members-discuss at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] budget 2012 > > Hi, > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 06:32:00PM +0400, poty at iiat.ru wrote: > > It IS true. Several people can prove that. The answer of the RIPE NCC > > was - it is already late to change something. The presentation was > > forged - and personally you knew that. > > I was there, and the change of the charging scheme was discussed for > *three* consecutive meetings, and it was voted for, and received the > majority of votes. > > The change to per-piece billing for PI and AS is came with the adoption > of 2007-01 and had nothing to do whatsoever with increasing the budget > (which it didn't, the LIR categories and fees were adjusted to make > this neutral in regards to the overall budget). > > Of course there are people that do not like any change that will > directly affect their business model (getting lots of PI for free and > selling for > money) - and this is why the change was announced well in advance, and > voted for(!). > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? > > SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner- > Culemann > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From kurtis at netnod.se Tue Oct 11 18:05:59 2011 From: kurtis at netnod.se (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:05:59 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] budget 2012 In-Reply-To: <201110111223.10374.bangert@parknet.dk> References: <8795FC63-2380-4D9E-B788-47CF14B61CD3@vaioni.com> <201110111223.10374.bangert@parknet.dk> Message-ID: <7C4D75A8-DDBC-4858-9B82-824B9BFA1DA7@netnod.se> On 11 okt 2011, at 12:23, Thilo Bangert wrote: > > RIPE is growing and therefore they need more money. do the math - and listen > to what other people on this list say: while the budget is increasing the > individual membership fee is not (as much), since there're many more members > to shoulder the burden. also the increased budget is necessary to fund the > actions decided upon by the community. While I personally have some sympathy for the increase in RIPE NCC budget over the years, I think your last sentence is somewhat problematic. I would be much more at ease with the NCC budget it the last was true. It's true in the sense that we as members approve the activity plan, it's less true in the sense that the activity plan is not broken down in a way that would make costs transparent. This said, the NCC has become a lot more transparent in recent years, but they could still do better. What I would like to ask from the RIPE NCC (or ask the board to ask the NCC to produce) for the next AGM is a P&L statement corresponding to the activity plan. I don't think we need this every year but as part of long term forecasting, especially in uncertain time like now that would be great to have. That would also make it a lot easier (and transparent) to account for what you say. That as we are more members and the run out fair policy that is where we are spending more money. Right now that is not easy to see.... Best regards, - kurtis - --- Kurt Erik Lindqvist, CEO kurtis at netnod.se, Direct: +46-8-562 860 11, Switch: +46-8-562 860 00 Franz?ngatan 5 | SE-112 51 Stockholm | Sweden -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 163 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From hank at efes.iucc.ac.il Tue Oct 11 18:22:08 2011 From: hank at efes.iucc.ac.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:22:08 +0200 (IST) Subject: [members-discuss] budget 2012 In-Reply-To: <716386A91DAF07479C48E3E9A2A9EEFCF118C0522D@DONPEPITO.barcelona.local> References: <716386A91DAF07479C48E3E9A2A9EEFCF118C0522D@DONPEPITO.barcelona.local> Message-ID: On Tue, 11 Oct 2011, Xavier Llongueras wrote: Look at your email headers. You have one of 2 methods to get unsubscribed: List-Unsubscribe: , Regards, Hank > It?s possible not receive any mail from RIPPE ?? > It?s a very fucky spam !!! > Thanks > > -----Mensaje original----- > De: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] En nombre de poty at iiat.ru > Enviado el: martes, 11 de octubre de 2011 16:49 > Para: gert at space.net > CC: bangert at parknet.dk; members-discuss at ripe.net > Asunto: Re: [members-discuss] budget 2012 > > Yes, it is voted for, but what was the words preceding the vote? In the > slides there were many "proves" that the current scheme is a catastrophe > (which was a complete lie, because the current scheme didn't use the > right factors in the presentation intentionally - after the presentation > we discussed the matter and many RIPE NCC members agreed that) and if we > didn't vote for new scheme the world would die completely. :) I know > also that there was big lobby in the GM. As soon as there was voting - > nothing could be done against it, but many people know - the intention > of the decision was bad! > > Regards, > Vladislav Potapov -------------- next part -------------- ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From ptyll at nitronet.pl Tue Oct 11 18:22:58 2011 From: ptyll at nitronet.pl (Pawel Tyll) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:22:58 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Electronic voting. Message-ID: <458801823.20111011182258@nitronet.pl> Why is electronic voting made so complicated? Why can't it be a part of LIR portal? In who's interest lies reduction of votes given? ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From nigel at titley.com Tue Oct 11 21:29:53 2011 From: nigel at titley.com (Nigel Titley) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 20:29:53 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] budget 2012 In-Reply-To: References: <8795FC63-2380-4D9E-B788-47CF14B61CD3@vaioni.com> Message-ID: <4E949931.50706@titley.com> On 11/10/2011 10:18, Geert Hauwaerts wrote: > > I strongly agree with the motions raised about maintaining a > responsible budget; and perhaps in light of recent developments, we > should take a moment and evaluate some of the projects the RIPE NCC > has taken on itself. > This is why we circulate the activity plan well in advance of setting the budget and the charging scheme. We typically get no response to the activity plan at all. I do take on board Kurtis' comments about making the activity plan more transparent with regards to costs of individual activities and we will ask the RIPE NCC to make this clearer. > > Additionally, and without any disrespect, if any of the Board Members > feel they do not have adequate time to fulfill their duties; they > might wish to vacate their seat in favor of somebody who does. > RIPE NCC board/RIPE WG activities take up roughly 2 days per *week* of my time. I'm lucky to have an employer that is happy with this. However, as I made clear, this discussion blew up at the time of the month when I happen to have to spend a couple of days full time on the day job. Apologies for this. Nigel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From poty at iiat.ru Wed Oct 12 08:55:44 2011 From: poty at iiat.ru (poty at iiat.ru) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 10:55:44 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] FW: budget 2012 Message-ID: Hello everyone, The activity plan is almost useless as soon as it doesn't include any expenses. The biggest part of the so called "plan" is a copy from previous years' plans and there is no mention why the budget for executing the plan should be raised and for what needs particularly. The community is asking for the information for many years and many years the "plan" exists in the pristine clear from expenses form. Regards, Potapov Vladislav Ru.iiat From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Nigel Titley Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 11:30 PM To: members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] budget 2012 On 11/10/2011 10:18, Geert Hauwaerts wrote: I strongly agree with the motions raised about maintaining a responsible budget; and perhaps in light of recent developments, we should take a moment and evaluate some of the projects the RIPE NCC has taken on itself. This is why we circulate the activity plan well in advance of setting the budget and the charging scheme. We typically get no response to the activity plan at all. I do take on board Kurtis' comments about making the activity plan more transparent with regards to costs of individual activities and we will ask the RIPE NCC to make this clearer. Additionally, and without any disrespect, if any of the Board Members feel they do not have adequate time to fulfill their duties; they might wish to vacate their seat in favor of somebody who does. RIPE NCC board/RIPE WG activities take up roughly 2 days per *week* of my time. I'm lucky to have an employer that is happy with this. However, as I made clear, this discussion blew up at the time of the month when I happen to have to spend a couple of days full time on the day job. Apologies for this. Nigel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ATT303056.txt URL: -------------- next part -------------- ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From ula at ripn.net Wed Oct 12 09:26:34 2011 From: ula at ripn.net (Larisa Yurkina) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 11:26:34 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] budget 2012 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E954128.8040808@ripn.net> poty at iiat.ru wrote, 11.10.2011 19:03: Hi everybody, > Then - could you explain - why my question about why selling ASN per-number is not violating the current policy was not answered? Or you would deny this question too? > > I attended that GM and do confirm that the question asked by Vladislav did not get answer. Someone of Executive Board members replied that the question was really serious and the problem should be thought out carefully. But it never happened. Which brings us again to the core problem of the RIPE NCC billing - whether we pay for number of resources or registration service itselff.While IPs could be calculated easily, the registration work have no clear measurement accuracy. So, when prices go up sharply people start bothering "what for?", so do I. >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Richard Hartmann [mailto:richih.mailinglist at gmail.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 6:54 PM >> To: Potapov Vladislav >> Cc: gert at space.net; bangert at parknet.dk; members-discuss at ripe.net >> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] budget 2012 >> >> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 16:32, wrote: >> >> >>> It IS true. Several people can prove that. The answer of the RIPE NCC >>> was - it is already late to change something. The presentation was >>> forged - and personally you knew that. >>> >> While Gert did a good job of dismantling your factual points, I would >> like to add a more personal/netiquette note. >> >> If you feel that you absolutely _have_ to accuse someone not only of >> lying but of deliberate manipulation, please have some specific, >> verifiable facts at the ready to back up your claim. In this specific >> case, I highly doubt you have any. >> >> 2007-01 has been discussed at length prior to its voting. Coming late >> to the game is not an excuse to pretend your voice was ignored on >> purpose. >> >> >> Richard >> > > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. > With respect, -- Larisa Yurkina RosNIIROS tel: +7(495)737-0604 fax: +7(495)737-0684 ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From nigel at titley.com Wed Oct 12 14:30:17 2011 From: nigel at titley.com (Nigel Titley) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 13:30:17 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] budget 2012 In-Reply-To: <4E954128.8040808@ripn.net> References: <4E954128.8040808@ripn.net> Message-ID: <4E958859.4010503@titley.com> On 12/10/2011 08:26, Larisa Yurkina wrote: > I attended that GM and do confirm that the question asked by Vladislav > did not get answer. Someone of Executive Board members replied that the > question was really serious and the problem should be thought out > carefully. But it never happened. Which brings us again to the core My recollection is that Vladislav asked a question about the 18% budget increase directly caused by the implementation of 2007-01 but I don't recall another. This may be faulty recollection or just a difficulty understanding the question, for which I apologise. > problem of the RIPE NCC billing - whether we pay for number of resources > or registration service itselff.While IPs could be calculated easily, > the registration work have no clear measurement accuracy. So, when > prices go up sharply people start bothering "what for?", so do I. > The intention of the new charging scheme was not to increase the per member costs in any substantial way. True, the budget has increased but so have the number of members so the per member cost should not have substantially changed. However in any change to the charging scheme there are going to be winners and losers. We calculated that the numbers of members who saw an increase would be roughly balanced by those who saw a decrease. I suspect that we are unlikely to hear from the ones who see a decrease. Which brings us back to a fundamental question: do we want a change to the charging scheme? Feedback prior to this whole discussion indicated that we did. People complained mainly about the charge being complicated to calculate and difficult to understand. Complication was further introduced by 2007-01 and we put off implementing this for an additional year under the principle of least surprise. So the board and the RIPE NCC held a series of meetings to try and thrash out a charging scheme that was simpler and in some sense fairer, also hopefully bringing some of the legacy address holders into the fold. We also have to work within the constraints of the Dutch tax system, which eliminates certain options, as we've seen. Finally we, the board, have a legal duty, affecting us personally (yes, that means they take my house away if the RIPE NCC gets into difficulty), to run the business of the RIPE NCC in a prudent and legal fashion. You've seen the results in these discussions. However, if people don't want us to change the charging scheme, then say so, or vote against it at the GM. If the charging scheme is not passed in the GM then we continue with the current scheme. If this means we dip into our reserves then so be it. Nigel ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From mike at theinternet.org.uk Wed Oct 12 14:56:13 2011 From: mike at theinternet.org.uk (Mike Hollowell) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 13:56:13 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] budget 2012 In-Reply-To: <4E958859.4010503@titley.com> References: <4E954128.8040808@ripn.net> <4E958859.4010503@titley.com> Message-ID: <1318424173.7079.144.camel@wsk1-lm> On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 13:30 +0100, Nigel Titley wrote: > The intention of the new charging scheme was not to increase the per > member costs in any substantial way. True, the budget has increased but > so have the number of members so the per member cost should not have > substantially changed. However in any change to the charging scheme > there are going to be winners and losers. We calculated that the numbers > of members who saw an increase would be roughly balanced by those who > saw a decrease. I suspect that we are unlikely to hear from the ones who > see a decrease. 30% of XSmall members moving up, 9% of XSmall members moving down. 59% of Small members moving up, 14% Small members moving down. 100% M, L & XL moving up. Doesn't look the least bit balanced, roughly or otherwise. Mike ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From lists-ripe at c4inet.net Wed Oct 12 15:50:12 2011 From: lists-ripe at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 13:50:12 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] Clarification re proposed Charging Scheme 2012 Message-ID: <20111012135012.GB8764@cilantro.c4inet.net> Hi, the proposed CS2012 contains the following footnote to the table for the calculation of membership categories: "Note 1: All IPv4 and IPv6 addresses (Provider Independent and Provider Aggregatable) are taken into account." For clarification, does this mean all PI space managed by the LIR on behalf of End Users, or only PI space directly assigned to the LIR? If the former, what is the justification to charging for this space twice, once through moving into a higher category and again through the EUR50 annual charge for Independent Resources? rgds, Sascha Luck ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From brandon at bogons.net Wed Oct 12 17:52:55 2011 From: brandon at bogons.net (Brandon Butterworth) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:52:55 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] budget 2012 Message-ID: <20111012155255.GI21328@virtual.bogons.net> > Complication was further > introduced by 2007-01 and we put off implementing this for an additional > year under the principle of least surprise. If you need to charge to make people use it effectively just put it on our bill like everything else. Having to faff with clients signing contracts was surprise and not wanted, trying to make clients become LIR/direct RIPE customers was not wanted. > We also have to work within the constraints of the Dutch tax > system, which eliminates certain options, as we've seen. Finally we, the > board, have a legal duty, affecting us personally (yes, that means they > take my house away if the RIPE NCC gets into difficulty), to run the > business of the RIPE NCC in a prudent and legal fashion. Move it to UK and make a limited company then, that's a crazy risk to have to take on personally regards brandon ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From nigel at titley.com Wed Oct 12 18:22:26 2011 From: nigel at titley.com (Nigel Titley) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 17:22:26 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] budget 2012 In-Reply-To: <20111012155255.GI21328@virtual.bogons.net> References: <20111012155255.GI21328@virtual.bogons.net> Message-ID: <4E95BEC2.50906@titley.com> On 12/10/2011 16:52, Brandon Butterworth wrote: > If you need to charge to make people use it effectively just put it on > our bill like everything else. Having to faff with clients signing > contracts was surprise and not wanted, trying to make clients become > LIR/direct RIPE customers was not wanted. Agreed. However, that was what 2007-01 asked the RIPE NCC to do. So it was what the community wanted. > Move it to UK and make a limited company then, that's a crazy risk to > have to take on personally Even the directors of a UK limited company have personal financial liability under some circumstances. Of course in the commercial world there are rewards against which to balance the risk. Admittedly, the risk is small in the case of the RIPE NCC, but it is still there. All the board members do the job because we think the job is worth doing and the (non-financial) rewards exceed the risk. Nigel ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From nigel at titley.com Wed Oct 12 18:24:28 2011 From: nigel at titley.com (Nigel Titley) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 17:24:28 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] budget 2012 In-Reply-To: <1318424173.7079.144.camel@wsk1-lm> References: <4E954128.8040808@ripn.net> <4E958859.4010503@titley.com> <1318424173.7079.144.camel@wsk1-lm> Message-ID: <4E95BF3C.6030500@titley.com> On 12/10/2011 13:56, Mike Hollowell wrote: > On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 13:30 +0100, Nigel Titley wrote: > > 30% of XSmall members moving up, 9% of XSmall members moving down. > 59% of Small members moving up, 14% Small members moving down. > 100% M, L& XL moving up. > > Doesn't look the least bit balanced, roughly or otherwise. > I did talk about the costs and not the membership category. Let me see if Jochem can give us some figures on what percentage of members will see *cost* increase and decrease. Nigel ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From gert at space.net Wed Oct 12 19:23:40 2011 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 19:23:40 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] budget 2012 In-Reply-To: <20111012155255.GI21328@virtual.bogons.net> References: <20111012155255.GI21328@virtual.bogons.net> Message-ID: <20111012172339.GY72014@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 04:52:55PM +0100, Brandon Butterworth wrote: > Having to faff with clients signing contracts was surprise and not wanted, > trying to make clients become LIR/direct RIPE customers was not wanted. Well, the "contracts" bit came from the address policy working group, was discussed in great lengths there, and eventually reached consensus. The point about 2007-01 was that it was needed as a compromise to be able to come to an agreement about the IPv6 PI policy - without the contractual basis of 2007-01, we still wouldn't have IPv6 PI, and that would have impeded IPv6 deployment. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From jochem at ripe.net Wed Oct 12 19:35:38 2011 From: jochem at ripe.net (Jochem de Ruig) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 19:35:38 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Clarification re proposed Charging Scheme 2012 In-Reply-To: <20111012135012.GB8764@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <20111012135012.GB8764@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <3B539101-7726-4C41-83C3-71B2C8E753AC@ripe.net> Hi Sascha, Yes, PI address space is taken into account twofold for two reasons. Firstly, on average, a PI request takes more time for staff to handle, administer and register properly than a PA assignment or allocation request. Secondly, if PI space is not be taken into account for categorisation it would favour larger PI requests over PA requests in certain cases. For example, if a /18 is requested and would put an LIR into a larger category, if we did not take the PI resource into account for the categorisation, requesting a /18 of PI space would be beneficial over a requesting a /18 of PA space. Regards, Jochem On Oct 12, 2011, at 3:50 PM, Sascha Luck wrote: > Hi, > > the proposed CS2012 contains the following footnote to the > table for the calculation of membership categories: > > "Note 1: All IPv4 and IPv6 addresses (Provider Independent > and Provider Aggregatable) are taken into account." > > For clarification, does this mean all PI space managed by > the LIR on behalf of End Users, or only PI space directly > assigned to the LIR? > > > If the former, what is the justification to charging for > this space twice, once through moving into a higher category > and again through the EUR50 annual charge for Independent > Resources? > > rgds, > Sascha Luck > > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 1735 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From lists-ripe at c4inet.net Wed Oct 12 19:48:29 2011 From: lists-ripe at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 17:48:29 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] Clarification re proposed Charging Scheme 2012 In-Reply-To: <3B539101-7726-4C41-83C3-71B2C8E753AC@ripe.net> References: <20111012135012.GB8764@cilantro.c4inet.net> <3B539101-7726-4C41-83C3-71B2C8E753AC@ripe.net> Message-ID: <20111012174828.GC8764@cilantro.c4inet.net> Hi Jochem, On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 07:35:38PM +0200, Jochem de Ruig wrote: >For example, if a /18 is requested and would put an LIR into a larger >category, if we did not take the PI resource into account for the >categorisation, requesting a /18 of PI space would be beneficial over a >requesting a /18 of PA space. Right, this makes kind of sense for PI space assigned to the requesting LIR. What about space requested on behalf of end users - the LIR does not benefit from the use of this space, in fact after 2007-01 it merely handles the request on behalf of the end user and the NCC. Regards, Sascha Luck ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From nigel at titley.com Wed Oct 12 19:52:28 2011 From: nigel at titley.com (Nigel Titley) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 18:52:28 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Clarification re proposed Charging Scheme 2012 In-Reply-To: <20111012174828.GC8764@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <20111012135012.GB8764@cilantro.c4inet.net> <3B539101-7726-4C41-83C3-71B2C8E753AC@ripe.net> <20111012174828.GC8764@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <4E95D3DC.2060703@titley.com> On 12/10/2011 18:48, Sascha Luck wrote: > Hi Jochem, > > On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 07:35:38PM +0200, Jochem de Ruig wrote: >> For example, if a /18 is requested and would put an LIR into a larger >> category, if we did not take the PI resource into account for the >> categorisation, requesting a /18 of PI space would be beneficial over a >> requesting a /18 of PA space. > Right, this makes kind of sense for PI space assigned to the requesting > LIR. What about space requested on behalf of end users - the LIR does > not benefit from the use of this space, in fact after 2007-01 it merely > handles the request on behalf of the end user and the NCC. > The LIR is free to charge the end user for this service, surely? Or am I confused? Nigel ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From lists-ripe at c4inet.net Wed Oct 12 20:10:51 2011 From: lists-ripe at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 18:10:51 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] Clarification re proposed Charging Scheme 2012 In-Reply-To: <4E95D3DC.2060703@titley.com> References: <20111012135012.GB8764@cilantro.c4inet.net> <3B539101-7726-4C41-83C3-71B2C8E753AC@ripe.net> <20111012174828.GC8764@cilantro.c4inet.net> <4E95D3DC.2060703@titley.com> Message-ID: <20111012181051.GD8764@cilantro.c4inet.net> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 06:52:28PM +0100, Nigel Titley wrote: >The LIR is free to charge the end user for this service, surely? Or am I >confused? In fact, the LIR *must* charge the end-user for the service, the policy says so. That is not my question though, I would like to know whether end-user assigned PI space counts into the category classification. If so, how are situations handled where an end-user moves their PI space management to a different LIR during the billing year? - Is the original LIR entitled to a refund, provided it now falls into a lower category? - Does the "receiving" LIR owe a top-up fee if it now exceeds its "bundle" and moves to a higher category? Regards, Sascha Luck ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From hamed at skydsl.ir Wed Oct 12 23:37:02 2011 From: hamed at skydsl.ir (Hamed Shafaghi) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 01:07:02 +0330 Subject: [members-discuss] Clarification re proposed Charging Scheme 2012 In-Reply-To: <20111012181051.GD8764@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <20111012135012.GB8764@cilantro.c4inet.net> <3B539101-7726-4C41-83C3-71B2C8E753AC@ripe.net> <20111012174828.GC8764@cilantro.c4inet.net> <4E95D3DC.2060703@titley.com> <20111012181051.GD8764@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: In fact End-User PI space does not have benefits for LIR so I really think counting PI space into the category classification is wrong when RIPE Charge END-Users for Independent Resources 50EUR annual. -- I Hamed Shafaghi I I Managing Director I I Skydsl? Telecom I hamed at skydsl.ir I www.skydsl.ir I On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 9:40 PM, Sascha Luck wrote: > On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 06:52:28PM +0100, Nigel Titley wrote: > >The LIR is free to charge the end user for this service, surely? Or am I > >confused? > > In fact, the LIR *must* charge the end-user for the service, the policy > says so. > That is not my question though, I would like to know whether end-user > assigned PI space counts into the category classification. > If so, how are situations handled where an end-user moves their PI space > management to a different LIR during the billing year? > > - Is the original LIR entitled to a refund, provided it now falls into > a lower category? > > - Does the "receiving" LIR owe a top-up fee if it now exceeds its "bundle" > and moves to a higher category? > > Regards, > Sascha Luck > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the > general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From > here, you can add or remove addresses. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From nigel at titley.com Thu Oct 13 00:37:11 2011 From: nigel at titley.com (Nigel Titley) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 23:37:11 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Clarification re proposed Charging Scheme 2012 In-Reply-To: <20111012181051.GD8764@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <20111012135012.GB8764@cilantro.c4inet.net> <3B539101-7726-4C41-83C3-71B2C8E753AC@ripe.net> <20111012174828.GC8764@cilantro.c4inet.net> <4E95D3DC.2060703@titley.com> <20111012181051.GD8764@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <4E961697.20004@titley.com> On 12/10/2011 19:10, Sascha Luck wrote: > On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 06:52:28PM +0100, Nigel Titley wrote: >> The LIR is free to charge the end user for this service, surely? Or am I >> confused? > In fact, the LIR *must* charge the end-user for the service, the policy > says so. > That is not my question though, I would like to know whether end-user > assigned PI space counts into the category classification. > If so, how are situations handled where an end-user moves their PI space > management to a different LIR during the billing year? > > - Is the original LIR entitled to a refund, provided it now falls into > a lower category? > > - Does the "receiving" LIR owe a top-up fee if it now exceeds its "bundle" > and moves to a higher category? > Hmm, good point. My gut feeling is that a snapshot is taken at the end of the year, at which time the category classification is recalculated. So, no top-ups, no refunds. However, I'm willing to be corrected Nigel ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From jochem at ripe.net Thu Oct 13 09:52:47 2011 From: jochem at ripe.net (Jochem de Ruig) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 09:52:47 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Clarification re proposed Charging Scheme 2012 In-Reply-To: <4E961697.20004@titley.com> References: <20111012135012.GB8764@cilantro.c4inet.net> <3B539101-7726-4C41-83C3-71B2C8E753AC@ripe.net> <20111012174828.GC8764@cilantro.c4inet.net> <4E95D3DC.2060703@titley.com> <20111012181051.GD8764@cilantro.c4inet.net> <4E961697.20004@titley.com> Message-ID: Hi Sasha, Nigel, Just to confirm Nigel is correct we take a snapshot. We use the information we have in the registry on 30 September 2011. Rgds, Jochem On Oct 13, 2011, at 12:37 AM, Nigel Titley wrote: > On 12/10/2011 19:10, Sascha Luck wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 06:52:28PM +0100, Nigel Titley wrote: >>> The LIR is free to charge the end user for this service, surely? Or am I >>> confused? >> In fact, the LIR *must* charge the end-user for the service, the policy >> says so. >> That is not my question though, I would like to know whether end-user >> assigned PI space counts into the category classification. >> If so, how are situations handled where an end-user moves their PI space >> management to a different LIR during the billing year? >> >> - Is the original LIR entitled to a refund, provided it now falls into >> a lower category? >> >> - Does the "receiving" LIR owe a top-up fee if it now exceeds its "bundle" >> and moves to a higher category? >> > Hmm, good point. My gut feeling is that a snapshot is taken at the end > of the year, at which time the category classification is recalculated. > So, no top-ups, no refunds. > > However, I'm willing to be corrected > > Nigel > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 1735 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From poty at iiat.ru Thu Oct 13 10:55:56 2011 From: poty at iiat.ru (poty at iiat.ru) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 12:55:56 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] FW: Clarification re proposed Charging Scheme 2012 Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: Potapov Vladislav Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 12:27 PM To: 'Nigel Titley' Subject: RE: [members-discuss] Clarification re proposed Charging Scheme 2012 Nigel, Yes, LIR can charge the end user for this service, but the artificial "protection" measures have led to strange "side effects", which I'll try to explain in the real numbers of one of the LIRs I administer: What the LIR has: PA: 1x /19 AS: 1 Client PI: 1x /23 Client AS: 1 As you can see - nothing special and abusive? But let's think about that once more: - according to the PA allocation and LIRs ASN I'd pay in 2012: Category=M, >20 but <=19 IPv4, >8 but <=16 ASN = 2000 euro + 50 euro (1 ASN)= 2050 euro - serving the client's resources in addition: Category=L, >19 but <=16 IPv4, >16 but <=32 ASN = 3000 euro + 150 euro (2 ASN + PI)= 3150 euro So the "protective measures" costs the LIR legally serving only [1 PI assignment with ASN] additional 1100 euro or 550 euro for a "independent resource". Is it fair? How could the LIR count how much the client should pay for the resources if every year RIPE NCC invents new charging scheme with such huge deviations? IF (I pointed out once more - IF) the scheme should be voted - it MUST have some "independent resources margin" like it has about ASNs, but not pile up all addresses chunks. I should clarify my position about the three supporting documents listed in the GM 2011 agenda. - I'm not against rising budget, but the rise should be clearly explained. In this case the Activity Plan should have all the necessary cost values, the Budget - clear explanation what the additional expenses will go, Charging Scheme should be stable to be able to predict LIRs expenses. (Side note: if a company due to a very good business plan has unnecessary 1k-2k euro to pay for bad work of financial department of RIPE NCC, it could as well send the money to me - I'm very welcomed this motion. :) ). - The proposed Charging Scheme has not achieved declared goal - simplicity and in my opinion became even more tough to understand and have many dishonest issues. Then for the 2012 the Charging Scheme should be saved from 2011. Regards, Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss- > bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Nigel Titley > Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 9:52 PM > To: members-discuss at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Clarification re proposed Charging > Scheme 2012 > > On 12/10/2011 18:48, Sascha Luck wrote: > > Hi Jochem, > > > > On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 07:35:38PM +0200, Jochem de Ruig wrote: > >> For example, if a /18 is requested and would put an LIR into a > larger > >> category, if we did not take the PI resource into account for the > >> categorisation, requesting a /18 of PI space would be beneficial > over a > >> requesting a /18 of PA space. > > Right, this makes kind of sense for PI space assigned to the > requesting > > LIR. What about space requested on behalf of end users - the LIR > does > > not benefit from the use of this space, in fact after 2007-01 it > merely > > handles the request on behalf of the end user and the NCC. > > > The LIR is free to charge the end user for this service, surely? Or am > I > confused? > > Nigel > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the > general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From > here, you can add or remove addresses. ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From alfredo at solucionesdinamicas.net Thu Oct 13 11:06:10 2011 From: alfredo at solucionesdinamicas.net (Alfredo Sola) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 11:06:10 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Fwd: [ncc-announce] [NOC #EXN-767-26459]: 128.0.0.0/16 configured as martian: Please update your routers References: <1318495509.4e96a51597d96@helpdesk.fmn.uk.net> Message-ID: <51B78E37-AF19-4218-8089-47EF3EB8DB0D@solucionesdinamicas.net> Does this set a new record? These mor^H^H^Hcolleagues have their RIPE-subscribed address redirected to their ticketing system, AND this Fabien guy who receives the new ticket notifications has set an auto-responder that respects neither a mailing list, nor his own ticketing system. I have to confess that I am beginning to be rather unpolite with this kind of situation. If I had nothing better to do... Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > De: "postmaster at internet-fr.net" > Asunto: [ncc-announce] [NOC #EXN-767-26459]: 128.0.0.0/16 configured as martian: Please update your routers > Fecha: 13 de octubre de 2011 10:45:09 GMT+02:00 > Para: ncc-announce at ripe.net > Responder a: noc at fmn.uk.net > > Bonjour, > Je suis actuellement en cong?, de retour mercredi 19 Octobre. En cas d'urgence, merci de contacter notre service support au +33 1 64 53 17 98. > Cordialement, > > Hi, > I'm in vacation until Wednesday 19th Oct. You can reach our support team at this phone number: +33 1 64 53 17 98. > regards, > > Fabien Dedenon > Internet Fr > > > > Ticket Details > Ticket ID: EXN-767-26459 > Department: Network Operations (NOC) > Type: Issue > Status: Open > Priority: Medium > > Support Center: http://helpdesk.fmn.uk.net/index.php? > > Cordialement, > > Hi, > I'm in vacation until Wednesday 19th Oct. You can reach our support team at this phone number: +33 1 64 53 17 98. > regards, > > Fabien Dedenon > Internet Fr > > > > Ticket Details > Ticket ID: EXN-767-26459 > Department: Network Operations (NOC) > Type: Issue > Status: Open > Priority: Medium > > Support Center: http://helpdesk.fmn.uk.net/index.php? -- Alfredo Sola ASP5-RIPE http://www.solucionesdinamicas.net/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From d.siedlecki at futuroexito.pl Thu Oct 13 11:20:34 2011 From: d.siedlecki at futuroexito.pl (Dariusz Siedlecki) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 11:20:34 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] FW: Clarification re proposed Charging Scheme 2012 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E96AD62.5020405@futuroexito.pl> W dniu 13.10.2011 10:55, poty at iiat.ru pisze: > > -----Original Message----- > From: Potapov Vladislav > Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 12:27 PM > To: 'Nigel Titley' > Subject: RE: [members-discuss] Clarification re proposed Charging Scheme > 2012 > > Nigel, > Yes, LIR can charge the end user for this service, but the artificial > "protection" measures have led to strange "side effects", which I'll try > to explain in the real numbers of one of the LIRs I administer: > What the LIR has: > PA: 1x /19 > AS: 1 > Client PI: 1x /23 > Client AS: 1 > As you can see - nothing special and abusive? But let's think about that > once more: > - according to the PA allocation and LIRs ASN I'd pay in 2012: > Category=M,>20 but<=19 IPv4,>8 but<=16 ASN = 2000 euro + 50 euro (1 > ASN)= 2050 euro > - serving the client's resources in addition: > Category=L,>19 but<=16 IPv4,>16 but<=32 ASN = 3000 euro + 150 euro > (2 ASN + PI)= 3150 euro > So the "protective measures" costs the LIR legally serving only [1 PI > assignment with ASN] additional 1100 euro or 550 euro for a "independent > resource". Is it fair? How could the LIR count how much the client > should pay for the resources if every year RIPE NCC invents new charging > scheme with such huge deviations? > > IF (I pointed out once more - IF) the scheme should be voted - it MUST > have some "independent resources margin" like it has about ASNs, but not > pile up all addresses chunks. > > I should clarify my position about the three supporting documents listed > in the GM 2011 agenda. > - I'm not against rising budget, but the rise should be clearly > explained. In this case the Activity Plan should have all the necessary > cost values, the Budget - clear explanation what the additional expenses > will go, Charging Scheme should be stable to be able to predict LIRs > expenses. (Side note: if a company due to a very good business plan has > unnecessary 1k-2k euro to pay for bad work of financial department of > RIPE NCC, it could as well send the money to me - I'm very welcomed this > motion. :) ). > - The proposed Charging Scheme has not achieved declared goal - > simplicity and in my opinion became even more tough to understand and > have many dishonest issues. Then for the 2012 the Charging Scheme should > be saved from 2011. > > Regards, > Vladislav Potapov > Ru.iiat > > I agree 100% with Vladislav. We have agreements with clients for a small charge - maybe twice more than resource fee (50E) in RIPE. Sometimes there are very small clients but they need to have PI because of the way of working. Nowadays income from the clients isn't bigger but is less and less year by year because of competition on the market. This what you plan with 2012 budget is like backstab for smaller ISPs, not for a big telecoms. The charing scheme from 2011 was clear. Now is much more complicated and unfathomable (like resolve problem which was easy to predict from 30 years, but now you want to clarify it in one year - only by rising fee). It is not fair. -- Dariusz Siedlecki Futuro Exito ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From erik at bais.name Thu Oct 13 12:38:02 2011 From: erik at bais.name (Erik Bais) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 12:38:02 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Side tracking on Charging schema and Auto-mail responders ... Message-ID: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C69937@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> If one would like to put a proposal forward that RIPE would actually increase the cost category of a LIR that replies to send emails on the general mail lists with a ticketing system with at least 1 category for the year ahead ... Is that something that one can ask for to vote on the AGM or is that something that needs a PDP proposal ? Kind regards, Erik Bais -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From sven at cb3rob.net Thu Oct 13 12:43:06 2011 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 10:43:06 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [members-discuss] Side tracking on Charging schema and Auto-mail responders ... In-Reply-To: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C69937@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> References: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C69937@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> Message-ID: On Thu, 13 Oct 2011, Erik Bais wrote: > If one would like to put a proposal forward that RIPE would actually increase the cost category of a LIR that replies to send emails on the general mail lists with a ticketing system with at least 1 category for the year ahead ... I think deutsche telekom already is in the highest billing catagory :P however we could make a special catagory for those, flat fee, a kazillion bucks a year . paid per 3 years in advance.> ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From martin at airwire.ie Thu Oct 13 12:41:08 2011 From: martin at airwire.ie (Martin List-Petersen) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 11:41:08 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Side tracking on Charging schema and Auto-mail responders ... In-Reply-To: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C69937@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> References: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C69937@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> Message-ID: <4E96C044.9000006@airwire.ie> On 13/10/11 11:38, Erik Bais wrote: > If one would like to put a proposal forward that RIPE would actually increase the cost category of a LIR that replies to send emails on the general mail lists with a ticketing system with at least 1 category for the year ahead ... > > Is that something that one can ask for to vote on the AGM or is that something that needs a PDP proposal ? > The bigger problem is, that ncc-announce actually lets anybody send through it, while it only should be relaying approved messages by the ncc. That there's plenty of RIPE members out there, that don't care enough about who they're spamming is a different issue. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968 ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From lists-ripe at c4inet.net Thu Oct 13 15:28:46 2011 From: lists-ripe at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 13:28:46 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] Clarification re proposed Charging Scheme 2012 In-Reply-To: References: <20111012135012.GB8764@cilantro.c4inet.net> <3B539101-7726-4C41-83C3-71B2C8E753AC@ripe.net> <20111012174828.GC8764@cilantro.c4inet.net> <4E95D3DC.2060703@titley.com> <20111012181051.GD8764@cilantro.c4inet.net> <4E961697.20004@titley.com> Message-ID: <20111013132846.GE8764@cilantro.c4inet.net> Hi Jochem, On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 09:52:47AM +0200, Jochem de Ruig wrote: >Just to confirm Nigel is correct we take a snapshot. >We use the information we have in the registry on 30 September 2011. thank you for the information. I would still like an answer to the following questions: a) are Independent Resources not assigned to the LIR itself included in the category calculation and, if yes, b) what is the justification for this change? I accept your point on LIR-assigned Indepndent Resources and preventing LIRs from getting extra space "on the cheap". Kind Regards, Sascha Luck ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From jochem at ripe.net Thu Oct 13 16:18:15 2011 From: jochem at ripe.net (Jochem de Ruig) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 16:18:15 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] budget 2012 In-Reply-To: <4E95BF3C.6030500@titley.com> References: <4E954128.8040808@ripn.net> <4E958859.4010503@titley.com> <1318424173.7079.144.camel@wsk1-lm> <4E95BF3C.6030500@titley.com> Message-ID: Dear all, About 40% of members will pay less and about 60% of members will pay more. Pay less in EUR less than 1,000 0% 1,000 - 500 9% 499 - 0 31% Pay more 1 - 499 32% 500 - 999 3% 1,000 - 1,999 19% 2,000 - 5,000 4% more than 5,000 1% Regards, Jochem On Oct 12, 2011, at 6:24 PM, Nigel Titley wrote: > On 12/10/2011 13:56, Mike Hollowell wrote: >> On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 13:30 +0100, Nigel Titley wrote: >> >> 30% of XSmall members moving up, 9% of XSmall members moving down. >> 59% of Small members moving up, 14% Small members moving down. >> 100% M, L& XL moving up. >> >> Doesn't look the least bit balanced, roughly or otherwise. >> > I did talk about the costs and not the membership category. Let me see if Jochem can give us some figures on what percentage of members will see *cost* increase and decrease. > > Nigel > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 1735 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From jochem at ripe.net Thu Oct 13 16:26:23 2011 From: jochem at ripe.net (Jochem de Ruig) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 16:26:23 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Clarification re proposed Charging Scheme 2012 In-Reply-To: <20111013132846.GE8764@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <20111012135012.GB8764@cilantro.c4inet.net> <3B539101-7726-4C41-83C3-71B2C8E753AC@ripe.net> <20111012174828.GC8764@cilantro.c4inet.net> <4E95D3DC.2060703@titley.com> <20111012181051.GD8764@cilantro.c4inet.net> <4E961697.20004@titley.com> <20111013132846.GE8764@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: Hi Sascha, > >> Just to confirm Nigel is correct we take a snapshot. >> We use the information we have in the registry on 30 September 2011. > > thank you for the information. > > I would still like an answer to the following questions: > > a) are Independent Resources not assigned to the LIR itself included > in the category calculation and, if yes, > b) what is the justification for this change? > Yes if they are still registered with us under your LIR as the sponsoring LIR. This is not a change, this has been the case since we started charging an additional fee for Independent Resources. There is no per PI assignment fee if the sponsoring LIR lists the resource as not my end User anymore before the snapshot date. Regards, Jochem -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 1735 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From lists-ripe at c4inet.net Thu Oct 13 16:49:05 2011 From: lists-ripe at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:49:05 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] Clarification re proposed Charging Scheme 2012 In-Reply-To: References: <20111012135012.GB8764@cilantro.c4inet.net> <3B539101-7726-4C41-83C3-71B2C8E753AC@ripe.net> <20111012174828.GC8764@cilantro.c4inet.net> <4E95D3DC.2060703@titley.com> <20111012181051.GD8764@cilantro.c4inet.net> <4E961697.20004@titley.com> <20111013132846.GE8764@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <20111013144905.GF8764@cilantro.c4inet.net> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 04:26:23PM +0200, Jochem de Ruig wrote: >This is not a change, this has been the case since we started >charging an additional fee for Independent Resources. There >is no per PI assignment fee if the sponsoring LIR lists the >resource as not my end User anymore before the snapshot date. I am not asking about the annual charge for independent resources but the fact that they are to be used to calculate the billing score for members. The 2011 billing scheme states: "To determine a billing category, a score is calculated based on Aggregatable Internet number resources made to a member over time." It specifically refers to PA resources, so including end-user Independent resources is a *fundamental* change. The annual charge, of course, applies *as well*, so these resources are charges, in fact, twice. I have already accepted that IRs assigned *to the LIR* should be included to prevent a LIR from using PI as "cheap PA", what I would like to know, still, is how including *end-user assigned* IR is justified. regards, Sascha Luck ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From jochem at ripe.net Thu Oct 13 16:56:33 2011 From: jochem at ripe.net (Jochem de Ruig) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 16:56:33 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Clarification re proposed Charging Scheme 2012 In-Reply-To: <20111013144905.GF8764@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <20111012135012.GB8764@cilantro.c4inet.net> <3B539101-7726-4C41-83C3-71B2C8E753AC@ripe.net> <20111012174828.GC8764@cilantro.c4inet.net> <4E95D3DC.2060703@titley.com> <20111012181051.GD8764@cilantro.c4inet.net> <4E961697.20004@titley.com> <20111013132846.GE8764@cilantro.c4inet.net> <20111013144905.GF8764@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <647274D6-9EB9-4171-9CB1-E53CB11EAFD1@ripe.net> On Oct 13, 2011, at 4:49 PM, Sascha Luck wrote: > On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 04:26:23PM +0200, Jochem de Ruig wrote: >> This is not a change, this has been the case since we started charging an additional fee for Independent Resources. There is no per PI assignment fee if the sponsoring LIR lists the resource as not my end User anymore before the snapshot date. > > I am not asking about the annual charge for independent resources but the fact that they are to be used to calculate > the billing score for members. Ah ok, misunderstood that. > The 2011 billing scheme states: > > "To determine a billing category, a score is calculated based on Aggregatable Internet number resources made to a member over > time." > > It specifically refers to PA resources, so including end-user > Independent resources is a *fundamental* change. > > The annual charge, of course, applies *as well*, so these resources are charges, in fact, twice. > See your point the text is unclear. To confirm yes, we do not differentiate between PI for Infrastructure or for PI for customers (the LIR is the sponsoring LIR). Regards, Jochem -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 1735 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From poty at iiat.ru Tue Oct 18 12:10:59 2011 From: poty at iiat.ru (poty at iiat.ru) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:10:59 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] budget 2012 Message-ID: Hello everybody, >From the counts it seems that the "not much increase" paradigm is not in the intentions of the new charging scheme. While I'd prefer to see the numbers in percents of amount to pay, the counting shows - the new charging scheme is way off the initial good feeling. (I hope the counting are fair - i.e. includes independent resources like PI and ASN). I'd like also hear some words ?from RIPE NCC about several suggestions voiced in the list. Regards, Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Jochem de Ruig Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 6:18 PM To: Nigel Titley; members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] budget 2012 Dear all, About 40% of members will pay less and about 60% of members will pay more. Pay less in EUR less than 1,000 0% 1,000 - 500 9% 499 - 0 31% Pay more 1 - 499 32% 500 - 999 3% 1,000 - 1,999 19% 2,000 - 5,000 4% more than 5,000 1% Regards, Jochem On Oct 12, 2011, at 6:24 PM, Nigel Titley wrote: On 12/10/2011 13:56, Mike Hollowell wrote: On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 13:30 +0100, Nigel Titley wrote: 30% of XSmall members moving up, 9% of XSmall members moving down. 59% of Small members moving up, 14% Small members moving down. 100% M, L& XL moving up. Doesn't look the least bit balanced, roughly or otherwise. I did talk about the costs and not the membership category. Let me see if Jochem can give us some figures on what percentage of members will see *cost* increase and decrease. Nigel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ck at minxs.net Sat Oct 29 18:30:38 2011 From: ck at minxs.net (Christian Kaufmann) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 18:30:38 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] budget 2012 In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20111011090123.00c1d950@efes.iucc.ac.il> References: <4E936B2D.9040608@titley.com> <20111005122359.GM72014@Space.Net> <81BAA8F7-38F0-4AB0-8B26-964DD83D902D@fido.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20111003112228.00c36948@efes.iucc.ac.il> <1317645515.981585.606389867.154645.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <4E89C077.9030100@intl-alliance.com> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C698DE@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <20111004202843.GA65575@cilantro.c4inet.net> <4E8B734D.6060002@filoo.de> <20111004211017.GC65575@cilantro.c4inet.net> <20111005122359.GM72014@Space.Net> <5.1.0.14.2.20111006092806.036fda20@efes.iucc.ac.il> <4E9365FE.6090900@titley.com> <452192318-1318283430-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-419742508-@b18.c11.bise7.blackberry> <4E936B2D.9040608@titley.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20111011090123.00c1d950@efes.iucc.ac.il> Message-ID: Hi Hank, > I was glad to see that the EB welcomes input, but it didn't say "how" to > provide that input. So I Googled and found the EB page at: > http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/executive-board > I didn't find any indidivual emails listed there but did see that it lists > the way to contact the EB is via email to Sabine at sam at ripe.net. Thanks for your feedback regarding a non direct mailing-list to reach the EB. This is now be fixed under: http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/executive-board Thanks again for the heads-up, ck From kaa at net-art.cz Mon Oct 31 17:28:03 2011 From: kaa at net-art.cz (Sergey Myasoedov) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 17:28:03 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] activity plan suggestion Message-ID: <1747118566.20111031172803@net-art.cz> Hello, there is a proposal for RIPE NCC and Executive board. As there is a criticism of RIPE NCC Activity plan and voting at the GM for the whole plan, I would like to propose to split the Activity plan into several statements and vote for each item of the plan separately. The voting can be done by show of hands directly at the GM. Thank you. -- Kind regards, Sergey From kaa at net-art.cz Mon Oct 31 17:28:03 2011 From: kaa at net-art.cz (Sergey Myasoedov) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 17:28:03 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] activity plan suggestion Message-ID: <1747118566.20111031172803@net-art.cz> Hello, there is a proposal for RIPE NCC and Executive board. As there is a criticism of RIPE NCC Activity plan and voting at the GM for the whole plan, I would like to propose to split the Activity plan into several statements and vote for each item of the plan separately. The voting can be done by show of hands directly at the GM. Thank you. -- Kind regards, Sergey From nigel at titley.com Mon Oct 31 19:17:16 2011 From: nigel at titley.com (Nigel Titley) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 18:17:16 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] activity plan suggestion In-Reply-To: <1747118566.20111031172803@net-art.cz> References: <1747118566.20111031172803@net-art.cz> Message-ID: <1320085036.9010.35.camel@ntitley-laptop> Hi Sergey It's a nice idea but it can't be done for the current activity plan as we can't change the agenda or the motions of the GM at such short notice (the Articles don't allow it). I think we'd have to look very carefully at how we actually did this if we weren't to get an unusable mix of activities. I'd be much more inclined to go down this road if there was any evidence that the Membership pays a great deal of attention to the Activity plan. Normally we publish it on this list, ask for comments and get a deafening silence. We are certainly extremely open to publishing the costs of activities (or at least referring them back to a previous year budget line) and also emphasising if an activity is likely to use more or less resource in the coming year in order to encourage discussion. I'd be inclined to take this step first. Nigel On Mon, 2011-10-31 at 17:28 +0100, Sergey Myasoedov wrote: > Hello, > > there is a proposal for RIPE NCC and Executive board. > > As there is a criticism of RIPE NCC Activity plan and voting at the GM > for the whole plan, I would like to propose to split the Activity plan > into several statements and vote for each item of the plan separately. > The voting can be done by show of hands directly at the GM. > > Thank you. > > -- > Kind regards, > Sergey > > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.