[members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Charging Scheme, Budget Questions
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
info at lv3.it
info at lv3.it
Mon May 8 09:21:00 CEST 2023
Il 04/05/23 15:50, Andrea Borghi ha scritto: > On Wednesday 03 May 2023 18:56:37 Brian Turnbow via members-discuss wrote: >> >> What makes the pay per category model "A" as proposed impossible for me >> to vote for is it penalizes all long standing lirs. When I started working >> with Ripe you signed up completed the forms and a /19 was allocated, more >> if you could demonstrate need but /19 was default. You then requested an >> AS. Run out came along and you could get a last /22 together with your v6 >> allocation. So that adds up to a /19, /22, AS and /32(or /29) >> That should be the bare minimum for small as it is what any long standing >> lir has with Ripe, yet they would now find themselves in category 6 at the >> high end of the scale. It does not mean they have more revenues than a lir >> started in say 2018 with much less IP resources, just that they started >> first. Note that I am not talking about the company I work for, we have >> more resources than those stated above, but I know several companies that >> fit into the category. > > I second that. The RIPE partecipation for my company, resource wise, is the > default allocation that was given to me at the time of registration and the > subsequent allocation exactly as described above. > > The work I, as a company, generate for RIPE is minimal but the model A > substantially increase the annual fee. > > I think I, as the others in the same ballpark, should be treated as SMALL (= > we had only the default allocations, no more than that), and there must be a > lower category only for who is registered but has no v4 allocation (= is in > wait list). > > THe model A proposed by RIPE instead is elevating the yesterday's SMALL to a > much higher category in a manner non compatible with the SMALL partecipants > business models. > > the 2022 fee for me was about 1% of my gross income. elevating that is > profundly unjust when the fee for the large enterprises is a 0.00_1% of their > gross income. (feel free to add zeros in the place of the '_'). > > > Best Regards, > Andrea Borghi > I agree with Andrea , many big providers got many v4 allocations . These allocations are not all allocated or routed , just parked .
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Charging Scheme, Budget Questions
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]