Hi, On Thu, Nov 02, 2023 at 09:19:13AM +0000, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: > That?s a massive over simplification of what happened. > > The NCC proposed a number of charging schemes which *included* charges per > ASN. The proposal was rejected by the majority of the members who voted > because the changes would have cost a lot of us significantly more than what > we currently pay. The charge per ASN was only one of multiple elements in the > proposal ? to characterise it that the members rejected charging per ASN is > very misleading.
I wasn't talking about the previous AGM but about the one where the
pre-existing ASN charges got abandoned.
Talking about the *last* meeting, I think most of the members are just
not very good at math... introducing a charge for ASN *with a given total
budget* would have *lowered* the overall bill for most members, holding
only 1 or 2 ASNs (redistributing the overall budget differently).
But "nah, can't have extra costs!!!!".
Yes, a few would have had to pay way more, but I think that's legitimate -
if your business is "doling out ASNs to end customers", you'd better have
"oh, it might cost money at some point" in your contracts - and in that
case, the extra costs directly go to the end customers wanting the ASN.
Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/anti-abuse-wg
