[address-policy-wg] the cost of PI space

Richard,

On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Richard Hartmann
<richih.mailinglist at gmail.com> wrote:
>> In the same way, whatever resource is being used via RIPE, is a cost to the
>> NCC and that needs to be paid somehow. If it does not come from the PI
>> crowd, then it will come from the membership. That is the 'bill' that Jim is
>> referring to.
>
> Realistically speaking, there is not much in actual additional costs
> other than the time to support requests.

That is a quite strong statement.  The RIPE NCC has an operational
running cost. What the community gets is a database where you can
apply for, register and unregister some Internet resources, and in
between they keep them there.
Today there is a recurring cost based on an averaged load of
maintaining resources (NFP/FP makes zero distinction for RIPE NCC
here), and a setup fee for LIRs. The recurring resource costs, for
simplicity, also cover the application costs of said resources - a
cost that with IPv6 has a real chance to go down, if the NCC is
sincere in simplifying the processes and aligning them with reality.
(I'm clear: the community sets policies and the NCC implements them in
their hostmasters.)

If your statement was actually true, please do explain the PI / ASN /
LIR pricing model of today and where these costs goes, if "there is
not much in actual additional costs" of giving out and maintaining PI
resources at discounted prices to some.

The real truth is that any subsidizing will be just that; subsidizing.

I am in favor of the current simple PI / ASN cost model as it is and
oppose subsidizing as it will lead to unbalance. Thus, I want any
change in pricing to be discussed for the general PI resource,
following today's model.

Regards,
Martin