[address-policy-wg] Status of 2011-02 Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)?

[beware: slightly off-topic maybe, but imho fundamentally important]

Nick Hilliard wrote:

> Hi Eric,
[...]
>>However, the RIPE community can't dictate the cost for PI, as that is to
>>be decided in the AGM meeting by the member votes.

This is "just" procedural, but...

> It's more difficult than this.  Because of the sheer numbers of PI
> assignments, increasing the "wholesale" cost even by a small amount will
> have a significant impact on the RIPE NCC's budget.  That would create...
> awkward bureaucratic problems for the RIPE NCC.

This line of thinking would be even more than "difficult" to maintain:
it would simply turn the funding and charging model for the RIPE NCC's
services upside-down.

The fundamental assumption is that the charging model provides the money to
allow the RIPE NCC to execute the annual activity-plan (as agreed by the
AGM), and to maintain a certain level of safety-belt funds to guarantee the
stability of the NCC itself.

The Service Charges are to be set according to cost and effort *within the NCC*
to provide the services (plus the overhead, according to the activity plan).

The NCC, for good reasons imho, is a not-for-profit entity and is *not* mandated
(nor formally allowed, I presume) to collect money for and/or redistribute to
any third party, which is not directly involved or necessary in the management
of Number Resources.

> Nick

I think it is pretty important to keep this in mind, in general.

Wilfried.