[members-discuss] [Ticket#2011100501001154] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments

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)"
<chris at filoo.de> 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.

Gruß,

--ck

PS: To the colleagues at Telekom and PrivateLayer: GET YOUR DAMN TICKET
SYSTEMS OFF THIS LIST!