This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[members-discuss] [Ticket#2011100501001154] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [Ticket#2011100501001154] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [Ticket#2011100501001154] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Christopher Kunz (Filoo GmbH)
chris at filoo.de
Wed Oct 5 17:18:05 CEST 2011
Hi, let's keep aside the fact that charging per allocation ("per address") or similar measures seems to be a big problem, tax-wise. Let's look at your points: > Some arguments in favour for this new scheme would be: > - Ease of administration (and less costs for NCC); RIPE still need to keep track of every single assignment that's currently in use by a LIR. You still need this data as a basis for annual membership fee calculation. The only difference is a slightly easier algorithm (= changing 1 line of code) for that calculation. So how is your approach any easier for the NCC? > - Fair and transparent for every LIR, without complicated formula like the > current scheme; Same as above. I don't think transparency is improved by charging LIRs per allocation. The current calculation scheme is simple math. Not very convincing for me. > - Future proof, not based on ipv4 address count; I consider this point outright invalid and I'll gladly tell you why. As multiple postings have stated in this thread before: IPv4 is not going to go away. On the contrary: You'll see a lively trade of IPv4 address blocks in the next years - facilitated by the RIRs. There won't be any new IPv4 allocations due to depletion soon, but does that mean that RIPE NCC will stop charging everyone for their IPv4 allocations in 2012? No, it doesn't. We're not talking about the 2020 charging plan here, we're talking about _next year_! IMHO the only valid point in favor of your model, really, is the fact that the X-LARGE LIRs will also tend to have large numbers of resources in use (as opposed to few, but large allocations). I haven't looked that up and I'd love to see some figures. Maybe you can whip up some for one small, one medium, and one large LIR? Gruß, --ck -- Filoo GmbH Christopher Kunz, Geschäftsführer Web: http://www.filoo.de/ E-Mail: chris at filoo.de Tel.: (+49) 0 52 48 / 1 89 84 -11 Fax: (+49) 0 52 48 / 1 89 84 -20 Please sign & encrypt mail wherever possible, my key: C882 8ED1 7DD1 9011 C088 EA50 5CFA 2EEB 397A CAC1 [Achtung, neue Firmenadresse!] Moltkestraße 25a 33330 Gütersloh HRB4355, AG Gütersloh Geschäftsführer: S.Grewing, J.Rehpöhler, C.Kunz Folgen Sie uns auf Twitter: http://twitter.com/filoogmbh
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [Ticket#2011100501001154] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [Ticket#2011100501001154] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]