[members-discuss] is the self-assessment model really a good idea?

Hi

On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Thomas Jacob
<ripe-ncc-members-list at internet24.de> wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 17:36 +0200, Lu Heng wrote:
> [... what's to stop members from simply choosing the lowest
> category ...]
>> Sounds to me it will end up that way, Moral hazard will come into play.
>
> Yes that's really the question. I'd rather doubt that this "pay as much
> as you think you want to afford" concept is something that is likely to
> work well with an essential technical service that few people outside
> the technical realm are even aware off. Especially since these fees
> are not paid by the technical people themselves but by their
> companies. Just consider how few of the 7000 something RIPE ever
> take an active interest in RIPE meetings, why should they
> see a problem in lowering their fees by self-assessment, if almost
> no one that matters to them will ever become aware of this?
>
> And if indeed large swathes of members will asses themselves to be
> of "category" small, wouldn't we really just be created an
> increase for the smalls by stealth (or a massive downward pressure
> on the RIPE NCC budget, depending how the real smalls will react).
>
> IMO, if the aim is to keep different fee categories alive in the long
> term for members with resource allocation levels (which on balance
> should be proportional a member's financials), why not simply
> tweak the current charging scheme a bit, and still have bands
> based on actual resource usage.
>
> If you really want to make a revolutionary change to the charging
> system, instead of keeping the essentially arbitrary bands we
> have today, we should either go for a system where everyone pays the
> same (and thus annoy the smalls but be honest about it right
> away) or a system that is truly proportional to resource allocation
> levels (and thus annoy the larges but also create some pressure
> to not sit on unused allocations).

Just want to make a quick common..."create some pressure on unused
allocation" is largely untrue if you consider the IP price is at least
10USD and up. or you consider these large LIR's business size.

I believe all of them have no problem paying 10K euro a year.
>
> Otherwise why no not simply keep the existing system essentially
> as it is, which at least ensures that new entrance don't have
> to pay all that much and that the influence of larges is kept
> at bay (which BTW is big enough as it is as they can actually afford the
> people to meddle in RIPE affairs a lot more aggressively ;-).
>
> But maybe I am simply missing several years of debate on the
> topic here....
>
>



-- 
--
Kind regards.
Lu

This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above.
It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or
otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use
of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the
intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received
this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and
e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this
message and including the text of the transmission received.