[members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model

Most organisations we're members of (ITSPA, ISPA, etc) work on a fee based on company turnover.

That way, if you're a larger entity you pay more, and a smaller entity you pay less.

Whether this is fair or not I don't know, but it seems to work.

It may promote more and more small LIRs if the fees are small, and the workload may increase …. but do we want this, or do we want a pricing mechanism which will force the smaller companies who may have become an LIR to instead buy the services from a larger company who is an LIR with internal resources to deal with the majority of issues themselves ?

I always thought it odd that RIPE was promoting almost anyone becoming an LIR - yes it increases their turnover and "profits" whilst also stealing the potential business from companies like ourselves who effectively became an LIR to provide services to these smaller businesses….

At the end of the day, we either all pay the same fee regardless of size (€2000 per annum?) or we have a sliding scale based on revenues (€500 for up to €1m turnover, €1,000 for turnover up to €2.5m and so on …… or we tax everyone based on the number of resources they have, so the guys with 10 x /19's pay more than those with 1 x /21 - but then that changes the taxable status of RIPE as a whole)

Which takes me back to my first point … most membership organisations simply charge a sliding scale based on turnover

We all have the option to send 2 members of staff off on courses telling us how to spell DNS or how to fill in a web form / drive a web page.  If we choose to use them then great, and we get some networking benefits from meeting people … and those who don't make use of the courses either don't need to / want to or can't afford to have the staff out of the office for the time (usually because they're too small to have 50% of their staff out for 2 days)

just my €2 :)

J



--
Jon Morby
FidoNet - the internet made simple!
10 - 16 Tiller Road, London, E14 8PX
tel: 0845 004 3050 / fax: 0845 004 3051




On 14 Jul 2012, at 15:02, Andrea Cocito <andrea.cocito at ifom.eu<mailto:andrea.cocito at ifom.eu>>
 wrote:

Sorry for quoting in line and multiple snips...

On Jul 14, 2012, at 3:29 PM, Lu Heng wrote:
Argument 1: fees should related to Ripe NCC workload rather than
address distribution.(in the sense that Ripe NCC is in fact NOT RIPE,
it is just a secretary service offered to people who need help from
the community, the more help you have, the more you pay).

Besides the fact that I disagree on the workload model as a principle,
I think that the argument is biased in any case and I give an example:
our LIR exists since 2003, until now we paid about 16500 euros of
fees. I count 9 "tickets" opened on our side.

What is the case among the following in your opinion ? :
1 - The average processing cost of one ticket at RIPE is about 2000
euros.
2 - We are an unfortunate case
3 - The system does NOT reflect the workload created by LIRs

I vote #3 and I suspect the situation is similar for most "median" LIRs.

<snip>
So most small LIR(2048 address) will pay ...74 Euro/year. and if you
are media LIR(with /16), you will pay... 2405 Euro/year.

And if you are large LIR(people with /8), then you will pay
615723.8272Euro/year(for people agree on argument two, companies in
real world with over /8, of course should be very well above millions
income level, so it shouldn't be a problem for them).


This would make a lot of sense in my opinion, even though I disagree
with the confusion between a "median" LIR and a "a LIR with a number
of allocated IPv4 addresses corresponding to the mean (which is about
50k)". As the distribution is Paretian you can bet that the large
majority of LIRs have far less than the "average" number of IP
addresses.

Does exist somewhere a table reporting for each RIPE member the
allocated resources (IPv4, IPv6, ASn, Allocations, Assignments,
Routes, etc) ?

However, please note, if a charging model based on IP address number
is being done, then the total Ripe expenditure might increase due tax
changes. Let's say the premiums are 50% additional cost. For small
LIRs, they will pay 130Euro a year, for media, it will be 3700 euro a
year, and for real large ones, it will be around 1 millions euro a
year.

This would still make sense, even though I am convinced that project a
tax of 50% of the raw operating income is a bit exaggerated. Make it
50% of the EBIT (which should be close to zero in any case).

Should even the numbers you expose be all correct (and as said I have
some objection, but I might be wrong) instead of speaking of
"small"/"media"/"large" out it in this way: Who holds less than about
20K-30K allocated IPs wouls pay less, who holds more would pay more,
for who is in that range it would not change much. I think that the
majority of LIRs would agree.

Last word... all the above is just IMHO.

You are completely right stating that when we do not show up at the
meetings and we do not participate we are in fault by definition.

Regards,

A.




----
If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss
mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page:
https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view

Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20120714/44dfbb6e/attachment.html>