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

The only resources we pay for as members are

The RIPE NCC Projects 
	such as the €500,000 spent on the RPKI project
	the LIR Portal
	the RIPE Database
	RIPE Atlas
	RIPE Labs
	and so on

plus staffing costs which include
	Support from the Hostmasters
	Training for members 
	The regular RIPE meetings (organisation, travel and costs of staff)

None of these are or should be "becoming limited", outside of the "natural availability" of staff based on the above projects.

We don't pay for the IP addresses we have, or at least we shouldn't be as we're a member organisation and IP addresses are free ... or so I keep being told

To date, the size of an organisation (and thus the charges) have been calculated on the size of the LIR .. but not calculated based on turnover of the parent organisation / group, instead calculated on the number of allocations an entity has.  

The main issue has been the cost of being members .. these costs have been increasing over time.  

With the increase in memberships it was always assumed that the cost of being a member would reduce.  Instead the cost seems to increase ... part of this appears to be due to diversification of responsibilities due to the ever increasing number of projects and spend on these projects, some of the increases seem to be in the pursuit of new members ...

I personally think we need to get away from taxing members on the basis of their allocations, and look at a better solution all together ... perhaps one which actually reduces the size of the RIPE NCC and the associated costs, and encourages a lot of the "small" and "extra small" members to become customers of LIRs paying the LIR for their services in a free market, rather than the NCC accepting requests from anyone and everyone.

As an ISP one of our core products is being an LIR and managing customer resources, yet we're finding more and more that corporates are simply becoming an LIR themselves ... This has also (imho) contributed to the IPv4 resource shortage as a number of these LIRs have ended up with an allocation (be it a /19 a /20 or /21) when they really only needed a /24 or at worst case a /23 ... 

I know of 2 or 3 companies in this position certainly ... One I know of in particular has a /19 and actually uses less than a /24 .. I'm sure there are many in this position.

Jon


On 18 Jul 2012, at 15:08, LIR wrote:

> Now that resources are limited rules must change.



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