[members-discuss] Sign-up fee for additional LIR account

On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Brandon Butterworth <brandon at bogons.net>
 wrote:

> On Sun Jul 24, 2016 at 08:27:38AM +0200, Prager-IT e.U. wrote:
> > Membership fee after we have switched to a per /24 system: 8,23 Euros per
> > /24 per Year
> >
> > Therefore it is quite clear that we need to change the charging scheme
> via
> > majority vote to a per /24 system as supported by the numbers above.
>
> With membership fee based on number of /24 then members may decide
> to also get one vote per /24.  Would they vote for this scheme (do
> they get their N*/24 votes before or after this vote...)
>

I don't understand what you are trying to say, each entity has one vote
even if they have multiple LIR accounts under the same entity.


>
> The aim is for some smaller members (like us, so we'd win) to shift
> the balance of cost to larger members? That sounds fine, however the
> fees are hardly huge and if they can't afford them it sounds like
> the business case for having a LIR is marginal, they'd be better
> off money wise and dfz table size using an upstreams space.
>

We are not shifting any costs, we are just asking each member to pay their
fair share for the amount of resources they are using. I am just
calculating in terms of /24s as that is easiest to calculate to base the
membership fee of. For example if you hold one /22 you will be charged,
4*8,23 Euros, 32,92 Euros per Year as you hold four /24s in size in total.

8,23 Euros per year per 256 IPv4 addresses is hardly a business case
breaking amount of money. These changes will also bring a very real cost to
super large LIRs that hold a ton of resources and may finally spark some
meaningful IPv6 adoption.


>
> If the aim is to make it cheap enough they can go crazy taking
> extra LIRs to get /22s then don't bother, that scheme was to
> moderate demand and there'd likely be other measures introduced
> to preserve that
>
> brandon
>

I don't understand what you are trying to say.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20160724/22fc58d6/attachment.html>