[members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model

On 09/15/2016 09:46 AM, Carlos Friacas wrote:
>>> >  If another LIR has a hundred times more IPv4 addresses than we do,
>>> >  then I'd expect them to pay 100 times (or more) than we do.
>>>
>>>  And therein lies the difference in thinking - if one LIR uses 100
>>>  times the "resources" than another then yes, a larger bill could be
>>>  appropriate. But a range of ips is ultimatley just "1 resource" - it
>>>  doesn't matter about the size of that range.
>> Let's take it from another perspective:
>> If a LIR has 100 more IPs than another, wouldn't it be expected to 
>> think that this LIR is 100 times more likely to need actions from the 
>> RIPE?
>>
>> Well, in my opinion: Yes.
>
> I'm not sure about that..... newcomers (which by the current policy 
> only get a /22) are probably where the NCC is spending the largest 
> part of their effort. Is there any measurement already?

Would argue that any extra effort is already paid by the newcomers 
themselves in the form of the 2000 EUR setup fee.

And as a recent newcomer I am not really that impressed by what you get 
for that amount.
If you are a Dutch company they do not even send the paperwork by 
trackable means, but do not want to spend more than a stamp on you.
The first time they send the agreement by regular postal mail it never 
arrived, and it took three weeks before they could be bothered to resend 
it a second time.
That did arrive, despite them putting the address in the wrong format 
for my country on it, which doesn't exactly speed up postal sorting and 
delivery either...


Anyway, back on topic.
I would argue that differentiating membership fees based on size of 
assignment do would be fair.
The cost per customer is a lot higher for smaller members than large 
ones, and as such the latter have an economic advantage.
Furthermore the setup fee already provides a sufficient barrier 
preventing the number of companies signing up as LIR to explode.
No need to keep the membership fee artificially high for smaller member 
for that purpose.


Yours sincerely,

Floris Bos