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

On Thu Sep 15, 2016 at 08:48:59AM +0200, Bastien Schils wrote:
> 
> On 14/09/2016 16:24, Rob Golding wrote:
> >On 2016-09-13 20:57, Chris Smith wrote:
> >>It seems clear to me that LIR's that have large IPv4 resources are at
> >>an economic advantage against LIR's with small IPv4 resources.
> >
> >Whilst that might be true in your business model, not everyone is
> >using your model for their organisation
> Can we keep it a clean conversation without "ad hominem" attacks?
> 
> That remark was quite useless at best, disrespectful at worst.

No it is not an attack, useless or disrespectful.

It is central to the lack of consensus on charging model. LIR
are a diverse community, ignoring that will only prolong the
discussion

The flat pricing is the simplest model to apply to all. If a
proportional model is desired then it should relate to the cost
of service not the number of IPs or prefixes unless they have
a direct cost (they were allocated to RIPE for free?)

As a small LIR we would benefit if it was based on total IP
count but be worse off if it was quantity of prefixes as
we've had a number of small allocations due to not obtaining
a single large one early.

We'd probably benefit if it was based on hours of support used
as we interact with RIPE very little, usually initiated by RIPE
as some voted to change something.

I'm not sure why RIPE initiated this discussion, it just rakes
over old arguments that had no route to consensus

brandon