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

On 09/21/2016 04:03 PM, Roman Szabados wrote:
> On 09/21/2016 03:27 PM, Floris Bos wrote:
>> On 09/21/2016 02:46 PM, Muntasir.Ali at newham.gov.uk wrote:
>>> As a non-profit LIR with a /16 Legacy IPv4 address space, and only
>>> Legacy space within IPv4, we would be opposed to any charging models
>>> based on size of IP allocations, especially those which include
>>> Legacy space within consideration of calculating what is charged.
>>> This is considering that many (not all) of the proposed "solutions"
>>> may make it more expensive or infeasible for us to retain membership
>>> were they implemented as described.
>> There is a big difference between disliking a proposal just because it
>> is more expensive to you, and it really being infeasible for any
>> organisation.
>>
>> What if the price difference was not exactly proportional, but more
>> modest, based on categories, like other NCCs have.
>> E.g. similar to ARIN where a provider with a /22 pays $ 500, and one
>> with a /16 $ 4000
> My business (member for 2 Months, with a /22 IPv4 from the last /8)
> would save 2/3 of the yearly costs (nice), but large LIRs on the other
> hand would probably not be motivated to do anything, not to mention to
> release valuable IPv4 resources, as the cost savings would be marginal
> to them.
>
> So my question is... What would we achieve with such pricing policy change?

I believe such pricing policy is simply more FAIR. Nothing more, nothing 
less.
And I suspect there are others who feel the same, as the initial post 
that started this discussion read:

"the Executive Board recognises that the membership has grown
considerably since the current charging scheme model was introduced and
that some members now feel that the current model is not a equitable way
to pay for the RIPE NCC's activities."

Perhaps those do not speak up now in this discussion though, afraid 
others may think they are unable to afford it, or whatever.
Would still be interesting to see what the results would be, if there is 
ever going to be another opportunity to vote on it.


As far as motivating large LIRs to release resources by making costs 
much more higher, that got proposed later in the discussion, I do not 
believe it is realistic to raise fees large enough to achieve that.


Yours sincerely,

Floris Bos