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

Hello,

we all know why there are a lot of new LIR's.
Maybe in favor of both (old with legacy, and new ones) members could 
agree on this scheme:

Old LIR's and/or those with legacy IPv4 blocks paying the same amount of 
money as new LIR's - the current billing scheme, *
but if* RIPE NCC recover some IPv4 pools or gets recovered from IANA, 
they can allocate for LIR's that have only /22 new /22, or /23 
(depending on resources avail).
Using FIFO model, oldest LIR's with only 1 /22 will get second 
allocation. Rules could be also that for example, you can't get second 
assignment in first 2 years when you get first one.

If LIR's who has only /22 and never used transfer services, i.e. they 
have only this allocation of IPv4 they are eligible for second /22 or 
/23, maybe even /24.
If LIR who has /22 and bought/transferred  IPv4 - are not eligible.

The rule is simple: if you can afford transfer (we now that is buying 
procedure anyway) - you are not allowed for new allocation. It's just 
draft, but maybe something could be made on this model?

Because now  a lot of  people registering (2nd, 3rd, etc) LIR's for only 
one goal - after two years to make a transfer to parent LIR. In such a 
case - if you know, that even *maybe* you have a chance to get IPv4 
allocation after 2 years - it may worth waiting and not spending money, 
abusing RIPE NCC with paper work on LIR's registration, etc.

regards,
Simas Mockevicius
HOSTLINE, UAB

On 2016.09.19 18:05, Tom Lehtinen wrote:
> RIPE NCC is currently the only RIR that is not charging differentiated 
> fees depending on LIR size.
>
> We all know that IPv4 addresses are shared resources and that we are 
> running out of available resources.
>
> Best regards,
> Tom
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20160922/2fbfad28/attachment.html>