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

On Thu Sep 22, 2016 at 07:05:26PM +0200, Tom Lehtinen wrote:
> My point actually is, and as it has been
> pointed out by some others, that it does not feel fair that everyone
> pays the same regardless of how much resources they are holding. 

It does not matter that you feel it is not fair as to make it
fair for you makes it unfair for others and that is not fair

> > At EU250 per /24 how much does that add up to for all RIPE space? What
> > do you expect a not for profit like RIPE to do with all that income
> > when it's already handing back excess income? With no use for the money
> > other than handing it back there is no point charging it. 
> 
> It obviously adds up to a lot of money. As I said, RIPE sure could use
> more for Internet Governance and External Relations and Outreach,
> donations to organisations that defend a free internet such as EFF. I'm
> sure that RIPE can come up with good means to spend the money and that
> we as members can agree or disagree.

RIPE gave money back as they had too much so I'd say no
they don't need more.

Is it fair to take more money than is needed and then scratch
around for activities designed to use it up?

> One could argue that holders of large amounts of IPv4 space have more
> objects in the DB, are better known in their respective fields and
> therefore more likely to be requesting resources for their customers
> (requesting ASN/IPv6 space for enterprise customers etc.).

The opposite argument has already been made

brandon