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

On 09/26/2016 11:58 PM, Tim Armstrong wrote:
>
> On 26 Sep 2016 11:32 p.m., "Radu-Adrian Feurdean" 
> <ripe-ncc at radu-adrian.feurdean.net 
> <mailto:ripe-ncc at radu-adrian.feurdean.net>> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016, at 19:35, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
> > > A lot of land is owned by people who got it very cheap long ago. Try
> > > taking it off them (Ok RIPE region covers countries where you in
> >
> > In most countries you pay taxes for the land you have. The more you
> > have, the more takes you pay.
> > Someone having 100m2 of land does not pay the same as one that has
> > 100000m2 of land.
> RIPE NCC is not a government it is an association.
> You still pay tax to your government for property, which technically 
> means legacy resource holders should declare it in their taxes (but 
> that is aside from RIPE NCC which has no right to those resources).
>

Not sure if the comparison with taxes is all that far off.

Keep in mind that while the land may be owned by the holders, the NCCs 
do are providing services to it. Maybe the legacy holders didn't ask for 
that database entry, but I do think they do like to have things like 
reverse DNS delegation.
By comparison, if you own land, you typically also get services provided 
to you, in exchange for council tax.
In many countries they have differentiated fees for that, based on the 
size of your household or value of your house.
And arguing that your great grandfather bought that giant mansion long 
ago when land was still cheap, and the tax was flat rate will not get 
you far.
Nor will the fact that you already had an outhouse before you were 
connected to the city's sewerage system, and were a pioneer in that 
field, will give you any discount.

And while there may be good reasons to continue to provide existing 
non-LIR legacy holders with free services, does that automatically mean 
new holders of sold legacy space should be provided with them free of 
charge as well?

> > > You can sell yours at the same price to others if you didn't need it
> > > This is why the scammers are creating lots of new LIRs. They think
> > > it's fair that it's so cheap to get from RIPE vs market price and
> > > will love it when you make it even cheaper for them
> >
> > What entitles you to call "scammer" someone that chooses to pay less
> > lots of money "one shot" for something that others got for free ?
>
> No one called you a scammer, they stated that people that use 
> loopholes to get around community set policy are.
>
> >
> > Oh, by the way, do "scammers" include those that get IP space by
> > registering LIRs on different companies with same contact info and
> > strikingly similar names ?
> > (sorry, couldn't resist).
>

But are those new LIRs, or rather older LIRs that used those different 
entities in the past, under older policy?

Note that it is apparently not necessary for new LIRs to have a 
different legal entity to register a second LIR.
RIPE seems to advertise the possibility to do so in bright neon lights:

https://www.ripe.net/participate/member-support/info/faqs/faq-joining

==
Can I open additional LIR accounts?

Yes, it is possible for a legal entity to open additional LIR accounts 
and request one /22 IPv4 allocation for that account.
==

So don't blame all scams on newcomers, if it involves multiple entities, 
it might as well be an older one.


> Continuing this conversation beyond the four day mark costs us all 
> time, which also costs money

I do not think the feeling that the current fee scheme is unfair to 
smaller members (both old and new) will go away soon.
Even if we stop talking about it now, if it is not addressed the issue 
will pop up again sooner or later.
Like I mentioned before the smaller LIRs are already the majority right 
now (68% has up to /20 total space), and that number will only increase 
in the next few years.
Wouldn't it be better if we could agree on a realistic modest price 
differentiation now, and take some steam of the issue?
Rather than it dragging on, and you risking more drastic increases will 
be proposed and approved in the future?


Yours sincerely,

Floris Bos

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20160927/7659b03a/attachment.html>