[members-discuss] VL: IP transfer (in)security

On 05/16/2018 02:04 PM, Muntasir.Ali at newham.gov.uk wrote:
> I shall reply because I am being misquoted.  I did not say my employer would drop membership due to _any_ price increases.  Only that within the context of if the charging model were to change to be based upon size of IPv4 allocation, then in that scenario it makes financial sense to spin off a 2nd LIR to separate registration of Legacy and non-Legacy space, then drop membership for the Legacy owner.

So on any price increase that you know a loophole for to avoid.
Well, then we should plug said holes.

>   We would then retain membership under the lower-cost 2nd LIR.  But again, this only applies to the charging models being proposed in the discussion at that time, and is not how I expect our organisation to behave under the current models.

Yes, since the board seems unwilling to put up any proposal to change 
current model up to vote, you are indeed pretty safe for now.
Only thing us folks that are not satisfied with the current situation 
can do is vote against the 2019 charging scheme today.
But no alternative to vote on instead is provided...

Oh well, could try to get the 2% of members necessary to put a voting 
point to the agenda (with or without the board's blessing) next year.


> Now, allow me to remove my employee-hat:
>
> I see no problem with paying for services based on fair share of usage.  But your example of reverse DNS as a yardstick for measuring fair share is a poor one.  The burden on RIPE to maintain such records does not change with size of address space.

There is no burden to create and update records when you have automated 
systems.
And would argue that your /16 causes more lookups, than the /22 we have.

I also think it's kinda interesting to have this conversation with a 
city council.
Don't you set the rate of council tax on factors like property value as 
well?


Yours sincerely,

Floris Bos