[members-discuss] Regarding RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Two Options to Vote On

I am more likely to lean Martins way.

-----Original Message-----
From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Martin Millnert
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 12:24 AM
To: Bunea TELECOM <suport at bunea.eu>
Cc: Gert Doering <gert at space.net>; members-discuss at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Regarding RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Two Options to Vote On

On 2019-04-17, at 23:10:40, Bunea TELECOM wrote:
> 
> > Why?  Because it creates incentives to return unused ASNs, unused PI 
> > assignment (or sell them off), etc - instead of just having them lie 
> > around, unused.  If you *need* something, 50 EUR is ok, but "just to 
> > have it", it might be annoying enough to give it back.
> 
> 
> No because it will charge the same for a /16 as for a /24. And it’s not fair that after you pay 4k euros for a /24 to pay 50 euros more yearly, unlike some older LIRs that paid next to nothing for a /20 let’s say. 

Argument in favor of Scheme B vs per-IPv4-cost:
 - Early adopters of ISP businesses gets benefits - good for early
   adopters who on average have much, much larger allocations than
   larger sets of /22s or /24s.
 - Potentially easier for RIPE NCC to implement as it is based on
   resource without the level of detail of what resource it is

Arguments in favor of per-IPv4-cost vs Scheme B:
 - RIPE NCC should not give competetive advantage to early adopters /
   incumbents - there is anti trust regulation that potentially comes
   into play in EU around these things.
 - Per IPv4 address costing is much more fair obviously, and gives
   incentives forr holders of the larger allocations (which ought to
   account for the vast majority of RIPE NCC space) to optimize and
   return space they do not use.
 - RIPE NCC implementation is a technical implementation question, and
   not a policy/governance question.


Per-IPv4-cost is not one of the presented choices however. The existing flat fee (option A) is much more simple and less unfair than option B.

I have missed the logic for option B as an attempt to solve the cost issues. Considering the level of rebates RIPE NCC is handing out since there is so vast surpluses of the budget, I wonder why fee just isn't lowered instead?  I've heard the argument "It shouldn't be too cheap", but I disagree with that. It's a bit silly to transfer large amounts of money to RIPE NCC only for them to transfer it back, and it doesn't incentivize cost efficiency within the NCC either, I imagine.


I'll advise the handful of LIRs I'm involved with to go for option A, not because it saves them money but because option B tilts the entire LIR world.

Best,
--
Martin Millnert
BrainMill AB
https://www.brainmill.com


> If we keep option B we might as well divide the LIRs into two separate types:
> 
> pre-exaustion (have to pay the 50 euros) post-exaution (exempt from 
> paying the 50 euros)
> 
> Thanks
> —
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petru Bunea / CEO
> suport at bunea.eu <mailto:suport at bunea.eu> / +40752481282 
> <tel:+40752481282> Bunea TELECOM / DATACENTER / APP DEVELOPMENT 
> http://www.bunea.eu <http://www.bunea.eu/> / +40745495495 
> <tel:+40745495495>
> 
> > On 17 Apr 2019, at 23:06, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 10:42:15PM +0300, Andrejs Guba wrote:
> >> So i repeat. It will be interesting to listen to someone who can 
> >> describe his logic in proposed scheme B.
> > 
> > I didn't propose it, but I like scheme B.
> > 
> > Why?  Because it creates incentives to return unused ASNs, unused PI 
> > assignment (or sell them off), etc - instead of just having them lie 
> > around, unused.  If you *need* something, 50 EUR is ok, but "just to 
> > have it", it might be annoying enough to give it back.
> > 
> > (I returned one of my ASNs when they did still cost money, back 
> > before we changed the charging scheme last time - exactly because)
> > 
> > Gert Doering
> >        -- NetMaster
> > --
> > have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
> > 
> > SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
> > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
> > D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
> > Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
> > _______________________________________________
> > members-discuss mailing list
> > members-discuss at ripe.net
> > https://mailman.ripe.net/
> > Unsubscribe: 
> > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/suport%40bune
> > a.eu
> 

> _______________________________________________
> members-discuss mailing list
> members-discuss at ripe.net
> https://mailman.ripe.net/
> Unsubscribe: 
> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/martin.millnert%40brainmill.com