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

Hello,

My opinion is that if RIPE will move on with volume based billing, it 
will completely lose any legacy holder who wishes to become member.

They will simply not become members and big chunks of used IPv4 will 
remain legacy forever in the database.


Regards,

Alex


On 18.04.2019 09:43, Hans Govenius wrote:
> Hello
>
>
> Money is one of the best consultants in the world.
>
> This is a two edged sword, the basics of community like Ripe NCC is not to make money nor to have "forced" members in uneven status. This applis both to the membership fee but also to the allocation (service) provided.
>
> But as money is such a good consultant it would be beneficial to draw the attention of CFO:s to IP costs so that technical people cant just keep hands on all the IP:s just for future possibilities, fun to have such a big allocations etc reasons. Dont say it would be easy to give up allocations even if you would know you wont need it for several years 😊
>
> So who wants my power of attorney paper to vote for a change in the Ripe summit 😊 ? I dont have time to attend.
>
> Would someone be interested to put up a poll about this matter to maybe decrease the amount of opinions expressed on this email list and a link to the poll to this list of course?
>
> For example there could be the following 3 options,
> 1) Current
> 2) Ripe B option
> 3) C-class based costs (100 euros per C-class), minimum on 1000 euros if less than 10 c-classes.
> 	Examples:
> 	-> A - class owner (dont think ripe ncc members have any ? But World has and maybe good ideas spread 😊) : Approx 6 million euros/year.
> 	-> B- class owner: Approx 25 500 euros (allready quite little!) / year
> 	-> 50 c-classes: : 5000 euros / year
>
>
> Lets say one legacy user would own several B -classes it would draw the attention of economy department when the bill arrives and atleast internal discussion. Maybe this pricing would still be a bit low and i think there should anyway be a minimum membership fee.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Hans Govenius
>
> -----Alkuperäinen viesti-----
> Lähettäjä: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net> Puolesta Martin Millnert
> Lähetetty: keskiviikko 17. huhtikuuta 2019 23.24
> Vastaanottaja: Bunea TELECOM <suport at bunea.eu>
> Kopio: Gert Doering <gert at space.net>; members-discuss at ripe.net
> Aihe: 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> members-discuss mailing list
> members-discuss at ripe.net
> https://mailman.ripe.net/
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/alexandru.doszlop%40netprotect.ro