[members-discuss] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Board Reasoning
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Board Reasoning
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Board Reasoning
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Alexis Hanicotte
alexis at velumware.com
Thu Apr 18 18:28:52 CEST 2019
Thank you, this reasoning was really missing from the original call to vote. That helps a lot understanding of the constraints a charging scheme have to comply to. Bests, Alexis Hanicotte VelumWare SAS On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 6:20 PM Christian Kaufmann <exec-board at ripe.net> wrote: > Dear members, > > First of all, I'd like to thank you for the feedback we received from > everyone so far, and special thanks to the people who gave some more > context and explanation. Trying to arrive at a charging scheme that will > please everyone is not an easy task. > > The reason the board proposes two charging schemes is because some > members requested a real alternative and difference to the existing "one > LIR account-one fee" version we have right now and that is more volume > based. > > This came up previously in the charging scheme task force discussions > but also from individual members via emails or through personal contact. > Nigel and I promised at the last two GMs that we would present a new one > before the May GM this year. > > So what was the board's thinking in proposing these two models? > > Firstly, many people like the existing model and the board believes that > it covers the spirit of what some members want by maintaining the > financial stability of the NCC while keeping fairness and equality in > mind. The board also does not want a price per IP model because this > would have tax implications (the RIPE NCC does not sell IP addresses and > the charging scheme should reflect this) and we feel it is not in > keeping with the idea of a membership association. > > We have also found in the past that having more than two options does > not work well from a voting perspective. This would add considerable > complexity to the voting in which resolutions must be approved by more > than 50% of voters to be adopted. > > The second charging scheme option is one that the board believes offers > a real alternative while staying away from the price per IP aspect. > > The board's thinking in making the Option B proposal is that every > registry entry consumes resources such as customer support time, > database memory, registration time, etc. regardless of the size of the > allocation. A /24 and a /12 are not so different in this regard so we > see this as fair in terms of the work required by the RIPE NCC to > maintain the registry. The reason we suggest to charge IPv4 and IPv6 in > the same way follows the same logic - there is no tax designed to move > people to IPv6. We did not want to have a political, policy-driven > charging scheme because the board believes this is the work of community > rather than for the board or membership to decide on. > > I understand that the "volume-based" description could be seen as > misleading and I apologise for the misunderstanding here. The proposed > model is based on registrations and not per IP as we do not want to > indicate that IP is a sellable product but rather the RIPE NCC should > charge members for the registry services it provides. > > The new charging scheme was also not proposed so that the RIPE NCC could > make more money - it takes the current budget and calculates backwards > to achieve the amount required to run the RIPE NCC. It is just a > different model to share the current cost among members. > > Despite concerns that were raised on this list, the board took the > request of some members to propose a new model very seriously and we > spent quite some time to discuss and model the current scenario by > trying to be as fair as possible and sticking with the principles of a > membership organisation. > > Again, we are very thankful for your input and the feedback on the two > models. We will continue to monitor discussions and we will of course > present on the Charging Scheme 2020 at the upcoming GM. We encourage you > to register your vote so you can have the final say on the two proposals. > > Best regards, > > Christian Kaufmann > RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman > > _______________________________________________ > members-discuss mailing list > members-discuss at ripe.net > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/alexis%40velumware.com > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20190418/e7126481/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Board Reasoning
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Board Reasoning
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]