[members-discuss] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Board Reasoning

> On May 3, 2019, at 15:57, Piotr Karwowski <piotr at karwos.hk> wrote:
> 
> Here is real deal about charging scheme.
> Add fees calculated by annual bandwidth over allocated IPs
> Don't limit yourself just to resources. Go for bandwidth.

No doubts that the per record payment in the RIPE DB is much better. I just wrote that suggested model does not
correspond to the real life. But if you would like to bring all to absurd I will stay aside. As you wish.

> 
> But, if you pass charges regards to resources, also pass resolution that first 1024 ipv4 resource is free.
> 
> 
> 
> Pobierz aplikację BlueMail dla systemu Android
> W dniu 3 maj 2019, o 14:46, użytkownik Taras Heichenko <tasic at hostmaster.ua> napisał:
>     Hello all.
> 
> I am ready that my point of view may be very unpopular but I need to express it. So from my point of view the model that
> board suggests to us does not correspond to the current situation. Is in RIPE community anybody who does not know
> that it is possible to buy IPv4 addresses? Do you really think that so many LIR we have only because they all want to make
> internet business? How many LIRs will stay tomorrow if there are only IPv6 addresses in internet? (And what RIPE NCC will
> get in its budget?) It looks like as physicists use wrong theory to make some scientific research. They think that thunder is
> from the god's chariot and pay no attention to lightnings. We do the same. Instead of making the model that corresponds to
> the current state we begin to devise some unexplainable rules. Why should we pay for object (independently of its size)?
> Because RIPE NCC does not pay taxes and does not want to pay them. But may be taxes are less evil than trying to find
> god's chariot? May be we really should try to sell IPv4, try to give IPv6 for free, try to make all conditions to transition to IPv6
> and leave IPv4 behind as soon as possible? And then we will make new rules for the IPv6 only internet. Then. Or will we
> again try to insert the circle in the square? 
> 
>  On May 2, 2019, at 17:48, Christian Kaufmann <exec-board at ripe.net> wrote:
>  
>  Dear RIPE NCC members,
>  
>  The Executive Board continues to follow the discussion on the list and I'm happy to provide some further clarity on the charging scheme proposals ahead of the General Meeting in May.
>  
>  Firstly, there are good reasons why the Board chose to present only two charging scheme options rather than three or even four. The RIPE NCC's Articles of Association provide that all resolutions must receive over 50% of votes in favour of one option in order for the resolution to be adopted. This means that a resolution with more than two options might end up not having enough support (more than 50%) so we would fall back to the current one. As we try to make this as clear and easy as possible, we decided to go for two options.
>  
>  A way to get around this problem is to present three or more options as separate resolutions with standard Yes/No voting options. In fact, this is what happened in 2012 when the Board proposed three charging scheme options:
>  https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/september-2012
>  
>  Two of the three resolutions (Options A and C) were approved by the membership with the first one being the charging scheme adopted and subsequent resolutions disregarded. Many comments were made to the Board following this vote that the ordering of the resolutions had a big impact on which charging scheme option was adopted. For this reason, the Board is proposing only two options to allow a clear majority to be expressed in one resolution. Both options are roughly equivalent in the amount of revenue they would generate - the purpose of the charging scheme is to arrive at a way to distribute the amount required to run the RIPE NCC among the members.
>  
>  So why were these the two resolutions that the Board chose to propose for 2020?
>  
>  Option A is the current charging scheme model, and the Board favours this model for its simplicity and the fact that it treats all members as equal with equal access to services, which is how we believe a membership organisation should be run. The principles that the current charging scheme model is based on were the outcome of work by the Charging Scheme Task Force in 2012. In the absence of clear guidance from the membership on changing these principles, we prefer to stick with these unless we see a clear desire to change them.
>  
>  For Option B, the Board had a number of concerns with proposing a model that is based on charging per IP and volume and not per service used. The RIPE NCC is a not-for-profit organisation and is treated as such under Dutch law. In the negotiations with the Dutch tax authorities that established this status, a clear argument was made that the RIPE NCC is a membership association that does not charge for individual services or addresses. This is also in keeping with the view that IP addresses are a shared resource rather than a product, and the RIPE NCC acts as the steward of that resource.
>  
>  The Board wants this to remain the case, and if charging per resource jeopardises the RIPE NCC's not-for-profit membership status then this is not something that the Board would want to risk happening. More details on the RIPE NCC's tax position are available in the RIPE NCC Tax Governance Paper:
>  https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-713
>  
>  The Board does not believe the charging scheme should be used to drive the IPv6 policies of the community.
>  
>  That being said, in the current charging scheme, which has been in effect for a number of years, IPv6 has no extra cost and yet this has had no discernible impact on deployment. It is also likely that from early 2020 IPv6 will make up the vast majority of IP resources allocated by the RIPE NCC.
>  
>  I hope this adds a further degree of clarity to the discussions. I realise that this is an important issue for the membership and I understand that not everyone will be completely satisfied by the proposals put forward by the Board. I also hope that you understand the Board's primary legal responsibility is to ensure the stability and continuity of the RIPE NCC.
>  
>  Accommodating this, and the comments and wishes we got from you, are the the two main goals in proposing the two options that you will be asked to choose between.
>  
>  We encourage you to continue to discuss the charging scheme options on the list, and we look forward to exploring them in more detail at the General Meeting on 22 May.
>  
>  Kind regards,
>  
>  Christian Kaufmann
>  RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman
>  
> 
> --
> Best regards
> 
> Taras Heichenko
> tasic at hostmaster.ua
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> members-discuss mailing list
> members-discuss at ripe.net
> https://mailman.ripe.net/
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/piotr%40karwos.hk
> 

--
Best regards

Taras Heichenko
tasic at hostmaster.ua