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

> On May 3, 2019, at 16:19, Sebastian Wiesinger <sebastian.wiesinger at noris.net> wrote:
> 
> * Taras Heichenko <tasic at hostmaster.ua> [2019-05-03 14:44]:
>>    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? 
> 
> I'm sorry but analogies translate really badly between languages. I'm
> not really sure about the point you want to make.
> 
> The rules are simply explained:
> 
> Option A) Keep everything as it is. One LIR - one price.
> 
> Option B) Objects that "cost" the NCC in terms of administrative
>          burden are accounted for.
> 
> That is not unexplainable, it seems pretty straight forward.

Rules are pretty straight forward. But they do not correspond to real life. In real life
people pay for the IP (moreover IPv4). 

> Some
> members wanted an option and the board presented  an option that does
> not endanger the non-for-profit status of the RIPE NCC.
> 
> The NCC is a member organisation. It does not make profit. That is a
> good thing.

But NCC gives IP addresses which are really valuable in the community. I do not
suggest that RIPE NCC should make profit. But people pay for IP's and NCC says
that people pay for status. Really?

> 
> The NCC was there waaay before all the IPv4-grabby LIRs turned up and
> I predict it will be there waaay after these LIRs have vanished again.

I hope. But look at amount of LIRs with connection to PI prohibition and
exhaustion of IPv4. https://labs.ripe.net/statistics/number-of-lirs

> 
> The IPv4 pool will run out soon and after that there simply will be
> nothing to grab. In hindsight I wish we had just given out everything
> without reserving something for newcomers. I don't think it had the
> intended effect.

And then amount of LIRs will go down.

> 
> I just want to state that there are LIRs (like us) that support the
> boards decision. Also I hope (and suspect) most LIRs will choose
> option A.

As for me the A option is preferred from two given option.
I must to say that I have not ready model to offer but I dislike both options.

> 
> Regards
> 
> Sebastian
> 
> _______________________________________________
> members-discuss mailing list
> members-discuss at ripe.net
> https://mailman.ripe.net/
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/tasic%40hostmaster.ua

--
Best regards

Taras Heichenko
tasic at hostmaster.ua