[members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024

Hello Everyone,

It's great to see that member feedback has been taken into account when 
developing these models. However, I would like to reiterate my concerns 
regarding Model C and propose that it should be excluded from the final 
selection.

In summary, Model C introduces transfer fees, which, as I mentioned 
earlier, bring potential challenges, such as unpredictability in the 
RIPE NCC's annual budget, payment difficulties for sanctioned countries, 
increased administrative burdens, complexities related to PI blocks and 
ASNs transfers, etc. These factors could negatively affect the RIPE NCC 
and its members.

Considering the potential issues with Model C, I suggest that focusing 
on Models A and B would be a more reasonable approach. Both models 
provide sufficient options for the members and maintain their respective 
merits without the risks associated with Model C.

By excluding Model C from the final proposals, the voting process will 
be more focused, enabling members to make a well-informed decision 
between the two remaining models. This strategy would prevent Model C 
from diluting the decision-making process and ensure the adoption of a 
more suitable and sustainable charging scheme.

Furthermore, Model B represents a familiar charging scheme for the 
members, ensuring stability and continuity. In contrast, Model A offers 
an alternative, category-based system catering to the diverse needs of 
the membership base, promoting fairness and adaptability within the RIPE 
NCC community.

Model C, on the other hand, only adds uncertainty by introducing 
transfer fees, which could negatively affect the RIPE NCC's financial 
stability. As this model doesn't provide any significant benefits over 
Models A and B, it would be more advantageous to concentrate on refining 
Models A and B, ensuring a well-balanced charging scheme for the RIPE 
NCC community.

Regards,
Victor


> Hi Simon,
> 
> Thank you for the summary of proposed charging schemes.
> 
> I only have a concern whether the ASN fee has received a rough approval from members. Is the AS number a limited resource, especially 32-bit ASNs? Is it valuable somehow?
> 
> I would suggest to prepare a scheme without the ASN fee. And of course, members whose invoice amount will be increased should receive the quarterly payments benefit.
> 
> PS. It's sad when the only option to keep the flat fee is don't approve all the proposed models.
> 
> --
> Kind regards,
> Sergey Myasoedov
>