[members-discuss] Charging Scheme Models 2024

A different slant on model A subsidising IP traders is that it may
encourage LIRs sitting on unused IPs to release them into the market.
We are a small community LIR but cannot afford to buy more IPs, which would
be put to immediate use.

Paul Newton
F4RN

On Mon, 17 Apr 2023, 18:35 Alexander Norman, <alexander at adminor.net> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Has anyone considered that model A carries the risk of subsidizing the IP
> traders joining the waiting list?
> Potentially this will enable IP traders to register and maintain many LIRs
> with lower upfront (1250EUR) and recurring cost (250EUR) base membership
> fee for those without allocations.
>
> Essentially allowing malicious actors to game the waiting list system by
> maintaining many LIRs and possibly impact the democratic voting system
> since LIRs get the same vote weight even if they pay less.
>
> I believe, having a low entry level such as this will risk an exodus of IP
> holders and ranges to other regions where there is a lower fees while also
> incurring substantially higher costs for longterm RIPE members.
>
> Best regards
> Adminor AB
> Alexander Norman
>
> -----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
> Från: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net> För Brandon
> Butterworth
> Skickat: Thursday, 13 April 2023 18:06
> Till: Akayo <ripe at akayo.eu>
> Kopia: members-discuss at ripe.net
> Ämne: Re: [members-discuss] Charging Scheme Models 2024
>
> On Wed Apr 12, 2023 at 10:43:41PM +0200, Akayo wrote:
> > Today we received the email of 12th April 2023 about the RIPE NCC
> > charging scheme models A, B and C for 2024. Of course we used the
> > calculator to find out how much we would be required to pay in future
> > for option A.
>
> It feels like we're being gamed here but I don't know why.
>
> RIPE run this calculation for billing each year, it seems a needless
> distraction to have everyone run it themselves when they could send us the
> results for each option.
>
> Similarly they can work out which is the best option for each LIR and
> total them up to figure which would win the vote if particpation was even.
>
> All this though is distracting from the fundamental issue of having
> expanded/become more costly on the back of new LIRs mining the last IP
> block, mostly for profit it seems as we're now facing them selling up.
>
> The priority should be to agree what we want to spend and then how we want
> to split it up. I was fine letting RIPE make up a budget while the previous
> cost models were not expensive, now it looks to become expensive I'm no
> longer happy with that.
>
> I think the best option is to use current model, which is least worst as
> we've all been paying it for some years, apply RPI increase, then let RIPE
> determine how to live within it. Then we don't have all try and determine a
> viable business model for something we don't really know much detail of.
>
> brandon
>
> _______________________________________________
> members-discuss mailing list
> members-discuss at ripe.net
> https://mailman.ripe.net/
> Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/alexander%40adminor.net
> _______________________________________________
> members-discuss mailing list
> members-discuss at ripe.net
> https://mailman.ripe.net/
> Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/paul.newton%40f4rn.org.uk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20230417/23178c86/attachment.html>