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

On 2023-04-24, at 16:25, Michel Lanners <michel.lanners at lu-cix.lu> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Commenting on the size distribution of LIRs and the consequence for the charging model:
> 
>> On 13 Apr 2023, at 16:51, Ondrej Zajicek <santiago at crfreenet.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 04:16:42PM +0000, Kaj Niemi wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Well. It’s slightly different but…. I think the real issue at hand is still that topline is made to fit the projected – the word “intended” comes to mind – budget.
>>> 
>>> A "normal" LIR, which I would imagine there are many of amongst the membership, with:
>>> 
>>>  *   an IPv4 /21 assigned 20-ish years ago
>>>  *   an IPv4 /22 assigned from 185/8
>>>  *   one ASN
>>>  *   one IPv6 /32 assigned 20-ish years ago because they truly believed IPv6 is superior in all aspects and everyone would rush to deploy it immediately
>> 
>> According to data from Appendix 1 of Model A charging scheme, there is
>> only 9.5 % of such 'normal' LIRs, while 46.7 % LIRs has just one /22,
> 
> My bet is that a large portion of these 46,7% became LIR with the sole purpose of obtaining that single /22 for later monetisation. These LIRs will fade away over time as they sell their IPs or merge.

It looks to me that option A is designed to cater to this “last /22 allocation ever” group and with the way that membership categories are sized, the vast majority can (selfishly) vote in favor to lessen their fees at expense of middle and large LIRs.

Now, the biggest LIRs would not feel much pain as their customer base makes even the 10K fee small: however those with /20 size (just like example above) would shoulder the increased cost.

My company, Hostmaster.UA, would see a mild increase of annual fees as our /21 and /22 and /32 and 2 AS numbers aren’t typical for an ISP, however many smaller companies would be badly hit, like Armenian organization which representative wrote. 

We are considering creating a “caste system” in our membership when some laws dictate the fees. It is similar to how governments tax their residents. There is no best universally accepted way to do it. 

Furthermore, we have pretty large cash reserves, and do not have huge member count drop yet; the invoices are due already. By end of 2023 we can project our 2024 member count better.  Why not stay with current “one fee” scheme, do not inflate expense budget — we would discuss it in autumn — and become more member driven.

Will all respect to the board it feels like budgetary expenditures are postulated by management and the board tried to create ways to cover them. I think it should be the opposite; the members decide what projects are needed and what we can all pay, then organization finds ways to balance the budget.

I would like to see a comment from ED and board, and of course from other community members.

— dk at hostmaster.ua