[members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024

Rob,

Thank you very much for this. Everyone must not forget this is a 
non-profit. We are voting members of the non-profit.

In simple terms, we, the account holders determine the future of RIPE by 
how we vote, and that includes the impacts to our wallets.

I'm with you in rejecting both proposed options.

Daniel~

On 3/9/23 11:47, Rob Golding wrote:
> I believe we are not being provided with enough possible options to 
> make sensible decisions about both our own situations and the 
> situation we would really want for RIPE.
>
> When faced with "more cost method X" and "even more cost method Y" we 
> are being pushed into thinking firstly that these should be the only 2 
> options and secondly that only the impact on a specific LIR/member 
> matters.
>
> The primary functions of all RIRs are to maintain a 'list' of who a 
> (finite set of) resource are allocated to, and to manage the community 
> who set the policies around those resources.
>
> Yes the type and number of resources has grown over the years, but 
> even today, it's not large enough to tax a 20+ year old copy of excel, 
> let alone require dozens of staff and millions of Euros.
>
> Whilst I can appreciate a PI request, by virtue of the policies in 
> place regarding a PI request, involve staff time ( and therefore an 
> actual cost ) the totality of the DB shows there are not hundreds of 
> new requests every week, nor are there realistically any significant 
> ongoing cost once the resource is documented in the DB at the RPE end 
> (there is for managing the DB to the LIR, afterall, we all do the bulk 
> of the actual work maintaining the database content, except where 
> policy stops us doing so !)
>
> Similarly for other resources, a line in a text file (which is all it 
> functionally needs to be) or a record in a db does not constitute a 
> massive ongoing cost.
>
> This does not require 100+ staff, and if RIPE incorrectly believe it 
> should, perhaps now is the time to consider transfer of RIR function 
> to a new organisation, who can be limited in role and expectation to 
> the actual tasks an RIR is supposed to perform for those of us who pay 
> the RIR bills.
>
> I would like to see proposed Method 3,4,5 etc to be able to do a real 
> comparison of options, taking into account
>
> * looking at why RIPE believes there will be quite so many mergers - 
> what are the perceived, actual and incidental benefits of multiple LIR 
> per member, are they mostly "gaming the system" or were there actual 
> reasons - and why, knowing this (and knowing the very-short-term 
> financial benefit ripe will have received for it when it happened) 
> better forward planning, budgetory constraint and so on were not in place
>
> * whether the fees are actually appropriate for the RIR task performed 
> - where is the option to reduce fees to half and discard all the 
> mission creep and extraneous services that has occurred
>
> * would some of the "added extras" that RIPE are "bundling" in the 
> budget be optional/pay-per-use rather than paid for by us all if we 
> are not to use or benefit from them
>
> and so on.
>
> With the ability to migrate resources between RIRs, perhaps RIPE 
> should remember that it is at least technically possible for us to 
> vote with our wallets and shift to an RIR that better meets our need 
> vs spend, or has different policies/procedures in place.
>
> And just as prudent for RIPE and related orgs to remember they have no 
> divine right to exist, they continue to do so because we choose to 
> allow it.
>
> Maybe the board should be looking at ways to incentivise LIRs around 
> the world to move to RIPE rather than constantly increasing the burden 
> on those of us who have shouldered the funding it for 3 decades.
>
> The switch to annual for quarterly billing for example places a 
> disproportionate burden on smaller lirs when the additional work to 
> handle sending 4 emails not 1 is hardly a massive utilisation of stray 
> electrons for a computer system !
>
> TL:Dr; I vote no to both without even looking at the financial impact 
> on us of either option, rejecting the underlying premise that there 
> needs to be additional charging at all.
>
> And yes, while the ARIN model may not be considered perfect, something 
> does not have to be perfect to be worthy of learning from, or taking 
> inspiration from, or even using if more appropriate than alternatives 
> - perhaps someone more s/sheet capable than I could add options on 
> there for "what it would cost at ARIN, APNIC, LACNIC ..." and we can 
> see if we are at least getting comparable value
>
> Rob
>
> _______________________________________________
> members-discuss mailing list
> members-discuss at ripe.net
> https://mailman.ripe.net/
> Unsubscribe: 
> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/daniel%40privatesystems.net