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

Hello


Maybe this is a wrong forum, but i will still ask. And hopefully there is other people as well who dont know it, but how is these sponsored PI resources then supposed to be charged? They are not directly then LIR:s so i guess they dont pay the membership fee? If so i dont understand why some resource holders should have the possibility to avoid payments by being a sponsored resource and then someone just pools all these sponsored resources under one membership fee? Why should this have benefit to save money? 

If then all sponsored resourses are also members and therefore pay membership fee then i understand that these resources should not be counted 2 times against membership fees. 

So this is more of a question, how is this? Actually one also asked from us if we could sponsor them but as we dont know anthing about this concept we just said no 😊 


Br. Hans



-----Alkuperäinen viesti-----
Lähettäjä: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net> Puolesta Clement Cavadore
Lähetetty: perjantai 10. maaliskuuta 2023 10.46
Vastaanottaja: Servperso <ml at servperso.com>; members-discuss at ripe.net
Aihe: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024

I completely agree with that point of view, as already expressed. 

Having PA (i-e: "owned" by the LIR itself) resources counted in order to determine LIR category is a fair thinking (but with more granularity, and higher categories for extra-large LIR). 

But the count (and size of) sponsoring PI resources/ASNs should
*really* not be taken in account. If we (as sponsoring orgs) decide to terminate sponsorship with our end users for that reason, it will introduce stress for those end users, and much more work at RIPE NCC to register new agreements with new sponsoring LIRs. Not sure it's the goal here.


Best,

Clément Cavadore



On Thu, 2023-03-09 at 17:05 +0100, Servperso via members-discuss wrote:
> Hello,
> I've studied a bit the excel, we are a small company, but we do some 
> asn sponsor.
> If we go with model 2, it cost us 8000€ + 50€ per asn.
> 
> In practice, if model 2 is voted, we stop sponsor of all our asn
> (130) and good luck to ripe member to follow that. 
> But it's completly out of question for us to pay 8000€ per year to the 
> ripe ncc with our size.
> 
> We are a small company, and that change progressively kill us while 
> killing some of our customers too.
> 
> Now, let's think that at RIPE level. I don't think ressource analyse 
> love to follow back alot of thousands of ASN owner to tell them (you 
> need new sponsor).
> While the "sponsoring offer" progressively decrease on internet. It 
> create a real disaster and have a negative impact with NET Neutrality.
> 
> The fixed fee per asn of 50€ is alot better option. Because there is 
> no "global punishment" for the LIR. At least, got PI / ASN out of the 
> "LIR Size counting" is alot better and more easy to scale up for 
> provider with our size.
> 
> I'm also 100% ok with other members prupose. 
> 
> RIPE HAVE TO SLOW DOWN THEIR EXPENSE. 
> Your role is to maintain a database and a registry. 
> 
> Please prupose a vote to know what service we want to keep and what 
> service we want to discard to be totaly fair and neutral. We help you 
> to cut down the budget.
> 
> Best regards,
> Sarah
> 
> 
> Le 09-03-23 à 14:59, Kaj Niemi a écrit :
>     
> Hi Nick,
>  
>  
> Thanks for your constructive feedback. First, I would like to note 
> that the BCG matrix can be used for a lot of things - including 
> external M&A analysis as you mentioned - but originally it was created 
> as a tool to analyze product portfolios strategically...
> internally.  😊
>  
> Whether an organization is "for profit" or "non-profit" is a nuance.
> The revenue, expenses, and capital budgeting processes for both types 
> are the same. Where they differ is what to do with the excess.. or do 
> they? For profits tend to plow excess into new projects/investments 
> and return excess to their owners (= dividend) only if they are unable 
> to find projects with better return. Non-profits behave rather 
> similarly; some have returned excess (after all expenses and
> investments) to its membership - not owners, mind - in the past in the 
> form of reduced annual fees.....
>  
> I imagine most people are fine with whatever RIPE NCC thinks it needs 
> and wants to spend their revenue on. After all, it is to the benefit 
> of the community and internet. This is because the numbers 
> individually are so small, and I believe most members are not even 
> aware of the members-discuss list or read the annual budget PDFs, etc. 
> etc. This of course is fine; everyone is entitled to their opinion and 
> choice.
>  
> Still, when the CFO equivalent for an organization comes asking for 
> alternatives on how to raise prices to meet projected future budget 
> from its customers (membership) I think it is super useful to look 
> critically at what that organization spends its revenue on. I mean, 
> the RIPE NCC budget has mostly grown year over year and so have pretty 
> much all its departments. The revenue streams have been all but 
> assured in the past years due to growth in networking.
>  
> But are all these new (or old) functions necessary? My view is that 
> they are not which is why I am posting here. As such one should take a 
> critical look at what the organization does, what its original remit 
> was and whether there are things that might not be quite inside of 
> that scope. The organization itself thinks it is entitled to increase 
> its charges because they do not want to reduce anything they already 
> do.
>  
>  
>  
>  
> Kaj
>  
> -----Original Message-----
>  From: Nick Hilliard <nick at netability.ie>
>  Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 13:44
>  To: Kaj Niemi <kajtzu at basen.net>
>  Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net
>  Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on 
> RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
>  
> Kaj Niemi wrote on 08/03/2023 17:27:
> > If we use the BCG matrix to analyze RIPE NCC briefly, it is 
> > certainly in the lower left quadrant of the four-cell matrix - a 
> > cash cow.
>  
> Kaj,
>  
> it's probably useful to keep this style of analysis in the rear view 
> mirror, but the BCG growth matrix is a somewhat un-nuanced mechanism 
> relevant to investment opportunity assessment rather than revenue 
> modelling of not-for-profit organisations.
>  
> Inevitably, revenue remodelling exercises will create questions about 
> what the organisation actually does. Zooming out on this, the RIPE NCC 
> operates on a mandate to carry out the operational requirements of the 
> RIPE Community. This includes registry functions, but the RIR function 
> is only part of that mandate.
>  
> Personally, I'd take the view that these two discussions need to be
> decoupled: the RIPE NCC activity plan is one policy decision, and the 
> nuances of funding this activity plan is a slightly different one. If 
> the two decisions are tied together, we end up with too many moving 
> parts, i.e. instability. I don't believe that this would be in 
> anyone's interests.
>  
> The discussion at hand is whether the organisation should revert its 
> costing model from everyone-pays-equally to 
> larger-resource-holders-pay-more.  We've had this discussion before, 
> in 2012, where a Task Force was asked to examine the NCC funding 
> model.
> They designed 3 potential schemes and the RIPE NCC membership voted
> 197:109 to adopt a common fee for all LIRs. The question we have now 
> is whether to continue with this model, or to revert to the older 
> model.
> I.e. this is not a new debate, nor is it of earth shattering 
> importance.
> What's important is that the RIPE NCC has financial stability.
>  
> In terms of the cost increases proposed for larger LIRs, the reality 
> of
> ipv4 address assignment is that at €50 / address, a RIR cost increase 
> of
> €1800 -> €8000 is negligible.  I don't think it's likely they'll start 
> asking serious existential questions about the RIPE NCC on the basis 
> of a couple of €K.
>  
> Nick
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> members-discuss mailing list
> members-discuss at ripe.net
> https://mailman.ripe.net/
> Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ml%40servperso.
> com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> members-discuss mailing list
> members-discuss at ripe.net
> https://mailman.ripe.net/
> Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ccavadore%40ved
> ege.net



_______________________________________________
members-discuss mailing list
members-discuss at ripe.net
https://mailman.ripe.net/
Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/hans.govenius%40devnet.fi