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

Justifying a supply chain originated price increase with "you probably have some income" is not a very good argument in favor of the proposed price increase. The marginal cost [to produce IPv4 addresses] has not increased. You do not get anything. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Zip. One day the resources that you've had for quite some time become more expensive because someone decided it would be convenient to meet their budget.

In the proposed model where the majority of the members would pay less, the amount they pay will be lower than the average cost per LIR. In other words, to produce the smorgasbord, the small LIRs pay less, get more and also have proportionally a larger say. The average cost per LIR will also continue rise, if forward-looking statements are to be believed, as budgeting and fees are decoupled but also because of the potential of consolidating LIRs. You should really be thinking of this as a subsidy or a transfer of wealth made possible by a fair democratic process and facilitated by the management.

I think of it as an agency problem which does not seem solvable since there are too many who benefit.🙂




Kaj

________________________________
From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net> on behalf of André Grüneberg <andre.grueneberg at bcix.de>
Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2023 16:49
To: RIPE member discuss list <members-discuss at ripe.net>
Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024

Hi all and specifically Brian,

On Thu, 4 May 2023 at 14:57, Brian Turnbow via members-discuss <members-discuss at ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net>> wrote:
What makes  the pay per category model  "A" as proposed impossible for me to vote for is it penalizes all long standing lirs.
When I started working  with Ripe you signed up completed the forms and a /19 was allocated, more if you could demonstrate need but /19 was default.
You then requested an AS.
Run out came along and you could get a last /22 together with your  v6 allocation.
So that adds up to a /19, /22, AS and /32(or /29)
That should be the bare minimum for small as  it is what any long standing lir has with Ripe, yet they would now find themselves in category 6 at the high end of the scale.
It does not mean they have more revenues than a lir started in say 2018 with much less IP  resources, just that they started first.
Note that I am not talking about the company I work for, we have more resources than those stated above, but I know several companies that fit into the category.

I think, it depends on how you look at it.
In case you have this address space and you use it, you probably have some income from it that allows you to pay for it. In case you are not using it (or you cannot afford it), you are free to transfer parts of your address space to reduce your allocation and thus your category.
This has a few consequences: It may deaggregate the address space (imagine you are transferring a /24 out of your /19) and thus increase cost for everyone. On the other hand it will potentially lower the market price for IP addresses which will lower the cost for late-comers.
So one could look at model A as incentive to IPv4 conservation after the run-out.

André
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20230505/bd2062e7/attachment-0001.html>