[members-discuss] [ripe-list] New RIPE Labs Article - Building a stable future for the RIPE NCC

> Sergey, I want to ask: why those who received addresses earlier and took
> so many of them that they 'do not feel a shortage' and 'sell' them now,
> believe that these are THEIR PERSONAL RESOURCES?

Sure. Let's assume you've built a house. You came then to your municipality and asked them to assign your house a street number.
Is this your house number? Yes indeed. Can the municipality take it back? Well rather no. Can they force you and the whole city to renumber? Probably yes.

And now let's get back to your question. Is the house number a personal resource?

> The address space is initially SHARED

Okay. So the coordinator then assigned the addresses to the networks.

> But I personally suggest that at first we must try to resolve this issue
> in a more reasonable way, by forcing those WHO USE MORE SHARED RESOURCES
> TO PAY MORE

So those who use more (not shared anymore) addresses paid more to build the networks, and now with their efforts to perform the IPv6 transition, you propose that the community (or rather the NCC members) will force them to pay even more. Then instead of paying millions those users will hire many lawyers for the same money and the association will have dozens of lawsuits like another RIR has.


--
Best,
Sergey


> On 18. 4. 2024, at 15:31, sdy at a-n-t.ru wrote:
> 
> Sergey, I want to ask: why those who received addresses earlier and took
> so many of them that they 'do not feel a shortage' and 'sell' them now,
> believe that these are THEIR PERSONAL RESOURCES?
> 
> Initially, the function of RIPE and NCC was to ensure equal access to
> resources for all members, and not for those who were 'the first to rush
> in time'.
> 
> Let me remind you, addresses are not given out 'forever', and even more,
> are not sold to LIR's or somebody. They are allocated by the RIPE NETWORK
> COMMUNITY from a COMMON resource for ALL network interaction.
> 
> If there are no more resources, then the COMMUNITY must create conditions
> under which NO ONE can keep them for the purpose of speculation. The
> address space is initially SHARED. In the end, we can 'throw out' all such
> speculators from the address space allocation (ANY ONE who offer ANY
> addresses for sale in any form) and distribute their addresses among the
> rest of the community. Because, according to the logic, they do not now
> 'rent' addresses, they receive them FOR FREE with the same fee for all!
> 
> But I personally suggest that at first we must try to resolve this issue
> in a more reasonable way, by forcing those WHO USE MORE SHARED RESOURCES
> TO PAY MORE. And direct these payments to solve problems with lack of
> resources.
> 
> 
>> Just small tip in your great dialog
>> 
>> #369 place in top of IPv4 holders
>> cz.netart
>> NetArt Group s.r.o.
>> CZ
>> 39 IPv4 Allocations
>> 166400 IPv4
>> 
>> Have a nice day :)
>> 
>> On 18.04.2024 18:45, Sergey Myasoedov via members-discuss wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Again we telling old tales!
>>> 
>>> Dmitry, you're doing this. But this time you came with the fresh idea,
>>> so I'm happy to discuss it.
>>> 
>>>>> Paying more than others usually means having more rights. Should the
>>>>> top
>>>>> payers benefit more from their membership?
>>>> If you rent large house dose you have more rights than owner?
>>> 
>>> Don't you feel the difference between use the IPs for addressing in your
>>> network and renting a house from a specific owner?
>>> 
>>>> If you pay more taxes does you have more votes?
>>> 
>>> In case there will be ten or twenty top payers, the association will
>>> become dependent on their contributions. More dependancy means more
>>> power. From that point of view flat fee is more fair for the association
>>> members.
>>> 
>>>> 2. Divide the NCC budget into two parts - Operational (the smallest
>>>> part)
>>>> and Investment (the largest part). Everyone must pays the SAME fees to
>>>> the
>>>> Operational Budget. The NCC's Investment (research) budget will filled
>>>> with resource fees.
>>> 
>>> Have you had a chance to think about the numbers?
>>> 
>>>> 3. Gradually increase the payment for scarce resources (Investment
>>>> Budget), with directing the funds from their collection to solve the
>>>> problem of their shortage.
>>> 
>>> There is no more shortage. The association runs out of available IPv4,
>>> you have to admit this. Every new assigned /24 is a redistribution of
>>> the returned IPv4 space.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Best,
>>> Sergey
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 18. 4. 2024, at 14:28, sdy at a-n-t.ru wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Again we telling old tales!
>>>> 
>>>> Answer me, why some people repeat it again and again?
>>>>> Paying more than others usually means having more rights. Should the
>>>>> top
>>>>> payers benefit more from their membership?
>>>> 
>>>> If you rent large house dose you have more rights than owner?
>>>> If you pay more taxes does you have more votes?
>>>> 
>>>> They will pay more BECOUSE they USE MORE common RESOURCES!
>>>> 
>>>> I have to write what needs to be done again:
>>>> 
>>>> 1. Make a decision on charging NCC members for the scarce resources
>>>> used.
>>>> 
>>>> 2. Divide the NCC budget into two parts - Operational (the smallest
>>>> part)
>>>> and Investment (the largest part). Everyone must pays the SAME fees to
>>>> the
>>>> Operational Budget. The NCC's Investment (research) budget will filled
>>>> with resource fees.
>>>> 
>>>> 3. Gradually increase the payment for scarce resources (Investment
>>>> Budget), with directing the funds from their collection to solve the
>>>> problem of their shortage.
>>>> For example: the creation of free IPv6 materials and their translation
>>>> into different languages, the development of software for the
>>>> integration
>>>> of IPv4 and Ipv6. The development of IPv6. Popularization of Ipv6.
>>>> Create
>>>> open software and harwarefor IPv6. Creating same new protocol solutions
>>>> for the problems with migration to IPv6.
>>>> 
>>>> --------------------------------
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> The topic is definitely for members-discuss, not for ripe-list, so
>>>>> I'll
>>>>> continue in m-d.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 1) RIPE need to make some reserve funds for compensate some looses
>>>>>> due
>>>>>> sanctions, banking troubles and etc... for example 5% of total
>>>>>> budget.
>>>>> 
>>>>> That's far away from the reality. As far as I remember, the target was
>>>>> about 100% of the budget, so the association could survive 1 to 2
>>>>> years
>>>>> without any funding. The current status of the reserves is 80%+ of the
>>>>> budget.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 2) Change Charging Scheme from LIR based to Resource based and spare
>>>>>> RIPE budget spending in equal parts. Big LIRs with large amount of
>>>>>> resouces - will be pay more (in equal share), LIRs with small amount
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> resources - will be pay less (in equal share).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Paying more than others usually means having more rights. Should the
>>>>> top
>>>>> payers benefit more from their membership?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Sergey
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -----------------------------
>>>> С уважением Сербулов Дмитрий
>>>> ООО "Альфа Нет Телеком"
>>>> +7(498)785-8-000 раб.
>>>> +7(495)940-92-11 доп.
>>>> +7(925)518-10-69 сот.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> members-discuss mailing list
>>> members-discuss at ripe.net
>>> https://mailman.ripe.net/
>>> Unsubscribe:
>>> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/admin%40roskomnadzor.io
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -----------------------------
> С уважением Сербулов Дмитрий
> ООО "Альфа Нет Телеком"
> +7(498)785-8-000 раб.
> +7(495)940-92-11 доп.
> +7(925)518-10-69 сот.
>