[members-discuss] New Charging Scheme

On Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 11:30:49AM +0100, Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst wrote:
> we would oppose any of the current models, because we consider them unfair.

I agree that there is an element of unfairness here, but not necessarily for
the same reasons as are being articulated by others. Kurt's response, whilst
wordy, appears to be more in line with my views.
 
> To be fair - in our opinion - a billing scheme should fulfil the following
> requirements:

>     - continuous: No steep jumps. A LIR having allocation equivalent to /18
>     should pay a bit more than a LIR having a /17.

Why should an LIR having a /16 (I assume you mean /16 not /18) pay more than an
LIR having a /17? Does it cost more for RIPE to support the LIR with a /16 than
the LIR with a /17? Possibly the answer is yes, but it's not because they have
a /17 rather than a /16.

Consider these two scenarios:

a) LIR_1 has been allocated a /16. They were allocated it several years ago.
   They haven't corresponded with the RIPE NCC in the last year or longer.

b) LIR_2 goes back to the RIPE NCC every couple of months to request an 
   additional allocation. Because they don't have a stable growth plan, and
   they are trying to be conservative with their IP usage, they only get a /21
   each time they request an additional allocation. They've now accumulated a
   /17 worth of allocations.

Which LIR should pay more? Certainly LIR_1 is costing RIPE a lot less than 
LIR_2.

>     - linear: An IP address should have a price. An LIR with a /12 allocation
>     uses 256 times the resources of an LIR with a /20. This should be
>     reflected in the fee.

No, they don't. See above.

>     - cover the costs: I think the effort of RIPE is closely related to the
>     number of allocation requests. So each allocation should have a (on time)
>     fee. But this might prove impractical due to increased billing effort.

How about the annual fee, calculated at the end of each calendar year is
comprised of:

	- A base RIPE "membership" fee
	- A "maintenance" fee for each allocation to the LIR (e.g. EUR 50 per
	  allocation, like the PI blocks)
	- A "allocation" fee for each allocation made in the previous 12 months.

>     - Major players pay EUR 5500 at most, which will be less than "peanuts"
>     for them.

Not necessarily. Okay, most LIRs are also ISPs, but not all. You can't assume
that for an LIR that a bigger allocation means a bigger revenue stream.

Simon