Re: NCC Funding (fwd)

Folks,

after the discussion at in Prague I recirculate on the list a message
I sent to Daniel and Rob with y ideas on the funding issue.

Greetings to everybody from a much warmer climate than in Prague ;-)

Blasco

Forwarded message:
> From bonito Thu Jan 21 12:23:53 1993
> Subject: Re: NCC Funding
> To: Daniel.Karrenberg@localhost, k13@localhost (Rob Blokzijl)
> Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 12:23:53 MET
> Reply-To:   
> In-Reply-To: <9301201639.AA00678@localhost; from "Daniel Karrenberg" at Jan 20, 93 5:18 pm
> Organization: GARR Network Information Service
> X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
> 
> Daniel, Rob,
> 
> > Rob and I have been asked by many people (among them the current funders
> > of the NCC) to come up with ideas for funding the NCC in 1994 and maybe to
> > provide addtitional funding in 1993.
> > 
> > This is related to the strategic decisions which must be made about
> > charging for the registry functions. Below is a *very* rough first draft
> > representing out thinking in this. I circulate it for discussion
> > during the agenda point registry funding at Praha local-ir meeting.
> > Please do not take this as prejudicating anything. It is just some very
> > basic thoughts.
> > 
> > Comments welocme.
> 
> I was already stimulated to think about this issue by the NSF announcement.
> Your (well done) paper has unblocked my natural attitutive against writing.
> I feel myself involved in the problem as "representing" a service provider
> as well as RIPE deputy chairman.
> 
> I generally agree with what is said in your document about feasible
> and unfeasible ways of funding the NCC.
> I think you should spend some effort trying to "model" funding criterias
> in the overall european networking scene, but only SOME EFFORT.
> Our major concern should be to exactly define rules to fund NCC, leaving
> to service providers the task of defining their own rules to charge
> customer organizations or even final users. It is evident that there
> are very different requirements and constraints put on a national
> research network than on a commercial network: the first is supported
> by the government and is able to give services for free.
> 
> I think that:
> > RIPE Network Management Database
> has not yet reached the status of a strongly needed service, so it could
> be a risk to charge service providers on this base. I think we should 
> continue the effort in order to have major backbones (EBONE, EMPB, GIX, ...)
> making use of the database: it is then a unavoidable tool!
> 
> A small uncorrectness:
> > The community represented in the database is limited to  Eu-
> > ropean organisations with Internet connectivity. *stats*
>                        --------------------------
> not true, it contains also networks with connect: LOCAL
> 
> I think that the
> > European Regional Internet Registry
> despite it is a young service, it is already a strongly needed service:
> without unique IP numbers no one can be connected to Internet either now
> or in the future. By the way the NCC should start some activity as soon
> as possible about the registration of the successors of 4-byte IP addresses
> whatever they will be.
> 
> I think it is feasible to define ways of finance the NCC which are based
> on the IP registry
> 
> > RIPE Support
> > General Coordination
> should be financed through basic funding mechanisms (i.e. RARE, the
> CEC trough RARE, the CEC directly): the importance of RIPE has
> reached a sufficient general consensus, I think.
> 
> A note:
> > The NCC also partecipates in global activities representing RIPE
>                                                  ------------
> I think this is a task of the RIPE chairman and deputy chairmans, not
> of the NCC.
> 
> Now about charging mechanisms:
> > 
> > European Internet Service Providers
> > ... 
> > Charging the service providers could be achieved in the same
> > way as above through a database registration charge and with
> > the same drawbacks Also the  use  of  the  registry  service
> > could be billed, with similar difficulties.
> > 
> > The big benefit of funding via the service providers is that
> > the number of entities to bill is relatively small and -even
> > more importantly- there is a chance to come to  a  consensus
> > about the charging model.  On the other hand the wider Euro-
> > pean user community will be funding the  NCC  services  from
> > which  they benefit via the providers. So the users having a
> > direct benefit pay, albeit indirectly.
> 
> I think that a reasonable and acceptable way to charge should be
> based on services actually given, so
> - a service provider can charge a customer organization on the base
>   of the address space, because a larger address space can connect
>   more hosts and can generate more traffic
> - a registry service can charge a service provider on the base
>   of the effort needed to make and maintain a registration
> 
> The funding model I have in mind is the following:
> 1- any service provider is registered by RIPE-NCC and pays an annual fee
>    (subscription + some advance payment for a foreseen number of
>     actual network registration)
> 2- any "RIPE registered" service provider can submit registration
>    requests during the year, as well as updates of the database concerning
>    routing privileges. This registration are tipically about
>    connected networks/block of networks. They have a steady benefit
>    from the RIPE registration.
> 3- any national "non-provider registry" is also registered by RIPE-NCC
>    and pays a much smaller annual fee
> 4- non-provider registries can tipically submit a number of new
>    "unconnected" network registration. They have a "once-only"
>    benefit from the RIPE registration.
> 
> The RIPE-NCC issues an yearly bill
> a) to service providers computed as follows:
>    inetnum entries with connect: <service providers name> are counted
>    (note this is NOT the number of networks) and then multiplied by a
>    database-management tariff and then discounted by the advance payment
>    already done.
> b) to non-provider regitries as follows:
>    inetnum entries with country: <non-provider country>, connect: LOCAL
>    and changed: <current year> are counted and multiplied by a
>    registration tariff.
> 
> Service providers can then bill, if they need so, their customers on
> the base of the address space used or any other rule.
> Non-provider registeries can bill requestors per single request/assignment
> made or as they like, but I think that it is time to state that an
> official address cannot be given for free.
> 
> All my best, see you in Praha.
> ----------                                                     ----------
> Antonio_Blasco Bonito                          E-Mail: bonito@localhost
> GARR - Network Information Service      c=it;a=garr;p=garr;o=nis;s=bonito
> c/o CNUCE - Istituto del CNR                         Tel: +39 (50) 593246
> Via S. Maria, 36                                    Telex: 500371 CNUCE I
> 56126 PISA   Italy                                   Fax: +39 (50) 904052
> ----------                                                     ----------
> 


-- 
----------                                                     ----------
Antonio_Blasco Bonito                          E-Mail: bonito@localhost
GARR - Network Information Service      c=it;a=garr;p=garr;o=nis;s=bonito
c/o CNUCE - Istituto del CNR                         Tel: +39 (50) 593246
Via S. Maria, 36                                    Telex: 500371 CNUCE I
56126 PISA   Italy                                   Fax: +39 (50) 904052
----------                                                     ----------