[members-discuss] New Charging Scheme

On 04/08/2011 10:39, Simon Lockhart wrote:
>
>> For example, here's another pricing model which could work (prices
>> completely
>> made up on the spot, so don't judge fairness on the numbers I use):
>>
>> Membership Fee (per year): EUR 1000
>>
>> Per allocation costs:
>> First Year Subsequent Years
>> IPv4 (up to /22): EUR 100 EUR 50
>> IPv4 (/21 to /20): EUR 200 EUR 50
>> IPv4 (/19 to /16): EUR 400 EUR 100
>> IPv4 (/15 to /12): EUR 800 EUR 100
>> IPv4 (over /12): EUR 1500 EUR 200
>>
>> IPv6 (/32): EUR 100 EUR 50
>> IPv6 (Over /32): EUR 400 EUR 50
>>
>> ASN: EUR 100 EUR 50
>>
>> Other objects: EUR 400 EUR 50
>>
>> In here, the membership fee is designed to cover all the other RIPE
>> services -
>> Atlas, Labs, Meetings, etc, etc. There is of course the option to have a
>> "Membership Lite" at a reduced rate with restrictions (only one IPv4,
>> one IPv6
>> and one ASN allocation, no access to other services or RIPE meetings).

I think a "usage-membership-fee" would be much better as a 
"fix-based-fee" because in relation to a LIR in Medium category and one 
in high one the smaller LIRs will be a lot more than he will use.

I guess a "usage" depending on the resouces who will be used is much 
better because it should not be that a big company which have 100times 
more IP addresses will pay only the double price as a other LIR in a 
smaller category.

So the fairnest way is to say - fixed membership fee (based on meetings, 
personal costs, etc.) and a resouce usage fee (based on IPv4 and IPv6 
addresses). /19 = 8160 IP - so like 1 IP for 0,01 = 81,6 Euro, if one 
has a /16 hee will pay 65025 IP = 650,25 Euro and so on.

Only a fee which will reflect the resources will be fine because 
otherwise each bigger LIR will not be carefull with IPv4 addresses and 
will order even more because the cost will be the same.

bye alex