[members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model

RIPE NCC is currently the only RIR that is not charging differentiated 
fees depending on LIR size.

We all know that IPv4 addresses are shared resources and that we are 
running out of available resources.

 From RIPE NCC's home page: "We maintain a registry of all allocated 
Internet number resources in our service region, the details of which 
can be found in the RIPE Database. This helps to maintain a 
well-organised and efficient Internet, and also helps safeguard the 
number resources in use."

One way of safeguarding the number resources is to make sure that they 
are used efficiently. One way of making sure that the resources are used 
efficiently is to associate a cost with holding the resource.

For a new LIR, the annual fee is €1400 and that comes with a /22. 
Substracting the credit that was given to the LIRs in the previous 
years, we end up at a cost of roughly €1000/year for a LIR. This 
translates to approximately €1/IP or €250 per /24 per year.
For large holders of IP addresses, such as ISPs which distribute 1 or 2 
IP addresses per customer, the cost is minimal per customer. For larger 
companies, who might for example be using public IP space internally, 
this could be a good motivator to renumber internally or to hand back 
unused resources. As said before, IPv4 addresses are a shared resource 
and we've almost run out of available ones.

Coming back to the points of RIPE NCC being non-profit, it could also 
start spending more money to improve the services that it provides. The 
"About us" page tells us that RIPE NCC works with Internet Governance 
and External Relations and Outreach. RIPE NCC could sure use more money 
and resources to engage further with regards to these topics. For 
example, RIPE NCC engages in Roundtable Meetings for governments, 
regulators and law enforcement agencies and could use these forums to 
educate these bodies about the importance of safeguarding an open and 
neutral internet without any artificial hurdles such as zero-rating. 
blocking of content etc. Here, the RIPE NCC could be stand up for an 
open and transparent internet that follows net neutrality principles. It 
could also use the money to remove the dependency of sponsors for the 
RIPE meetings to signal the independence of RIPE.

Anyway, I believe that implementing a charge that is based on the size 
of the IPv4 resource allocation is fair and it would line up with RIPE 
NCC's goal of safeguarding the resources. Whether implementing a cost 
like the proposed €250/year per /24 or a fee based on categories such as 
the other RIRs are imposing, the model needs to be changed.

Best regards,
Tom

On 17.09.2016 22:29, Nigel Titley wrote:
> On 17/09/16 11:23, Radu-Adrian Feurdean wrote:
> 
>>> RIPE cannot and will not do this, let me explain why. According to 
>>> RIPE,
>>> and most RIR's, their stance is that you do not "own" the IP 
>>> addresses
>>> that are given to you, and that they can technically take them back 
>>> at
>> 
>> ... and then you have the transfer market, where people got IP 
>> addresses
>> for free some years ago and now they sell them for profit. This the
>> starting point of all this. Some LIRs do agree and support the "one 
>> does
>> NOT own IPs" stance, other don't or no longer do. Generally those that
>> need IP space tend to agree, those that have excess not. Of course 
>> there
>> are exceptions....
> 
> The strict status is that LIRs have a right to use an internet resource
> (they do not own it). They can transfer that right to use (but not the
> resource itself).
> 
> Just trying to inject a bit of clarity.
> 
> Nigel
> 
> 
> ----
> If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss
> mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the
> general page:
> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/
> 
> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From
> here, you can add or remove addresses.