[members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Carlos Friacas
cfriacas at fccn.pt
Thu Sep 22 21:45:28 CEST 2016
On Mon, 19 Sep 2016, Tom Lehtinen wrote: (...) > 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 long as making some money from "transferring the right to use" is possible, "hand back unused resources" motivation really tends to zero... ;-)) > As said before, IPv4 addresses are a shared resource and we've > almost run out of available ones. Some members have, some others haven't. But the service region, as a collective is almost running out, yes. > 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 Not really sure about "could sure use more money". Established goals in this field aren't being met? > 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. There are also other orgs that try to do that. ISOC comes to mind... > 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. I would agree with lowering the price of meeting's tickets. I don't feel the RIPE/NCC (or RIPE) is less independent by having sponsors for social events. > Anyway, I believe that implementing a charge that is based on the size of the > IPv4 resource allocation is fair "fair" to me would sound like covering most of NCC's costs with money coming from those members who generate more workload on the NCC. > 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. Strongly disagree. A fee based on (few) categories (like some years ago...) would be less disruptive, if people don't agree we should keep the flat-fee scheme. If rules are made in order to encourage people to "hand back" (errr... i mean, make some money by transferring rights), that might be perceived as a way to distort an existing market. Regards, Carlos Friaças > 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. > > ---- > 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. >
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]