[members-discuss] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Board Reasoning

 From a networking point of view, this would be extremely idiotic, you 
would fill up routers' memory with routes and take down the internet if 
you did this.

Splitting blocks is just idiotic.

- Cynthia

On 2019-04-19 11:03, ivaylo wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Scheme B will work good and fair to all only with one condition - If 
> ripe split IPV4 ALLOCATED PA blocks dedicated to LIRs in maximum /22 
> (better /24) blocks.
>
> Example:
> Now LIR-1 have ALLOCATED-PA
> 10.0.0.0/20
>
> After split LIR-1 will have ALLOCATED-PA
> 10.0.0.0/22
> 10.0.4.0/22
> 10.0.8.0/22
> 10.0.12.0/22
>
> For IPV6 same splir but based on /32 allocated-pa blocks
>
> From technical point of view this automatic split can be done easy.
> Then Scheme B will be fair for all, and will cover what many of us 
> talking for charging scheme based on IP resources. Also will cover 
> that RIPE NCC do not "sell" IPV4
>
> Ivaylo Josifov
> Varteh LTD
>
>
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2019, Christian Kaufmann wrote:
>
>> Dear members,
>>
>> First of all, I'd like to thank you for the feedback we received from
>> everyone so far, and special thanks to the people who gave some more
>> context and explanation. Trying to arrive at a charging scheme that will
>> please everyone is not an easy task.
>>
>> The reason the board proposes two charging schemes is because some
>> members requested a real alternative and difference to the existing "one
>> LIR account-one fee" version we have right now and that is more volume
>> based.
>>
>> This came up previously in the charging scheme task force discussions
>> but also from individual members via emails or through personal contact.
>> Nigel and I promised at the last two GMs that we would present a new one
>> before the May GM this year.
>>
>> So what was the board's thinking in proposing these two models?
>>
>> Firstly, many people like the existing model and the board believes that
>> it covers the spirit of what some members want by maintaining the
>> financial stability of the NCC while keeping fairness and equality in
>> mind. The board also does not want a price per IP model because this
>> would have tax implications (the RIPE NCC does not sell IP addresses and
>> the charging scheme should reflect this) and we feel it is not in
>> keeping with the idea of a membership association.
>>
>> We have also found in the past that having more than two options does
>> not work well from a voting perspective. This would add considerable
>> complexity to the voting in which resolutions must be approved by more
>> than 50% of voters to be adopted.
>>
>> The second charging scheme option is one that the board believes offers
>> a real alternative while staying away from the price per IP aspect.
>>
>> The board's thinking in making the Option B proposal is that every
>> registry entry consumes resources such as customer support time,
>> database memory, registration time, etc. regardless of the size of the
>> allocation. A /24 and a /12 are not so different in this regard so we
>> see this as fair in terms of the work required by the RIPE NCC to
>> maintain the registry. The reason we suggest to charge IPv4 and IPv6 in
>> the same way follows the same logic - there is no tax designed to move
>> people to IPv6. We did not want to have a political, policy-driven
>> charging scheme because the board believes this is the work of community
>> rather than for the board or membership to decide on.
>>
>> I understand that the "volume-based" description could be seen as
>> misleading and I apologise for the misunderstanding here. The proposed
>> model is based on registrations and not per IP as we do not want to
>> indicate that IP is a sellable product but rather the RIPE NCC should
>> charge members for the registry services it provides.
>>
>> The new charging scheme was also not proposed so that the RIPE NCC could
>> make more money - it takes the current budget and calculates backwards
>> to achieve the amount required to run the RIPE NCC. It is just a
>> different model to share the current cost among members.
>>
>> Despite concerns that were raised on this list, the board took the
>> request of some members to propose a new model very seriously and we
>> spent quite some time to discuss and model the current scenario by
>> trying to be as fair as possible and sticking with the principles of a
>> membership organisation.
>>
>> Again, we are very thankful for your input and the feedback on the two
>> models. We will continue to monitor discussions and we will of course
>> present on the Charging Scheme 2020 at the upcoming GM. We encourage you
>> to register your vote so you can have the final say on the two 
>> proposals.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Christian Kaufmann
>> RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> members-discuss mailing list
>> members-discuss at ripe.net
>> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss
>> Unsubscribe: 
>> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ivaylo%40bglans.net
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> members-discuss mailing list
> members-discuss at ripe.net
> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss
> Unsubscribe: 
> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/me%40cynthia.re