[members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme

Hello,

On 4/25/23 03:52, Randy Bush wrote:
> now list the services provided to operators by each.  you wanna get rid
> of ris, atlas, many dns services, new engineer education, ...?

About DNS services, for example ccTLD secondaries we have *not* to pay 
at all, their operator should pay to RIPE for that service. ccTLD is 
businesses with profits for ccTLD operators. We don't have to sponsor it 
within RIPE, and also there're other organisations which can help. We 
can provide this service, but it should be paid by ccTLDs somewhat. Also 
for k-root/authdns, part of costs is paid by other organisations, they 
pays electricity, hardware and connectivity for hosting such instances.

Yes, education is important, but at crisis times you should review 
spendings even here, verify that costs are effective (expenses for used 
premises etc). Moreover, nowadays it's possible to operate this 
remotelly even cheaper. Presentations can be recorded and available 24/7 
to anyone. And if you look at the presentations across various events, 
the same materials and topics are often repeated anyway.

Even with other services, you can find room for savings when money is 
not forthcoming. Projects Fund in general is think we can have, when we 
have surpluses during conjuncture. But it is a mistake to try to 
maintain them without reduction when there aren't.

Such detains need in-depth audit, not only high-level naming of the some 
services provided. In organizations with large budgets and generally 
guaranteed income, there is often no tendency to seek internal savings.

The devil is always hidden in the detail.

> this discussion sometimes reminds me of the US house of representatives
> debt ceiling discussion.  let's cut everything that does not benefit my
> state, or fossil fuels.

But the discussion about optimization of expenses is important. It is 
not possible to keep saying that "we have to pay more and more because 
we know best how to spend your money for the good of the world". The 
problem is that, according to some considered models, the costs for some 
member increase rapidly.

This will not be a issue with large companies/incumbents, but rather 
with small and medium ones (and yes, organisation holding 16k IPv4 
addresses is *small* I think. And in some countries, especially in the 
area of Eastern Europe, that financial jump in expenses in 
category-based can be a huge problem. We have to remember that there are 
not only members from rich regions. The discussion is not about cutting 
everything. But it is necessary to consider empathetically from the 
point of view of organizations that come from poorer regions. And in 
this, those of the richer ones may fail somewhat.

- Daniel