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

Hi,
(please see inline)


On Wed, 26 Apr 2023, Daniel Suchy via members-discuss wrote:

> 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.

Strongly agree.


> 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.

Yes. Completely agree.


> 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.

This is what makes sense in most economies, and companies.



> 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.

How can this change?
By electing different people to the Board?



>> 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.

So i would label them as "bad models" :-))



> 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.

I think that factor was never considered.
The RIPE NCC service region spans through more than 70 economies.
Maybe that is one of the issues........


Regards,
Carlos




> - Daniel
>
> _______________________________________________
> members-discuss mailing list
> members-discuss at ripe.net
> https://mailman.ripe.net/
> Unsubscribe: 
> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/cfriacas%40fccn.pt
>