This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/members-discuss@ripe.net/
[members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Pim van Pelt
pim at ipng.ch
Wed Apr 10 23:49:22 CEST 2024
Hi Simon-Jan, list,
The RIPE NCC Executive Board approves the submission of the RIPE NCC
Charging Scheme 2025 options to the upcoming RIPE NCC General
Meeting for members to vote on.
- Option A - Charging Scheme as is with 22.58% price increase for
the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,900) and a 0% price
increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 50)
- Option B - Charging Scheme as is with 20.97% price increase for
the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,875) and a 50% price
increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 75)
- Option C - Charging Scheme as is with 16.13% price increase for
the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,800), a 50% price
increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR
75) and a new AS Numbers fee of EUR 50 per assignment
This charging scheme proposal ignores essential feedback from the
community for the last several years about the expenses of RIPE NCC with
respect to critical services of a registry, versus other, non-critical
services in the research and development arena. The enumeration of
services covered by the member fee does not exhaustively list all
projects and expenses from the RIPE NCC, nor does it make a distinction
which are necessary as a part of the RIR services, versus which are nice
to have.
While I am not opposed to the options the board gave, per se, I would
vote for the repeatedly requested 'option D', and defund non-critical,
non-registry related activities before raising membership prices. An
operating expense of 40MM/yr strikes me as an inefficient use of
membership fees for the purposes of operating a registry, and as others
have pointed out: because membership is required, it can be considered
logical for registry services, but it should not be taken as a given
that LIRs wish to fund non-registry services and projects.
I also find it questionable that the cost of registration services are
not scaled by size of allocation, as the # of requests and
administrative operations, as well as the compute needed to run the
registry's core services will likely scale with number of
objects/resources/operations, not with the number of LIRs.
groet,
Pim
--
Pim van Pelt<pim at ipng.ch>
PBVP1-RIPEhttps://ipng.ch/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20240410/45f34545/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]