Dear all,
Three weeks ago we have asked you for feedback on our ideas for a
renewed Charging Scheme for 20112. In the intervening time, you have
discussed the matter, and even conducting a mini-survey. Thank you very
much for this input; the RIPE NCC Executive Board and staff have
followed the discussion closely.
We have noticed a fair number of remarks about our choice to base the
Charging Scheme on the amount of number resources our members hold, some
arguing that IPv4 is about to fade into irrelevance for these purposes.
I would like to explain our reasoning a little more...
As you know, the RIPE NCC performs quite a number of activities, on a
neutral platform, for the benefit of all of our members and the "good of
the Internet" at large. IP address allocation is indeed a large part of
it; however, activities such as running the RIPE Database, operations of
the k-root server clusters, DNSMON, development of measuring tools and
similar are examples of "supporting the Internet infrastructure through
technical coordination".
The current, and long-established Charging Scheme is based on
allocations of addresses over time. As IPv4 allocations will indeed be
less prominent in the not-too-distant future, we need to ensure that the
RIPE NCC Charging Scheme is adapted in a way that ensures the stability
of your favorite service organisation. Other requirements are, as we
understood from surveys and personal feedback, simplicity,
predictability and fairness.
We thought long and hard about it, looking for an indication, a
yardstick, to measure the benefit that our members derive from our
services. Of course there are many options: company turnover, staff
numbers, profit and more. Being active in our particular industry, we
agreed that the depth to which our members are involved in the
"operations of the Internet" is closely related to the benefit they get
from our overall service portfolio.
How then do you measure "involvement in the operations of the Internet?"
This is where we decided to "keep it close to home," assuming that an
organisation holding a /8 is likely to be more involved than those
holding a /20 or less. And following from this we decided to use address
holdings as the yardstick, one benefit being that we all understand this
very well.
The rest, as they say, is history... We thought it would be good to
change as little as possible from the old Charging Scheme principles,
carrying over the idea of membership classes.
>From the discussions of the last couple of weeks, one opinion that came
across quite strongly is the wish to see smaller jumps in between fee
categories. Taking that cue, we are now preparing alternatives, to be
presented to the Executive Board in September, that are looking at both
a larger number of classes, as well as a sliding scale alternative.
We'll keep you posted. For now, thank you again for letting us know what
you think.
Kind regards,
Axel
Axel Pawlik
Managing Director
RIPE NCC
