- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

[#14514]: Discussion : Cost allocation
by hostmaster＠lumison.net 03 Oct '11

03 Oct '11

1 0

[#14514]: Discussion : Cost allocation
by lir.nic 03 Oct '11

03 Oct '11

1 0

[#34560]: Discussion : Cost allocation
by lir.nic 03 Oct '11

03 Oct '11

1 0

[#34560]: Discussion : Cost allocation
by hostmaster＠lumison.net 03 Oct '11

03 Oct '11

1 0

[#14514]: Discussion : Cost allocation
by hostmaster＠lumison.net 03 Oct '11

03 Oct '11

1 0

[#14514]: Discussion : Cost allocation
by Erik Bais 03 Oct '11

03 Oct '11

1 0

[#34560]: Discussion : Cost allocation
by Erik Bais 03 Oct '11

03 Oct '11

1 0

New Charging Scheme: Update from the RIPE NCC
by Axel Pawlik 25 Aug '11

25 Aug '11

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

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme - Survey - RESULTS
by Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst 23 Aug '11

23 Aug '11

Dear members-discuss, please find attached the results of the poll. Highlights: - almost 75% would like a scheme without steep jumps between the categories. - about 60% would give away secondary resources (ASN, IP space for IXP, ...) for free. - 60% (vs. 27%) would support a scheme, that encourages LIRs to return unused IPv4 space. - almost 50% would consider a price of EUR 0.02/(IP*year) as reasonable. - 50% do NOT want per transaction fee. - wide, commercial IPv6 deployment is expected for 2014 or later - 65% think, that PI space should be owned or sponsored by a LIR, only. 50% are willing to support a special, low pricing for these (very) small LIRs. Best regards, Christian

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme - Survey - REMINDER
by Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst 14 Aug '11

14 Aug '11

Dear members-discuss, if you haven't cast your vote, yet, please do now ;-) https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/FGKJBQJ 2**7-1 votes so far... ;-) Best regards, Christian

1 0