- Network visibility
- According to NCC there are about 10k atlas probes, there is RIS, etc. and people seem to find the data produced genuinely useful
- If the data is useful, it should be possible to quantify its value
- if there is value it should be possible to charge for it
- Suggestion: produce a plan that demonstrates roadmap to breakeven of spent opex for the last X years
As a side benefit one would have also diversify revenue away from being 98% to 90% or so membership fees but at least it would be a start.
Now, if the answers are “we cannot charge for it, people will hate us for being greedy”, “nobody would ever pay for this”, “how can we convince someone to buy when we have given it for free in the past” - I think the issue is again that either people do not truly understand the value of the service or by itself is not valuable enough to anyone. The world is full of obscure sources of data for almost any industry charging for their produced/collected data, why should the networking industry be any different? I do not believe it is. In any case, why should the membership pay for such things?
Alternatively, one could have “LIR services” package and a “the megacombo supersized LIR services and extra” package. Those who want something beyond the basics can elect to pay for the extra. Of course, for an organization that would sell SaaS and data, the data should be valuable enough that people pay for it year after year. And the services must then be relevant enough that people elect also to pay for them year after year, one cannot simply invent internal projects to keep busy while the money comes in. If one looks at the annual guides, much of the time seems to be spent on internal projects to improve something.
The ugly truth, however, is that both potentially monetizable services will not be able to cover any larger deficits fees from decreasing membership numbers for quite some years even if they were run with a criterion to at least break even on direct costs. Given enough support a membership desiring to pay less, it would leave as the alternative to reduce expenditure in various ways. What normal companies do when times are tough is first to get rid of consultants. In this case it would reduce costs per member by 255 euro annually or on an annual budgetary level by 12.75%. I’m reasonably sure the almost 200 people working full time can handle things. Similarly, does everyone need to be in Amsterdam and does NCC need to market rates? EU is a large market and there are always alternatives to nearshore within EU. Does NCC really need to have an office in Dubai? Just to name a few.
Lastly, perhaps all of these are great things that should be paid by the membership? Perhaps the real issue at hand is that the 22+ folks in Community Building and Member Engagement, spending 6 million euro inside the External Engagement and Community unit with 42 FTEs spending about 10 million euro annually - 1/4th of the whole budget - is not able to explain the wonderful benefits to us, so instead some of us send emails on members-discuss list and are seemingly unhappy with the direction things are going? Yeah, dunno, always a possibility.
Kaj
> It's beginning to look like rearranging deck chairs on the
> Titanic. Spot the odd one out (if I've gathered the data correctly)
> AFRINIC. $6m
> LACNIC. $10m
> APNIC. $22.5m
> ARIN. $24m
> RIPE NCC. €42 = $46m
now list the services provided to operators by each. you wanna get rid
of ris, atlas, many dns services, new engineer education, ...?
to compare you will have to fold caida's budget into arin's. oh, and
route views's too.
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.
i am a ripe member because of the real services, open community, etc.
ya gets what ya pay for. tanstaafl.
randy
members-discuss mailing list