Sorry if this gets messy but I'll try to address some specific points in the previous emails.

Regarding legacy resources, I do not consider this to be in scope for the discussion since RIPE NCC has no authority over these resources since they were not given out by RIPE NCC.

On 19.09.2016 17:59, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
>
> It'd have to be a large cost to make it worth giving up space
> one might need later and end up having to buy back.
>
> An ipv4 address is around EU10 so at EU1 per year I'd hold
> on to it for another 10 years in case I need it, if I didn't
> I could sell it any time and break even/make a profit

EUR1 was just a suggested number, I agree that it might be too low. However my main objective is not to raise the prices so much that people are forced to give back IP space, it was just a mere discussion point and probably not feasible. My point actually is, and as it has been pointed out by some others, that it does not feel fair that everyone pays the same regardless of how much resources they are holding.

> At EU250 per /24 how much does that add up to for all RIPE space? What
> do you expect a not for profit like RIPE to do with all that income
> when it's already handing back excess income? With no use for the money
> other than handing it back there is no point charging it.

It obviously adds up to a lot of money. As I said, RIPE sure could use more for Internet Governance and External Relations and Outreach, donations to organisations that defend a free internet such as EFF. I'm sure that RIPE can come up with good means to spend the money and that we as members can agree or disagree.

One could argue that holders of large amounts of IPv4 space have more objects in the DB, are better known in their respective fields and therefore more likely to be requesting resources for their customers (requesting ASN/IPv6 space for enterprise customers etc.). Also, with a large amount of IPv4 space that is in use comes a larger utilization of the ARPA zone servers which do cost money to run (although not run by RIPE NCC).

On 21.09.2016 17:12, Floris Bos wrote:
> I believe such pricing policy is simply more FAIR. Nothing more, nothing less.
> And I suspect there are others who feel the same, as the initial post
> that started this discussion read:
>
> "the Executive Board recognises that the membership has grown
> considerably since the current charging scheme model was introduced and
> that some members now feel that the current model is not a equitable way
> to pay for the RIPE NCC's activities."
>
> Perhaps those do not speak up now in this discussion though, afraid
> others may think they are unable to afford it, or whatever.
> Would still be interesting to see what the results would be, if there
> is ever going to be another opportunity to vote on it.

Since the policies are set by the members and given the large number of small LIRs, this could actually be our opportunity to change the charging scheme.

On 22.09.2016 01:06, Tim Armstrong wrote:

[...]So get over it and deploy CGN if you are out of addresses.

CGN kinda breaks the end-to-end principle. If my ISP were to use CGN, how would I reach my Raspberry Pi to control lights, heat in my home etc? How can I and my family send backups to the server at home? Yes, some ISPs do allow their users to setup servers at home.
My ISP, as well as a lot of other ISPs, are not actively working on rolling out IPv6. My ISP basically says that they have plenty of free IPv4 space and no interest in rolling out IPv6. If the cost of IPv4 were to be larger than the cost of rolling out IPv6, then everyone would already have rolled out IPv6.

On 22.09.2016 18:13, Floris Bos wrote:
> If we were to take ARIN's fees as example where up to and including
> /20 is less expensive than RIPE's current fees, 9276 out of the 13686
> LIRs with IPv4 would pay less.
> Not just new ones...
>
> Total income would be similar.

Voila, very nice. Large users pay more, small users pay less. Signup fees are still quite high and are a barrier to hoarding space.

Regards,
Tom

On 22.09.2016 11:40, HOSTLINE wrote:

Hello,

we all know why there are a lot of new LIR's.
Maybe in favor of both (old with legacy, and new ones) members could agree on this scheme:

Old LIR's and/or those with legacy IPv4 blocks paying the same amount of money as new LIR's - the current billing scheme,
but if RIPE NCC recover some IPv4 pools or gets recovered from IANA, they can allocate for LIR's that have only /22 new /22, or /23 (depending on resources avail).
Using FIFO model, oldest LIR's with only 1 /22 will get second allocation. Rules could be also that for example, you can't get second assignment in first 2 years when you get first one.

If LIR's who has only /22 and never used transfer services, i.e. they have only this allocation of IPv4 they are eligible for second /22 or /23, maybe even /24.
If LIR who has /22 and bought/transferred  IPv4 - are not eligible.

The rule is simple: if you can afford transfer (we now that is buying procedure anyway) - you are not allowed for new allocation. It's just draft, but maybe something could be made on this model?

Because now  a lot of  people registering (2nd, 3rd, etc) LIR's for only one goal - after two years to make a transfer to parent LIR. In such a case - if you know, that even maybe you have a chance to get IPv4 allocation after 2 years - it may worth waiting and not spending money, abusing RIPE NCC with paper work on LIR's registration, etc.

regards,
Simas Mockevicius
HOSTLINE, UAB

On 2016.09.19 18:05, Tom Lehtinen wrote:

RIPE NCC is currently the only RIR that is not charging differentiated fees depending on LIR size.

We all know that IPv4 addresses are shared resources and that we are running out of available resources.

Best regards,
Tom

----
If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss
mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page:
https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/

Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.