On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 at 09:58, Michel Luczak (SHRD) <ml@shrd.fr> wrote:
I rarely post here, but this is not limited to ex-USSR. I’m a LIR in France, I know several other french LIRs, we are (very) small companies (usually not a full time activity and no profit made, just hobbyists) and this change is affecting us as well. So as long as possible we’ll use the possibility, as the RIPE proposed, to split payments for companies with limited cash flow but it will definitely become a problem.
I'm going to speak up here as well just to illustrate that this isn't necessarily an issue of location and I would hate for people to be forming an opinion that they don't care because it only affects "the others". I represent a number of smaller LIRs in the UK where it simply would not be practical to pay a year's RIPE fees up front. Let's put the amount in perspective. When you consider that your up-front cost to the NCC to set up a LIR is probably greater than what you might pay a transit provider, monthly in arrears, for a whole year to actually deliver the service for those addresses, the NCC cost is a huge component of the cost of starting up an ISP - in any country, although admittedly moreso in some than others. And it's remains a huge proportion of the cost base for many ISP businesses which now operate in an effectively commodity market on thin margins. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the price (a discussion that is not relevant to this thread), just that the inversion of payment terms is in opposition to the way (most of) the rest of the real world of business operates. Let's not forget also that RIPE NCC is a giant corporation with none of the cash flow issues or immense uncertainty that smaller LIRs may face. It is no hardship to them to have the payments arrive over time - especially when you consider that they are currently obtaining cash money in advance to cover expenses that will not be incurred until 11 months later. What a privileged position to be in that nobody questions this! As far as the motivation for this change, I find that also faintly ludicrous. Of course a higher number of LIRs means a higher cost in bookkeeping and collections! But it also means a higher revenue. It's called a marginal cost. The cost per LIR does not go up. All this change serves is to further bolster the cashflow and interest earnings of an organisation that certainly needs neither (evidence: NCC budget) and create an unnecessary and potentially crippling barrier for both new LIRs and for those that wish to remain small. I see there will be opportunity for payment plans. We have received no information on this despite all my LIRs currently being on quarterly payment. Will it be means-tested? I certainly hope not, that defeats the object of reducing costs. Will it just be what is currently available in the form of quarterly payments? If so what is the point of this change? Just to hide away so you only have access to it if you ask for it? and thus still have the perceived barrier to new entrants? Will it be available for ever or only for this year? Let's have a clear statement from the NCC as to what problem they are actually trying to solve with this change and why they feel it fair to put the squeeze on *any* above-zero percentage of their members when they simply don't have a cashflow problem to solve. As mentioned above, reduction of bookkeeping costs is bunk and not acceptable. Regards David