Good day, colleagues.
I also did not understand how to correctly perform the calculation for our LIR.
We have few resources of our own, but we are a sponsor for several dozen objects. How is the calculation performed in this case?
Good afternoon, my fellow members!
I represent Hostmaster LLC, a Ukrainian domain registry. We are operating in Ukraine and abroad, using dedicated servers to support our infrastructure. We are 21 years
old. Back in 2001, we self-funded our operations, and never took a loan or donation. Resource-wise,
we have got our /21 PA, our pre-runout /21, two /24 PI of 20th century style IP blocks (those were our start-up resources), and /48 and /32 of contemporary century IP, plus two AS numbers; we also sponsor a couple of small projects with their small allocations.
Both proposed schemes would raise our fees, to exactly the same 2200 EUR. While
we can afford them I cannot consider our organization large. Since
the latest escalation of the bloody war by the russian federation in 2022 we have had to double our network footprint to be disaster-proof. We aren't making more money either as currency had lost 25% to the euro. We had to spend some money on generator fuel
for our office and high-capacity batteries for staff and to shut down equipment in cities under enemy fire.
I can imagine many Ukrainian ISPs, hosting, and cloud providers in a similar situation, or a company in Turkey can be similarly affected by currency depreciation.
Speaking of the second option, consider an idea of a "variable" ipv4 charge to be impossible to implement correctly. With
a cap we are giving an advantage to large organizations; without it, we may risk some of them going to migrate to other RIRs thus significantly impacting NCC revenue. We had decided this once; we seek ipv6 adoption making everyone request appropriate block
at once; what going back in time is going to do? If we are so concerned about merging extra LIR accounts we can make it cost more.
I propose to vote no on both options, thus keeping the current flat fee while adjusting it as the economic situation changes.
I am also specifically against:
-
including sponsored resources into category sizing while charging for them by their count, as it is double dipping into member pockets;
-
charging for AS number, own or sponsored, as those are plentiful;
-
making use of IPv6 charging categories, for the next decade, as we are still dealing with dual stack world. ARIN made the mistake of charging more for dual-stack members,
thus discouraging IPv6 adoption; they later "fixed" it by allowing cheaper /36 allocations;
-
making any fees for changing a sponsor (I am thinking of everything a fee can be added to, possibly.)
Looking at the proposed budget of 40 million euros and way over twenty thousand LIR accounts (forecasting a 10% drop of them due to mergers and some reserve for non-paying
members) an equal member fee would be under 2000€. The vast reserves of NCC should allow for softening the blow of the economic downturn, and dozens of proposed cost-cutting measures (staff headcount, office location, travel, donations to external parties,
free member events, and others.)
I also see a meeting fee is up 14% already.
assuming some people only get reimbursed after the trip happens, and a lot of attendees not paying their bill two months earlier.
May I suggest an NCC tip field instead on the annual invoice: this would allow members who feel they benefit a lot but pay too little to contribute more but on their
own will.
On a serious note I would like us all to come to agreement on a formula that is just and fair. Judging on amount of critique on the list, we do not have this, yet.
_______________________________________________
members-discuss mailing list
members-discuss@ripe.net
https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss
Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/o.zinkov%40kyivlink.com