Hi HPH,

Agreed, comparatives are never easy, but one can (must) start somewhere. I'm sure you guys have people who do these kinds of things for a living...

If the number of members would double, the cost per member would be halved as you state AND the budget (~ revenue) would stay roughly equal, then the current membership would not need to "discuss" potential pricing increases given the implied economies of scale. Everyone gets the same great package but at half rate. It sounds to me like an awesome business opportunity - particularly as SOM would be close to 100% in such a situation. Wouldn’t you agree? :)

Kaj

Sent from my iPad

From: Hans Petter Holen <hph@ripe.net>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 9:56:30 PM
To: Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net>
Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net>
Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)

Hi Kaj,

Benchmarking is always useful, but sometimes comparing may be a bit difficult.

On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 at 18:27, Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> wrote:

RIPE, revenue 38M EUR (40M USD), members 20k = 2 k/member

ARIN, revenue 25M USD, members 25k = 1 k/member

APNIC, revenue 33M AUD (21M USD), members 10k = 2 k/member

LACNIC, revenue 10M USD, members 12k = 0.8 k/member

AFRINIC, revenue 6M USD, members 2k = 3 k/member

APNIC and LACNIC has National Internet Registries that handle members in their countries which makes comparison difficult.

ARIN has recently changed their membership structure to include the equivalent of our End Users and individual ASN holders.

They have also removed the distinction between PI and PA.

If the RIPE NCC did the same, we would more than double the number of members and bring the average to less than 1k/member.

Sincerely,

Hans Petter Holen
Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer
RIPE NCC