On 09/15/2016 09:46 AM, Carlos Friacas wrote:
If another LIR has a hundred times more IPv4 addresses than we do, then I'd expect them to pay 100 times (or more) than we do.
And therein lies the difference in thinking - if one LIR uses 100 times the "resources" than another then yes, a larger bill could be appropriate. But a range of ips is ultimatley just "1 resource" - it doesn't matter about the size of that range. Let's take it from another perspective: If a LIR has 100 more IPs than another, wouldn't it be expected to think that this LIR is 100 times more likely to need actions from the RIPE?
Well, in my opinion: Yes.
I'm not sure about that..... newcomers (which by the current policy only get a /22) are probably where the NCC is spending the largest part of their effort. Is there any measurement already?
Would argue that any extra effort is already paid by the newcomers themselves in the form of the 2000 EUR setup fee. And as a recent newcomer I am not really that impressed by what you get for that amount. If you are a Dutch company they do not even send the paperwork by trackable means, but do not want to spend more than a stamp on you. The first time they send the agreement by regular postal mail it never arrived, and it took three weeks before they could be bothered to resend it a second time. That did arrive, despite them putting the address in the wrong format for my country on it, which doesn't exactly speed up postal sorting and delivery either... Anyway, back on topic. I would argue that differentiating membership fees based on size of assignment do would be fair. The cost per customer is a lot higher for smaller members than large ones, and as such the latter have an economic advantage. Furthermore the setup fee already provides a sufficient barrier preventing the number of companies signing up as LIR to explode. No need to keep the membership fee artificially high for smaller member for that purpose. Yours sincerely, Floris Bos