Kaj Niemi wrote on 08/03/2023 17:27:
If we use the BCG matrix to analyze RIPE NCC briefly, it is certainly in the lower left quadrant of the four-cell matrix - a cash cow.
Kaj, it's probably useful to keep this style of analysis in the rear view mirror, but the BCG growth matrix is a somewhat un-nuanced mechanism relevant to investment opportunity assessment rather than revenue modelling of not-for-profit organisations. Inevitably, revenue remodelling exercises will create questions about what the organisation actually does. Zooming out on this, the RIPE NCC operates on a mandate to carry out the operational requirements of the RIPE Community. This includes registry functions, but the RIR function is only part of that mandate. Personally, I'd take the view that these two discussions need to be decoupled: the RIPE NCC activity plan is one policy decision, and the nuances of funding this activity plan is a slightly different one. If the two decisions are tied together, we end up with too many moving parts, i.e. instability. I don't believe that this would be in anyone's interests. The discussion at hand is whether the organisation should revert its costing model from everyone-pays-equally to larger-resource-holders-pay-more. We've had this discussion before, in 2012, where a Task Force was asked to examine the NCC funding model. They designed 3 potential schemes and the RIPE NCC membership voted 197:109 to adopt a common fee for all LIRs. The question we have now is whether to continue with this model, or to revert to the older model. I.e. this is not a new debate, nor is it of earth shattering importance. What's important is that the RIPE NCC has financial stability. In terms of the cost increases proposed for larger LIRs, the reality of ipv4 address assignment is that at €50 / address, a RIR cost increase of €1800 -> €8000 is negligible. I don't think it's likely they'll start asking serious existential questions about the RIPE NCC on the basis of a couple of €K. Nick