Re: [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Daniel Pearson <daniel@privatesystems.net> wrote:
Sorry to say but I really don't think you are seeing the picture.
I fail to see how dropping yearly fee's, increasing 'setup' fee's will accomplish anything. Perhaps spend some time and do the math out and put an actual outline with some numbers behind it and then match that upto the required budget to operate RIPE.
Charging every member for the amount of resources they are using will bring back some fairness in an inherently unfair system.
You specifically say this:
"After the membership has approved the new plan via a majority vote there will be an excess in money available due to the higher setup fee. The price will be determined by availability."
RIPE having an 'excess' of money, will simply mean that money is returned to its members. The price is not determined by availability of resources, it is determined primarily by the operating costs of RIPE its self.
Under my plan the RIPE NCC will use that excess money to buy back resources from RIPE NCC members who are willing to give back some of their resources. The amount of resources members are willing to give back will influence the price the RIPE NCC would be willing to pay from the excess funds.
Specifically lets look at the Articles of Association that govern RIPE.
Article 3 – The Association: Objective
The objective of the Association is to perform activities for the benefit of the Members, primarily activities that the Members need to organize as a group. This object can be sub-divided into the following activities:
- Registration Activities related to the role of the Association as Regional Internet Registry; - Co-ordination Activities, including the support of the stable operation of the Internet; - Administration Activities, including all regular reports and administrative support as well as all other general administrative tasks which cannot be attributed to a specific activity; - New Activities, including all activities which are necessary to react to the rapidly changing world of the Internet; and to do all that is connected therewith or may be conducive thereto, all this in the widest sense of the word. *Making profit is not an object of the Association.*
So if RIPE cannot make a profit, then it is impossible for it to set fee's so high that would make any impact and thus limits the whole game to a 21,000,000 million EUR bubble, which is TINY compared to some of the power house IT companies budgets.
If the RIPE NCC wants to protect the remaining resources the setup fee needs to be increased either way, it is as simple as that. As I already said the excess amount will be used to buy back resources from members that are willing to give them back. Buying back resources instead of dispersing excess money will benefit future LIRs as they may still be able to get a small amount of IPv4 resources and make the entire system more efficient if you provide LIRs with unused resources an easy way to give back some resources and provide them with a reimbursement. Kind Regards, Stefan Prager -- Prager-IT e.U. VAT Number: ATU69773505 Austrian Company Register: 438885w Skype: Prager-IT contact@prager-it.com +43 680 300 99 80 +44 20 376 962 11
On 09/16/2016 07:26 AM, Prager-IT e.U. wrote:
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Daniel Pearson <daniel@privatesystems.net <mailto:daniel@privatesystems.net>> wrote:
Sorry to say but I really don't think you are seeing the picture.
I fail to see how dropping yearly fee's, increasing 'setup' fee's will accomplish anything. Perhaps spend some time and do the math out and put an actual outline with some numbers behind it and then match that upto the required budget to operate RIPE.
Charging every member for the amount of resources they are using will bring back some fairness in an inherently unfair system.
Business is not fair, it is a competitive market place. Hell, life isn't fair. Are you going to cry foul if you sell chicken and someone opens a chicken shop next door. Is it fair if either one of you gets more customers than the other or do you make the police count how many customers go into each shop and divide them up?
You specifically say this:
"After the membership has approved the new plan via a majority vote there will be an excess in money available due to the higher setup fee. The price will be determined by availability."
RIPE having an 'excess' of money, will simply mean that money is returned to its members. The price is not determined by availability of resources, it is determined primarily by the operating costs of RIPE its self.
Under my plan the RIPE NCC will use that excess money to buy back resources from RIPE NCC members who are willing to give back some of their resources.
The amount of resources members are willing to give back will influence the price the RIPE NCC would be willing to pay from the excess funds.
RIPE cannot and will not do this, let me explain why. According to RIPE, and most RIR's, their stance is that you do not "own" the IP addresses that are given to you, and that they can technically take them back at any time. So now, you are wanting to pay people to get these addresses back. This will contradict every agreement & contract with every LIR out there in RIPE and effectively make the statement that you do not own the IP addresses null and void. So congratulations, you just turned everyone's IP space into Legacy owned IP space and that's what I'd argue in court and probably win.
Specifically lets look at the Articles of Association that govern RIPE.
Article 3 – The Association: Objective
The objective of the Association is to perform activities for the benefit of the Members, primarily activities that the Members need to organize as a group. This object can be sub-divided into the following activities:
* Registration Activities related to the role of the Association as Regional Internet Registry; * Co-ordination Activities, including the support of the stable operation of the Internet; * Administration Activities, including all regular reports and administrative support as well as all other general administrative tasks which cannot be attributed to a specific activity; * New Activities, including all activities which are necessary to react to the rapidly changing world of the Internet; and to do all that is connected therewith or may be conducive thereto, all this in the widest sense of the word. *Making profit is not an object of the Association.*
So if RIPE cannot make a profit, then it is impossible for it to set fee's so high that would make any impact and thus limits the whole game to a 21,000,000 million EUR bubble, which is TINY compared to some of the power house IT companies budgets.
If the RIPE NCC wants to protect the remaining resources the setup fee needs to be increased either way, it is as simple as that. As I already said the excess amount will be used to buy back resources from members that are willing to give them back. Buying back resources instead of dispersing excess money will benefit future LIRs as they may still be able to get a small amount of IPv4 resources and make the entire system more efficient if you provide LIRs with unused resources an easy way to give back some resources and provide them with a reimbursement.
I'm sorry but this is a pipe dream. Open market IPv4 addresses are already reaching quite high costs, nearing 10-12 EUR per IP. So, lets say RIPE gets a deal and buys back IP space at 10 EUR an IP. With their excess budget that was refunded, they could have bought back, what, a /13 if they are lucky. Of course now that RIPE is buying addresses back, the price will likely go up even more, as will fee's from RIPE. You basically created an endless market loop that will eat its self into destruction. RIPE should not and cannot buy IP space, I guarantee something like this will end very badly for RIPE, likely violates god knows how many different charters and agreements between governments, RIR's IANA etc.
Kind Regards, Stefan Prager -- Prager-IT e.U. VAT Number: ATU69773505 Austrian Company Register: 438885w
Skype: Prager-IT contact@prager-it.com <mailto:contact@prager-it.com> +43 680 300 99 80 +44 20 376 962 11
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016, at 14:41, Daniel Pearson wrote:
Business is not fair, it is a competitive market place. Hell, life isn't
That doesn't stop plenty of people to try bringing in some fairness in the life and/or business scene. Regarding their success, there's a whole other discussion, and here it's not the place for it.
RIPE cannot and will not do this, let me explain why. According to RIPE, and most RIR's, their stance is that you do not "own" the IP addresses that are given to you, and that they can technically take them back at
... and then you have the transfer market, where people got IP addresses for free some years ago and now they sell them for profit. This the starting point of all this. Some LIRs do agree and support the "one does NOT own IPs" stance, other don't or no longer do. Generally those that need IP space tend to agree, those that have excess not. Of course there are exceptions.... The reason for which RIPE NCC does not want to instate a charging scheme strictly proportional/dependent on the IPv4 count it's its non-commercial status. If a progressive charging scheme is to be instated (as it has been the case for 20 years), it must have a limited number of steps in order to have any hope of being accepted. -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
On 17/09/16 11:23, Radu-Adrian Feurdean wrote:
RIPE cannot and will not do this, let me explain why. According to RIPE, and most RIR's, their stance is that you do not "own" the IP addresses that are given to you, and that they can technically take them back at
... and then you have the transfer market, where people got IP addresses for free some years ago and now they sell them for profit. This the starting point of all this. Some LIRs do agree and support the "one does NOT own IPs" stance, other don't or no longer do. Generally those that need IP space tend to agree, those that have excess not. Of course there are exceptions....
The strict status is that LIRs have a right to use an internet resource (they do not own it). They can transfer that right to use (but not the resource itself). Just trying to inject a bit of clarity. Nigel
RIPE NCC is currently the only RIR that is not charging differentiated fees depending on LIR size. We all know that IPv4 addresses are shared resources and that we are running out of available resources. From RIPE NCC's home page: "We maintain a registry of all allocated Internet number resources in our service region, the details of which can be found in the RIPE Database. This helps to maintain a well-organised and efficient Internet, and also helps safeguard the number resources in use." One way of safeguarding the number resources is to make sure that they are used efficiently. One way of making sure that the resources are used efficiently is to associate a cost with holding the resource. For a new LIR, the annual fee is €1400 and that comes with a /22. Substracting the credit that was given to the LIRs in the previous years, we end up at a cost of roughly €1000/year for a LIR. This translates to approximately €1/IP or €250 per /24 per year. For large holders of IP addresses, such as ISPs which distribute 1 or 2 IP addresses per customer, the cost is minimal per customer. For larger companies, who might for example be using public IP space internally, this could be a good motivator to renumber internally or to hand back unused resources. As said before, IPv4 addresses are a shared resource and we've almost run out of available ones. Coming back to the points of RIPE NCC being non-profit, it could also start spending more money to improve the services that it provides. The "About us" page tells us that RIPE NCC works with Internet Governance and External Relations and Outreach. RIPE NCC could sure use more money and resources to engage further with regards to these topics. For example, RIPE NCC engages in Roundtable Meetings for governments, regulators and law enforcement agencies and could use these forums to educate these bodies about the importance of safeguarding an open and neutral internet without any artificial hurdles such as zero-rating. blocking of content etc. Here, the RIPE NCC could be stand up for an open and transparent internet that follows net neutrality principles. It could also use the money to remove the dependency of sponsors for the RIPE meetings to signal the independence of RIPE. Anyway, I believe that implementing a charge that is based on the size of the IPv4 resource allocation is fair and it would line up with RIPE NCC's goal of safeguarding the resources. Whether implementing a cost like the proposed €250/year per /24 or a fee based on categories such as the other RIRs are imposing, the model needs to be changed. Best regards, Tom On 17.09.2016 22:29, Nigel Titley wrote:
On 17/09/16 11:23, Radu-Adrian Feurdean wrote:
RIPE cannot and will not do this, let me explain why. According to RIPE, and most RIR's, their stance is that you do not "own" the IP addresses that are given to you, and that they can technically take them back at
... and then you have the transfer market, where people got IP addresses for free some years ago and now they sell them for profit. This the starting point of all this. Some LIRs do agree and support the "one does NOT own IPs" stance, other don't or no longer do. Generally those that need IP space tend to agree, those that have excess not. Of course there are exceptions....
The strict status is that LIRs have a right to use an internet resource (they do not own it). They can transfer that right to use (but not the resource itself).
Just trying to inject a bit of clarity.
Nigel
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
On Mon Sep 19, 2016 at 05:05:21PM +0200, Tom Lehtinen wrote:
RIPE NCC is currently the only RIR that is not charging differentiated fees depending on LIR size.
It is the future.
We all know that IPv4 addresses are shared resources and that we are running out of available resources.
IPv4 is game over, there is no point trying to engineer an optimal seating plan for the deck chairs
One way of safeguarding the number resources is to make sure that they are used efficiently. One way of making sure that the resources are used efficiently is to associate a cost with holding the resource.
It'd have to be a large cost to make it worth giving up space one might need later and end up having to buy back. An ipv4 address is around EU10 so at EU1 per year I'd hold on to it for another 10 years in case I need it, if I didn't I could sell it any time and break even/make a profit
For a new LIR, the annual fee is â¬1400 and that comes with a /22. Substracting the credit that was given to the LIRs in the previous years, we end up at a cost of roughly â¬1000/year for a LIR. This translates to approximately â¬1/IP or â¬250 per /24 per year.
At EU250 per /24 how much does that add up to for all RIPE space? What do you expect a not for profit like RIPE to do with all that income when it's already handing back excess income? With no use for the money other than handing it back there is no point charging it. brandon
Tom Lehtinen wrote:
RIPE NCC is currently the only RIR that is not charging differentiated fees depending on LIR size.
And is quite enlightened in that regard IMHO.
We all know that IPv4 addresses are shared resources and that we are running out of available resources.
Effectively, we have already run out. ...snip...
One way of safeguarding the number resources is to make sure that they are used efficiently. One way of making sure that the resources are used efficiently is to associate a cost with holding the resource.
I would have thought the cost of acquiring resources on the secondary market (or conversely, the cash available to you by selling surplus, if any) would be sufficient to drive any organisation towards efficiency. That was one of the drivers behind the "No Need" policy changes iirc. ...snip...
Anyway, I believe that implementing a charge that is based on the size of the IPv4 resource allocation is fair and it would line up with RIPE NCC's goal of safeguarding the resources. Whether implementing a cost like the proposed €250/year per /24 or a fee based on categories such as the other RIRs are imposing, the model needs to be changed.
I disagree. I'd rather the costs were distributed based on the costs of providing service to LIRs, which the current charging scheme seems to do quite well, subject to closing loopholes when someone tries to game the system. Ian Information in this email including any attachments may be privileged, confidential and is intended exclusively for the addressee. The views expressed may not be official policy, but the personal views of the originator. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete it from your system. You should not reproduce, distribute, store, retransmit, use or disclose its contents to anyone. Please note we reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communication through our internal and external networks. SKY and the SKY marks are trademarks of Sky plc and Sky International AG and are used under licence. Sky UK Limited (Registration No. 2906991), Sky-In-Home Service Limited (Registration No. 2067075) and Sky Subscribers Services Limited (Registration No. 2340150) are direct or indirect subsidiaries of Sky plc (Registration No. 2247735). All of the companies mentioned in this paragraph are incorporated in England and Wales and share the same registered office at Grant Way, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7 5QD.
Hello, we all know why there are a lot of new LIR's. Maybe in favor of both (old with legacy, and new ones) members could agree on this scheme: Old LIR's and/or those with legacy IPv4 blocks paying the same amount of money as new LIR's - the current billing scheme, * but if* RIPE NCC recover some IPv4 pools or gets recovered from IANA, they can allocate for LIR's that have only /22 new /22, or /23 (depending on resources avail). Using FIFO model, oldest LIR's with only 1 /22 will get second allocation. Rules could be also that for example, you can't get second assignment in first 2 years when you get first one. If LIR's who has only /22 and never used transfer services, i.e. they have only this allocation of IPv4 they are eligible for second /22 or /23, maybe even /24. If LIR who has /22 and bought/transferred IPv4 - are not eligible. The rule is simple: if you can afford transfer (we now that is buying procedure anyway) - you are not allowed for new allocation. It's just draft, but maybe something could be made on this model? Because now a lot of people registering (2nd, 3rd, etc) LIR's for only one goal - after two years to make a transfer to parent LIR. In such a case - if you know, that even *maybe* you have a chance to get IPv4 allocation after 2 years - it may worth waiting and not spending money, abusing RIPE NCC with paper work on LIR's registration, etc. regards, Simas Mockevicius HOSTLINE, UAB On 2016.09.19 18:05, Tom Lehtinen wrote:
RIPE NCC is currently the only RIR that is not charging differentiated fees depending on LIR size.
We all know that IPv4 addresses are shared resources and that we are running out of available resources.
Best regards, Tom
Sorry if this gets messy but I'll try to address some specific points in the previous emails. Regarding legacy resources, I do not consider this to be in scope for the discussion since RIPE NCC has no authority over these resources since they were not given out by RIPE NCC. On 19.09.2016 17:59, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
It'd have to be a large cost to make it worth giving up space one might need later and end up having to buy back.
An ipv4 address is around EU10 so at EU1 per year I'd hold on to it for another 10 years in case I need it, if I didn't I could sell it any time and break even/make a profit
EUR1 was just a suggested number, I agree that it might be too low. However my main objective is not to raise the prices so much that people are forced to give back IP space, it was just a mere discussion point and probably not feasible. My point actually is, and as it has been pointed out by some others, that it does not feel fair that everyone pays the same regardless of how much resources they are holding.
At EU250 per /24 how much does that add up to for all RIPE space? What do you expect a not for profit like RIPE to do with all that income when it's already handing back excess income? With no use for the money other than handing it back there is no point charging it.
It obviously adds up to a lot of money. As I said, RIPE sure could use more for Internet Governance and External Relations and Outreach, donations to organisations that defend a free internet such as EFF. I'm sure that RIPE can come up with good means to spend the money and that we as members can agree or disagree. One could argue that holders of large amounts of IPv4 space have more objects in the DB, are better known in their respective fields and therefore more likely to be requesting resources for their customers (requesting ASN/IPv6 space for enterprise customers etc.). Also, with a large amount of IPv4 space that is in use comes a larger utilization of the ARPA zone servers which do cost money to run (although not run by RIPE NCC). On 21.09.2016 17:12, Floris Bos wrote:
I believe such pricing policy is simply more FAIR. Nothing more, nothing less. And I suspect there are others who feel the same, as the initial post that started this discussion read:
"the Executive Board recognises that the membership has grown considerably since the current charging scheme model was introduced and that some members now feel that the current model is not a equitable way to pay for the RIPE NCC's activities."
Perhaps those do not speak up now in this discussion though, afraid others may think they are unable to afford it, or whatever. Would still be interesting to see what the results would be, if there is ever going to be another opportunity to vote on it.
Since the policies are set by the members and given the large number of small LIRs, this could actually be our opportunity to change the charging scheme. On 22.09.2016 01:06, Tim Armstrong wrote:
[...]So get over it and deploy CGN if you are out of addresses.
CGN kinda breaks the end-to-end principle. If my ISP were to use CGN, how would I reach my Raspberry Pi to control lights, heat in my home etc? How can I and my family send backups to the server at home? Yes, some ISPs do allow their users to setup servers at home. My ISP, as well as a lot of other ISPs, are not actively working on rolling out IPv6. My ISP basically says that they have plenty of free IPv4 space and no interest in rolling out IPv6. IF THE COST OF IPV4 WERE TO BE LARGER THAN THE COST OF ROLLING OUT IPV6, THEN EVERYONE WOULD ALREADY HAVE ROLLED OUT IPV6. On 22.09.2016 18:13, Floris Bos wrote:
If we were to take ARIN's fees as example where up to and including /20 is less expensive than RIPE's current fees, 9276 out of the 13686 LIRs with IPv4 would pay less. Not just new ones...
Total income would be similar.
Voila, very nice. Large users pay more, small users pay less. Signup fees are still quite high and are a barrier to hoarding space. Regards, Tom On 22.09.2016 11:40, HOSTLINE wrote:
Hello,
we all know why there are a lot of new LIR's. Maybe in favor of both (old with legacy, and new ones) members could agree on this scheme:
Old LIR's and/or those with legacy IPv4 blocks paying the same amount of money as new LIR's - the current billing scheme, but if RIPE NCC recover some IPv4 pools or gets recovered from IANA, they can allocate for LIR's that have only /22 new /22, or /23 (depending on resources avail). Using FIFO model, oldest LIR's with only 1 /22 will get second allocation. Rules could be also that for example, you can't get second assignment in first 2 years when you get first one.
If LIR's who has only /22 and never used transfer services, i.e. they have only this allocation of IPv4 they are eligible for second /22 or /23, maybe even /24. If LIR who has /22 and bought/transferred IPv4 - are not eligible.
The rule is simple: if you can afford transfer (we now that is buying procedure anyway) - you are not allowed for new allocation. It's just draft, but maybe something could be made on this model?
Because now a lot of people registering (2nd, 3rd, etc) LIR's for only one goal - after two years to make a transfer to parent LIR. In such a case - if you know, that even MAYBE you have a chance to get IPv4 allocation after 2 years - it may worth waiting and not spending money, abusing RIPE NCC with paper work on LIR's registration, etc.
regards, Simas Mockevicius HOSTLINE, UAB
On 2016.09.19 18:05, Tom Lehtinen wrote:
RIPE NCC is currently the only RIR that is not charging differentiated fees depending on LIR size.
We all know that IPv4 addresses are shared resources and that we are running out of available resources.
Best regards, Tom
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
On Thu Sep 22, 2016 at 07:05:26PM +0200, Tom Lehtinen wrote:
My point actually is, and as it has been pointed out by some others, that it does not feel fair that everyone pays the same regardless of how much resources they are holding.
It does not matter that you feel it is not fair as to make it fair for you makes it unfair for others and that is not fair
At EU250 per /24 how much does that add up to for all RIPE space? What do you expect a not for profit like RIPE to do with all that income when it's already handing back excess income? With no use for the money other than handing it back there is no point charging it.
It obviously adds up to a lot of money. As I said, RIPE sure could use more for Internet Governance and External Relations and Outreach, donations to organisations that defend a free internet such as EFF. I'm sure that RIPE can come up with good means to spend the money and that we as members can agree or disagree.
RIPE gave money back as they had too much so I'd say no they don't need more. Is it fair to take more money than is needed and then scratch around for activities designed to use it up?
One could argue that holders of large amounts of IPv4 space have more objects in the DB, are better known in their respective fields and therefore more likely to be requesting resources for their customers (requesting ASN/IPv6 space for enterprise customers etc.).
The opposite argument has already been made brandon
On 22.09.2016 19:22, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
On Thu Sep 22, 2016 at 07:05:26PM +0200, Tom Lehtinen wrote:
My point actually is, and as it has been pointed out by some others, that it does not feel fair that everyone pays the same regardless of how much resources they are holding.
It does not matter that you feel it is not fair as to make it fair for you makes it unfair for others and that is not fair
Sure, someone will always feel that it's unfair. However, each member has a vote and if the majority decides to vote for a different charging scheme, then that will be what the majority finds fair. Nigel brought up the topic because he obviously has heard that some LIRs are not happy with the current situation and that is why we are discussing the topic.
[snip]
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016, at 11:40, HOSTLINE wrote:
Old LIR's and/or those with legacy IPv4 blocks paying the same amount of money as new LIR's - the current billing scheme, * but if* RIPE NCC recover some IPv4 pools or gets recovered from IANA, they can allocate for LIR's that have only /22 new /22, or /23 (depending on resources avail).
Using FIFO model, oldest LIR's with only 1 /22 will get second allocation. Rules could be also that for example, you can't get second assignment in first 2 years when you get first one.
If LIR's who has only /22 and never used transfer services, i.e. they have only this allocation of IPv4 they are eligible for second /22 or /23, maybe even /24. If LIR who has /22 and bought/transferred IPv4 - are not eligible.
Don't remember having your name on the list of supporters of 2015-05 (which was supposed to do something very similar). :)
Because now a lot of people registering (2nd, 3rd, etc) LIR's for only one goal - after two years to make a transfer to parent LIR. In such a case - if you know, that even *maybe* you have a chance to get IPv4 allocation after 2 years - it may worth waiting and not spending money, abusing RIPE NCC with paper work on LIR's registration, etc.
Please have a look at the thread concerning 2015-05 on Address Policy Working Group. You can get an insight on how things work (or not). -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN (co-proposer of 2015-05)
On Mon, 19 Sep 2016, Tom Lehtinen wrote: (...)
For a new LIR, the annual fee is ?1400 and that comes with a /22. Substracting the credit that was given to the LIRs in the previous years, we end up at a cost of roughly ?1000/year for a LIR. This translates to approximately ?1/IP or ?250 per /24 per year. For large holders of IP addresses, such as ISPs which distribute 1 or 2 IP addresses per customer, the cost is minimal per customer. For larger companies, who might for example be using public IP space internally, this could be a good motivator to renumber internally or to hand back unused resources.
As long as making some money from "transferring the right to use" is possible, "hand back unused resources" motivation really tends to zero... ;-))
As said before, IPv4 addresses are a shared resource and we've almost run out of available ones.
Some members have, some others haven't. But the service region, as a collective is almost running out, yes.
Coming back to the points of RIPE NCC being non-profit, it could also start spending more money to improve the services that it provides. The "About us" page tells us that RIPE NCC works with Internet Governance and External Relations and Outreach. RIPE NCC could sure use more money and resources to
Not really sure about "could sure use more money". Established goals in this field aren't being met?
engage further with regards to these topics. For example, RIPE NCC engages in Roundtable Meetings for governments, regulators and law enforcement agencies and could use these forums to educate these bodies about the importance of safeguarding an open and neutral internet without any artificial hurdles such as zero-rating. blocking of content etc.
There are also other orgs that try to do that. ISOC comes to mind...
Here, the RIPE NCC could be stand up for an open and transparent internet that follows net neutrality principles. It could also use the money to remove the dependency of sponsors for the RIPE meetings to signal the independence of RIPE.
I would agree with lowering the price of meeting's tickets. I don't feel the RIPE/NCC (or RIPE) is less independent by having sponsors for social events.
Anyway, I believe that implementing a charge that is based on the size of the IPv4 resource allocation is fair
"fair" to me would sound like covering most of NCC's costs with money coming from those members who generate more workload on the NCC.
and it would line up with RIPE NCC's goal of safeguarding the resources. Whether implementing a cost like the proposed ?250/year per /24 or a fee based on categories such as the other RIRs are imposing, the model needs to be changed.
Strongly disagree. A fee based on (few) categories (like some years ago...) would be less disruptive, if people don't agree we should keep the flat-fee scheme. If rules are made in order to encourage people to "hand back" (errr... i mean, make some money by transferring rights), that might be perceived as a way to distort an existing market. Regards, Carlos Friaças
Best regards, Tom
On 17.09.2016 22:29, Nigel Titley wrote:
On 17/09/16 11:23, Radu-Adrian Feurdean wrote:
RIPE cannot and will not do this, let me explain why. According to RIPE, and most RIR's, their stance is that you do not "own" the IP addresses that are given to you, and that they can technically take them back at
... and then you have the transfer market, where people got IP addresses for free some years ago and now they sell them for profit. This the starting point of all this. Some LIRs do agree and support the "one does NOT own IPs" stance, other don't or no longer do. Generally those that need IP space tend to agree, those that have excess not. Of course there are exceptions....
The strict status is that LIRs have a right to use an internet resource (they do not own it). They can transfer that right to use (but not the resource itself).
Just trying to inject a bit of clarity.
Nigel
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
participants (9)
-
Brandon Butterworth -
Carlos Friacas -
Daniel Pearson -
Dickinson, Ian -
HOSTLINE -
Nigel Titley -
Prager-IT e.U. -
Radu-Adrian Feurdean -
Tom Lehtinen