Regarding RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Two Options to Vote On
Dear RIPE, Who asked about "volume" (quotes intentional) charging? First of all, please submit a plan to spend the huge amount of extra money you will get from option B. Today, you give the members a surplus from the annual budget, because you are not able to spend everything that you collect. I am definitely against option B. Please keep charging scheme as is. -- Tomasz Śląski pl.skonet
Hi, On 4/17/19 13:02, REG ID: pl.skonet wrote:
Dear RIPE,
Who asked about "volume" (quotes intentional) charging?
I'm also interested to know who asked for the change of the charging scheme and how has the RIPE NCC Board reached to the two options that are now proposed. The second option, option B, is not really a volume charging scheme. It penalizes those that have received multiple smaller allocations instead of a larger one. It also penalizes whoever decides to transfer parts of an allocation. For example, let's say an LIR has a /16 allocation - it would pay the €1150 + €50. Let's now say that one of their customers really can not renumber and wants to buy the /24 they are using. Once the transfer is complete the LIR will now have several allocations (/17+/18+/19+/20+/21+/22+/23+/24) and will end up paying €1150 + €400. Why is this "volume" charging scheme not taking into account the number of IPs (which would make a lot more sense) an LIR has allocated and instead it looks at the arbitrary number of allocations? Has the Board analyzed what would happen if an LIR decides to complain that before 2012 the IP Resource Analyst that looked at his request decided to allocate several smaller blocks instead of the large block it was asking for. I think (and I believe I have heard one board member saying) that this proposal of a charging scheme was made SPECIFICALLY to create noise and guide members to vote for no change. If we are given options, why not multiple where some may make sense instead of 2 options (one where nothing changes, second - poorly designed - where everyone will be unhappy and thus nobody will vote for). Please see below. I really want to hear from the Board and understand how and why they have reached the conclusion that these are the only two options they will propose the membership to vote on.
First of all, please submit a plan to spend the huge amount of extra money you will get from option B. Today, you give the members a surplus from the annual budget, because you are not able to spend everything that you collect. I am definitely against option B.
Please keep charging scheme as is.
If I be asked to vote for one of these two options I'll also vote for the charging scheme to be kept as is. I have mentioned a few ideas to a few of the Board members - ideas that have been dismissed completely as far as I can see :( Why is the board not proposing a charging scheme that charges every PI holder €100 or even up to €400 every year - in order to decrease the LIR membership fee with a few hundred €? Why isn't the board talking about the removal of the difference in price between PA and PI? If both PA and PI would cost the same, many PI holders will decide to become members and the RIPE NCC would then be 60k members strong instead of 20k. Why is it that every time a new charging scheme is proposed, we are not consulted? Even if, let's say, my idea would not be accepted, I'd like to see it as one of the several options presented to members. At least it would get dismissed by the membership and not by the board (who apparently does not want anything to change). Last question is related to the sign-up fee. We are nearing IPv4 depletion (haven't I heard this before, like a dozen times since 2012?) and the number of members will start to decline significantly once the RIPE NCC can no longer allocate IPv4. Why is the board keeping the €2000 sign-up fee in the charging scheme? What's the use of the sign-up fee right now and what will be it's use once the RIPE NCC can not allocate IPv4 any longer? Isn't this €2000 sign-up fee one of the barriers forcing potential members into buying IPv4 PI? You'll say that people will get /22s from the RIPE NCC quicker/cheaper if they could setup an LIR for just €1400/year. Well, I agree with you, but let's see if this €2000 sign-up fee still makes sense once the RIPE NCC can not allocate IPv4 any longer. my 2 cents, elvis -- Elvis Daniel Velea V4Escrow LLC Chief Executive Officer E-mail: elvis@v4escrow.net Mobile: +1 (702) 970 0921
Dear RIPE NCC Members, For years i've been told that every member should pay the same amount, because this is a membership, not a service. Suddenly i check my e-mail and see you're talking about a "new volume-based" charging scheme. Great! Then i start to read and i found that you want to charge for block assignments and not number of IPv4 Addresses + IPv6 Addresses + AS Numbers. Lets be realistic... no one is counting block assignments. What real makes the difference between members is the number of IPv4 each member gets. If you want to do this, you should account for number of IPv4 and IPv6 Addresses and not only resource assignments. Let's say at this moment RIPE manages "601 532 288 IPv4 Addresses(?)" (source: https://www-public.imtbs-tsp.eu/~maigron/RIR_Stats/RIR_Delegations/RIPENCC/I...), if they're all allocated, lets say LIRs are charged 0,25€ each IPv4 a year, a LIR would get 10240 IPv4 Addresses for 2560€/year and RIPE NCC would make 150M€/year only from IPv4 Addresses. (For comparation, a LIR with a /16 would pay 16384€/year) I'm not saying this should be the value charged, but a base fee + a fee based on the number of IPv4 Addresses would make those LIRs that have a /16 laying around think twice if they really want to maintain it or should save money and return them for someone who needs it. Example Graph for charging based on IPv4 Address: CIDR Number of IPv4 If 0,10€/IPv4/year If 0,15€/IPv4/year If 0,20€/IPv4/year If 0,25€/IPv4/year /24 256 25,6 38,4 51,2 64 /23 512 51,2 76,8 102,4 128 /22 1024 102,4 153,6 204,8 256 /21 2048 204,8 307,2 409,6 512 /20 4096 409,6 614,4 819,2 1024 /19 8192 819,2 1228,8 1638,4 2048 /18 16384 1638,4 2457,6 3276,8 4096 /17 32768 3276,8 4915,2 6553,6 8192 /16 65536 6553,6 9830,4 13107,2 16384 /15 131072 13107,2 19660,8 26214,4 32768 /14 262144 26214,4 39321,6 52428,8 65536 /13 524288 52428,8 78643,2 104857,6 131072 /12 1048576 104857,6 157286,4 209715,2 262144 /11 2097152 209715,2 314572,8 419430,4 524288 /10 4194304 419430,4 629145,6 838860,8 1048576 /9 8388608 838860,8 1258291,2 1677721,6 2097152 /8 16777216 1677721,6 2516582,4 3355443,2 4194304 On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 12:21 AM Elvis Daniel Velea <elvis@v4escrow.net> wrote:
Hi,
On 4/17/19 13:02, REG ID: pl.skonet wrote:
Dear RIPE,
Who asked about "volume" (quotes intentional) charging?
I'm also interested to know who asked for the change of the charging scheme and how has the RIPE NCC Board reached to the two options that are now proposed.
The second option, option B, is not really a volume charging scheme. It penalizes those that have received multiple smaller allocations instead of a larger one. It also penalizes whoever decides to transfer parts of an allocation. For example, let's say an LIR has a /16 allocation - it would pay the €1150 + €50. Let's now say that one of their customers really can not renumber and wants to buy the /24 they are using. Once the transfer is complete the LIR will now have several allocations (/17+/18+/19+/20+/21+/22+/23+/24) and will end up paying €1150 + €400.
Why is this "volume" charging scheme not taking into account the number of IPs (which would make a lot more sense) an LIR has allocated and instead it looks at the arbitrary number of allocations? Has the Board analyzed what would happen if an LIR decides to complain that before 2012 the IP Resource Analyst that looked at his request decided to allocate several smaller blocks instead of the large block it was asking for.
I think (and I believe I have heard one board member saying) that this proposal of a charging scheme was made SPECIFICALLY to create noise and guide members to vote for no change. If we are given options, why not multiple where some may make sense instead of 2 options (one where nothing changes, second - poorly designed - where everyone will be unhappy and thus nobody will vote for). Please see below.
I really want to hear from the Board and understand how and why they have reached the conclusion that these are the only two options they will propose the membership to vote on.
First of all, please submit a plan to spend the huge amount of extra money you will get from option B. Today, you give the members a surplus from the annual budget, because you are not able to spend everything that you collect. I am definitely against option B.
Please keep charging scheme as is.
If I be asked to vote for one of these two options I'll also vote for the charging scheme to be kept as is.
I have mentioned a few ideas to a few of the Board members - ideas that have been dismissed completely as far as I can see :(
Why is the board not proposing a charging scheme that charges every PI holder €100 or even up to €400 every year - in order to decrease the LIR membership fee with a few hundred €?
Why isn't the board talking about the removal of the difference in price between PA and PI? If both PA and PI would cost the same, many PI holders will decide to become members and the RIPE NCC would then be 60k members strong instead of 20k.
Why is it that every time a new charging scheme is proposed, we are not consulted? Even if, let's say, my idea would not be accepted, I'd like to see it as one of the several options presented to members. At least it would get dismissed by the membership and not by the board (who apparently does not want anything to change).
Last question is related to the sign-up fee. We are nearing IPv4 depletion (haven't I heard this before, like a dozen times since 2012?) and the number of members will start to decline significantly once the RIPE NCC can no longer allocate IPv4. Why is the board keeping the €2000 sign-up fee in the charging scheme? What's the use of the sign-up fee right now and what will be it's use once the RIPE NCC can not allocate IPv4 any longer? Isn't this €2000 sign-up fee one of the barriers forcing potential members into buying IPv4 PI?
You'll say that people will get /22s from the RIPE NCC quicker/cheaper if they could setup an LIR for just €1400/year. Well, I agree with you, but let's see if this €2000 sign-up fee still makes sense once the RIPE NCC can not allocate IPv4 any longer.
my 2 cents,
elvis
-- Elvis Daniel Velea V4Escrow LLC Chief Executive Officer E-mail: elvis@v4escrow.net Mobile: +1 (702) 970 0921
_______________________________________________ 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/teotonio.ricardo%40we...
Lets be realistic... no one is counting block assignments. What real makes the difference between members is the number of IPv4 each member gets.
+1 This is option c then ? -- Jernej Horvat
Stop! Is IPv4 dead?! Let's forget about IPv4 and think about IPv6 and charge only for IPv6 resources. May be it make sense to apply a flat rate fee for all members? -- Kind regards, Aleksei Ivanov
Elvis Daniel Velea wrote on 18/04/2019 00:21:
I really want to hear from the Board and understand how and why they have reached the conclusion that these are the only two options they will propose the membership to vote on.
there is an infinite number of charging schemes. If people want the opportunity to vote on one, then the board needs to present the current charging scheme along an alternative which makes is easy to interpret, difficult to dispute and easy to administer. As far as I can tell, the proposal on the table meets all those criteria. The current charging scheme is the result of a committee of ripe ncc members set up a couple of years ago by the board to recommend new options for charging schemes. When they produced a report, the membership voted out membership categories, in favour of fixed-price membership with incremental charges for PI assignments. Now we seem to be unhappy with this and want the option to change it to something different It's like the cat. When it's outside, it wants to be in. When it's inside it wants to be out. And when the door is open, it just sits there, stares at you and meows.
Why is the board not proposing a charging scheme that charges every PI holder €100 or even up to €400 every year - in order to decrease the LIR membership fee with a few hundred €?
Because demanding a 100% or a 700% increase in charges for the same service is going to cause the people affected by this to be very unhappy.
Why isn't the board talking about the removal of the difference in price between PA and PI? If both PA and PI would cost the same, many PI holders will decide to become members and the RIPE NCC would then be 60k members strong instead of 20k.
No-one can agree how to do it without shafting the PI holders.
Why is it that every time a new charging scheme is proposed, we are not consulted?
See above. The current charging scheme was the result of a committee decision, which was the result of people grumbling. It's not perfect, but then again, no charging plan is perfect.
What's the use of the sign-up fee right now
As you noted, it makes the last bit of ipv4 last a little bit longer. Nick
On 18 Apr 2019, at 01:56, Nick Hilliard <nick@netability.ie> wrote:
The current charging scheme is the result of a committee of ripe ncc members set up a couple of years ago by the board to recommend new options for charging schemes. When they produced a report, the membership voted out membership categories, in favour of fixed-price membership with incremental charges for PI assignments.
Now we seem to be unhappy with this and want the option to change it to something different
It's like the cat. When it's outside, it wants to be in. When it's inside it wants to be out. And when the door is open, it just sits there, stares at you and meows.
I think the covering document would have benefited from reminding members of how e we got here, but also what the grumblings with the current charging scheme was at the time. It is always good to review the model you are using, but to institute change it is also important to identify what is driving the change - i.e. what the problem is that we are trying to solve. Best Regards, - kurtis - -- Kurt Erik Lindqvist, CMO London Internet Exchange Ltd, 5th Floor, Monument Place, 24 Monument Street. London. EC3R 8AJ Registered in England number 3137929 Phone: +44 (0) 20 7645 3528 Mobile: +44 (0) 78 8580 7418 https://www.linx.net/ "Working for the Internet" sip:kurtis@linx.net
participants (7)
-
Elvis Daniel Velea -
Jernej Horvat -
Kurtis Lindqvist -
LeaderTelecom Ltd. -
Nick Hilliard -
REG ID: pl.skonet -
Teotonio Ricardo