Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme
Kinda strange that people suggest RIPE to ask money for free services which they think will reduce membership fees. But these services, if they are needed by anyone, or let's say by most, will become just another indirect membership fee. Or if too few of the members will pay for them, we just lose all these "nice to have services" due to lack of funding. Best regards, Misak Khachatryan, Network Administration and Monitoring Department Manager, GNC- ALFA CJSC 1 Khaghaghutyan str., Abovyan, 2201 Armenia Tel: +374 60 46 99 70 (9670), Mob.: +374 55 19 98 40 URL: www.rtarmenia.am<http://www.rtarmenia.am> On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 6:59 PM Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net<mailto:kajtzu@basen.net>> wrote: FWIW, the latest EB minutes can be found here [1] and pertain to what options for voting on the charging model will be presented at the GM in May. Everyone might want to take a look at it. [1] https://www.ripe.net/about-us/executive-board/minutes/2023/minutes-166th-exe... Kaj From: Kaj Niemi Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 12:47 To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com<mailto:randy@psg.com>>; Paul Newton <paul.newton@f4rn.org.uk<mailto:paul.newton@f4rn.org.uk>> Cc: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl<mailto:sander@steffann.nl>>; Gert Doering <gert@space.net<mailto:gert@space.net>>; <members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> <members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> Subject: RE: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Hi, It would probably be better to not single out a specific service to get rid of just like that but instead objectively look at the services NCC provides and should provide as part of the service commitment to its membership. To figure out whether they really are something a RIR should do as part of its basic services for LIRs or services that are value-add. Some of these services can be categorized as being in the interest of the public, like the K-root. On the other hand, I don't think anything prohibits charging for other services, if NCC truly wanted. Some of the charging models want to introduce transfer fees, for example, and I do believe people pay for RIPE meetings, too. Thinking creatively about some of the things mentioned: * Training and certs * This is a topic where there could actually be a possibility of upselling * many companies have training budgets * many allow employees to choose how to spend rather freely (subject to line manager approval, etc.) * NCC has 14 FTEs doing developing and doing training, spending around 2 million annually on development of said services * One would assume that there would at least be some kind of payback or plan on how to recoup the costs over time * Looking at 2022 financials, at most certifications were a 98k euro business in 2022 but since NCC sold voucher bundles lets assume generously that 50k of revenue was attributable to 2022 and the other half is classed as future revenue. * Conclusion: depending on viewpoint the costs are either 20x or 40x current revenue * Why should the membership pay for this year in, year out? * Suggestion: produce a realistic plan that demonstrates track to, at least, break even for training and certifications that includes spent past costs for X years * Network visibility * According to NCC there are about 10k atlas probes, there is RIS, etc. and people seem to find the data produced genuinely useful * If the data is useful, it should be possible to quantify its value * if there is value it should be possible to charge for it * Suggestion: produce a plan that demonstrates roadmap to breakeven of spent opex for the last X years As a side benefit one would have also diversify revenue away from being 98% to 90% or so membership fees but at least it would be a start. Now, if the answers are “we cannot charge for it, people will hate us for being greedy”, “nobody would ever pay for this”, “how can we convince someone to buy when we have given it for free in the past” - I think the issue is again that either people do not truly understand the value of the service or by itself is not valuable enough to anyone. The world is full of obscure sources of data for almost any industry charging for their produced/collected data, why should the networking industry be any different? I do not believe it is. In any case, why should the membership pay for such things? Alternatively, one could have “LIR services” package and a “the megacombo supersized LIR services and extra” package. Those who want something beyond the basics can elect to pay for the extra. Of course, for an organization that would sell SaaS and data, the data should be valuable enough that people pay for it year after year. And the services must then be relevant enough that people elect also to pay for them year after year, one cannot simply invent internal projects to keep busy while the money comes in. If one looks at the annual guides, much of the time seems to be spent on internal projects to improve something. The ugly truth, however, is that both potentially monetizable services will not be able to cover any larger deficits fees from decreasing membership numbers for quite some years even if they were run with a criterion to at least break even on direct costs. Given enough support a membership desiring to pay less, it would leave as the alternative to reduce expenditure in various ways. What normal companies do when times are tough is first to get rid of consultants. In this case it would reduce costs per member by 255 euro annually or on an annual budgetary level by 12.75%. I’m reasonably sure the almost 200 people working full time can handle things. Similarly, does everyone need to be in Amsterdam and does NCC need to market rates? EU is a large market and there are always alternatives to nearshore within EU. Does NCC really need to have an office in Dubai? Just to name a few. Lastly, perhaps all of these are great things that should be paid by the membership? Perhaps the real issue at hand is that the 22+ folks in Community Building and Member Engagement, spending 6 million euro inside the External Engagement and Community unit with 42 FTEs spending about 10 million euro annually - 1/4th of the whole budget - is not able to explain the wonderful benefits to us, so instead some of us send emails on members-discuss list and are seemingly unhappy with the direction things are going? Yeah, dunno, always a possibility. Kaj -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> On Behalf Of Randy Bush Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 04:53 To: Paul Newton <paul.newton@f4rn.org.uk<mailto:paul.newton@f4rn.org.uk>> Cc: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl<mailto:sander@steffann.nl>>; Gert Doering <gert@space.net<mailto:gert@space.net>>; <members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> <members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme
It's beginning to look like rearranging deck chairs on the
Titanic. Spot the odd one out (if I've gathered the data correctly)
AFRINIC. $6m
LACNIC. $10m
APNIC. $22.5m
ARIN. $24m
RIPE NCC. €42 = $46m
now list the services provided to operators by each. you wanna get rid of ris, atlas, many dns services, new engineer education, ...? to compare you will have to fold caida's budget into arin's. oh, and route views's too. this discussion sometimes reminds me of the US house of representatives debt ceiling discussion. let's cut everything that does not benefit my state, or fossil fuels. i am a ripe member because of the real services, open community, etc. ya gets what ya pay for. tanstaafl. randy _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C01%7C%7C406989697a5244df756e08db46233018%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638180889206199751%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TLZNiRRXDcZQ1HAXfZdTGqH0EFlcgNJgMQ3PlIrDy%2Bg%3D&reserved=0<https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss> Unsubscribe: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fkajtzu%2540basen.net&data=05%7C01%7C%7C406989697a5244df756e08db46233018%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638180889206199751%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=iz1ROLVplCGojzJr78CF7yO1mN89ZLWI%2BvD5IM5CkJQ%3D&reserved=0<https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/kajtzu%40basen.net>
I think that, if you read the backlog of emails, some people feel that some sets of services aren’t useful to them for whatever reason(s). To state my own position clearly - I feel like most services beyond basic LIR aren’t something I’d be willing to pay for but right now I must. From my point of view, RIPE is a fixed business cost which I must have but cannot second source on this continent or replace if I am unhappy (please do not suggest changing RIR to another continent). I’m mostly unhappy with the ever-increasing budget which results in what I call “mission creep”. Perhaps that can be read between the lines in my writing as well. Just because I don’t feel I get something out of RIPE doesn’t mean you or someone else wouldn’t. My suggestions are only that, hopefully creative alternatives to keep such a service around while considering my views as well. Kaj Sent from my iPhone ________________________________ From: Misak Khachatryan <m.khachatryan@gnc.am> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 8:04:28 PM To: Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> Cc: <members-discuss@ripe.net> <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Kinda strange that people suggest RIPE to ask money for free services which they think will reduce membership fees. But these services, if they are needed by anyone, or let's say by most, will become just another indirect membership fee. Or if too few of the members will pay for them, we just lose all these "nice to have services" due to lack of funding. Best regards, Misak Khachatryan, Network Administration and Monitoring Department Manager, GNC- ALFA CJSC 1 Khaghaghutyan str., Abovyan, 2201 Armenia Tel: +374 60 46 99 70 (9670), Mob.: +374 55 19 98 40 URL: www.rtarmenia.am<http://www.rtarmenia.am/> On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 6:59 PM Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net<mailto:kajtzu@basen.net>> wrote: FWIW, the latest EB minutes can be found here [1] and pertain to what options for voting on the charging model will be presented at the GM in May. Everyone might want to take a look at it. [1] https://www.ripe.net/about-us/executive-board/minutes/2023/minutes-166th-exe... Kaj From: Kaj Niemi Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 12:47 To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com<mailto:randy@psg.com>>; Paul Newton <paul.newton@f4rn.org.uk<mailto:paul.newton@f4rn.org.uk>> Cc: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl<mailto:sander@steffann.nl>>; Gert Doering <gert@space.net<mailto:gert@space.net>>; <members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> <members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> Subject: RE: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Hi, It would probably be better to not single out a specific service to get rid of just like that but instead objectively look at the services NCC provides and should provide as part of the service commitment to its membership. To figure out whether they really are something a RIR should do as part of its basic services for LIRs or services that are value-add. Some of these services can be categorized as being in the interest of the public, like the K-root. On the other hand, I don't think anything prohibits charging for other services, if NCC truly wanted. Some of the charging models want to introduce transfer fees, for example, and I do believe people pay for RIPE meetings, too. Thinking creatively about some of the things mentioned: * Training and certs * This is a topic where there could actually be a possibility of upselling * many companies have training budgets * many allow employees to choose how to spend rather freely (subject to line manager approval, etc.) * NCC has 14 FTEs doing developing and doing training, spending around 2 million annually on development of said services * One would assume that there would at least be some kind of payback or plan on how to recoup the costs over time * Looking at 2022 financials, at most certifications were a 98k euro business in 2022 but since NCC sold voucher bundles lets assume generously that 50k of revenue was attributable to 2022 and the other half is classed as future revenue. * Conclusion: depending on viewpoint the costs are either 20x or 40x current revenue * Why should the membership pay for this year in, year out? * Suggestion: produce a realistic plan that demonstrates track to, at least, break even for training and certifications that includes spent past costs for X years * Network visibility * According to NCC there are about 10k atlas probes, there is RIS, etc. and people seem to find the data produced genuinely useful * If the data is useful, it should be possible to quantify its value * if there is value it should be possible to charge for it * Suggestion: produce a plan that demonstrates roadmap to breakeven of spent opex for the last X years As a side benefit one would have also diversify revenue away from being 98% to 90% or so membership fees but at least it would be a start. Now, if the answers are “we cannot charge for it, people will hate us for being greedy”, “nobody would ever pay for this”, “how can we convince someone to buy when we have given it for free in the past” - I think the issue is again that either people do not truly understand the value of the service or by itself is not valuable enough to anyone. The world is full of obscure sources of data for almost any industry charging for their produced/collected data, why should the networking industry be any different? I do not believe it is. In any case, why should the membership pay for such things? Alternatively, one could have “LIR services” package and a “the megacombo supersized LIR services and extra” package. Those who want something beyond the basics can elect to pay for the extra. Of course, for an organization that would sell SaaS and data, the data should be valuable enough that people pay for it year after year. And the services must then be relevant enough that people elect also to pay for them year after year, one cannot simply invent internal projects to keep busy while the money comes in. If one looks at the annual guides, much of the time seems to be spent on internal projects to improve something. The ugly truth, however, is that both potentially monetizable services will not be able to cover any larger deficits fees from decreasing membership numbers for quite some years even if they were run with a criterion to at least break even on direct costs. Given enough support a membership desiring to pay less, it would leave as the alternative to reduce expenditure in various ways. What normal companies do when times are tough is first to get rid of consultants. In this case it would reduce costs per member by 255 euro annually or on an annual budgetary level by 12.75%. I’m reasonably sure the almost 200 people working full time can handle things. Similarly, does everyone need to be in Amsterdam and does NCC need to market rates? EU is a large market and there are always alternatives to nearshore within EU. Does NCC really need to have an office in Dubai? Just to name a few. Lastly, perhaps all of these are great things that should be paid by the membership? Perhaps the real issue at hand is that the 22+ folks in Community Building and Member Engagement, spending 6 million euro inside the External Engagement and Community unit with 42 FTEs spending about 10 million euro annually - 1/4th of the whole budget - is not able to explain the wonderful benefits to us, so instead some of us send emails on members-discuss list and are seemingly unhappy with the direction things are going? Yeah, dunno, always a possibility. Kaj -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> On Behalf Of Randy Bush Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 04:53 To: Paul Newton <paul.newton@f4rn.org.uk<mailto:paul.newton@f4rn.org.uk>> Cc: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl<mailto:sander@steffann.nl>>; Gert Doering <gert@space.net<mailto:gert@space.net>>; <members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> <members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme
It's beginning to look like rearranging deck chairs on the
Titanic. Spot the odd one out (if I've gathered the data correctly)
AFRINIC. $6m
LACNIC. $10m
APNIC. $22.5m
ARIN. $24m
RIPE NCC. €42 = $46m
now list the services provided to operators by each. you wanna get rid of ris, atlas, many dns services, new engineer education, ...? to compare you will have to fold caida's budget into arin's. oh, and route views's too. this discussion sometimes reminds me of the US house of representatives debt ceiling discussion. let's cut everything that does not benefit my state, or fossil fuels. i am a ripe member because of the real services, open community, etc. ya gets what ya pay for. tanstaafl. randy _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C01%7C%7C406989697a5244df756e08db46233018%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638180889206199751%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TLZNiRRXDcZQ1HAXfZdTGqH0EFlcgNJgMQ3PlIrDy%2Bg%3D&reserved=0<https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss> Unsubscribe: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fkajtzu%2540basen.net&data=05%7C01%7C%7C406989697a5244df756e08db46233018%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638180889206199751%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=iz1ROLVplCGojzJr78CF7yO1mN89ZLWI%2BvD5IM5CkJQ%3D&reserved=0<https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/kajtzu%40basen.net>
If people had to pay for such services directly, instead of an indirect membership fee, I bet the majority of people wouldn't find these services useful. I for one, do not find Atlas to be useful. My probe was temperamental and eventually stopped working altogether several years ago. A replacement request was refused. We're talking about a re-flashed 10 euro WiFi AP. I haven't looked at Atlas since. It wasn't so long ago I saw a number of requests on the RIPE forum for extra credits. RIPE staff took an excess of a month to respond with free credits to those individuals, which raises further concerns. Concerns about what the staff are actually doing, further how credits can be handed out for a service that costs members indirectly. On 4/26/23 18:44, Kaj Niemi wrote:
I think that, if you read the backlog of emails, some people feel that some sets of services aren’t useful to them for whatever reason(s).
To state my own position clearly - I feel like most services beyond basic LIR aren’t something I’d be willing to pay for but right now I must. From my point of view, RIPE is a fixed business cost which I must have but cannot second source on this continent or replace if I am unhappy (please do not suggest changing RIR to another continent). I’m mostly unhappy with the ever-increasing budget which results in what I call “mission creep”. Perhaps that can be read between the lines in my writing as well.
Just because I don’t feel I get something out of RIPE doesn’t mean you or someone else wouldn’t. My suggestions are only that, hopefully creative alternatives to keep such a service around while considering my views as well.
Kaj
Sent from my iPhone ---------------------------------------------------------------
From: Misak Khachatryan [<m.khachatryan@gnc.am>](mailto:m.khachatryan@gnc.am) Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 8:04:28 PM To: Kaj Niemi [<kajtzu@basen.net>](mailto:kajtzu@basen.net) Cc: [<members-discuss@ripe.net>](mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net) [<members-discuss@ripe.net>](mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net) Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme
Kinda strange that people suggest RIPE to ask money for free services which they think will reduce membership fees. But these services, if they are needed by anyone, or let's say by most, will become just another indirect membership fee. Or if too few of the members will pay for them, we just lose all these "nice to have services" due to lack of funding.
Best regards, Misak Khachatryan, Network Administration and Monitoring Department Manager,
GNC- ALFA CJSC 1 Khaghaghutyan str., Abovyan, 2201 Armenia Tel: +374 60 46 99 70 (9670), Mob.: +374 55 19 98 40 URL: [www.rtarmenia.am](http://www.rtarmenia.am/)
On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 6:59 PM Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> wrote:
FWIW, the latest EB minutes can be found here [1] and pertain to what options for voting on the charging model will be presented at the GM in May. Everyone might want to take a look at it.
[1] https://www.ripe.net/about-us/executive-board/minutes/2023/minutes-166th-exe...
Kaj
From: Kaj Niemi Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 12:47 To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>; Paul Newton <paul.newton@f4rn.org.uk> Cc: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>; Gert Doering <gert@space.net>; <members-discuss@ripe.net> <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: RE: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme
Hi,
It would probably be better to not single out a specific service to get rid of just like that but instead objectively look at the services NCC provides and should provide as part of the service commitment to its membership. To figure out whether they really are something a RIR should do as part of its basic services for LIRs or services that are value-add. Some of these services can be categorized as being in the interest of the public, like the K-root.
On the other hand, I don't think anything prohibits charging for other services, if NCC truly wanted. Some of the charging models want to introduce transfer fees, for example, and I do believe people pay for RIPE meetings, too.
Thinking creatively about some of the things mentioned:
- Training and certs
- This is a topic where there could actually be a possibility of upselling
- many companies have training budgets - many allow employees to choose how to spend rather freely (subject to line manager approval, etc.)
- NCC has 14 FTEs doing developing and doing training, spending around 2 million annually on development of said services - One would assume that there would at least be some kind of payback or plan on how to recoup the costs over time - Looking at 2022 financials, at most certifications were a 98k euro business in 2022 but since NCC sold voucher bundles lets assume generously that 50k of revenue was attributable to 2022 and the other half is classed as future revenue. - Conclusion: depending on viewpoint the costs are either 20x or 40x current revenue
- Why should the membership pay for this year in, year out?
- Suggestion: produce a realistic plan that demonstrates track to, at least, break even for training and certifications that includes spent past costs for X years
- Network visibility
- According to NCC there are about 10k atlas probes, there is RIS, etc. and people seem to find the data produced genuinely useful - If the data is useful, it should be possible to quantify its value
- if there is value it should be possible to charge for it
- Suggestion: produce a plan that demonstrates roadmap to breakeven of spent opex for the last X years
As a side benefit one would have also diversify revenue away from being 98% to 90% or so membership fees but at least it would be a start.
Now, if the answers are “we cannot charge for it, people will hate us for being greedy”, “nobody would ever pay for this”, “how can we convince someone to buy when we have given it for free in the past” - I think the issue is again that either people do not truly understand the value of the service or by itself is not valuable enough to anyone. The world is full of obscure sources of data for almost any industry charging for their produced/collected data, why should the networking industry be any different? I do not believe it is. In any case, why should the membership pay for such things?
Alternatively, one could have “LIR services” package and a “the megacombo supersized LIR services and extra” package. Those who want something beyond the basics can elect to pay for the extra. Of course, for an organization that would sell SaaS and data, the data should be valuable enough that people pay for it year after year. And the services must then be relevant enough that people elect also to pay for them year after year, one cannot simply invent internal projects to keep busy while the money comes in. If one looks at the annual guides, much of the time seems to be spent on internal projects to improve something.
The ugly truth, however, is that both potentially monetizable services will not be able to cover any larger deficits fees from decreasing membership numbers for quite some years even if they were run with a criterion to at least break even on direct costs. Given enough support a membership desiring to pay less, it would leave as the alternative to reduce expenditure in various ways. What normal companies do when times are tough is first to get rid of consultants. In this case it would reduce costs per member by 255 euro annually or on an annual budgetary level by 12.75%. I’m reasonably sure the almost 200 people working full time can handle things. Similarly, does everyone need to be in Amsterdam and does NCC need to market rates? EU is a large market and there are always alternatives to nearshore within EU. Does NCC really need to have an office in Dubai? Just to name a few.
Lastly, perhaps all of these are great things that should be paid by the membership? Perhaps the real issue at hand is that the 22+ folks in Community Building and Member Engagement, spending 6 million euro inside the External Engagement and Community unit with 42 FTEs spending about 10 million euro annually - 1/4th of the whole budget - is not able to explain the wonderful benefits to us, so instead some of us send emails on members-discuss list and are seemingly unhappy with the direction things are going? Yeah, dunno, always a possibility.
Kaj
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Randy Bush Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 04:53 To: Paul Newton <paul.newton@f4rn.org.uk> Cc: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>; Gert Doering <gert@space.net>; <members-discuss@ripe.net> <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme
It's beginning to look like rearranging deck chairs on the
Titanic. Spot the odd one out (if I've gathered the data correctly)
AFRINIC. $6m
LACNIC. $10m
APNIC. $22.5m
ARIN. $24m
RIPE NCC. €42 = $46m
now list the services provided to operators by each. you wanna get rid
of ris, atlas, many dns services, new engineer education, ...?
to compare you will have to fold caida's budget into arin's. oh, and
route views's too.
this discussion sometimes reminds me of the US house of representatives
debt ceiling discussion. let's cut everything that does not benefit my
state, or fossil fuels.
i am a ripe member because of the real services, open community, etc.
ya gets what ya pay for. tanstaafl.
randy
_______________________________________________
members-discuss mailing list
members-discuss@ripe.net
participants (3)
-
Josh Jameson -
Kaj Niemi -
Misak Khachatryan