Re: [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPENCC Charging Scheme Model
Hello all, I think the members forgot several things about RIPE NCC, which has been pointed out in the Charging Scheme Task Force Report (it seems nobody read it): 1. IP addresses is not goods. Nobody has transfered the rights to sell IPs to any RIR and nobody is able to do this. 2. From the point 1-> RIPE NCC earn money only for services. 3. Taxation of services could be rather difficult, as soon as the expenses is not really easily confirmed. In case of reselling (IPs) RIPE NCC will have to pay taxes for the "goods" (IPs) which the RIR "owns". 4. IPs are for the Internet, not for the companies. Nobody prevents any company to develop to any size (in IPs count), so thee is not any monopoly on them. 5. There are many other resources (ASN, PI, reverse DNS...) which RIRs give. It's not possible to name one of them as main, the others - as not important. 6. RIPE NCC exist many years. There are many historical principles of distribution of IPs. Some of them are "legacy space", "minimal size", "2-year planning"... Many honest companies will be trapped with such big changes in the policy (for example, when our LIR got our first block the "minimal size" was /19, we use about 50% in assignments from the block now). Most tough question is the legacy space which is very unstructured and companies used the blocks not paying anything for them. So the counting of RIPE NCC IPs is not very accurate. There are several other reasons covered in the abovementioned report. I'm surprised that in spite of Leader Telecom representative took part in the TF, in the list there are thoughts like the company speaker has not read the document. Regards, Vladidlav Potapov ru.iiat
Vladidlav et al., Am 15.07.2012 um 13:51 schrieb <poty@iiat.ru>:
Hello all,
I think the members forgot several things about RIPE NCC, which has been pointed out in the Charging Scheme Task Force Report (it seems nobody read it):
I didn't, could you please point me to it?
1. IP addresses is not goods. Nobody has transfered the rights to sell IPs to any RIR and nobody is able to do this.
I don't understand why charging on resources (e.g. IP addresses) is always linked to selling them in this discussion. RIPE is not selling IP addresses, RIPE is providing registry services. These services are charged per unit, e.g addresses. This view also invalidates the tax issues raised on the list several times. As well as the argument that taxes have to be paid on profit and RIPE should be non-profit.
2. From the point 1-> RIPE NCC earn money only for services.
No conflict.
3. Taxation of services could be rather difficult, as soon as the expenses is not really easily confirmed. In case of reselling (IPs) RIPE NCC will have to pay taxes for the "goods" (IPs) which the RIR "owns".
See above, RIPE is not sellig addresses, RIPE is charging service fees measured in underlying unit.
4. IPs are for the Internet, not for the companies. Nobody prevents any company to develop to any size (in IPs count), so thee is not any monopoly on them.
Yep.
5. There are many other resources (ASN, PI, reverse DNS...) which RIRs give. It's not possible to name one of them as main, the others - as not important.
a) It is possible to name one of them as main. This is a community definition process. PI is just addresses, so no special case. Reverse DNS is directly related to addresses, so covered by address registration fees. b) ASN registration fees should be definex as well.
6. RIPE NCC exist many years. There are many historical principles of distribution of IPs. Some of them are "legacy space", "minimal size", "2-year planning"... Many honest companies will be trapped with such big changes in the policy (for example, when our LIR got our first block the "minimal size" was /19, we use about 50% in assignments from the block now). Most tough question is the legacy space which is very unstructured and companies used the blocks not paying anything for them. So the counting of RIPE NCC IPs is not very accurate.
Sticking to history kills innovation and evolution. "Already done this way" is not a valid argument. If someone doesn't utilize its /19 completely, we should define procedures to return unused space (and motivate it by saving registration fees). I never understood the "minimum allication size" principle anyway. Along that line, pre-RIPE space should be counted as well - or revoked. What I also don't get: why do we all implicitly agree to the amount of money RIPE requires/spents per year? This is what actually causes our fees. We should limit that and split NCC services into basic community services (e.g. registration services, root DNS) which should be covered by basic fees (flat per member or resource-depending) and professional services which should be covered by seperate fees being paid by those members that really use these services. One example: I don't get why we as a community fund R&D activity and staff of RIPE. I just want to register resources. Regrads Sebastian
There are several other reasons covered in the abovementioned report. I'm surprised that in spite of Leader Telecom representative took part in the TF, in the list there are thoughts like the company speaker has not read the document.
Regards, Vladidlav Potapov ru.iiat ---- 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/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
Dear Vladislav, I think the members forgot several things about RIPE NCC, which has been pointed out in the Charging Scheme Task Force Report (it seems nobody read it): Read and agree with all point of Report - different things. It is very useful and TF made a hudge work. I sure that many concepts from this report will be in next charging scheme. 1. IP addresses is not goods. Nobody has transfered the rights to sell IPs to any RIR and nobody is able to do this. 2. From the point 1-> RIPE NCC earn money only for services. IPs not "good". Why not sell IPs as services? 3. Taxation of services could be rather difficult, as soon as the expenses is not really easily confirmed. In case of reselling (IPs) RIPE NCC will have to pay taxes for the "goods" (IPs) which the RIR "owns". If RIPE will sale IPs as services - may be we will have the same problem. So question of moving from "non profit" to "corporate" should be very good calculated. While it will be very difficult to switch back from "corporate" to "non profit". 5. There are many other resources (ASN, PI, reverse DNS...) which RIRs give. It's not possible to name one of them as main, the others - as not important. When I wrote about IP-adresses - I wrote about PI too (not only PA). For ASN we can charge some small money too. Reverse DNS are not limited and depends from IPs. So we don't need to charge for this service additionaly. There are several other reasons covered in the abovementioned report. I'm surprised that in spite of Leader Telecom representative took part in the TF, in the list there are thoughts like the company speaker has not read the document. I read. Most of ideas I find very useful. You made a huge work and I hope that togeather we can find solution. Current pricing not stimulate companies which have too many IP resources return they back. So for now some LIRs can have /8 and pay only in 2 times more than your LIR which uses only half of allocated space. The same problem with PI resources. End users pay for /24 the same money as for /23, /22 etc. And this is a result of current charging scheme. When each IP will cost some money - companies which don't need this IPs will transfer it to companies which need IP addresses (I hope..). -- Alexey Ivanov General Director LeaderTelecom Ltd. 15.07.2012 16:17 - написал(а): Hello all, I think the members forgot several things about RIPE NCC, which has been pointed out in the Charging Scheme Task Force Report (it seems nobody read it): 1. IP addresses is not goods. Nobody has transfered the rights to sell IPs to any RIR and nobody is able to do this. 2. From the point 1-> RIPE NCC earn money only for services. 3. Taxation of services could be rather difficult, as soon as the expenses is not really easily confirmed. In case of reselling (IPs) RIPE NCC will have to pay taxes for the "goods" (IPs) which the RIR "owns". 4. IPs are for the Internet, not for the companies. Nobody prevents any company to develop to any size (in IPs count), so thee is not any monopoly on them. 5. There are many other resources (ASN, PI, reverse DNS...) which RIRs give. It's not possible to name one of them as main, the others - as not important. 6. RIPE NCC exist many years. There are many historical principles of distribution of IPs. Some of them are "legacy space", "minimal size", "2-year planning"... Many honest companies will be trapped with such big changes in the policy (for example, when our LIR got our first block the "minimal size" was /19, we use about 50% in assignments from the block now). Most tough question is the legacy space which is very unstructured and companies used the blocks not paying anything for them. So the counting of RIPE NCC IPs is not very accurate. There are several other reasons covered in the abovementioned report. I'm surprised that in spite of Leader Telecom representative took part in the TF, in the list there are thoughts like the company speaker has not read the document. Regards, Vladidlav Potapov ru.iiat
Hello! I think that when you propose such a radical changes in charging scheme you have to consider possible impacts not only on the community but also on the whole IT industry in RIPE NCC service region. We all have to step back a bit and think about responsibility we have. Wrong decisions made and voted for on RIPE NCC general meeting could waste incredible amount of money, ruin lot of businesses and create a huge disadvantage for European IT industry in international competition. And I think that putting price tags on IP addresses is exactly that kind of thing which can easily become such an evil. Please do not try to transform RIPE NCC to a government-like entity equipped with rights to tax and regulate our lives. RIPE NCC is (and should be) here to hand out resources and register them. It means that it is here to help us all and we are willing to pay for it. If you really want Internet to be regulated, taxed and coerced to do crazy things why don't you propose to pass responsibilities of RIPE NCC to national governments or EU. They have quite a lot of experience with making life worse for the sake of nothing. Tomas On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 7:20 PM, LeaderTelecom Ltd. <info@leadertelecom.ru>wrote:
Current pricing not stimulate companies which have too many IP resources return they back. So for now some LIRs can have /8 and pay only in 2 times more than your LIR which uses only half of allocated space.
The same problem with PI resources. End users pay for /24 the same money as for /23, /22 etc. And this is a result of current charging scheme.
When each IP will cost some money - companies which don't need this IPs will transfer it to companies which need IP addresses (I hope..).
-- Tomáš Hlaváček ------------------------------------------------- IGNUM s.r.o. | Vinohradská 190 | Praha 3 | 130 61
+1 With kind regards, ir. A.W. (Andries) Hettema KPN IP-Office Van: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] Namens Tomas Hlavacek Verzonden: zondag 15 juli 2012 23:06 Aan: LeaderTelecom Ltd. CC: members-discuss@ripe.net Onderwerp: Re: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012071501000382] A summary for Proposal for New RIPENCC Charging Scheme Model Hello! I think that when you propose such a radical changes in charging scheme you have to consider possible impacts not only on the community but also on the whole IT industry in RIPE NCC service region. We all have to step back a bit and think about responsibility we have. Wrong decisions made and voted for on RIPE NCC general meeting could waste incredible amount of money, ruin lot of businesses and create a huge disadvantage for European IT industry in international competition. And I think that putting price tags on IP addresses is exactly that kind of thing which can easily become such an evil. Please do not try to transform RIPE NCC to a government-like entity equipped with rights to tax and regulate our lives. RIPE NCC is (and should be) here to hand out resources and register them. It means that it is here to help us all and we are willing to pay for it. If you really want Internet to be regulated, taxed and coerced to do crazy things why don't you propose to pass responsibilities of RIPE NCC to national governments or EU. They have quite a lot of experience with making life worse for the sake of nothing. Tomas On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 7:20 PM, LeaderTelecom Ltd. <info@leadertelecom.ru<mailto:info@leadertelecom.ru>> wrote: Current pricing not stimulate companies which have too many IP resources return they back. So for now some LIRs can have /8 and pay only in 2 times more than your LIR which uses only half of allocated space. The same problem with PI resources. End users pay for /24 the same money as for /23, /22 etc. And this is a result of current charging scheme. When each IP will cost some money - companies which don't need this IPs will transfer it to companies which need IP addresses (I hope..). -- Tomáš Hlaváček ------------------------------------------------- IGNUM s.r.o. | Vinohradská 190 | Praha 3 | 130 61
I totally agree. Kind regards, Filip Herman Network Operations Centre KOSMOZZ | Cloud Provider | Call us at +32 54 311.400 | E-mail us at info@kosmozz.be<mailto:info@kosmozz.be> | Visit us http://www.kosmozzz.be | Member of Internet Service Providers Belgium (http://www.ispa.be<http://www.ispa.be/>) From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of kpn-ip-office@kpn.com Sent: maandag 16 juli 2012 11:54 To: tomas.hlavacek@ignum.cz; info@leadertelecom.ru Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012071501000382] A summary for Proposal for New RIPENCC Charging Scheme Model +1 With kind regards, ir. A.W. (Andries) Hettema KPN IP-Office Van: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net]<mailto:[mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net]> Namens Tomas Hlavacek Verzonden: zondag 15 juli 2012 23:06 Aan: LeaderTelecom Ltd. CC: members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Onderwerp: Re: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012071501000382] A summary for Proposal for New RIPENCC Charging Scheme Model Hello! I think that when you propose such a radical changes in charging scheme you have to consider possible impacts not only on the community but also on the whole IT industry in RIPE NCC service region. We all have to step back a bit and think about responsibility we have. Wrong decisions made and voted for on RIPE NCC general meeting could waste incredible amount of money, ruin lot of businesses and create a huge disadvantage for European IT industry in international competition. And I think that putting price tags on IP addresses is exactly that kind of thing which can easily become such an evil. Please do not try to transform RIPE NCC to a government-like entity equipped with rights to tax and regulate our lives. RIPE NCC is (and should be) here to hand out resources and register them. It means that it is here to help us all and we are willing to pay for it. If you really want Internet to be regulated, taxed and coerced to do crazy things why don't you propose to pass responsibilities of RIPE NCC to national governments or EU. They have quite a lot of experience with making life worse for the sake of nothing. Tomas On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 7:20 PM, LeaderTelecom Ltd. <info@leadertelecom.ru<mailto:info@leadertelecom.ru>> wrote: Current pricing not stimulate companies which have too many IP resources return they back. So for now some LIRs can have /8 and pay only in 2 times more than your LIR which uses only half of allocated space. The same problem with PI resources. End users pay for /24 the same money as for /23, /22 etc. And this is a result of current charging scheme. When each IP will cost some money - companies which don't need this IPs will transfer it to companies which need IP addresses (I hope..). -- Tomáš Hlaváček ------------------------------------------------- IGNUM s.r.o. | Vinohradská 190 | Praha 3 | 130 61
Dear Tomas,
I think that when you propose such a radical changes in charging scheme you have to consider possible impacts not only on the community but also on the whole IT industry in RIPE NCC service region. We all have to step back a bit and think about responsibility we have. Wrong decisions made and voted for on RIPE NCC general meeting could waste incredible amount of money, ruin lot of businesses and create a huge disadvantage for European IT industry in international competition.
Why you think that it will be step back? Who and why will waste money? Big companies use more IPs and will pay more. This is very logical. They can reduce payments through optimisation infrastructure, moving to IPv6, etc. Small palyers will pay low. Medium will pay the same money. Why you think that it will be huge disadvantage for European IT industry? Could you tell not general words, but numbers? The same I can say the same words about current charging scheme, while small LIRs pay too much.
Please do not try to transform RIPE NCC to a government-like entity equipped with rights to tax and regulate our lives.
The regulation in genereal the same - Dutch law. In case if RIPE will transfrom to Corporate body - it will pay small corporate tax. In general nothing bad will happend. Could you write what do you afraid? -- Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom
Hello again! First I think that the idea to regulate resource consumption by taxing it or putting price tags on each and every IP address is not a matter of charging scheme but it has to eventually become an address policy first. I do not know, but it seems to me that it is same thing as 2007-01. When it comes to numbers, how many companies do you think would return some resources? And how many resources in total? Who knows... But I know one thing: If you want your "taxes" to be effective, to really make people returning resources, you have to set them really high. It has to be cheaper to purchase large CGNs (~ 100k EUR+), employ more people (~ 100k EUR) and break own network (inestimable) than paying the fee. Such fee (say ~250k EUR) for a mid-size company running MAN or few datacenters might (and should) be a huge problem. And it is of course disadvantage in comparison to other service regions that does not force LIRs to pay such a tax. Would you be happy to pay the tax while I do not need to? I do not think so. Just taking 20M EUR of RIPE NCC expenses and mapping that money to be paid to ISPs using simple formula for fixed amount per resource would not do the job. It would just annoy the largest but you are not going to get any IP addresses back. Therefore this argument is irrelevant. I personally prefer RIPE NCC to be paid for administrative work and support for the community. And because in near future there are going to be no IPv4 addresses to hand out and no IPv4 requests to evaluate I think that a reasonable way would be to have either flat fee or to have few tiers of LIRs. In that case I would base a scoring mechanism on metric of workload generated to RIPE NCC measured either by man-hours spent supporting that LIR last year or on number of allocated resource object regardless of their size or on number of changes in allocated resources last year. It can easily happen that small LIR which has messy addressing plan and sends incomplete or nonsensical requests to RIPE NCC would have to pay more than a multinational ISP. But it is fair: When they consume more services they should pay more as well. Tomas On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 12:33 PM, LeaderTelecom Ltd. <info@leadertelecom.ru>wrote:
Who and why will waste money? Big companies use more IPs and will pay more. This is very logical. They can reduce payments through optimisation infrastructure, moving to IPv6, etc. Small palyers will pay low. Medium will pay the same money.
Why you think that it will be huge disadvantage for European IT industry?
Could you tell not general words, but numbers?
The same I can say the same words about current charging scheme, while small LIRs pay too much.
Please do not try to transform RIPE NCC to a government-like entity equipped with rights to tax and regulate our lives.
The regulation in genereal the same - Dutch law. In case if RIPE will transfrom to Corporate body - it will pay small corporate tax. In general nothing bad will happend. Could you write what do you afraid?
-- Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom
-- S pozdravem, Tomáš Hlaváček ------------------------------------------------- IGNUM s.r.o. | Vinohradská 190 | Praha 3 | 130 61 Tel: +420 296 332 211 | Fax: +420 296 332 222 Tel: +420 604 111 111 | Mobil: +420 603 111 111 Web: http://www.ignum.cz | http://www.domena.cz
On 15.07.2012 21:20, LeaderTelecom Ltd. wrote:
IPs not "good". Why not sell IPs as services?
Just because an IP number itself is NOT a service. It is an exhaustible resource. Service can't be exhaustible. But (re)allocating/(re)assigning global Internet resources is a service. Even if all resources were exhausted, the service would survive as long as the resources were used.;-) I absolutely agree with Tomas, that
RIPE NCC is (and should be) here to hand out resources and register them.
and we are paying RIPE NCC for the service. Regards, D.Sidelnikov
participants (7)
-
Dimitri I Sidelnikov -
KOSMOZZ - Info -
kpn-ip-office＠kpn.com -
LeaderTelecom Ltd. -
poty＠iiat.ru -
Sebastian Abt -
Tomas Hlavacek