[ncc-announce] New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Models: Feedback Required
Dear colleagues, The RIPE NCC Executive Board will present a new Charging Scheme to the membership at the RIPE NCC General Meeting (GM) to be held in Vienna on 2 November 2011. The Executive Board is working with the RIPE NCC Senior Management on various options that could be included in the Charging Scheme. It would like to solicit feedback from members on two Charging Scheme models before deciding on a final version to present at the GM. The two models are based on established RIPE NCC organisational principles. Both models, as well as an explanation of the models' features and differences, are presented at: https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/november-2011/ripe-ncc-proposed-new... The RIPE NCC Executive Board welcomes any feedback on the proposed models. You can provide your feedback by using the online form or by sending an email directly to agm@ripe.net. After considering the feedback from the membership on the proposed Charging Scheme models, the Executive Board will decide which model it will present to the membership at the GM. If you wish to discuss the proposed new Charging Scheme models with other RIPE NCC members, please start a discussion on the members-discuss@ripe.net mailing list. Information about this list can be found online at: https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/member-support/info/membership-mailing-lis... We look forward to hearing your comments. Regards, Nigel Titley RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman
Hello, can someone from RIPE NCC provide calculation similat to current charging scheme (expected numbers of LIR members per category) and number of affected LIRs with the change. I expect these numbers already exists in RIPE NCC and these was used for this proposal - there must be some source data for selecting member category based on IPv4 callocations size in presented document. And these data should be presented together with this proposar. I'm supporting this kind of simplification of LIR size calculation, but personally I feel that IPv4 allocations per category should be changed. There's disproportion between number of addresses and category - organisations holding for example one milion addresses will pay only double price, compared to organizations holding 65 thousand addresses, even is holding much more of resourcess. In terms of fairness - large resource holders are favorized opposed to small ones. I think, allocations per category should be considered to be more fair (that's means up to /22 in XXS, /21 in XS, /20-/16 in S, /15-/12 in L category... for example). My current feeling from presented model is, that many currently small LIRs will fall to medium category, just due to this change. And, current minimal allocation for LIR is /21 [*ripe509, section 5.1] - that means, every new LIR will be automatically in small category (and new LIRs will pay more then) - and that's wrong in my eyes. Also, current model of 50EUR per independent resource is quite clear I think it can remain in the new charging scheme. At least, proposed model two, where PI are charged I'm supporting. There should be some regulation represented by additional "fee" for PI resources, as these are sometimes misused by organisations expected to be a LIR (and there're some organisations/LIRs activelly selling PI address space as their "service", charging much more [more than double] than they pay for the resource in RIPE). With regards, Daniel On 08/01/2011 05:17 PM, Nigel Titley wrote:
Dear colleagues,
The RIPE NCC Executive Board will present a new Charging Scheme to the membership at the RIPE NCC General Meeting (GM) to be held in Vienna on 2 November 2011.
The Executive Board is working with the RIPE NCC Senior Management on various options that could be included in the Charging Scheme. It would like to solicit feedback from members on two Charging Scheme models before deciding on a final version to present at the GM.
The two models are based on established RIPE NCC organisational principles. Both models, as well as an explanation of the models' features and differences, are presented at: https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/november-2011/ripe-ncc-proposed-new...
The RIPE NCC Executive Board welcomes any feedback on the proposed models. You can provide your feedback by using the online form or by sending an email directly to agm@ripe.net.
After considering the feedback from the membership on the proposed Charging Scheme models, the Executive Board will decide which model it will present to the membership at the GM.
If you wish to discuss the proposed new Charging Scheme models with other RIPE NCC members, please start a discussion on the members-discuss@ripe.net mailing list. Information about this list can be found online at: https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/member-support/info/membership-mailing-lis...
We look forward to hearing your comments.
Regards,
Nigel Titley RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman
Hello, On Mon, 01 Aug 2011 22:35:16 +0200, Daniel Suchy wrote:
Hello, can someone from RIPE NCC provide calculation similat to current charging scheme (expected numbers of LIR members per category) and number of affected LIRs with the change. I expect these numbers already exists in RIPE NCC and these was used for this proposal - there must be some source data for selecting member category based on IPv4 callocations size in presented document. And these data should be presented together with this proposar.
+1
I'm supporting this kind of simplification of LIR size calculation, but personally I feel that IPv4 allocations per category should be changed. There's disproportion between number of addresses and category - organisations holding for example one milion addresses will pay only double price, compared to organizations holding 65 thousand addresses, even is holding much more of resourcess. In terms of fairness - large resource holders are favorized opposed to small ones. I think, allocations per category should be considered to be more fair (that's means up to /22 in XXS, /21 in XS, /20-/16 in S, /15-/12 in L category... for example). My current feeling from presented model is, that many currently small LIRs will fall to medium category, just due to this change. And, current minimal allocation for LIR is /21 [*ripe509, section 5.1] - that means, every new LIR will be automatically in small category (and new LIRs will pay more then) - and that's wrong in my eyes.
As Daniel, I like this kind of simplification of LIR size calculation. But I am XS, and I think I will go Small or Medium... (depending of the way it is calculated). Does the LIR size is calculated according to ripe allocation (e.g. if we have a /21 allocated, but on the real life there is only about /23 used) is based only about what is allocated or just the block given by RIPE ?
Also, current model of 50EUR per independent resource is quite clear I think it can remain in the new charging scheme. At least, proposed model two, where PI are charged I'm supporting. There should be some regulation represented by additional "fee" for PI resources, as these are sometimes misused by organisations expected to be a LIR (and there're some organisations/LIRs activelly selling PI address space as their "service", charging much more [more than double] than they pay for the resource in RIPE).
I second that, but other problem is limitation of number of AS. WTF if we have 5 AS and one /21 ? Do we go automatically from Small to Medium ? Since AS _IS_ independent resources, why there is limitation there ? Kind regards, Xavier
I'm supporting this kind of simplification of LIR size calculation, but personally I feel that IPv4 allocations per category should be changed. There's disproportion between number of addresses and category -
As Daniel, I like this kind of simplification of LIR size calculation. But I am XS, and I think I will go Small or Medium... (depending of the way it is calculated).
I think that the classification of a population into in a small number of classes for taxation or otherwise cost calculation owes to two basic reasons: (1) It dates back to when there existed no computers and therefore was not possible to make it perfectly fair for everyone without extensive manual calculations; (2) public laws, and quite often private entities' rules, being made by lawyers, who usually have a minimum background in mathemathics - therefore simply not enough knowledge among lawmakers in mathematics to make more precise schemes. Being the bunch of creative, numbers-oriented people that we (the LIRs and the RIPE) are, I think we could come up with something much better. I envision a formula which will give a calculation to the penny which is perfectly fair for each and every LIR. Such a formula doesn't have to be terribly complicated - no need for Fourier transforms or imaginary numbers. It may simply be a sum of the cost components, each with a factor to account for its weight in the overall cost. Cost components may include things like: - Amount of IPv4 space allocated - Amount of IPv6 space allocated (can be waived for a few years to help LIRs deploy IPv6) - Amount of IPv4 space assigned (i.e., usually generating revenue for the LIR) - Amount of IPv6 space assigned (same as before, and probably waived for a few years for the same reason) - Amount of AS numbers - Amount of unused (or undocumented) IP space (to give a good reason to keep the database updated!), - Assistance to meetings (this one with a negative factor, of course) - Operating cost of the RIPE NCC divided by number of LIRs at previous year end (to cover expenses tied to managing a LIR which are independent of its size) - Labs projects sponsorship (negative factor for this one too) Each LIR would then be able to calculate well in advance its cost for the following year - so it would not be different from now, and therefore, we'd not face the opposition of our financial deparments. Quite the contrary - the cost would be somewhat more predictable, and the contention would be limited to the factors for each cost component. But because each factor would not fluctuate much from year to year, and even if they did the overall effect would be relatively small, they would not be as big a source of trouble as the proposed changes are now. -- Alfredo Sola ASP5-RIPE http://www.solucionesdinamicas.net/
On Mon, 1 Aug 2011, Daniel Suchy wrote:
(and there're some organisations/LIRs activelly selling PI address space as their "service", charging much more [more than double] than they pay for the resource in RIPE).
THIS my friend, is EXACTLY what a LIR is supposed to do. register ip space for third parties and charge them for the service. the whole LIR == ISP crap, is a misinterpretation of the tasks of both RIPE and LIRS, as is the fact that they encourage potential LIR customers of becoming a LIR themselves, rather than paying a LIR to register PI space for them (the legal aspects of which, are questionable as well, after all, LIRS pay RIPE to enable them to register PI space, not for RIPE to steal their customers ;) -- Greetings, Sven Olaf Kamphuis, CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG ========================================================================= Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 D-13359 Registration: HRA 42834 B BERLIN Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE e-Mail: sven@cb3rob.net ========================================================================= <penpen> C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle http://www.facebook.com/cb3rob ========================================================================= Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Mon, 1 Aug 2011, Daniel Suchy wrote:
Hello, can someone from RIPE NCC provide calculation similat to current charging scheme (expected numbers of LIR members per category) and number of affected LIRs with the change. I expect these numbers already exists in RIPE NCC and these was used for this proposal - there must be some source data for selecting member category based on IPv4 callocations size in presented document. And these data should be presented together with this proposar.
I'm supporting this kind of simplification of LIR size calculation, but personally I feel that IPv4 allocations per category should be changed. There's disproportion between number of addresses and category - organisations holding for example one milion addresses will pay only double price, compared to organizations holding 65 thousand addresses, even is holding much more of resourcess. In terms of fairness - large resource holders are favorized opposed to small ones. I think, allocations per category should be considered to be more fair (that's means up to /22 in XXS, /21 in XS, /20-/16 in S, /15-/12 in L category... for example). My current feeling from presented model is, that many currently small LIRs will fall to medium category, just due to this change. And, current minimal allocation for LIR is /21 [*ripe509, section 5.1] - that means, every new LIR will be automatically in small category (and new LIRs will pay more then) - and that's wrong in my eyes.
Also, current model of 50EUR per independent resource is quite clear I think it can remain in the new charging scheme. At least, proposed model two, where PI are charged I'm supporting. There should be some regulation represented by additional "fee" for PI resources, as these are sometimes misused by organisations expected to be a LIR (and there're some organisations/LIRs activelly selling PI address space as their "service", charging much more [more than double] than they pay for the resource in RIPE).
With regards, Daniel
On 08/01/2011 05:17 PM, Nigel Titley wrote:
Dear colleagues,
The RIPE NCC Executive Board will present a new Charging Scheme to the membership at the RIPE NCC General Meeting (GM) to be held in Vienna on 2 November 2011.
The Executive Board is working with the RIPE NCC Senior Management on various options that could be included in the Charging Scheme. It would like to solicit feedback from members on two Charging Scheme models before deciding on a final version to present at the GM.
The two models are based on established RIPE NCC organisational principles. Both models, as well as an explanation of the models' features and differences, are presented at: https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/november-2011/ripe-ncc-proposed-new...
The RIPE NCC Executive Board welcomes any feedback on the proposed models. You can provide your feedback by using the online form or by sending an email directly to agm@ripe.net.
After considering the feedback from the membership on the proposed Charging Scheme models, the Executive Board will decide which model it will present to the membership at the GM.
If you wish to discuss the proposed new Charging Scheme models with other RIPE NCC members, please start a discussion on the members-discuss@ripe.net mailing list. Information about this list can be found online at: https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/member-support/info/membership-mailing-lis...
We look forward to hearing your comments.
Regards,
Nigel Titley RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman
---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses.
On 08/02/2011 02:52 PM, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote:
On Mon, 1 Aug 2011, Daniel Suchy wrote:
(and there're some organisations/LIRs activelly selling PI address space as their "service", charging much more [more than double] than they pay for the resource in RIPE).
THIS my friend, is EXACTLY what a LIR is supposed to do. register ip space for third parties and charge them for the service.
the whole LIR == ISP crap, is a misinterpretation of the tasks of both RIPE and LIRS, as is the fact that they encourage potential LIR customers of becoming a LIR themselves, rather than paying a LIR to register PI space for them (the legal aspects of which, are questionable as well, after all, LIRS pay RIPE to enable them to register PI space, not for RIPE to steal their customers ;)
Yes, LIR register addresses for their customers and charges them. That's clear. But, one of goals of LIR system (and internet registry system in general) is address space aggregation. And by the (resselled) PI space, this goal isn't reached at all - with PI, there's no aggregation. This is very often forgotten by some LIRs. "PI for everyone" is also one misinterpretation of LIR tasks. End users should be aware about the fact, that ISP(LIR) change does mean renumbering of their network and PI isn't here just because someone End users doesn't like this annoying job. LIR should learn about this their End users - but many LIRs doesn't do this part of their job. - Daniel
well, frankly, we don't give a fuck about people with old ciscos with 64MB ram... if you don't have a few gigabytes of ram by now in your routers, gtfo of the business :P so address space aggregation, is of no concern at all. -- Greetings, Sven Olaf Kamphuis, CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG ========================================================================= Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 D-13359 Registration: HRA 42834 B BERLIN Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE e-Mail: sven@cb3rob.net ========================================================================= <penpen> C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle http://www.facebook.com/cb3rob ========================================================================= Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Tue, 2 Aug 2011, Daniel Suchy wrote:
On 08/02/2011 02:52 PM, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote:
On Mon, 1 Aug 2011, Daniel Suchy wrote:
(and there're some organisations/LIRs activelly selling PI address space as their "service", charging much more [more than double] than they pay for the resource in RIPE).
THIS my friend, is EXACTLY what a LIR is supposed to do. register ip space for third parties and charge them for the service.
the whole LIR == ISP crap, is a misinterpretation of the tasks of both RIPE and LIRS, as is the fact that they encourage potential LIR customers of becoming a LIR themselves, rather than paying a LIR to register PI space for them (the legal aspects of which, are questionable as well, after all, LIRS pay RIPE to enable them to register PI space, not for RIPE to steal their customers ;)
Yes, LIR register addresses for their customers and charges them. That's clear.
But, one of goals of LIR system (and internet registry system in general) is address space aggregation. And by the (resselled) PI space, this goal isn't reached at all - with PI, there's no aggregation. This is very often forgotten by some LIRs.
"PI for everyone" is also one misinterpretation of LIR tasks. End users should be aware about the fact, that ISP(LIR) change does mean renumbering of their network and PI isn't here just because someone End users doesn't like this annoying job. LIR should learn about this their End users - but many LIRs doesn't do this part of their job.
- Daniel
we are indeed, in favour of the "pi for everyone" model. this is how the internet was supposed to work, there shall be no contractual or "resource" dependancy on anything (lirs, governments, etc) for anyone. if that takes routers with a few TERA bytes of ram, who cares. (that shit costs nothing anyway ;) upgrades people, upgrades. -- Greetings, Sven Olaf Kamphuis, CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG ========================================================================= Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 D-13359 Registration: HRA 42834 B BERLIN Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE e-Mail: sven@cb3rob.net ========================================================================= <penpen> C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle http://www.facebook.com/cb3rob ========================================================================= Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Tue, 2 Aug 2011, Daniel Suchy wrote:
On 08/02/2011 02:52 PM, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote:
On Mon, 1 Aug 2011, Daniel Suchy wrote:
(and there're some organisations/LIRs activelly selling PI address space as their "service", charging much more [more than double] than they pay for the resource in RIPE).
THIS my friend, is EXACTLY what a LIR is supposed to do. register ip space for third parties and charge them for the service.
the whole LIR == ISP crap, is a misinterpretation of the tasks of both RIPE and LIRS, as is the fact that they encourage potential LIR customers of becoming a LIR themselves, rather than paying a LIR to register PI space for them (the legal aspects of which, are questionable as well, after all, LIRS pay RIPE to enable them to register PI space, not for RIPE to steal their customers ;)
Yes, LIR register addresses for their customers and charges them. That's clear.
But, one of goals of LIR system (and internet registry system in general) is address space aggregation. And by the (resselled) PI space, this goal isn't reached at all - with PI, there's no aggregation. This is very often forgotten by some LIRs.
"PI for everyone" is also one misinterpretation of LIR tasks. End users should be aware about the fact, that ISP(LIR) change does mean renumbering of their network and PI isn't here just because someone End users doesn't like this annoying job. LIR should learn about this their End users - but many LIRs doesn't do this part of their job.
- Daniel
---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses.
furthermore, considering the fact that ripes makes more probems about PI space than giving the END USER a LIR with (even more!) address space than requested in the PI :P we are considering to use PA space -AS- PI space, and simply not announce it ourselves and give the end users a 100 year usage contract :P there is nothing that says you have to announce PA space on your own network anyway. -- Greetings, Sven Olaf Kamphuis, CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG ========================================================================= Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 D-13359 Registration: HRA 42834 B BERLIN Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE e-Mail: sven@cb3rob.net ========================================================================= <penpen> C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle http://www.facebook.com/cb3rob ========================================================================= Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Tue, 2 Aug 2011, Daniel Suchy wrote:
On 08/02/2011 02:52 PM, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote:
On Mon, 1 Aug 2011, Daniel Suchy wrote:
(and there're some organisations/LIRs activelly selling PI address space as their "service", charging much more [more than double] than they pay for the resource in RIPE).
THIS my friend, is EXACTLY what a LIR is supposed to do. register ip space for third parties and charge them for the service.
the whole LIR == ISP crap, is a misinterpretation of the tasks of both RIPE and LIRS, as is the fact that they encourage potential LIR customers of becoming a LIR themselves, rather than paying a LIR to register PI space for them (the legal aspects of which, are questionable as well, after all, LIRS pay RIPE to enable them to register PI space, not for RIPE to steal their customers ;)
Yes, LIR register addresses for their customers and charges them. That's clear.
But, one of goals of LIR system (and internet registry system in general) is address space aggregation. And by the (resselled) PI space, this goal isn't reached at all - with PI, there's no aggregation. This is very often forgotten by some LIRs.
"PI for everyone" is also one misinterpretation of LIR tasks. End users should be aware about the fact, that ISP(LIR) change does mean renumbering of their network and PI isn't here just because someone End users doesn't like this annoying job. LIR should learn about this their End users - but many LIRs doesn't do this part of their job.
- Daniel
---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses.
On 1 aug 2011, at 17:17, Nigel Titley wrote:
The RIPE NCC Executive Board will present a new Charging Scheme to the membership at the RIPE NCC General Meeting (GM) to be held in Vienna on 2 November 2011.
The Executive Board is working with the RIPE NCC Senior Management on various options that could be included in the Charging Scheme. It would like to solicit feedback from members on two Charging Scheme models before deciding on a final version to present at the GM.
The two models are based on established RIPE NCC organisational principles. Both models, as well as an explanation of the models' features and differences, are presented at: https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/november-2011/ripe-ncc-proposed-new...
The RIPE NCC Executive Board welcomes any feedback on the proposed models. You can provide your feedback by using the online form or by sending an email directly to agm@ripe.net.
After considering the feedback from the membership on the proposed Charging Scheme models, the Executive Board will decide which model it will present to the membership at the GM.
If you wish to discuss the proposed new Charging Scheme models with other RIPE NCC members, please start a discussion on the members-discuss@ripe.net mailing list. Information about this list can be found online at: https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/member-support/info/membership-mailing-lis...
We look forward to hearing your comments.
(My apologies for a rather lengthy reply) So I have a few comments and observations. First of all, I understand that the the current model is complex, and that there might be a desire to make it easier to predict. Secondly, I welcome that the RIPE NCC is trying to break out cross-subsidies of the various services the RIPE NCC provides, and that each service should support it's own costs. Making the suers of these services become members of the RIPE NCC and allowing a membership category where they can have their say, but without becoming resources holders is a very good one that I support fully. However, in line with this I don't' understand why the cross-subsidisation of DNSMON therefor is reintroduced for the larger membership categories. I believe this should be taken out of the proposed billing models. This brings me to my first observation. I think most of us in the RIPE NCC membership thinks of the RIPE NCC membership fees as the cost of maintaining the resource registration data. In reality however, we through the RIPE NCC membership fees pays for (I believe) the majority of the RIPE meeting costs, the RIPE RIS services, etc. Services that we might or might not feel are important that that we perhaps might not miss until they are gone. RIPE NCC, and the entire RIR system, is about to change. The changes are huge and will impact their roles and responsibilities going forward, and a natural result of that is to evaluate the revenue models as well as the cost. When the RIPE NCC board and management team proposed the changes, I believe they didn't plan to ask for an evaluation of their path going forward, but none the less I believe that is what is needed. The reason for this is my observation above - that the fees pays for so much more than just resource registration data - and I believe that we are the RIPE NCC membership community now needs to make a conscious decision of what we are willing to pay for, how and realize that we might miss some services as a result of some possible billing models. The discussion on the list has focused on fairness and absolute numbers, but I believe we have to leave the absolute numbers for now, and first make up our minds on what we actually are trying to cover with these numbers. That said, I think the billing scheme needs to take a few principles into account. §1. It should reflect the use of the resources of the RIPE NCC. With unbundling of some of current cross-subsisides for other projects, this becomes easier. I believe and hope, that all NCC members support some of the cross-subsidisation that is occurring to for example the RIPE meetings and the RIPE regional meetings - so there will be some level of extra costs covered. Measuring the real use of the RIPE NCC resources is hard, but one of the factors of the current model actually does this quite well - the time a resources holder has had a resource. Partly because the longer a resource has been in use the less like it is to go through major changes, partly because it creates a potential financial barrier on fast-flux trading of resources. I believe this is good, and also creates a potential barrier against fragmentation of resources. Not so much because of worries of the routing table (if you have drunk the Cisco coolaid LISP will save us all anyway) but because if measures the use of RIPE NCC resources. Which is fair. Further, the size of an allocation also gives a fairly good measure of potential use of RIPE NCC resources in that the larger the block, the larger number of possible assignments are that needs to be registered or otherwise handled by the RIPE NCC. This is to me fairness in the model. Not just the size of an allocation with a price per IP. That is not necessarily fair either as has been argued by some. §2. The RIPE NCC budget needs to be balanced The RIPE NCC charges needs to cover the costs, and leave a health reserve. Jochen said that the current proposed models are based on the forecasts of member and cost. I believe Jochen in this, but the problem is that it's hard to have a view of the absolute numbers without being able to compare cost per service, forecast membership categories and associated revenues. I think it would be good if this was presented as well. Also, as for my second observation, my crystal ball tells me that as we run out of IPv4 and we possibly start trading in IPv4 addresses the work load of the RIPE NCC might go up and might justify higher revenues and larger numbers of members. However, as the market saturates the workload will either stabilize, and/if when IPv6 gets a stronger market presence it will go down. Most LIRs that have their /32 will not come back for more for a very long time. This will lead to lower costs and again a different model is needed that will keep the RIPE NCCs core business - registration services - operational, and with a model that reflects cost. AGain, this cost probably will include some additional services, the questions are which ones? §4. The RIPE NCC budget and services needs to be inclusive While I strongly believe that some services that are currently cross-subsidized shouldn't be - I also strongly believe that there are those that should be. Primarily RIPE meetings, RIPE regional meetings and the policy development process. The reason for this is that the current legitimacy is less and less coming from the historical support of the community for the RIPE process and the RIPE NCC and more and more from the proof of a functioning system, running code if you so wish, and the continued trust and use of the processes and the RIPE NCC. The RIPE region and RIPE have more than any of the other RIR regions (if I may say so) proven that we can adopt to new needs, to changing political, financial and operational realities. This has seen a continued support and trust in the model. This is only possible by outreach and interaction with the very widespread (both geographical and cultural) community that RIPE and the RIPE NCC serve. It's extremely important that this is continued in order to keep the current model, which I believe serves all of us better than any of the other models proposed. §3. Each extra service needs to carry it's own costs The RIPE NCC has been very good at producing new and innovative services, many of very good and important operational use. However, I also believe that the process for developing them and gauging community interest in these services could be improved - and as a strong believer in market economy I think that having them self financed is a very good model for getting community interest input. This will of course not be black and white, but I think the proposed model is a step in the right direction. In a way I guess I am arguing for keeping the current model - but I also see the drawbacks. But I believe that some of the fairness in time of allocations needs to be captured. I also question the doubling in cost for PI holders without further explanation. And as said above, I think there first are some more fundamental questions we as members needs to ask ourselves. Best regards, - kurtis - --- Kurt Erik Lindqvist, CEO kurtis@netnod.se, Direct: +46-8-562 860 11, Switch: +46-8-562 860 00 Franzéngatan 5 | SE-112 51 Stockholm | Sweden
participants (6)
-
Alfredo Sola -
Daniel Suchy -
Kurt Erik Lindqvist -
Nigel Titley -
Sven Olaf Kamphuis -
Xavier Beaudouin