Re: [members-discuss] Sign-up fee for additional LIR account
On Sun Jul 24, 2016 at 10:18:19AM +0200, Prager-IT e.U. wrote:
With membership fee based on number of /24 then members may decide to also get one vote per /24. Would they vote for this scheme (do they get their N*/24 votes before or after this vote...)
I don't understand what you are trying to say
I'm saying that if fees are proportional to resource then the members with more resource (/24's or whatever the measure) may wish to have a quantity of votes proportional to the resource they pay for
each entity has one vote even if they have multiple LIR accounts under the same entity.
In the current scheme, if you change the scheme that may change too
We are not shifting any costs, we are just asking each member to pay their fair share for the amount of resources they are using
Yes it is, it is shifting the cost to larger members, hugely
8,23 Euros per year per 256 IPv4 addresses is hardly a business case breaking amount of money.
I referred to the current scheme which is also hardly a business case breaking amount of money. So cost is not a good reason to change it especially when changing it will drive the sort of behaviour that RIPE are trying to prevent
These changes will also bring a very real cost to super large LIRs that hold a ton of resources and may finally spark some meaningful IPv6 adoption.
It may but the access networks with large amounts of IPv4 are adopting IPv6 already, it takes a long time and it's only been started in the last few years but it's happening in large chunks, like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoqGvZr4Uto The hard bit is content hosters who mostly have enough space and don't have enough IPv4 that charging more for it will be a large incentive brandon
On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Brandon Butterworth <hostmaster@bogons.net
wrote:
On Sun Jul 24, 2016 at 10:18:19AM +0200, Prager-IT e.U. wrote:
With membership fee based on number of /24 then members may decide to also get one vote per /24. Would they vote for this scheme (do they get their N*/24 votes before or after this vote...)
I don't understand what you are trying to say
I'm saying that if fees are proportional to resource then the members with more resource (/24's or whatever the measure) may wish to have a quantity of votes proportional to the resource they pay for
Simply wishing for it is thankfully not enough.
each entity has one vote even if they have multiple LIR accounts under the same entity.
In the current scheme, if you change the scheme that may change too
We have a democratic system, if we follow your line of argumentation we might as well setup a dictatorship.
We are not shifting any costs, we are just asking each member to pay their fair share for the amount of resources they are using
Yes it is, it is shifting the cost to larger members, hugely
I disagree, we are acting in the interests of the RIPE NCC membership. If everybody is asked to pay their *fair share* it re-establishes at least some fairness in an inherently unfair system. By now, due to the large number of LIRs, we have the majority to make the current system a bit fairer and we should follow this path with all tools in our arsenal.
8,23 Euros per year per 256 IPv4 addresses is hardly a business case breaking amount of money.
I referred to the current scheme which is also hardly a business case breaking amount of money. So cost is not a good reason to change it especially when changing it will drive the sort of behaviour that RIPE are trying to prevent
Asking the people with the least amount of resources to cover the membership fee for the 1% is inherently unfair especially when we have the tools to re-establish some fairness in an inherently unfair system. The current membership fee of 1400 Euros per year represents for small business an unnecessary burden and is inherently unfair and it needs to be changed and I am sure the voting will reflect that sentiment. You seem to not want to re-establish fairness and keep the system unfair for the sake of not changing anything, I don't want that and I will try to use the democratic tools we currently still have at our disposal to make an inherently unfair situation a little bit fairer but you are obviously entitled to your opinion and should vote accordingly. Kind Regards, Stefan Prager -- Prager-IT e.U. VAT Number: ATU69773505 Austrian Company Register: 438885w Skype: Prager-IT contact@prager-it.com +43 680 300 99 80
If you give the LIR's with more /24's, or whatever the measure, more votes then it will not be a fair community/decision scheme on policies anymore since then all the largest LIR's will decide the decisions etc in RIPE and will make everything in favor of only them. The costs for larger LIR's will be higher if you would charge per IPv4, though a large LIR that needs them and uses them should not complaint since large LIR's assumably have larger incomes and if not then something is in my opinion wrong with the financial part or business scheme of that LIR. On the other hand large LIR's that don't use them will get an extra reason to get rid of the extra IPv4 adresses which he does not use since it will cost extra money. I would vote in favor for a solution where transfers of IPv4 adresses would only occur through RIPE. (Selling and buying to/from RIPE only) Aswell i would vote in favor for a solution to charge for IPv4 adresses of a LIR. My guess is that this combo will be the solution to the current issues. Met vriendelijke groet, Stefan van Westering SoftTech Automatisering B.V. Engelandlaan 312<x-apple-data-detectors://3/1> 2711 DZ Zoetermeer<x-apple-data-detectors://3/1> Telefoon Support: 079 - 303 01 17<tel:079%20-%20303%2001%2017> Telefoon Algemeen: 079 - 593 75 16<tel:079%20-%20593%2075%2016> Fax: 079 - 331 93 63<tel:079%20-%20331%2093%2063> Email: stefan@softtech.nl<mailto:jeroen@softtech.nl> Internet: http://www.softtech.nl<http://www.softtech.nl/> | Email Support:sbsupport@softtech.nl<mailto:sbsupport@softtech.nl> Op 24 jul. 2016 om 11:28 heeft Brandon Butterworth <hostmaster@bogons.net<mailto:hostmaster@bogons.net>> het volgende geschreven: On Sun Jul 24, 2016 at 10:18:19AM +0200, Prager-IT e.U. wrote: With membership fee based on number of /24 then members may decide to also get one vote per /24. Would they vote for this scheme (do they get their N*/24 votes before or after this vote...) I don't understand what you are trying to say I'm saying that if fees are proportional to resource then the members with more resource (/24's or whatever the measure) may wish to have a quantity of votes proportional to the resource they pay for each entity has one vote even if they have multiple LIR accounts under the same entity. In the current scheme, if you change the scheme that may change too We are not shifting any costs, we are just asking each member to pay their fair share for the amount of resources they are using Yes it is, it is shifting the cost to larger members, hugely 8,23 Euros per year per 256 IPv4 addresses is hardly a business case breaking amount of money. I referred to the current scheme which is also hardly a business case breaking amount of money. So cost is not a good reason to change it especially when changing it will drive the sort of behaviour that RIPE are trying to prevent These changes will also bring a very real cost to super large LIRs that hold a ton of resources and may finally spark some meaningful IPv6 adoption. It may but the access networks with large amounts of IPv4 are adopting IPv6 already, it takes a long time and it's only been started in the last few years but it's happening in large chunks, like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoqGvZr4Uto The hard bit is content hosters who mostly have enough space and don't have enough IPv4 that charging more for it will be a large incentive brandon ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/ Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
On Sun Jul 24, 2016 at 09:58:39AM +0000, Stefan van Westering wrote:
If you give the LIR's with more /24's, or whatever the measure, more votes then it will not be a fair community/decision scheme on policies anymore since then all the largest LIR's will decide the decisions etc in RIPE and will make everything in favor of only them.
Yes, I didn't say it would be fair nor reasonable/sensible
The costs for larger LIR's will be higher if you would charge per IPv4, though a large LIR that needs them and uses them should not complaint since large LIR's assumably have larger incomes and if not then something is in my opinion wrong with the financial part or business scheme of that LIR.
These are fees for a service, not a tax on income. If no profit is made should either large or small LIR pay nothing?
On the other hand large LIR's that don't use them will get an extra reason to get rid of the extra IPv4 adresses which he does not use since it will cost extra money.
What proportion of those are actually just hoarding space? Is it enough to make a difference (figures mentioned before suggest it's small and will be rapidly used up)
Aswell i would vote in favor for a solution to charge for IPv4 adresses of a LIR.
I vote for just getting on with IPv6 and stop fiddling with this legacy junk When everything is IPv6 and everyone has a /32 we'll be back to equal fees per member so the small LIR will end up paying what they pay today. brandon
participants (3)
-
Brandon Butterworth -
Prager-IT e.U. -
Stefan van Westering