Re: [members-discuss] Sign-up fee for additional LIR account
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.
A large LIR may think you are planning a coup to overthrow a long established and member agreed system.
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.
Some of the membership, mostly newer ones it seems who did not contribute to building it (I'm guessing from what you've said) Fairness is not one faction getting what they want to the detriment of the others. More so when the stated intent is to price them into giving up IPv4 space so you can have it instead. There is already a member agreed fair system for using money to move IPs between members
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.
Fees aren't based on quantity of IPs they are based on cost to RIPE of managing memberships (RIPE can better explain the current scheme). The fee is currently equal for all - one membership, one vote, one fee
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.
The small business chose to become a LIR and incur that fee, that's hardly unfair when it was their choice and known when they decided to enter that business. It's not like they are being asked to pay a large amount where they hadn't before
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.
Don't make up opinions for me, I haven't stated a view of how things should be I just explored some possible outcomes of doing this. As a small LIR we would benefit greatly from this change, that doesn't stop me considering the other sides view (ie trying to be fair to all) and doesn't mean I am arguing against or for you, I will decide that after a reasoanble debate and considering several views. regards brandon
On 24-7-2016 19:20, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
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.
Some of the membership, mostly newer ones it seems who did not contribute to building it (I'm guessing from what you've said)
Fairness is not one faction getting what they want to the detriment of the others. More so when the stated intent is to price them into giving up IPv4 space so you can have it instead. There is already a member agreed fair system for using money to move IPs between members
I don't agree with the argument that the people that started it deserve more "credits", because thay helped build the system. Even when I asked for a first netblock back in 1994, this discussion was already running for the companies that had the really large blocks, like who in their right mind would need a /8.... We got a /16 without much discussion. There has always been a discussion about either "recovering" unused space, and/or paying for that. But fact remains that when that company joined over time, several other companies, and I would guess that they are now sitting on several /16's. And even during my time there we got asked to merge our networks where possible. And if it was not possible, too bad. So I guess we never really tried very hard because the penalty was rather small. Now times have changed, and though I agree with the last /8 policy, I do'not really agree with the fact that nothing is done with recuperating unused nets. No Instead we allow the hoarders of the old days actually take commercial benefit of something they got given for free in the past. And Ripe, and others, have facilitated this by allowing for number-transfers, which is now around a ridiculous price of 8++ euro's /IP. So people that got given a /16, and are using next to nothing on it, are given a "donation" of about 600.000 euros. And yes I agree ipv6 is the way forward, and yes if you have a solid business case paying 1400*2 for 24 months for an extra /22 should cover that. (it is only ~0,25 euro /ip /year, or 2 cts a month) But in essence the problem is/was created by the early users of the internet who got assigned large (very large) blocks without accepting the responsibility that should have come with it. But then nobody cared, because there was enough. --WjW Digiware Managment
participants (2)
-
Brandon Butterworth -
Willem Jan Withagen