[members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)

Tue Apr 16 16:39:59 CEST 2024

"The question everyone should be arguing about is why it costs 40 
million a year to run an internet registry for 20,000~ members."

Exactly this. I believe this to be because of scope inflation (more 
useless "services" added every year increasing the budget) and 
organisational bloat ( like the achievements section from this nonsense 
https://www.ripe.net/community/tf/ripe-diversity-task-force/ ).
--
Mediasat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Doru Serdin*
Network Manager
Office: +4 031 82 52 657
E-mail: doru.serdin at mediasat.ro 	

www.mediasat.ro <https://www.mediasat.ro>

www.alonia.ro <https://www.alonia.ro>

Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If 
you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for 
delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver 
this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message 
and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately 
if you or your employer does not consent to Internet email for messages 
of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this 
message that do not relate to the official business of my firm shall be 
understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.

On 16.04.2024 5:33 PM, Daniel Pearson wrote:
> Everybody is still fighting about the wrong question.
>
> The question everyone should be arguing about is why it costs 40 
> million a year to run an internet registry for 20,000~ members.
>
> Sure, the bulk of the expense is due to navigating the legal landscape 
> of multiple member nations, but you can't tell me that's 20-30 million 
> a year in legal fee's.
>
>
>
> On 4/16/24 9:31 AM, Petru Bunea wrote:
>> Where have I said it should be 1 EUR across the board?
>>
>> It doesn’t have to be 1 EUR, but it also doesn’t have to be 333 the 
>> difference. It can be progressively cheaper, but not at such a large 
>> difference.
>>
>> Also, FYI, UK Gov or any Gov, could always put back IPv4 if they find 
>> it to be too expensive. Just like they force people and companies to 
>> put back on the market real estate that have a very high yearly tax. 
>> How would that work out for a change? Call this a tax hike on public 
>> property, like IP addresses. Maybe they would in fact like it, since 
>> it’s their way of doing business.
>>
>> Otherwise, with this model, we will just move the burden from the big 
>> ISP/companies/resource holders to the smaller ones.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>> On 16 Apr 2024, at 17:25, Daniel Pearson <daniel at privatesystems.net> 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'd like to see you tell the UK Government that they are going to 
>>> pay 1 Euro per IP for a /8
>>>
>>> Let me know how that conversation goes :)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/16/24 9:20 AM, Petru Bunea wrote:
>>>> This is NOT a good example. In this example we see how a /22 
>>>> allocation pays 1094 EUR per year, which is close to 1 EUR / 1 IP / 
>>>> Year, and a /8 allocation pays 48.000 EUR, which is 0.003 EURO / 1 
>>>> IP / Year, which is 333 times less expensive. So tell me again how 
>>>> this is a good example.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>>> On 16 Apr 2024, at 17:07, Firma KOMPEX <gabi at kompex.pl> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> very good example Sebastian
>>>>>
>>>>> Others are doing it and Europe should too
>>>>>
>>>>> We should be pioneers and we are in the Middle Ages.
>>>>> We are chipping away at such obvious issues from others.
>>>>>
>>>>> The fixed fee for the LIR Account + the resource fee can stay
>>>>> they need to be calculated
>>>>>
>>>>> But necessarily, as you pointed out, IP usage should be accounted for
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Pozdrawiam
>>>>> Gabriel Sulka
>>>>>
>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> Firma Handlowo - Usługowa KOMPEX
>>>>> 34-400 Nowy Targ ul. Szaflarska 62A
>>>>> tel(18) 264-60-55 pn-pt 09:30 - 17:00 sb. 09:30 - 13:00
>>>>> www.kompex.pl 
>>>>> <http://www.kompex.pl/>;bok at kompex.pl;kompex at nowytarg.net
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net> On Behalf Of
>>>>> Sebastien Brossier
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 3:51 PM
>>>>> To:members-discuss at ripe.net
>>>>> Subject: [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello all,
>>>>>
>>>>> I propose to add the following model to the charging scheme 2025 
>>>>> voting
>>>>> options.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *1 - Introduction:*
>>>>>
>>>>> This charging scheme is heavily inspired by APNIC. If you are not
>>>>> familiar with this, you can see an example here:
>>>>> https://www.apnic.net/get-ip/apnic-membership/how-much-does-it-cost/member-f
>>>>> ees-calculator/
>>>>>
>>>>> The main idea is that each LIR pays according to its resources, 
>>>>> but not
>>>>> linearly. You don't pay twice as much because you have twice as much
>>>>> resources.
>>>>> The resulting fees are similar to what the other RIRs are 
>>>>> charging, with
>>>>> infinite granularity (no categories).
>>>>>
>>>>> It can be easily tweaked to reach any desired budget, and will remain
>>>>> viable when IPv4 has disappeared.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have made IPv6 less punitive compared to APNIC, because RIPE has
>>>>> larger initial allocations.
>>>>>
>>>>> Independent resources fees, sign-up fee, lack of ASN fee, remain as
>>>>> before in this proposal. I believe it is better to have a separate
>>>>> debate on these subjects at a later time.
>>>>>
>>>>> The goal of this charging scheme is to lower the cost for members 
>>>>> with a
>>>>> very low amount of resources, in order to attract newcomers and retain
>>>>> existing members. This way the RIPE NCC membership will remain 
>>>>> numerous
>>>>> and diverse.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *2 - Charging scheme:*
>>>>>
>>>>> (Warning: math incoming !)
>>>>>
>>>>> IPv4_count = number of IPv4 addresses allocated
>>>>>              (excluding independent assignments and legacy)
>>>>> IPv6_count = number of IPv6 /56 subnets allocated
>>>>>              (excluding independent assignments)
>>>>>
>>>>> Base_Fee = 638 EUR
>>>>> Bit_Factor = 1.31
>>>>> Minimum_Fee = 500 EUR
>>>>> Offset_IPv4 = 8
>>>>> Offset_IPv6 = 24
>>>>>
>>>>> IPv4_Fee = Base_Fee * Bit_Factor^(log2(IPv4_count) - Offset_IPv4)
>>>>> IPv6_Fee = Base_Fee * Bit_Factor^(log2(IPv6_count) - Offset_IPv6)
>>>>>
>>>>> Fee = max(IPv4_Fee, IPv6_Fee, Minimum_Fee)
>>>>>         + 50 EUR per independent resource (excluding ASN)
>>>>>
>>>>> My simulation, based on public data (2024-03-28), results in an 
>>>>> average
>>>>> fee of 1900 EUR per LIR (+ 50 EUR per independent resource), so it
>>>>> should provide the same budget as the other options.
>>>>> If RIPE NCC find different results with their simulation, they can
>>>>> adjust Base_Fee.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *3 - Examples:*
>>>>>
>>>>> 50 EUR per independent resource should be added to all these fees.
>>>>>
>>>>> No allocations: 500 EUR
>>>>> IPv4 /24 and/or IPv6 /32: 638 EUR
>>>>> IPv4 /23 and/or IPv6 /31: 835 EUR
>>>>> IPv4 /22 and/or IPv6 /30:1094 EUR
>>>>> IPv4 /21 and/or IPv6 /29:1434 EUR
>>>>> IPv4 /20 and/or IPv6 /28:1878 EUR
>>>>> IPv4 /19 and/or IPv6 /27:2461 EUR
>>>>> IPv4 /18 and/or IPv6 /26:3224 EUR
>>>>> IPv4 /17 and/or IPv6 /25:4223 EUR
>>>>> IPv4 /16 and/or IPv6 /24:5533 EUR
>>>>> IPv4 /15 and/or IPv6 /23:7248 EUR
>>>>> IPv4 /14 and/or IPv6 /22:9495 EUR
>>>>> IPv4 /13 and/or IPv6 /21:12439 EUR
>>>>> IPv4 /12 and/or IPv6 /20:16295 EUR
>>>>> IPv4 /11 and/or IPv6 /19:21347 EUR
>>>>> IPv4 /10 and/or IPv6 /18:27965 EUR
>>>>> IPv4 /9 and/or IPv6 /17:36634 EUR
>>>>> IPv4 /8 and/or IPv6 /16:47991 EUR
>>>>>
>>>>> Largest LIR is just below 60 kEUR.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are no categories, so your fee can be somewhere between 
>>>>> these numbers.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you think the fees are too high, I invite you to read the fee
>>>>> schedule of the other RIRs.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you if you've read this far.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> Sebastien Brossier
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> members-discuss mailing list
>>>>> members-discuss at ripe.net
>>>>> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss
>>>>> Unsubscribe:
>>>>> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/gabi%40kompex.pl
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> members-discuss mailing list
>>>>> members-discuss at ripe.net
>>>>> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss
>>>>> Unsubscribe:https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/suport%40bunea.eu
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> members-discuss mailing list
>>>> members-discuss at ripe.net
>>>> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss
>>>> Unsubscribe:https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/daniel%40privatesystems.net
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> members-discuss mailing list
>>> members-discuss at ripe.net
>>> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss
>>> Unsubscribe: 
>>> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/suport%40bunea.eu
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> members-discuss mailing list
> members-discuss at ripe.net
> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss
> Unsubscribe:https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/doru.serdin%40mediasat.ro
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20240416/38f7b1d2/attachment-0001.html>