I think we should always have a level and equal pricing model for PI, I see no reason why NFP organisations should be subsidised by the same standard that organisations that we may find morally objectionable shouldn't be charged more. -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Richard Hartmann Sent: 15 April 2011 13:58 To: Denesh Bhabuta Cc: Immo 'FaUl' Wehrenberg; address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] the cost of PI space On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 14:40, Denesh Bhabuta <db-ml@cyberstrider.net> wrote:
You mention you are a volunteer in a non-profit organisation. I honestly salute you. However, if you were to charge for your time, how much would the organisation have to pay you?
This is an excellent argument in favor of lowering costs for NFPs, not against it. But as this is a moral, not a factual, question, it's probably not too much use arguing the point.
In the same way, whatever resource is being used via RIPE, is a cost to the NCC and that needs to be paid somehow. If it does not come from the PI crowd, then it will come from the membership. That is the 'bill' that Jim is referring to.
Realistically speaking, there is not much in actual additional costs other than the time to support requests. This could or could not be reflected in the distribution and cut-off limits of the LIR sizing which, in turn, can be influenced and decided upon by the RIPE community. I am not saying that this should be done. I am merely stating that this could make sense and that it's not as clear-cut as you seem to make it appear. Richard