Alternative Models for RIPE NCC Revenue & Charging 1997
Orange & Ridley
____________________________________________________
Alternative Models
for
RIPE NCC
Revenue & Charging 1997
Carol Orange & Paul Ridley
Document: ripe-143
1. Scope & Process
This report describes the revenues that must be gen-
erated for operating the RIPE NCC in 1997. A number
of alternative charging models are considered which
can be used to generate the required revenues.
These models are described in detail and the bene-
fits and drawbacks of each are considered carefully,
resulting in a recommendation for a charging model
for 1997.
This document provides input for the deliberations
of the RIPE NCC contributors committee. The revenue
figures and a particular charging model are expected
to be decided at the contributors committee meeting
on September 11th, 1996. After that meeting the rev-
enue and charging model chosen will be described in
a separate document, to be submitted to TERENA for
formal endorsement as the charging mechanism to be
implemented in 1997. This document will remain
unchanged, providing documentation and background of
the models researched.
Related Documents
The companion document "RIPE NCC Activities & Expen-
ditures 1997" (ripe-act), describes the activities
to be undertaken with these revenues.
____________________________________________________
ripe-143.txt Page 1
Alternative Models for RIPE NCC Revenue & Charging 1997
Orange & Ridley
____________________________________________________
2. Introduction
The services provided by the RIPE NCC are funded by
those ISPs which operate a local Internet Registry
serviced by the RIPE NCC. Together, representatives
of the local IRs make up the RIPE NCC contributor's
committee.
During the annual meeting of the RIPE NCC contribu-
tors in September 1995, the charging model described
in "RIPE NCC Revenue & Charging 1996" (ripe-134) was
formally endorsed. Simultaneously, the RIPE NCC was
requested to investigate the possibility of imple-
menting a more usage based charging system in 1997
(see ripe-132).
In this document, we describe a number of alterna-
tive charging models that were investigated as part
of a study performed at the RIPE NCC in the first
half of 1996. The study was split in two parts and
performed by MBA students as master's theses pro-
jects.
In the first part of the project, it was determined
that because the RIPE NCC is a non-profit service
organisation, it should charge for its services
based on a "cost +" scheme. The revenues received
must pay for the costs of the services rendered
(cost), and provide stability should the circum-
stances in which the organisation operates need to
change significantly, or should some unforeseen dis-
aster take place (plus).
Because the RIPE NCC is a service organisation which
has activities at its heart, it was determined that
the most suitable mechanism for investigating the
cost of services is Activity Based Costing (ABC).
The second part of the project therefore consisted
of an ABC study into the services performed at the
RIPE NCC.
In addition to determining the actual costs of spe-
cific services, charges required to cover the "plus"
factor must be determined. In Section 3, we con-
sider the issues which effect the stability of the
RIPE NCC, and therefore determine what the "plus"
factor should be. In Section 4, we turn our atten-
tion to the categorisation of services performed at
the RIPE NCC which enables us to define and evaluate
a number of charging models in Section 5. Finally,
in Section 6, we argue for a given charging model,
based on fairness, ease of implementation, the
degree to which it will enable long term stability
____________________________________________________
ripe-143.txt Page 2
Alternative Models for RIPE NCC Revenue & Charging 1997
Orange & Ridley
____________________________________________________
for the RIPE NCC, and to which it will encourage the
application of global address space policies.
3. The "Plus" Factor
Each organisation needs a different level of
reserves to guarantee long term stability, and each
organisation has different liabilities that need to
be covered. It is the earning of revenues beyond the
costs of operations, i.e. the "+" that enables an
organisation to build up necessary reserves and
cover its liabilities. The level of "+" that must
be earned in a given year, is determined by the cur-
rent and the target level of reserves, and the time
frame in which the target level must be reached.
To guarantee the long term stability of the RIPE
NCC, it must be possible to quickly respond to
changing requirements. To this end, a half year's
operating costs will be needed. Because the RIPE NCC
is growing at such a rapid pace, the precise figure
must be updated annually to reflect the changes in
operating costs.
The liabilities which make up the second aspect of
the "+", consist of two distinct elements. The first
is one year's salary for each RIPE NCC employee.
This is in keeping with standard Dutch employment
regulations. Again, as with the operating costs,
the precise figure must be adjusted annually. The
second liability that needs to be covered are taxes
owed from the years prior to 1996. The accumulated
profit over this period, which consists mainly of
the profits from 1995 has not yet been declared as
taxable income. This is a new occurrence and is
presently receiving our full attention. We expect
this to be resolved with the Dutch tax office in the
short term. We currently expect the owed taxes and
a possible fine will have to be paid. To cover the
worst case, we must reserve kECU 232 to cover this
tax liability.
The third and final aspect of the "+" is the time
frame over which the reserves and the liabilities
should be built. For the RIPE NCC, we consider a two
year time frame to be applicable. During a longer
period circumstances can change dramatically,
thereby rendering the argued for "+" levels obso-
lete, whereas a period shorter than two years makes
contributors pay too much for long term stability
from which future contributors will also benefit,
and should therefore contribute to.
____________________________________________________
ripe-143.txt Page 3
Alternative Models for RIPE NCC Revenue & Charging 1997
Orange & Ridley
____________________________________________________
The "+" figures for 1997, derived according to the
above arguments are given in Table 1 below.
+---------------------------------------+
| 1997 "+" Figures |
+---------------------------------------+
|Purpose kECU |
+---------------------------------------+
|Half year operating costs 996 |
|One year salary costs 1377 |
|Tax Reserves 232 |
|Total "+" to be earned 2605 |
+---------------------------------------+
|Reserve build up (2 years) |
+---------------------------------------+
|Reserves expected at start 1997 958 |
|"+" to be earned per year 823 |
|Tax to be paid per year 443 |
|"+" to be earned per year 1267 |
+---------------------------------------+
Table 1: The "+" Figures for 1997
4. The "Cost" Factor
In order to evaluate various "cost +" charging mod-
els for the RIPE NCC, a study was performed to
investigate the actual cost of the services provided
by the RIPE NCC during the 1996 calendar year. One
of the key reasons to investigate a new charging
model is to associate the cost of providing services
to the amount actually paid for them.
In that study, the services performed by the RIPE
NCC have been categorised into one of three areas,
namely, (1) services for new registries, (2) ISP
coordination services, and (3) registration ser-
vices. Each of these categories are described in
more detail below.
As described in the companion document "RIPE NCC
Activities & Expenditures 1997" (ripe-act), the
total costs for the RIPE NCC for services provided
in 1997 are approximately 1990 kECU. (The amount
will fluctuate slightly depending on the charging
model used.) The revenue that must be generated in
1997 is therefore given by 1267 kECU "+" and 1990
kECU (cost), which brings the total required revenue
to 3260 kECU.
____________________________________________________
ripe-143.txt Page 4
Alternative Models for RIPE NCC Revenue & Charging 1997
Orange & Ridley
____________________________________________________
Before we describe the RIPE NCC services, a short
word about terminology: The term "service" as used
here differs from the term "activity" used in ripe-
act, in that a service is a clearly measurable item
that can be obtained from the RIPE NCC. For example,
holding a training course for the staff of local IRs
is a clearly measurable service. Likewise perform-
ing a reverse delegation is a distinct service.
Many activities, however, may be associated with
performing each distinct service.
4.1. Services for New Registries
New registries need services which differ from those
required by existing registries. For example, they
require initial support from administrative staff at
the RIPE NCC in order to find out what they need to
read and how to set up a registry. Documentation is
produced at the RIPE NCC aimed to assist new local
IRs in understanding the Internet registry system
and their role in it. In this sense new registries
incur extra documentation costs. In addition to
remote help, courses for new local IRs are held in
order to facilitate the future working relationship
between the RIPE NCC and the new registry. These
courses, held both in the Netherlands and elsewhere
in Europe, consume management, administrative and
trainer time.
4.2. Coordination Services
The activities grouped in this area are quite
diverse. However, they share a common purpose: to
support the coherent operation of the Internet in
the RIPE NCC service area. As such, the majority of
these services are of a technical nature, such as
RIPE database software maintenance and development,
DNS quality monitoring, etc., and therefore require
engineering time. The information services provided
by the RIPE NCC also fall in this category, and con-
sume both administrative and engineering time. Coor-
dination services are accessible to the general
Internet public, as is necessary if they are to be
effective. RIPE NCC contributors, however, always
receive precedence when special support is needed.
4.3. Registration Services
These are services directly related to the RIPE
NCC's role as the Regional Internet Registry for
____________________________________________________
ripe-143.txt Page 5
Alternative Models for RIPE NCC Revenue & Charging 1997
Orange & Ridley
____________________________________________________
Europe and the surrounding areas. Handling of
requests for assignment or allocation of IP address
space, management of reverse domains associated with
this address space as well as auditing and quality
control to ensure fair and expedient processing of
requests all fall into this service category. In
general, these services consume hostmaster time.
However, engineering time is also required to (par-
tially) automate these services in order to make
them both scalable and auditable. Registration ser-
vices are accessible only to local IRs that con-
tribute to the funding of the NCC.
5. Charging Models
The three distinct services that the RIPE NCC pro-
vides will be charged for separately, though they
will be compiled into one final charge for each
individual registry. The differing methodologies
possible for charging for each of the services has
led to the creation of three different charging mod-
els; hereafter known as model 1, model 2, and model
3. Model 1 is similar to the flat fee charging sys-
tem currently in use. Model 2 is a detailed usage-
based charging system, and model 3 is a system in
which charges are levied based in part on the amount
of address space held by a registry. All of the mod-
els charge for new registry services and coordina-
tion services in the same way, notwithstanding minor
variations due to differing overheads. The key dif-
ference between the models is the way that registra-
tion services are charged for.
For all models a sign up fee is charged which will
cover the cost of providing services to a new reg-
istry. For 1997, the sign-up fee will remain 2000
ECU, as discussed in Section 5.1.
In model 1 a combined flat subscription fee will be
charged for the provision of coordination services
and registration services. This subscription fee
will differ according to the size of the registry.
The fee for a large registry is 7000 ECU; for a
medium registry, 4550 ECU; and for a small or enter-
prise registry, 2550 ECU. A more detailed descrip-
tion of model 1 is given in Section 5.2.
____________________________________________________
ripe-143.txt Page 6
Alternative Models for RIPE NCC Revenue & Charging 1997
Orange & Ridley
____________________________________________________
+-----------------------+
| Model 1 |
|RIPE NCC Fees for 1997 |
+---------------+-------+
|Registry Size | ECU |
+---------------+-------+
| Large | 7000 |
| Medium | 4550 |
| Small | 2550 |
| Enterprise | 2550 |
+---------------+-------+
Table 2: Model 1 Fees for 1997
In models 2 and 3, a subscription fee is charged for
coordination services and is stratified according to
the size of the registry. The charges will be 5800
ECU for a large registry, 3350 ECU for a medium reg-
istry, and 1350 ECU for a small registry. These
charges will be justified in detail in Section 5.3.
In model 2, the variable fee charged for registra-
tion services is based on the number of each request
type sent in by a registry, and the inherent costs
that a request incurs. This charge is therefore dif-
ferent for all registries. However, the charges per
service are detailed in Section 5.4.1, and the
resulting fees for some example registries are given
in Appendix B.
The variable fee for registration services in model
3 is based on the amount of address space held by a
registry, as well as the length of time the registry
has held the address space. The fees are based on
the assumption that the more (and newer) address
space held by a local IR, the greater the workload
it generates for the RIPE NCC. As with model 2 the
fee differs per local IR. The detailed charges are
described in Section 5.4.2., with the charges for
example registries being compared with those for
model 2 in Appendix B.
In Table 3, we present a summary of the charging
models 2 and 3.
____________________________________________________
ripe-143.txt Page 7
Alternative Models for RIPE NCC Revenue & Charging 1997
Orange & Ridley
____________________________________________________
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Models 2 & 3 - Fees for 1997 |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------+
| | Subscription Variable |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------+
|Registry Size | ECU Model 2 Model 3 |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Large | 5800 service fee allocation fee |
| Medium | 3350 service fee allocation fee |
| Small | 1350 service fee allocation fee |
| Enterprise | 1350 service fee allocation fee |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------+
Table 3: Model 2 & 3 Fees for 1997: Variable service
charges in Model 2 are outlined in Table 4, and
variable allocation charges in Model 3 are outlined
in Table 5.
All subscription fees are to be paid annually in
advance. A registry who joins part way through a
year will pay only for the quarter in which they
join and all subsequent quarters, with each quarter
carrying one fourth of the annual charge. Variable
fees are to be paid quarterly in arrears after
receipt of an invoice from the RIPE NCC. A Superna-
tional registry will be billed as a multiple large
registry with the same conditions as in 1996 (see
ripe-134).
5.1. Sign-up Fees
The cost of supporting new registries in 1996 and
that forecasted for 1997 is detailed in Table A.1 in
Appendix A.
Since 1995, the charge for setting up a new local IR
has been fixed at 2000 ECU. This price both covers
the cost of setting up a new registry, and discour-
ages those not serious about performing local reg-
istry services from starting up. This is essential
in preventing address space wastage and fragmenta-
tion, and therefore directly benefits the conserva-
tion and aggregation aims of the registry system.
Since this fee has proven successful and has never
raised complaints among the contributors, we propose
to keep the sign-up fee of 2000 ECU in 1997, though
the actual costs will be reduced. Doing so will
produce a contribution of about 490 kECU towards the
"+" required for 1997 (see Table A.2 in Appendix A).
____________________________________________________
ripe-143.txt Page 8
Alternative Models for RIPE NCC Revenue & Charging 1997
Orange & Ridley
____________________________________________________
5.2. Model 1 - Flat Fee Based
As mentioned at the start of Section 5, a combined
flat fee for coordination and registration services
is charged using model 1. Charges for coordination
services are the same for models 1, 2 and 3, and
amount to 5800 ECU for a large registry, 3350 ECU
for a medium registry, and 1350 ECU for small and
enterprise registries. These charges are described
in detail in Section 5.3.
Added to the coordination services fee is the charge
for registration services. In this model, this is a
flat fee and is independent of the actual use that
is made of registration services. The fee is the
same for all registries irrespective of size,
because in the study performed on usage-based cost-
ing, it was determined that the level of service
required by a registry does not depend on its size.
Because registration services are charged for based
on their cost, the charge for 1997 will be approxi-
mately 1200 ECU per registry, resulting in total
charges of 7000 ECU, 4550 ECU, 2550 ECU and 2550 ECU
for large, medium, small and enterprise registries
respectively.
The advantages that this charging model offers are:
o Each local IR knows in advance what its charges
for 1997 will be.
o Administrative costs for the RIPE NCC are lower
than with the other models.
o The charges are not service dependent which
encourages local IRs to request services as
needed, and not to circumvent the system to
avoid paying extra fees.
A key disadvantage of this charging model is:
o It is not a fair way of splitting the RIPE NCC
costs as some registries incur more costs than
others, resulting in a degree of cross-
subsidisation.
5.3. Subscription Fees
Because the coordination services, as detailed in
ripe-act are agreed to by all contributing local IRs
on an equal basis, the costs for those services
____________________________________________________
ripe-143.txt Page 9
Alternative Models for RIPE NCC Revenue & Charging 1997
Orange & Ridley
____________________________________________________
should be shared among the contributors on an equal
basis. The costs for these services during 1997
will be about 875 ECU per local IR (as detailed in
Table A.3 in Appendix A).
As will be discussed in Section 5.4, the fees for
registration services should be kept at an absolute
minimum. Therefore, the "+" described in Section 3
must be retrieved from the sign-up fees together
with the subscription fees for coordination ser-
vices, which means the remaining "+" for 1997 must
be earned from coordination services. ,LP We pro-
pose, however, that this remaining plus not be
earned from all local IRs on an even basis. As with
the charging model applied in 1995 and 1996, a
weighting system will be applied so that large reg-
istries pay a proportional amount more than mediums
which in turn pay more than smalls. Using this sys-
tem, large, medium, small and enterprise registries
will pay roughly 5800, 3350, 1350 and 1350 ECU
respectively for coordination services in 1997.
Details are shown in Table A.4 in Appendix A.
5.4. Variable Fees
In this section, we describe two alternative models
for variable charging for registration services.
They both share the property with model 1 that the
revenues they generate cover only the costs of reg-
istration services. This is to encourage use of
these services as needed, in order to further the
aims of the Internet Registry system.
Model 2 is a detailed usage-based charging system,
and model 3 introduces charges based on the amount
and the age of address space held by each registry.
5.4.1. Variable Fees - Model 2
This model is a detailed usage based charging sys-
tem. In this model, registries pay for exactly those
services they receive and thus there is no cross-
subsidisation of registration services as may occur
with Model 1. The exact costs were derived from the
study on usage-based costing and the forecast budget
for 1997. The charges to be set for an individual
registration activity will be no more or less than
the cost of that activity. In this way charges for
registration services will be kept as low as possi-
ble thereby negating (to the extent possible), the
tendency for registries to alter their registration
____________________________________________________
ripe-143.txt Page 10
Alternative Models for RIPE NCC Revenue & Charging 1997
Orange & Ridley
____________________________________________________
policies in order to save money. However, the ten-
dency to avoid using services to avoid paying for
them will surely arise, and may lead to practices
that conflict with global Internet registry poli-
cies.
Table 4 shows the individual charges for registra-
tion activities forecast for 1997.
+------------------------------------------+
|Model 2 - 1997 Registration Service Fees |
+------------------------------------------+
| Service ECU |
+-------------------------------+----------+
| Initial Request | 123 |
| Assignment Window Exceeded | 91 |
| PI Assignment | 98 |
| Address Allocation | 84 |
| AS Number Assignment | 68 |
| Reverse Delegation | 33 |
+-------------------------------+----------+
Table A.4: Charges for registration services if
Model 2 is applied.
An advantage that this charging model offers is:
o It is a fair usage-based model that prevents
cross-subsidisation.
Some disadvantages that are found with this model
are:
o It will encourage avoidance of useful registra-
tion services.
o It may encourage practices that conflict with
Internet registry policies.
o It is difficult for registries to forecast
exactly what their charges for the forthcoming
year will be.
o The administrative overhead to maintain this
model is higher than for the other two models.
____________________________________________________
ripe-143.txt Page 11
Alternative Models for RIPE NCC Revenue & Charging 1997
Orange & Ridley
____________________________________________________
5.4.2. Variable Fees - Model 3
Charging based on this model is based on the amount
of address space allocated to a registry and the
time it was allocated. Because the primary activi-
ties performed in registration services are control-
ling and evaluating past and proposed address space
usage, the amount of work generated by a specific
local IR depends on the amount of address space that
has been allocated to it, and the time the alloca-
tions were made. In other words, the more address
space a registry has, and the more recently it has
been acquired, the more work it will generate for
the RIPE NCC.
In order not to penalise those registries who have
in the past received address space not knowing reg-
istration thereof could eventually be charged for, a
weighted scale of charging will be used. The result
of this scale is that the charge for an address
becomes progressively more expensive as the date of
allocation nears the present day. This also reflects
the work level. Old allocations generate less work
for registration services than new ones do. The
mathematical model used to calculate the figures for
this charging model is described in Appendix C.
To maximise fairness, without introducing monthly
charges, charging for address space will be carried
out per quarter. Finally to minimise the potential
side effects this model might have on aggregation,
the charges will be accompanied by a small per allo-
cation request fee of 200 ECU. This is sufficient to
discourage registries from repetitively taking
smaller allocations than actually needed to minimise
registration costs (which would be bad for aggrega-
tion). The resulting income reduces the charges per
quarter for address space held.
For an indication of the charges that would be
levied, see Table 5, which shows the prices that
would be charged per quarter in 1997 for a /16 that
was allocated at a given time. (Note that the
charges for a /17, /18, and /19 can be computed by
dividing by 2, 4, and 8 respectively.) Please note
that these are draft figures and that the actual
prices will be about 10% lower, and will include
minimal charges for address space acquired before
1994.
____________________________________________________
ripe-143.txt Page 12
Alternative Models for RIPE NCC Revenue & Charging 1997
Orange & Ridley
____________________________________________________
+-------------------------------------------------+
| Charges for a /16 |
+------------+------------------------------------+
|Acquired in | To be paid in |
| | |
|Quarter | 1997-1 1997-2 1997-3 1997-4 |
+------------+------------------------------------+
|1994-1 | 42.21 29.96 21.66 16.07 |
+------------+------------------------------------+
|1994-2 | 84.42 59.92 43.33 32.15 |
+------------+------------------------------------+
|1994-3 | 126.63 89.88 64.99 48.22 |
+------------+------------------------------------+
|1994-4 | 168.84 119.84 86.66 64.29 |
+------------+------------------------------------+
|1995-1 | 211.04 149.79 108.32 80.37 |
+------------+------------------------------------+
|1995-2 | 253.25 179.75 129.98 96.44 |
+------------+------------------------------------+
|1995-3 | 295.46 209.71 151.65 112.51 |
+------------+------------------------------------+
|1995-4 | 337.67 239.67 173.31 128.59 |
+------------+------------------------------------+
|1996-1 | 379.88 269.63 194.98 144.66 |
+------------+------------------------------------+
|1996-2 | 422.09 299.59 216.64 160.73 |
+------------+------------------------------------+
|1996-3 | 464.30 329.55 238.30 176.81 |
+------------+------------------------------------+
|1996-4 | 506.51 359.51 259.97 192.88 |
+------------+------------------------------------+
|1997-1 | 548.72 389.46 281.63 208.95 |
+------------+------------------------------------+
|1997-2 | 0.00 419.42 303.29 225.02 |
+------------+------------------------------------+
|1997-3 | 0.00 0.00 324.96 241.10 |
+------------+------------------------------------+
|1997-4 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 257.17 |
+------------+------------------------------------+
Table 5: Example allocation charges based on the model
in Appendix C - actual charges will be about 10%
lower.
From Table 5 it becomes apparent that the overall
price per address unit goes down over time. This is
due to the economies of scale obtained by stable
costs and a rapid increase in the allocation of
address space.
____________________________________________________
ripe-143.txt Page 13
Alternative Models for RIPE NCC Revenue & Charging 1997
Orange & Ridley
____________________________________________________
The advantages of this model are:
o It encourages conservation because it is
cheaper for registries to wait on requesting
address space and to maximise usage of their
allocations.
o It is a fair usage based charging model.
o It improves the stability of the RIPE NCC,
because the revenue generated does not depend
directly on the number of registries.
The disadvantages that this model has are:
o It has an increased administrative overhead in
comparison to model 1 (but which is much lower
than model 2).
o Registries do not know exactly what their
charges in the forthcoming year will be.
6. Recommendation
Because the revenue generated with model 3 does not
depend directly on the number of local IRs serviced,
it improves the long term stability of the RIPE NCC.
Although the number of local IRs has grown at an
exponential rate in the last two years, it is not
known how long this expansion will continue, or
whether a consolidation may occur at some point. A
charging model in which the income of the RIPE NCC
depends directly on the number of registries, will
leave the RIPE NCC unstable in case of market
changes, and for this reason, we prefer model 3 in
comparison to model 1.
Moreover, with model 3, the registration service
fees paid by a local IR are determined in part by
the rate that it distributes address space. This is
by far the most objective measure that can be used
to evaluate the usage rate of a local IR. As such
this model is extremely fair.
We strongly recommend that Model 2 not be applied.
Whereas it may be considered fair in that it applies
strict measures of service usage, it has a number of
essential disadvantages. Implementation of model 2
would probably encourage registries to carry out
practices which conflict with global Internet
address registration policies. This would be detri-
mental to the fair, efficient, and co-operative
____________________________________________________
ripe-143.txt Page 14
Alternative Models for RIPE NCC Revenue & Charging 1997
Orange & Ridley
____________________________________________________
registration system that now exists. In fact, it
threatens the very aims the Internet registry system
was implemented to uphold.
Both in terms of stability and fairness, model 3 is
to be preferred in comparison to model 1. Meanwhile,
model 2 may endanger the Internet registry system.
For these reasons, we recommend that model 3, allo-
cation based charging be implemented for the RIPE
NCC in 1997. However, because model 1 is easy to
administer and has proven to work in the past, we
consider this to be an acceptable alternative for
1997.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Daniel Karrenberg
for his critical input in the preparation of this
document. He read and commented on several drafts.
In addition, we appreciate the efforts of Mirjam
Kuehne, Ambrose Magee, and Roderik Muit who reviewed
it carefully and made useful comments.
____________________________________________________
ripe-143.txt Page 15
Alternative Models for RIPE NCC Revenue & Charging 1997
Orange & Ridley
____________________________________________________
Appendix A: Charging Details
Note that in all tables, the forecast figures for
1997 differ depending on the charging model chosen.
This is because the administrative overhead intro-
duced effects all charges.
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| New Registry Services Costs |
+----------------+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Activity | Cost 1996 1997 |
| | per Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 |
+----------------+------------------------------------------------------------+
|Initial contact | new local IR 244 139 139 139 |
|Local IR course | attendee 544 293 296 295 |
| Total | 2 attendees + contact 1332 725 731 729 |
+----------------+------------------------------------------------------------+
Table A.1: New Registry Services Costs with costs
for 1996 based on model 2 only.
+--------------------------------------------+
| Revenue Earned with Start Up Fees |
+--------+-----------------------------------+
| | Cost Charged Total "+" earned |
| | in 1997 |
| | ECU ECU KECU |
+--------+-----------------------------------+
|Model 1 | 725 2000 489 |
|Model 2 | 731 2000 487 |
|Model 3 | 729 2000 488 |
+--------+-----------------------------------+
Table A.2: 1997 revenue to be earned with start up
fees
____________________________________________________
ripe-143.txt Page 16
Alternative Models for RIPE NCC Revenue & Charging 1997
Orange & Ridley
____________________________________________________
+-----------------------------------------+
|Coordination Services Costs per Local IR |
+------------+----------------------------+
|Activity | Cost 1996 Cost 1997 |
| | ECU ECU |
+------------+----------------------------+
|Model 1 | 384 868 |
|Model 2 | 384 875 |
|Model 3 | 384 871 |
+------------+----------------------------+
Table A.3: Coordination services costs per local IR,
with costs for 1996 based on charging model 2.
+---------------------------------+
| Coordination Services Charges |
+-----------+---------------------+
| | Cost Plus Total |
| | ECU ECU ECU |
+-----------+---------------------+
| Model 1 | |
+-----------+---------------------+
| Large | 868 4826 5694 |
| Medium | 868 2413 3281 |
| Small | 868 483 1351 |
|Enterprise | 868 483 1351 |
+-----------+---------------------+
| Model 2 | |
+-----------+---------------------+
| Large | 875 4959 5833 |
| Medium | 875 2479 3354 |
| Small | 875 496 1371 |
|Enterprise | 875 496 1371 |
+-----------+---------------------+
| Model 3 | |
+-----------+---------------------+
| Large | 871 4892 5764 |
| Medium | 871 2446 3317 |
| Small | 871 489 1361 |
|Enterprise | 871 489 1361 |
+-----------+---------------------+
Table A.4: Charges to be levied for coordination
services in 1997.
____________________________________________________
ripe-143.txt Page 17
Alternative Models for RIPE NCC Revenue & Charging 1997
Orange & Ridley
____________________________________________________
Appendix B: Charging Examples
+----------------------------------------------------------+
| RIPE NCC Charging Examples |
+----------------------------------------------------------+
| | 1996 |
|Registry Size | Current Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 |
| | ECU ECU ECU ECU |
| A small | 1500 2550 3839 2401 |
| B small | 1500 2550 3849 1611 |
| C small | 1500 2550 2031 1474 |
| D medium | 4500 4550 3994 5658 |
| E medium | 4500 4550 5151 5404 |
| F medium | 4500 4550 4386 3460 |
| G large | 8500 7000 6496 6679 |
| H large | 8500 7000 6291 8616 |
| I large | 8500 7000 10221 8218 |
+------------------+---------------------------------------+
Table B.1: Charges resulting from the alternative
methods for example registries.
____________________________________________________
ripe-143.txt Page 18
Alternative Models for RIPE NCC Revenue & Charging 1997
Orange & Ridley
____________________________________________________
Appendix C: Computing the Charges for Model 3
In this appendix, we summarize the mathematical
model which lead to the allocation based registra-
tion charges presented for model 3 in Section 5.4.2.
Unfortunately, it contains mathematical equations
which are only viewable in Postscript. The
Postscript version of this document is available on
our FTP site at
ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-143.ps
____________________________________________________
ripe-143.txt Page 19