It appears this mailing list does not get used very much but I would like a direct comment from each proposed candidate up for election on the charging scheme changes, and your view point on if RIPE should be reducing its budget and how the current situation is being handled. Thanks for your time. Daniel~
On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 07:16:06AM -0500, Daniel Pearson wrote: Hi Daniel, First of all, thank you for the first question of this year's election. It is much appreciated.
It appears this mailing list does not get used very much but I would like a direct comment from each proposed candidate up for election on the charging scheme changes, and your view point on if RIPE should be reducing its budget and how the current situation is being handled.
In order to better answer your question(s), I would like to ask you for a clarification: - what exactly do you mean by "the charging scheme changes" - whether by RIPE you mean RIPE Community or RIPE NCC - which current situation you have in mind While waiting for your comments, I encourage everyone to come to tomorrow's Open House, where you can ask these and other questions. Best, Piotr -- Piotr Strzyżewski
Hi Piotr, Thanks for the first reply as well. I'll attempt to clarify but I do understand these are broad questions, so it might be better to re-word it a bit. - Do you feel that the charging scheme proposal issued by the board was the appropriate measure to make, or should the board have taken more seriously the call to reduce it's budget and operate from reserves while it found ways to cut expenses? - When referring to RIPE I do refer to the RIPE NCC - Referring in general terms to the proposal issued here - https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/member-proposals/1/ and the current action / response of the board in not allowing a measure to be voted down, but instead rigging or guaranteeing that regardless of the number or style of votes, one of their proposed measures will pass. I feel this may have been calculated, since last year an option to maintain the existing choice was included, which received the majority vote, however, this year no such option was included so regardless of ones feelings, and regardless how much a member may disagree with that choice there is no way to record that displeasure and have it reflect in the vote. Daniel~ On 5/14/24 11:33 AM, Piotr Strzyzewski wrote: > On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 07:16:06AM -0500, Daniel Pearson wrote: > > Hi Daniel, > > First of all, thank you for the first question of this year's election. > It is much appreciated. > >> It appears this mailing list does not get used very much but I would like a >> direct comment from each proposed candidate up for election on the charging >> scheme changes, and your view point on if RIPE should be reducing its budget >> and how the current situation is being handled. > In order to better answer your question(s), I would like to ask you for > a clarification: > - what exactly do you mean by "the charging scheme changes" > - whether by RIPE you mean RIPE Community or RIPE NCC > - which current situation you have in mind > > While waiting for your comments, I encourage everyone to come to > tomorrow's Open House, where you can ask these and other questions. > > Best, > Piotr >
On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 12:18:20PM -0500, Daniel Pearson wrote: Hi Daniel, Thank you for your efforts to make things clearer and for your patience while waiting for answers. > I'll attempt to clarify but I do understand these are broad questions, so it > might be better to re-word it a bit. > > - Do you feel that the charging scheme proposal issued by the board was the > appropriate measure to make, or should the board have taken more seriously > the call to reduce it's budget and operate from reserves while it found ways > to cut expenses? The Board has taken the call to reduce the RIPE NCC's budget more than seriously by instructing the NCC's management to cut costs. As a result, the savings in 2023 were in the order of EUR 2.7 million (compared to the 2023 budget). Running the organisation within budget is good governance, but operating from reserves in such a situation is not. At least not in my opinion. > - When referring to RIPE I do refer to the RIPE NCC As I said during today's Open House, the budget itself is derived from and is the result of several things. Starting from the Activity Plan, through the laws and regulations in the countries where we operate, taking into account the geopolitical situation, including but not limited to various types of sanctions, as well as macroeconomics, where inflation and rising costs play an important role. With this in mind, I believe that saying whether the budget should be reduced, increased or unchanged is like answering a question without a clearly defined problem. > - Referring in general terms to the proposal issued here - > https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/member-proposals/1/ and the > current action / response of the board in not allowing a measure to be voted > down, Let me comment on this by quoting Pavel, one of the candidates, who wrote a few days ago on the Telegram channel: "We hired external legal attorney to review their decisions and communication. So far we did not receive any feedback that their action in any violation of law and articles of association". The board is bound by Dutch law and the AoA, and that's the line I won't cross. And I'm glad that the external lawyer has confirmed that this line has not been crossed. > but instead rigging or guaranteeing that regardless of the number or > style of votes, one of their proposed measures will pass. > > I feel this may have been calculated, since last year an option to maintain > the existing choice was included, which received the majority vote, however, > this year no such option was included so regardless of ones feelings, and > regardless how much a member may disagree with that choice there is no way > to record that displeasure and have it reflect in the vote. I hear you. At the same time, I could not agree more with what the NCC has said in the Q&A on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme website: "A fee increase is needed to account for continued economic uncertainty, inflation and a reduction in the number of LIR accounts. An option without a fee increase would seriously compromise the RIPE NCC's ability to carry out its work and provide high-quality services." Best, Piotr > Daniel~ > > > On 5/14/24 11:33 AM, Piotr Strzyzewski wrote: > > On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 07:16:06AM -0500, Daniel Pearson wrote: > > > > Hi Daniel, > > > > First of all, thank you for the first question of this year's election. > > It is much appreciated. > > > > > It appears this mailing list does not get used very much but I would like a > > > direct comment from each proposed candidate up for election on the charging > > > scheme changes, and your view point on if RIPE should be reducing its budget > > > and how the current situation is being handled. > > In order to better answer your question(s), I would like to ask you for > > a clarification: > > - what exactly do you mean by "the charging scheme changes" > > - whether by RIPE you mean RIPE Community or RIPE NCC > > - which current situation you have in mind > > > > While waiting for your comments, I encourage everyone to come to > > tomorrow's Open House, where you can ask these and other questions. > > > > Best, > > Piotr > > -- Piotr Strzyżewski
Hello, Daniel and all Community Members! Thank you very much for your question! About one month ago, the RIPE NCC Board proposed a draft of a new charging scheme that stirred intense debate and resistance from a significant portion of RIPE NCC Members. This motivated me to join a group ( https://t.me/ripe_budget_talks) to better understand RIPE NCC finances and, ideally, to propose an alternative charging scheme that aligns with the interests and needs of as many RIPE NCC Members across the regions as possible. Our group had fewer than a dozen members at its inception and has grown to 110 members, including RIPE NCC executives and the RIPE NCC Board Chair. Our first project was to propose an alternative charging scheme, but we ran into a significant obstacle which almost derailed our effort and caused delays - we missed crucial data in machine-readable formats. We lack detailed machine-readable information about RIPE NCC members, LIRs (and their relationship with RIPE NCC members) and their resources (IPv4, IPv6, PI, ASN) that they hold. In response to this, we had to source side data to compensate for the lack of this information from official sources. As we progressed, we discovered a total lack of information about agreements with legacy resource holders and associated fees. These details are crucial for modeling charging schemes, yet they are clearly missing - this fact was confirmed in writing by RIPE NCC staff. The charging scheme is only one aspect of the RIPE NCC budget. Hence, we sought to understand how RIPE NCC allocates its funds, and yet again, we encountered significant gaps in our research which we were unable to fill using information obtained through official channels. Please let me know if you’re interested in details and I’ll be glad to share all our findings with Community. We cannot propose alternative charging schemes or find ways to reduce budget without having all the information needed available to every single Member of RIPE NCC in a clear and (ideally) machine readable format. My personal focus as a potential RIPE NCC Board member will be on increased transparency as it’s the only way to engage the incredible skill of our wide RIPE NCC Member community and use it to find solutions to our current and future challenges. United we stand! The RIPE Community is invited to join our initiative, by contributing knowledge and expertise to improve the RIPE Community and RIPE NCC. Our main communication platform is Telegram but we will be happy to add more platforms if needed: https://t.me/ripe_budget_talks If you have any feedback or ideas to share, please contact me here or reach me via the following channels: - WhatsApp: +447437307046 - Signal: pavel.50 - Telegram: pavel_odintsov https://t.me/pavel_odintsov - LinkedIN: https://www.linkedin.com/in/podintsov/ - Discord: pavel.odintsov - IRC: LiberaChat pavel_odintsov Thank you! On Tue, 14 May 2024 at 15:16, Daniel Pearson <daniel@privatesystems.net> wrote:
It appears this mailing list does not get used very much but I would like a direct comment from each proposed candidate up for election on the charging scheme changes, and your view point on if RIPE should be reducing its budget and how the current situation is being handled.
Thanks for your time.
Daniel~
-- eb-candidates mailing list eb-candidates@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/eb-candidates
-- Sincerely yours, Pavel Odintsov
Hi Pavel, Thank you for your well thought out response. I appreciate your time invested in trying to answer this question and I do not disagree fundamentally with attempting to do so with raw data as much as possible. As much as I would like to say I could stand side by side with you in such an effort to continue to dig, we all have our limitations in time that can be allotted, however, I fully support and appreciate having as much data public as possible. Personally, I am of a very suspicious opinion that RIPE NCC has become quite the bloated organization potentially stifled by its own size. I would love to see your findings shared with the community, and as active as the members mailing list is currently, I do believe the time is ripe (pun intended) for members to pay attention to additional data and metrics. I feel evaluating expenses, and then extrapolating the benefit from said expenses should be first and foremost on the list. I look forward to what may come. Daniel~ On 5/14/24 12:06 PM, Pavel Odintsov wrote:
Hello, Daniel and all Community Members!
Thank you very much for your question!
About one month ago, the RIPE NCC Board proposed a draft of a new charging scheme that stirred intense debate and resistance from a significant portion of RIPE NCC Members. This motivated me to join a group (https://t.me/ripe_budget_talks <https://t.me/ripe_budget_talks>) to better understand RIPE NCC finances and, ideally, to propose an alternative charging scheme that aligns with the interests and needs of as many RIPE NCC Members across the regions as possible. Our group had fewer than a dozen members at its inception and has grown to 110 members, including RIPE NCC executives and the RIPE NCC Board Chair.
Our first project was to propose an alternative charging scheme, but we ran into a significant obstacle which almost derailed our effort and caused delays - we missed crucial data in machine-readable formats. We lack detailed machine-readable information about RIPE NCC members, LIRs (and their relationship with RIPE NCC members) and their resources (IPv4, IPv6, PI, ASN) that they hold. In response to this, we had to source side data to compensate for the lack of this information from official sources. As we progressed, we discovered a total lack of information about agreements with legacy resource holders and associated fees. These details are crucial for modeling charging schemes, yet they are clearly missing - this fact was confirmed in writing by RIPE NCC staff.
The charging scheme is only one aspect of the RIPE NCC budget. Hence, we sought to understand how RIPE NCC allocates its funds, and yet again, we encountered significant gaps in our research which we were unable to fill using information obtained through official channels. Please let me know if you’re interested in details and I’ll be glad to share all our findings with Community.
We cannot propose alternative charging schemes or find ways to reduce budget without having all the information needed available to every single Member of RIPE NCC in a clear and (ideally) machine readable format.
My personal focus as a potential RIPE NCC Board member will be on increased transparency as it’s the only way to engage the incredible skill of our wide RIPE NCC Member community and use it to find solutions to our current and future challenges.
United we stand!
The RIPE Community is invited to join our initiative, by contributing knowledge and expertise to improve the RIPE Community and RIPE NCC. Our main communication platform is Telegram but we will be happy to add more platforms if needed: https://t.me/ripe_budget_talks <https://t.me/ripe_budget_talks>
If you have any feedback or ideas to share, please contact me here or reach me via the following channels:
*
WhatsApp: +447437307046
*
Signal: pavel.50
*
Telegram: pavel_odintsov https://t.me/pavel_odintsov <https://t.me/pavel_odintsov>
*
LinkedIN: https://www.linkedin.com/in/podintsov/ <https://www.linkedin.com/in/podintsov/>
*
Discord: pavel.odintsov
*
IRC: LiberaChat pavel_odintsov
Thank you!
On Tue, 14 May 2024 at 15:16, Daniel Pearson <daniel@privatesystems.net> wrote:
It appears this mailing list does not get used very much but I would like a direct comment from each proposed candidate up for election on the charging scheme changes, and your view point on if RIPE should be reducing its budget and how the current situation is being handled.
Thanks for your time.
Daniel~
-- eb-candidates mailing list eb-candidates@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/eb-candidates
-- Sincerely yours, Pavel Odintsov
I just noticed that this message never made it to the list. Resending… Hi Daniel,
It appears this mailing list does not get used very much
Thank you for working on making it more active :)
but I would like a direct comment from each proposed candidate up for election on the charging scheme changes, and your view point on if RIPE should be reducing its budget and how the current situation is being handled.
I'm still holding the same opinion as expressed during the open-house call (https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/open-house/meet-the-may-2024-execut...). We need to separate the discussion between the activity plan, the resulting budget, and the charging scheme. The activities determine how much money the RIPE NCC needs to execute them, and the charging scheme choice should purely be about how to divide the cost for that amongst the members. When talking about the activities, there are a few things that the RIPE NCC *has* to do: be an RIR, which involves the work from the registration services team, maintaining the database and whois services etc. There are also a lot of departments that need to facilitate the registration services, like the legal team, software development, data protection specialists etc. There are things that I personally think the RIPE NCC should be doing because of their unique position, such as working with and educating government and law enforcement. That benefits the whole community. And then there are activities that the RIPE NCC does because they can, and because they are useful, and because nobody else was doing it, such as training, research, RIS, Atlas etc. For some of the latter ones, I think it would be good if the RIPE NCC didn't do them all by itself. I'd personally prefer if some of those activities were done and funded more in collaboration with others. But these are very rough and personal ideas. In the end the membership should decide on the direction, the board will take that and formulate a high-level strategy that the RIPE NCC executive team can then execute. For the charging scheme there is a lot of work in the near future, as the board has already communicated. I personally don't have a strong opinion on the style of charging scheme. I'm a self-employed LIR, and I don't mind paying what I'm paying now. But I understand that I am from a wealthy country, and that I'm in a privileged position. So I also understand the drive towards a scheme where large resource holders pay more and small ones pay less. I will support whatever the community feels is preferred in this day and age. I think the current board should have done the vote on the charging scheme differently last year. Combining the amount and the style of charging in one vote made the meaning of the results unclear. What they are doing this year is right: they determined how much money can be saved, how much money is needed to fund the activities, and gave the choice between three models that end up roughly with the same total amount of income. At the same time they are working on both the activity plan and more diverse charging schemes for the future. They are putting the stability of the RIPE NCC first, while working towards what the members want step by step. I think this is the correct approach: stability and reliability over speed. I hope this answered your questions. If not, please let me know where you would like more clarification! Cheers, Sander
participants (4)
-
Daniel Pearson -
Pavel Odintsov -
Piotr Strzyzewski -
Sander Steffann