December 2025 - members-discuss-unmoderated

Cursos cortos: ChatGPT Excel PowerBI GPTS Acoso
by Cursos online para trabajadores 15 Dec '25

15 Dec '25

W 8 Cursos bonificados online ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ <http://tracking.openmarketconnect.com/tracking/click?d=8ckyfqtqRqO0WwmNSS9j…> ¡Que nada te detenga! Tu saldo formativo está listo para que comiences tus formaciones bonificadas. <http://tracking.openmarketconnect.com/tracking/click?d=hUqF_B9xgGQ1FMzLKto-…> ChatGPT en Excel. Aprende a fondo ChatGPT y su integración con Excel. Aprende a extraer datos y completar hojas de cálculo, generar informes automatizados, realizar análisis de texto y crear sistemas de ayuda interactivos... Da el paso y diferénciate! <http://tracking.openmarketconnect.com/tracking/click?d=hUqF_B9xgGQ1FMzLKto-…> Saber + <http://tracking.openmarketconnect.com/tracking/click?d=tEGBO8HTBNboY2L0aD4A…> Power Bi y Excel Avanzado. Aprende al máximo las capacidades de las tablas dinámicas, y sumerge en profundidad en los complementos de Power BI mediante modelos de bases de datos relacionales. Conviértete en un experto y diferénciate en la emrpesa <http://tracking.openmarketconnect.com/tracking/click?d=tEGBO8HTBNboY2L0aD4A…> Saber + <http://tracking.openmarketconnect.com/tracking/click?d=OsmlZJ4K1iILIGqeLUI6…> Fiscalidad Básica, IRPF, IVA, IS. Aprende sobre Impuesto de Sociedades, IVA, IRPF, Impuesto de Sucesiones y Donaciones, Transmisiones Patrimoniales y Tributos locales. Domina conceptos básicos esenciales para la vida profesional y personal en el área fiscal. <http://tracking.openmarketconnect.com/tracking/click?d=OsmlZJ4K1iILIGqeLUI6…> Saber + <http://tracking.openmarketconnect.com/tracking/click?d=QuA67duLSp9dWgIrQ3YW…> GPTS Haz tus propios GPTS desde onboarding para trabajadores, a preguntas frecuentes sobre tu empresa, aprende a acotar con información específica de lo que prefieres los grandes modelos de lenguaje <http://tracking.openmarketconnect.com/tracking/click?d=QuA67duLSp9dWgIrQ3YW…> Saber + <http://tracking.openmarketconnect.com/tracking/click?d=QlzMUOIJm15V95Fzu3IV…> Prevención Acoso Laboral. Aprende a identificar, diferenciar y abordar situaciones de riesgo laboral en un entorno inclusivo y seguro. Dirigido a profesionales de diferentes sectores y empresas con un enfoque práctico y adaptado a la Ley 6/2019. <http://tracking.openmarketconnect.com/tracking/click?d=QlzMUOIJm15V95Fzu3IV…> Saber + <http://tracking.openmarketconnect.com/tracking/click?d=8jcSmeZcRxAQWUMcJHSh…> Curso de planificación y organización ¡Mejora tus habilidades de gestión con nuestro curso de Planificación y Organización! Aprende a optimizar recursos, establecer prioridades y alcanzar tus objetivos de manera efectiva. Ideal para profesionales que buscan aumentar su productividad y liderazgo. ¡Inscríbete y transforma tu forma de trabajar! <http://tracking.openmarketconnect.com/tracking/click?d=8jcSmeZcRxAQWUMcJHSh…> Saber + <http://tracking.openmarketconnect.com/tracking/click?d=jZPCFj0PVnYEfLqM7x0z…> Explora todos los cursos • Claves de la formación Continua Bonificada: 01 GRATUITA La Seguridad Social bonificará el importe del curso en los Seguros Sociales. 02 ONLINE Sin esperas. Campus 24/7. Con tutor + seguimiento real cada día. 03 FÁCIL Despreocúpate de todo. Nos encargamos de todos los trámites con Fundae. 04 Centro ACREDITADO Fundae No te lleves sustos. Quieres las cosas bien hechas. Lo sabemos! ¡Aprovecha para potenciar tus habilidades! Fórmate desde la oficina, desde casa o desde la app, ¡tienes todas las opciones! ¡Infórmate sin compromiso! <http://tracking.openmarketconnect.com/tracking/unsubscribe?d=ztnnvshIAsk_yp…> Darse de baja IKAP, Enrique granados, barcelona, barcelona, 08008, Spain <http://tracking.openmarketconnect.com/tracking/botclick?msgid=JuyYvURrH1jP2…>

1 0

Future RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Proposals
by office＠mrejitor.com 15 Dec '25

15 Dec '25

Dear community, I looked at both Category-based and Formula-based models and found a destructive issue with both. The root issue The scheme is too logarithmic. The average fee per IP ranges 5744 times! * The issue leads to the following consequences. Consequence one - market competition Members with fewer addresses should pay a significant share of their income to RIPE. There are many services in the â¬10 or less category in Bulgaria, Romania, and other countries. Small /24 operators should spend at least 4.47% of their income on RIPE fees alone. A prominent /8 owner will spend 0.00001% of that income. The ratio of 5,743 is significant. Consequence two - delaying the move to IPv6 Given the significant historical IPv4 address space, larger companies have fewer reasons to switch to IPv6. If we agree to further multiply this advantage, there will be fewer and fewer economic reasons to switch to IPv6. Consequence three - possible reduction in the number of LIRs With ratios of up to 5,743 times the fees per IP, one can expect the consolidation of LIR accounts to continue. Renting small blocks will be preferable to acquiring them. We already suffer from the declining number of LIR accounts. A decision that leads to future consolidation may require additional rebalancing in the coming years. Possible solutions * Better-balanced fees, with wider boundaries in both directions. A difference of no more than 256 times in per-ip fees. * A fee reduction for big entities if they return address space to RIPE. This reduction will actually pay off by reducing IPv4 queue wait time and, therefore, increasing the number of new members. Best Regards, Alexander 5744 is calculated by dividing the minimum fee per IP for /8 by the cost for /24. It could be up to 11,487 in case the address space is close to /7 IPv4 CIDR Max fee/ IP Discount from /24 /24 to /23 3.41016 0.00% /23 to /22 2.47656 27.38% /22 to /21 1.64746 51.69% /21 to /20 1.03906 69.53% /20 to /19 0.63306 81.44% /19 to /18 0.37598 88.97% /18 to /17 0.21918 93.57% /17 to /16 0.12585 96.31% /16 to /15 0.07143 97.91% /15 to /14 0.04013 98.82% /14 to /13 0.02237 99.34% /13 to /12 0.01237 99.64% /12 to /11 0.00681 99.80% /11 to /10 0.00372 99.89% /10 to /9 0.00203 99.94% /9 to /8 0.00110 99.97% /8 to /7 0.00059 99.98%

1 0

Future RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Proposals
by Alexander Minchev (AbilixSoft) 15 Dec '25

15 Dec '25

Dear community, I looked at both Category-based and Formula-based models and found a destructive issue with both. The root issue The scheme is too logarithmic** and the average fee per IP ranges 5744 times! * The issue leads to the following consequences. Consequence one - market competition Members with fewer addresses should pay a significant share of their income to RIPE. There are many services in the EUR10 or less category in Bulgaria, Romania, and other countries. Small /24 operators should spend at least 4.47% of their income on RIPE fees alone. A prominent /8 owner will spend 0.00001% of that income. The ratio of 5,743 is significant. Consequence two - delaying the move to IPv6 Given the significant historical IPv4 address space, larger companies have fewer reasons to switch to IPv6. If we agree to further multiply this advantage, there will be fewer and fewer economic reasons to switch to IPv6. Consequence three - possible reduction in the number of LIRs With ratios of up to 5,743 times the fees per IP, one can expect the consolidation of LIR accounts to continue. Renting small blocks will be preferable to acquiring them. We already suffer from the declining number of LIR accounts. A decision that leads to future consolidation may require additional rebalancing in the coming years. Possible solutions * Better-balanced fees, with wider boundaries in both directions. A difference of no more than 256 times in per-ip fees. * A fee reduction for big entities if they return address space to RIPE. This reduction will actually pay off by reducing IPv4 queue wait time and, therefore, increasing the number of new members. Best Regards, Alexander * 5744 is calculated by dividing the minimum fee per IP for /8 by the cost for /24. It could be up to 11,487 in case the address space is close to /7 IPv4 CIDR Max fee/ IP Discount from /24 /24 to /23 3.41016 0.00% /23 to /22 2.47656 27.38% /22 to /21 1.64746 51.69% /21 to /20 1.03906 69.53% /20 to /19 0.63306 81.44% /19 to /18 0.37598 88.97% /18 to /17 0.21918 93.57% /17 to /16 0.12585 96.31% /16 to /15 0.07143 97.91% /15 to /14 0.04013 98.82% /14 to /13 0.02237 99.34% /13 to /12 0.01237 99.64% /12 to /11 0.00681 99.80% /11 to /10 0.00372 99.89% /10 to /9 0.00203 99.94% /9 to /8 0.00110 99.97% /8 to /7 0.00059 99.98%

1 0

Feedback on Phase 1 Charging Scheme Consultation – Small ISP Perspective
by aeham m 15 Dec '25

15 Dec '25

Dear RIPE NCC team , Thank you for opening Phase 1 of the Charging Scheme consultation and for providing clear explanations and interactive calculators for both proposed models. As a small Internet Service Provider, my primary concern is ensuring that the annual fee model does not unintentionally penalise natural, incremental growth. Small providers often need to request additional IPv4 or IPv6 resources gradually in order to serve local communities, improve network resilience, or meet regulatory and operational requirements. Any model that results in sudden or disproportionate fee increases due to minor changes in resource holdings would place an undue burden on such providers. From this perspective, I see potential risks in category-based models, where crossing a category boundary can trigger a significant fee increase that does not accurately reflect the actual scale of growth or the provider’s financial capacity. While category-based approaches may be simpler to understand, they can introduce inequities at the margins. A formula-based model, if carefully designed, could better reflect the principle of equity by linking fees more smoothly to actual resource usage. However, it is essential that the formula remains transparent, predictable, and not overly sensitive to small changes in IPv4 or IPv6 holdings. I would encourage the RIPE NCC to prioritise: Smooth fee progression without abrupt jumps Appropriate protection for small and medium-sized providers Clear predictability to support long-term planning and sustainable growth I appreciate that the figures presented at this stage are illustrative and look forward to continued discussion as the models evolve. Kind regards, Aiham Mahfud Lazernet

1 0

Fwd: [ncc-announce] [news] Consultation on Future RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Models
by aeham m 15 Dec '25

15 Dec '25

---------- Forwarded message --------- من: Simon-Jan Haytink <simonjh(a)ripe.net> ‪Date: الاثنين، ١٥ كانون الأول ٢٠٢٥، ٧:٢٧ م‬ Subject: Re: [ncc-announce] [news] Consultation on Future RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Models To: aeham m <alpha.tartous2013(a)gmail.com> Dear Aiham Mahfud, Thank you for your feedback, this is exactly the type of input we are hoping to see Can I ask you to send your email to members-discuss(a)ripe.net please? Reason is you emailed myself & ncc-announce(a)ripe.net, which means your email is not seen by other members Thanks and kind regards, Simon On 15/12/2025 16:42, aeham m wrote: Dear RIPE NCC team , Thank you for opening Phase 1 of the Charging Scheme consultation and for providing clear explanations and interactive calculators for both proposed models. As a small Internet Service Provider, my primary concern is ensuring that the annual fee model does not unintentionally penalise natural, incremental growth. Small providers often need to request additional IPv4 or IPv6 resources gradually in order to serve local communities, improve network resilience, or meet regulatory and operational requirements. Any model that results in sudden or disproportionate fee increases due to minor changes in resource holdings would place an undue burden on such providers. From this perspective, I see potential risks in category-based models, where crossing a category boundary can trigger a significant fee increase that does not accurately reflect the actual scale of growth or the provider’s financial capacity. While category-based approaches may be simpler to understand, they can introduce inequities at the margins. A formula-based model, if carefully designed, could better reflect the principle of equity by linking fees more smoothly to actual resource usage. However, it is essential that the formula remains transparent, predictable, and not overly sensitive to small changes in IPv4 or IPv6 holdings. I would encourage the RIPE NCC to prioritise: Smooth fee progression without abrupt jumps Appropriate protection for small and medium-sized providers Clear predictability to support long-term planning and sustainable growth I appreciate that the figures presented at this stage are illustrative and look forward to continued discussion as the models evolve. Kind regards, Aiham Mahfud Lazernet في الاثنين، ١٥ كانون الأول ٢٠٢٥، ٥:٢٥ م Simon-Jan Haytink <simonjh(a)ripe.net> كتب: > > > * Dear RIPE NCC members, We have opened Phase 1 of the Charging Scheme > Consultation and invite your feedback on two proposed models for the annual > fee, which represents the significant majority of the RIPE NCC’s income. > *What we are consulting on in Phase 1* The RIPE NCC’s income from members > consists of two parts - together they make up the Membership Fee: 1. Annual > Fee - the main part of our income 2. Additional Fees - currently these are > ASN fees, independent assignment fees and other one-off charges In Phase 1, > our focus is only on the annual fee, because this is the foundation of the > Charging Scheme and the key element for our long-term financial stability. > We are asking for your input on two possible annual fee models: - Model A – > Category-based model - Model B – Formula-based model For each model, we > have published an explanation and an interactive calculator so you can see > how your annual fee would be calculated and explore different scenarios > based on your IPv4 and IPv6 holdings. You can find the consultation details > and the calculators at: > https://www.ripe.net/s/cs-model-consultation-phase-1/ > <https://www.ripe.net/s/cs-model-consultation-phase-1/> *What feedback we > would like to hear* At this stage, we are interested in how the models work > in practice, not in fixing the final revenue amount. The figures you see > are illustrative and not final. We would particularly value your views on > questions such as: - Are there too many categories in Model A, or too few? > - Are the category boundaries appropriate * > > - Is a formula-based approach (Model B) preferable to a category-based one? > > - Does the current formula setup make sense, or are there better options? > > - Do the models adequately reflect the principles defined by the Charging > Scheme Task Force, especially the principle of equity? > > - Are there any issues you can see that we’ve overlooked? > > * Both models are still drafts. Your feedback now is essential before we > further develop the models. Please share your input on the Members Discuss > mailing list by the end of January 2026. We will of course follow > discussions and we will address queries and comments in early January after > the holiday season. *Next steps in the consultation* This consultation is > part of a three-phase process: - Phase 1 (now): Consult on two annual fee > models (A and B), with calculators – published Dec 2025 * > > - Phase 2: Consult on separate fees (e.g. ASN and independent resource > fees) – planned for Jan/Feb 2026 > > - Phase 3: Publish a combined Charging Scheme proposal (Annual Fee + > separate fees) that incorporates member feedback from Phases 1 and 2 – > planned for April 2026 > > > * The final Charging Scheme proposal will be presented for a vote at the > RIPE NCC General Meeting in May 2026. I strongly encourage you to review > the two models, use the calculators, and share your perspective. Your > participation is vital in helping us develop a Charging Scheme that is > stable, transparent and equitable. Kind regards, Simon-Jan Haytink Chief > Financial Officer RIPE NCC * > ----- > To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, > please visit: > https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/ncc-announce.ripe.net/ > As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with > the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. > More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/

1 0

[Service Ticket #113546] - Regarding [members-discuss] Re: Consultation on Future RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Models
by LARUS 15 Dec '25

15 Dec '25

1 0

ICANN-Required Contact Verification
by ICANN Report 15 Dec '25

15 Dec '25

1 0

Systematic RIPE DB abuse
by Sergey Myasoedov 15 Dec '25

15 Dec '25

Dear RIPE NCC members, I’d like to raise the topic of introducing and applying administrative anti-spam measures against RIPE NCC members who deliberately violate Article 4 of the RIPE Database Terms and Conditions. RIPE NCC requires members to publish up-to-date contact email addresses in the RIPE DB. However, these publicly listed addresses are actively harvested and used for spam by IPv4 brokers and address traders, while RIPE NCC does not take any measures to protect members from this type of abuse. This issue has been around since the IPv4 market appeared, and although it’s well known, at some point the RIPE NCC staff chose not to act against members who don’t follow the RIPE Database T&C. My proposal is to freeze transfer operations for members who are repeatedly abusing the RIPE Database. I’d be glad to hear your thoughts and discuss this further. -- Best regards, Sergey Myasoedov > Begin forwarded message: > > From: "HostM" <info(a)hostmaster.lt> > Subject: Quick question about IPv4 > Date: December 8, 2025 at 04:54:23 EST > To: <for-spammers(a)net-art.cz> > > Hello, > my apologies if this message has arrived at an inconvenient time. > > I wanted to check whether you might be interested in acquiring an IPv4 /24 sub-net registered with RIPE. > I also have IPv6 resources and an ASN available, which can be included (for free) if you are interested in the IPv4 block. > > The ipv4 sub-net is currently unused and fully clean. > > The transfer can be completed securely via an escrow service. > > If this could be of interest, please feel free to reply to this email, and we can discuss the next steps in more detail. > > Regards, > Zydrunas

25 40

⭐️ Liebe Kulturinteressierte Ihre Kulturausschreibungen im Dezember 2025. 1355551
by KultNet Kultur-Ausschreibungen 15 Dec '25

15 Dec '25

1 0

Σημαντικό: Ενημέρωση προφίλ (ΕΘΝΙΚΗ ΤΡΑΠΕΖΑ)
by NBG i-bank 15 Dec '25

15 Dec '25

1 0