- members-discuss-unmoderated

Hope we to have pleasure cooperation!
by Mr. Matthew 14 Mar '26

14 Mar '26

1 0

Vendor Registration Invitation – Etihad Aviation Group (EOI 2026–2027)
by Etihad Aviation Group PJSC 14 Mar '26

14 Mar '26

1 0

Iconic LV Handbags – Starting at $200 | Timeless Craftsmanship & Unmatched Elegance
by LV Bags 13 Mar '26

13 Mar '26

1 0

Andamento Processual Ref: 85317
by Suporte-Pje 13 Mar '26

13 Mar '26

An HTML viewer is required to see this message

1 0

URGENT
by Harry Middleton 13 Mar '26

13 Mar '26

1 0

Re: Good Offer Project
by Mohammed 13 Mar '26

13 Mar '26

Dear Sir/Madam, My name is Naseer Kamel Muhammed and a broker at Continental Management Group (CMG) LLC, a private investment group based in Brunei and Bahrain. We are currently reviewing viable business and development projects that require funding or strategic investment partners, Our group provides project financing with rates starting from about 2% per annum and repayment terms up to 15 years, depending on the project. If you are seeking funding, please send me your Mobile or WhatsApp Number* A brief summary of your project Once received, we will contact you with further details about our funding process. Kind regards, Naseer Kamel Muhammed Continental Management Group (CMG) LLC Brunei / Bahrain

1 0

NCC Charging scheme
by thiele＠holomua.de 12 Mar '26

12 Mar '26

Hello everyone, unfortunately, the discussion here in Phase 2 reflects the experiences and contributions from Phase 1 and shows that we are all engaged in a sham discussion here. RIPE NCC set conditions for the working group in advance that were intended to prevent any discussion of a pricing model based linearly on the amount of RIPE resources (IPs, etc.) used. As a result, only the price limits of models and various ancillary costs can now be discussed. As many members clearly pointed out in Phase 1, this inevitably leads to unfair pricing and thus unfair cost distribution. According to the class-based Charging scheme models presented, users with small IP resources would have to pay up to 100 times more per IP address per year than users with large IP resources. I personally consider the argument that the latter users would otherwise pay too much and might switch RIRs to be highly questionable, as the associated effort/costs and also the question of whether other RIRs could even provide replacements for these resources suggest that these users would not switch. The models currently presented disadvantage all small and medium-sized users and favor the large early adopters. It is regrettable that the entire discussion on the pricing model could not/was not allowed to be conducted in an open-ended manner, taking into account another possible model with a linear resource-dependent cost approach. In my opinion, at least, a fair pricing model can never be achieved with the models currently being presented. Kind regards Peter Thiele -- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast-Antivirussoftware auf Viren geprüft. www.avast.com

15 21

Webmail Notice, Please Update Your Webmail To Continue!
by RIPE NCC 12 Mar '26

12 Mar '26

1 0

Estimate Request
by Area Construction 12 Mar '26

12 Mar '26

1 0

[members-discuss] NCC Charging scheme
by Akayo 12 Mar '26

12 Mar '26

In my opinion it would not be wise to aggressively audit members. We have 2026 and not 2009. It would cost much money and would lead to cost-intensive lawsuits: Millions of USD for a questionable cause. We should keep things simple: If a LIR with 128-times more IPv4 space only pays 2.7-times (= Model A) or 2.3 times (= Model B) so much we already have found the problem. --Kayo ---------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kaj Niemi <kajtzu(a)basen.net> Sent: Wednesday, 11. Mar 2026 – 17:27 CET +0100 To: Lutz Donnerhacke <L.Donnerhacke(a)iks-service.de> 'members-discuss(a)ripe.net' <members-discuss(a)ripe.net> Michal Krajčírovič <michal(a)krajcirovic.cz> CC: Subject: [members-discuss] Re: NCC Charging scheme You can't turn back time. Realistically, I mean. All this silly talk, no offense, of looting and industrial scale falsifying, etc - please. You don't need to be on a waiting list. I get 10+ emails weekly from various brokers offering, unsolicited, blocks of addresses. I can forward some of them to you if you want. The same offer is available to anyone else, too. Kaj ---------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michal Krajčírovič via members-discuss <members-discuss(a)ripe.net> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2026 17:23 To: Lutz Donnerhacke <L.Donnerhacke(a)iks-service.de>; 'members-discuss(a)ripe.net' <members-discuss(a)ripe.net> Subject: [members-discuss] Re: NCC Charging scheme Hello, I apologize to everyone; what we are discussing here seems absurd to me. Undoubtedly it is the fault of us, the small LIRs, that we do not participate in the voting where the question of how much we should pay is decided. However, the main issue is not being addressed — that IP addresses were historically allocated inefficiently, often based on fabricated addressing plans, and those who obtained them in this way now pay the same as small LIRs, who must purchase IP addresses at high prices. And what does RIPE propose? That they should also pay for a place on the waiting list. I have a different proposal: immediately stop all inter-RIR transfers initiate a complete audit of IP usage in accordance with addressing plans after the audit, return all IPs used in violation of addressing plans (which includes at least all those being sold at various auctions) to the free pool Where are the days when Arne Kiessling was almost shutting down LIRs? When every minor issue and every suspicion of non-compliance was examined? I personally experienced such an audit at one of my former employers. Today nobody cares, and some “CEO of I-don’t-know-what” writes here that he trusts the members. Sure. We have allowed our own registry to be looted. And now small LIRs are supposed to pay the same as large ones. I call on all small LIRs: let us take RIPE back into our own hands, push for votes not only on payment issues but also on a complete audit, and make it the first registry that will have IP addresses again — because it will reclaim them from those who falsified addressing plans in the past on an industrial scale and are now making millions from it. Michal ------ Původní zpráva ------ Od "Lutz Donnerhacke" <L.Donnerhacke(a)iks-service.de> Komu "'members-discuss(a)ripe.net'" <members-discuss(a)ripe.net> Datum 11.03.2026 14:10:47 Předmět [members-discuss] Re: NCC Charging scheme +1 for Sebastian Wiesinger and Gert Döring from my side. We are a small ISP and will be hurt by a price increase for PI and AS resources, because we are doing business with them. 75€ are an irrelevant level of pricing. Even 1000€ per year is not that much compared to the other costs we have (personal, energy, licences, taxes, hardware, …). OTOH those independent resources are a burden to all of us, because they require resources at each of our routers: They increase the routing table and we have no option to filter them out (like we could do on traffic engineering at PA space). So I’ve to compare the increasing hardware costs against a „prohibitive” fee. Not an easy decision. Lutz Donnerhacke Von: Sebastian Wiesinger <sebastian.wiesinger(a)noris.de> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 11. März 2026 11:12 An: members-discuss(a)ripe.net Betreff: [members-discuss] Re: NCC Charging scheme > On 11. Mar 2026, at 00:36, sdy(a)a-n-t.ru wrote: > > I completely disagree with you. > > I've personally proposed several linear models. I've proposed various risk > scenarios for the NCC and burden on participants. All proposals are being > ignored. Linear models are simply being removed from discussions by the > administration. Why? The MAJORITY of those participating in this > discussion here have spoken about linear models! This gives me reason to > suspect a certain vested interest on the part of the group and those who > set its goals. The majority of those participating in this discussion is not the majority of those reading or voting. There are not a lot of members that are outspoken about linear models. I’m having trouble to understand which group you mean. The RIPE NCC? The charging scheme taskforce? The members? Could you define what you have identified as the group having a vested interest in keeping linear models out of the charging scheme? > You claim IPv4 is closed. Then explain to us why the market price of one > IP address is already reaching $50? Why don't we see free resources, only > rising prices? The prices for IPv4 are falling for a while now. Still there will be no free resources until IPv6 adoption reaches 100%. (Taken from https://auctions.ipv4.global/prior-sales) > The schemes proposed by the working group not only create inequality among > NCC participants; they cement a system in which the majority will pay for > the very profitable business of a small number of NCC participants. This > group of participants has historically acquired vast amounts of address > space, in part by establishing an inadequate distribution model. Although > warnings about the risks of such a "helicopter distribution" of resources > have been voiced repeatedly, it seems as if the group is strictly > advocating for their interests. This is unacceptable! No-one is paying for the profitable business of anyone. Your membership fees are not handed out to other RIPE members. You’re paying for your RIPE NCC Services. This myth of an “inadequate distribution model” comes up again and again, can you define what you mean by that? The policy before the runout was based on the demonstrated need for addresses. Everyone that could proof a need for addresses got them. That doesn’t seem inadequate to me. There are no more IPv4 addresses to distribute so I’m not sure what you mean by “helicopter distribution”. There is no cake left to hand out. > The refusal to discuss linear models has led to the failure of votes on > new models time after time. This, as I understand it, also benefits this > group of NCC members. We voted almost 15 years ago for a flat model. This model was again and again chosen. The RIPE NCC is a membership organization, not a commercial undertaking. A strict “price per IP” model would move it towards a commercial offering which has a whole lot of implications. This was discussed again and again. I would assume that if a majority of members thinks that a more resource based approach to the fees would be good they would vote for the charging scheme model that moves towards that goal? That wasn’t the case in the past. The last time there was a category based model to vote on was for the Charging Scheme 2024 and that option didn’t win. > I believe the working group should be disbanded. Its work is pointless; > we've already voted against such payment options twice. We voted to keep the current model. If that is what the members want that is fine. > Ultimately, it's not the administration that decides what the payment > model should be. It should be the decision of NCC members, and it should > be a fair choice with all options, including linear models. > > Otherwise, all these "elections" will once again degenerate into a farce! What elections are you talking about? If you’re unhappy, there is an Executive Board Election coming up. I don’t see you on the candidate list right now but there is still time. If you want change there is your chance to influence the future of the organization. In general I don’t like these more or less subtle hints that there is supposed to be some sort of secret group or cabal or whatever you want to name it. The truth is that there are a lot of people and most of them have different goals and motivations. Getting 100% what you want is basically impossible. It will always be a compromise. Best Regards Sebastian -- Sebastian Wiesinger Senior Principal Network Architect Service Integration noris network AG 90471 Nürnberg • Deutschland Tel +49 911 9352 1459 E-Mail sebastian.wiesinger(a)noris.de Vorstand: Ingo Kraupa (Vorsitzender), Joachim Astel, Florian Sippel Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Stefan Schnabel • AG Nürnberg HRB 17689

2 1