Thanks for the early feedback on the two draft models, both on the list and in reply to my original mail. This is exactly what we hoped for - discussion on the pros and cons of the two models and guidance on where the fees in each should be set. I will try to address some of the issues raised so far.

First, it’s important to note that the two models were created with our interpretation of the principles of the Charging Scheme Task Force in mind. So we aim for greater equity while keeping in mind that all members should contribute to the funding of the association, and we should not be dependent on a small number of members to pay a large portion of the fees. I recommend that you look at the two models with the task force principles in mind and let us know if you think we can better match them. A linear model that charges per IP address is a good example of something that falls outside the principles set by the task force. The full report is available at:

https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/member-and-community-consultations/charging-scheme-task-force-2024/final-report/

The fees set in the models are always going to be criticised - we have seen criticism from a number of perspectives and from different types of members. That is good, however at this stage it is more important to get input on the boundaries (for Model A) and the formula (for Model B). This is because the fees have the potential to increase or decrease over time according to the RIPE NCC’s funding needs. What we are trying to get input on here is the relative distribution of costs between the membership. Equity as a concept is very hard to measure or be objective about - the previous model was a one-fee-per-LIR Account model, which has equality as a key concept. The models we share now do not focus on equality and have differentiation in fees. How equitable these differentiations are is what we need your input on.

And on the point about using Excel-based calculators. We are able to transparently provide a lot of data and information in the spreadsheets that members can use to create different scenarios. Providing all this data and flexibility to calculate scenarios as members wish in a non-Excel application was not something we could do easily given time constraints and internal workload, and the anticipated level of feedback which will require ongoing updates. 

In the meantime, please keep the feedback and questions coming. It is hugely valuable to get them, and it will help us arrive at a better funding model in the long run.

Kind regards,

Simon-Jan Haytink
Chief Financial Officer
RIPE NCC