Hi, All. Every time then I hear "we should not be dependent on a small number of members to pay a large portion of the fees", I want say only one thing: --->>> If NNC don't want to be dependent on large holders fees, then it is need take money and PLAN to spend it on something that we will not do if they will not pay :-). <<<--- For example, we can spend money on open source IPv6 training projects or on free online books on IPv6 for everyone, or on the best open source networking software projects, or IPv6 next protocol development, or upgareding NCC infrastracture. But! If this happens, and they do not pay, then dependence of NCC (or INTERNET) on large holders will be a little less, because these resources will be used by others who really need it and are willing to pay like every other participant. While NCC in fear "to depend" on someone, this someone making big money on the IPv4 shortage created by NCC. Dmitry Serbulov.
**
*Dear all,*
*
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/char... <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
*
On 15/12/2025 18:58, sdy@a-n-t.ru wrote:
Hi, All!
As I understand, we keep going in circles. Time after time, we are offered the same and same solutions with different sauces. Those with few resources are forced to pay for those who have too many.
Let's do this! Either there will be an option where the payment for IPv4 resources will be strictly linear in the calculation formulas and without any restrictions, or let's LEAVE EVERYTHING AS IT IS.
Looking at the socio-economic situation in the EU, in the next 2-3 years, the issue of calculating the amount of the annual payment will not be the most important subject for RIPE NCC at all.
Moreover, it is not a fact that the INTERNET will remain the same as we are all used to. The time to change something in the near future is gone, it remains only to observe what is happening.
Dmitry Serbulov.
Hello everybody
Just remember that this is a conversation that we collectively have quite often and it always ends up at least mildly heated.
Let's try and be nice to each other and remember that almost everyone here is not trying to be unreasonable! To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details.
Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription.
Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/
To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details.
Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription.
Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at:https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details.
Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription.
Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/