Dear Simon-Jan and the RIPE NCC Board, However, I must strongly push back on the interpretation of "equity" presented here, specifically the justification that "we should not be dependent on a small number of members to pay a large portion of the fees." While the stated goal is risk management, the proposed solution solves a "stability" problem by creating an "equity" crisis. I urge the board to consider the following three points: 1. The "Regressive Governance" Analogy You argue that relying on large members is a risk. In any other governance context, this logic would be considered highly regressive. Imagine a government stating: "We must not depend on the wealthy to fund public infrastructure because they might leave. Therefore, to ensure stability, we will disproportionately tax the middle class and small businesses." In Europe, AFAIK people broadly agree that those who extract the most value from the system should contribute the most to its maintenance (progressive contribution). Model where a small LIR pays significantly more per resource than a large LIR is effectively a subsidy paid by the small to the large. Please dont design a system that acts as a tax haven for the largest resource holders at the expense of the smaller membership. 2a. Large members transfer risk? (if thats what you fear) The reluctance to charge large members linearly implies a fear that they will leave RIPE if fees are too high. This ignores the reality of the RIR ecosystem. There are only four operational RIRs, and they are regionally bound. This leaves us with two logical options: - Geography is irrelevant. If members are purely mercenary and can easily move their resources to ARIN or APNIC to save money, then RIPE is already "bleeding." OTHER RIR. By refusing a linear model (which other RIRs use) to "keep" members, we are simply engaging in a race to the bottom. - Geography is relevant (The Reality). Large European Telcos, Governments, and Cloud Providers cannot simply move their infrastructure to another region to avoid RIPE fees. They are geographically bound to our service region. They are a captive audience. 2b. The Fear of "Undue Influence" (Money ≠ Votes) There appears to be an unspoken fear that if large members pay the bulk of the fees, they will exert undue influence over RIPE. This fear is unfounded for two reasons: Democratic Safeguards: RIPE operates on "One Member, One Vote." It is not a shareholder corporation where equity buys control. A member paying €100k has the same single vote as a member paying €1k. If the Board fears that higher fees will lead to a "corporate takeover," that is a failure of Bylaws enforcement, not a valid reason to distort the charging scheme. Efficiency is a Benefit, Not a Threat: If the fear is that large payers will start asking difficult questions about RIPE NCC’s inefficiency or operational costs-this is a feature, not a bug. If linear charging causes large members to scrutinize the budget, every small member benefits from the resulting optimization. We should not shield the organization from scrutiny by spreading the cost so thinly across small members that no single entity cares enough to ask hard questions. Evidence: Other RIRs (like ARIN and APNIC) utilize linear models where large members pay significantly more. This has not resulted in a hostile corporate takeover of their policy process. 3. True Stability lies in the Incumbents You say that relying on large members is a financial risk. I would argue the opposite. Small LIRs and SMEs are the most sensitive to price shocks. By front-loading costs onto small members to "de-risk" the contributions of the whales, you risk a higher churn rate among the majority of the membership. Large incumbents are the most financially stable entities in the ecosystem. They are not going to return their allocations or shut down because their RIPE fee scales linearly with their usage. Relying on them is actually the safest path to financial stability. We are being asked to accept a model that penalizes the "many" to subsidize the "few," based on a theoretical fear that the "few" might leave-a fear that ignores the technical reality of the RIR system. I urge the Board to reconsider a model to really fair, not "fair". On Tue, 2025-12-16 at 16:38 +0100, Simon-Jan Haytink wrote:
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...
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/