Re: Consultation on Future RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Models
Dear RIPE NCC, After reviewing Phase 1 of the Charging Scheme Consultation, two issues stand out. First, the use of complex Excel spreadsheets as “interactive calculators” is frankly disappointing. In 2025, this approach reduces transparency, makes independent verification harder, and discourages meaningful analysis. I did in 30 minutes a simple web-based comparison that shows the same calculations more clearly and allows direct comparison with other RIR fee models (https://better-ripe.github.io/calculator2025/ ) [1] Second, the results raise a serious equity concern. Model B appears to consistently benefit very large resource holders while increasing the relative burden on small members. Compared with other RIRs, RIPE’s proposal looks less balanced and less fair, despite equity being stated as a core principle. I would like to understand how equity is being measured here, and why RIPE NCC seems comfortable with outcomes that so clearly favor large holders. This feedback is meant constructively, but the direction is worrying. On Mon, 2025-12-15 at 15:14 +0100, Simon-Jan Haytink wrote:
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/ *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/
Dear NCC, I am inline with Denys comments. And I also have the same feeling that a couple of years ago: Extra small LIR decrease their fees -- super cool for /24-/22 category Smaller-to-medium LIR (/19 to /21) suffer some augmentations (as we already had when the fee was raised to 1800 -- not speaking about PI/ASN sponsorship. And the winners are... extra-large members, as always: Model A & B tends to 10K max per members. Lets compare my own LIR (fr.vedegenet - 7.4k IPv4 and 10 /32) to uk.microsoft (33.5M IPv4 and 10 /32): example A: uk.microsoft would pay a bit less than 10K fr.vedegenet would pay a bit less than 2.6K example B:a uk.microsoft would pay a bit less than 11K fr.vedegenet would pay a bit less than 3K The fee gap is extra small between the two companies, regarding fees. Do you think this is fair ? I strongly don't think it is. Regards, Clément Cavadore On Mon, 2025-12-15 at 18:34 +0200, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote:
Dear RIPE NCC,
After reviewing Phase 1 of the Charging Scheme Consultation, two issues stand out.
First, the use of complex Excel spreadsheets as “interactive calculators” is frankly disappointing. In 2025, this approach reduces transparency, makes independent verification harder, and discourages meaningful analysis. I did in 30 minutes a simple web-based comparison that shows the same calculations more clearly and allows direct comparison with other RIR fee models (https://better-ripe.github.io/calculator2025/ )
Second, the results raise a serious equity concern. Model B appears to consistently benefit very large resource holders while increasing the relative burden on small members. Compared with other RIRs, RIPE’s proposal looks less balanced and less fair, despite equity being stated as a core principle.
I would like to understand how equity is being measured here, and why RIPE NCC seems comfortable with outcomes that so clearly favor large holders. This feedback is meant constructively, but the direction is worrying.
On Mon, 2025-12-15 at 15:14 +0100, Simon-Jan Haytink wrote:
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/ *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/
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/
participants (2)
-
Clement Cavadore -
Denys Fedoryshchenko