Re: [ncc-announce] [News] Phase 2 of the Charging Scheme Model Consultation
Dear Simon, all... Excuse me, but... *whaaaat am I reading ?!?!* Are you trying to shock your membership with some crazy options, in order to better have an acceptance on your category-based models ? Where has the fairness spirit gone ? Here are my comments: On group 1: Regarding the new member signup fees: I honestly don't care wether it's 1000 or 1500€, but it should be the same, IMHO, be it an additionnal member or not. IPv4 waiting list signup fees: Errr... why ? If you pay a membership signup fee, it should be enough. IPv4 allocation fee: Same comment. Then if you really think about billing stuffs as a waiting list and allocation fee, then, just bill all those fees as a sign-up fee, just don't play with words... I am not opposed to merger and acquisition fee, as it's additionnal paperwork for NCC. Transfer fee: on the two ends ? what's the deal ? Maybe in incoming, as it's paperwork based on the buyer's needs. Legacy registry update fee: Why not, as they do not have any contractual relationship. I think that ARIN does not allow updates on out of contract relationships, do they ? PI/ASN fees should not change IMHO. On groupe 2: PI fee at 1k€: ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND ?! So, having lets say two PI and an ASN (ex: non-commercial IXP, for example) would lead to ~2k€ fee? this is a nonsence.... Alternative registry fee update: 1.5k€ ? Well, legacy would just stay legacy, and the DB would remain outdated... Discount for educationnal or lower income: Well, fairness is totally gone. Please, reconsider your options. Nothing is acceptable there. You cannot continue that way. I have seen way better suggestions (for example ALexis Hanicotte's suggestion on 20th january), that your phase2 suggestions. Maybe you should reconsider your 40M budget aswell. You cannot just continue to raise your member's fee (while protecting big players). If you just think it might be at risk with higher members, maybe we should introduce a policy restraining inter-rir transfers for big inetnums (incoming or outgoing, lets still be fair). Kind regards, Clément Cavadore On Mon, 2026-02-02 at 12:24 +0100, Simon-Jan Haytink wrote:
Dear RIPE NCC members, Thank you for your feedback on Phase 1 of the charging scheme model. During the six week consultation period, members shared feedback via the members-discuss mailing list and we also heard from members directly. Thank you to everyone who took part and helped inform the next stage of this work. We are now analysing the feedback to identify where the models can be refined. *Phase 2: Separate Charges* We are now launching Phase 2 of the consultation, which focuses on separate charges. In this phase, we are asking for feedback on two groups of additional charges: Group 1: Charges based on task force recommendations Group 2: Possible other charges, discounts and incentives You can find charges and detailed explanations of each charge at: https://www.ripe.net/s/charging-scheme-model-consultation-phase-2/ Important: Please note that this is the consultation phase, and we are looking for your opinion on which charges make sense and would be acceptable for members. No charges or figures are set in stone - we need your input before we make a final draft charging scheme that we can bring to the Executive Board for its consideration in March. In parallel, we are carrying out impact analyses to determine what changes would need to be made to our systems in order to accommodate new types of charges, and whether they would be possible to implement for 2027 or need to be phased in over multiple years. We plan to publish the impact analysis when proposing the draft charging scheme for members to vote on in April. Phase 2 will run until the week of 16 February 2026. Your input is essential for shaping the Charging Scheme proposal which will be presented to the membership for a vote at the May 2026 General Meeting. Please share your comments, questions, and suggestions on the Members Discuss mailing list. *Next Steps: Phase 3* Following Phase 2, we will use feedback from both phases to revise the proposal before publishing a combined draft covering the annual membership fee and separate charges. We are also developing an online calculator to accompany Phase 3, using the final draft model figures and the additional charges proposed during Phase 2. We expect to publish both a complete charging scheme draft, an impact analysis and the calculator at the beginning of April 2026. 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 Clement, all, Thanks for the useful feedback. I want to address some of your broader points, which I think will be useful for all members. I will also send a second mail that clarifies the reasoning we have behind some of the charges you mention. On the RIPE NCC budget, this won’t be affected by the charging scheme model we arrive at. If there are new separate charges, this will not be on top of what we aim to bring in as income - it will just mean adjustment of charges in other areas such as the annual fee. Usually at this time of year we explain that the budget discussions happen around the Draft Activity Plan consultation in the Autumn, which we understand is frustrating. This year, we will be presenting the RIPE NCC Strategy 2027-2031, and we want to present a five-year budget to go with it so members can see what we plan to do and how we can finance those plans for the longer term. This means there can be a good discussion on the overall RIPE NCC budget and what it funds at the same time as the charging discussion. But for the purposes of this consultation, we first really do want to get input on a wide range of charging options. On the list of charges we presented, we fully expect not to implement all of these, and those that we do could have very different levels of charges depending on member input. But it’s important to explain why we present these charges in the way we do. The first group of charges are based on the principles coming from the Charging Scheme Task Force. The task force worked hard to come up with the principles, and our Executive Board committed to proposing charges based on those principles. The task force was explicitly asked to come up with principles rather than set amounts, so this is something we as the RIPE NCC needed to do because in the past members have told us they cannot comment on proposals unless they get an idea of how much the associated charges would be. So the figures we attach to these ideas are to help members with better understanding the implications of such charges for them. If they are too high, or even too low, then letting us know that can help us a lot before we finalise a proposal for members to vote on. The second group of charges are presented because we do not want to leave ideas off the table. These ideas have been proposed by members several times over the years or we have considered internally to address recurring issues - giving discounts for specific groups of members, or incentivising changes to the membership model via the charging scheme. We ourselves see many issues with these ideas, and implementing them would be very difficult. But we want members to know that all ideas are there to be discussed. In the past we have been criticised for not considering alternative means of charging. So we are happy to hear strong opinions against those ideas you don’t like, and why, because this gives us precisely the kind of input we need to make a solid proposal. We are serious when we say none of these charges or the associated numbers are set in stone. We are carrying this consultation out in good faith with the hope that members will guide us in the right direction. We are also conscious that making all members happy is not something we are likely to achieve so, in the absence of that, getting reasoned input on the ideas we put forward can at least help us to arrive at a model that makes good sense for the membership. So, in summary, we are asking the membership if it does indeed want changes to the charging model. And, if so, what do those changes look like? Kind regards, Simon-Jan Haytink Chief Financial Officer RIPE NCC On 03/02/2026 16:00, Clement Cavadore wrote:
Dear Simon, all...
Excuse me, but... *whaaaat am I reading ?!?!*
Are you trying to shock your membership with some crazy options, in order to better have an acceptance on your category-based models ? Where has the fairness spirit gone ?
Here are my comments:
On group 1:
Regarding the new member signup fees: I honestly don't care wether it's 1000 or 1500€, but it should be the same, IMHO, be it an additionnal member or not.
IPv4 waiting list signup fees: Errr... why ? If you pay a membership signup fee, it should be enough. IPv4 allocation fee: Same comment. Then if you really think about billing stuffs as a waiting list and allocation fee, then, just bill all those fees as a sign-up fee, just don't play with words...
I am not opposed to merger and acquisition fee, as it's additionnal paperwork for NCC.
Transfer fee: on the two ends ? what's the deal ? Maybe in incoming, as it's paperwork based on the buyer's needs.
Legacy registry update fee: Why not, as they do not have any contractual relationship. I think that ARIN does not allow updates on out of contract relationships, do they ?
PI/ASN fees should not change IMHO.
On groupe 2:
PI fee at 1k€: ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND ?! So, having lets say two PI and an ASN (ex: non-commercial IXP, for example) would lead to ~2k€ fee? this is a nonsence....
Alternative registry fee update: 1.5k€ ? Well, legacy would just stay legacy, and the DB would remain outdated...
Discount for educationnal or lower income: Well, fairness is totally gone.
Please, reconsider your options. Nothing is acceptable there. You cannot continue that way. I have seen way better suggestions (for example ALexis Hanicotte's suggestion on 20th january), that your phase2 suggestions. Maybe you should reconsider your 40M budget aswell. You cannot just continue to raise your member's fee (while protecting big players). If you just think it might be at risk with higher members, maybe we should introduce a policy restraining inter-rir transfers for big inetnums (incoming or outgoing, lets still be fair).
Kind regards,
Clément Cavadore
On Mon, 2026-02-02 at 12:24 +0100, Simon-Jan Haytink wrote:
Dear RIPE NCC members,
Thank you for your feedback on Phase 1 of the charging scheme model.
During the six week consultation period, members shared feedback via the members-discuss mailing list and we also heard from members directly. Thank you to everyone who took part and helped inform the next stage of this work. We are now analysing the feedback to identify where the models can be refined.
*Phase 2: Separate Charges*
We are now launching Phase 2 of the consultation, which focuses on separate charges. In this phase, we are asking for feedback on two groups of additional charges:
Group 1: Charges based on task force recommendations Group 2: Possible other charges, discounts and incentives
You can find charges and detailed explanations of each charge at: https://www.ripe.net/s/charging-scheme-model-consultation-phase-2/
Important: Please note that this is the consultation phase, and we are looking for your opinion on which charges make sense and would be acceptable for members. No charges or figures are set in stone - we need your input before we make a final draft charging scheme that we can bring to the Executive Board for its consideration in March. In parallel, we are carrying out impact analyses to determine what changes would need to be made to our systems in order to accommodate new types of charges, and whether they would be possible to implement for 2027 or need to be phased in over multiple years. We plan to publish the impact analysis when proposing the draft charging scheme for members to vote on in April.
Phase 2 will run until the week of 16 February 2026. Your input is essential for shaping the Charging Scheme proposal which will be presented to the membership for a vote at the May 2026 General Meeting.
Please share your comments, questions, and suggestions on the Members Discuss mailing list.
*Next Steps: Phase 3*
Following Phase 2, we will use feedback from both phases to revise the proposal before publishing a combined draft covering the annual membership fee and separate charges.
We are also developing an online calculator to accompany Phase 3, using the final draft model figures and the additional charges proposed during Phase 2.
We expect to publish both a complete charging scheme draft, an impact analysis and the calculator at the beginning of April 2026.
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 Simon, I have a personal request for you: could you please, at least for a moment, drop the constant evasiveness, the avoidance of any responsibility, and the endless references to various task forces and working groups? You wrote an email that is a full page long and, in substance, says almost nothing beyond generic managerial phrases. The email you sent could easily be reduced to about three sentences. Yesterday I wrote a long email with a number of concrete questions. Clément wrote another long email with many rational and specific comments. You respond to none of that. Instead, you shield yourself behind unnamed working groups and vague statements. I believe I am not the only one who would like to understand: Why do the fees so fundamentally fail to reflect the amount of resources held? (Compare, for example, with ARIN: https://www.arin.net/resources/fees/fee_schedule/) Why should a small three-person ISP that becomes an LIR today pay the same as an entity that sells or leases IPv4 space it managed to accumulate (often in rather questionable ways) for millions of euros per year? Why should the largest operators in Europe, holding millions of IP addresses, pay the same as well? Does no one find this strange? (Especially given that others must buy IPv4 at ~€30 per IP just to have any at all.) What are the concrete costs of onboarding a new LIR, and what exactly do they consist of? Why does this cost €1,000 — and why does the proposal even speak of €1,500 for a second account of the same company, which is already verified and registered? What exactly does an LIR receive for the membership fee if not even a position on the IPv4 waiting list? Do you genuinely believe that processing a single registration (one contract) and charging €1,800 per year is an adequate price for an ASN and IPv6 resources — resources that are described as “infinite” and that, for RIPE, essentially amount to adding a row to a database? Please respond concretely, without managerial fluff and without endlessly deferring responsibility to others. You sign your emails as CFO. If you are not the person with an overview of these matters, then perhaps it would also be appropriate to address whether it would be possible to reduce RIPE’s roughly 200 employees to, say, 50 and lower the fees accordingly — because for maintaining IP transfer updates in a database, that would surely be sufficient. By the way, since we are talking so much about charging for PI resources (how exactly is maintaining PI in the registry more demanding than PA?) and about exorbitant fees for placement on the waiting list, wouldn’t it be time to carry out a thorough audit of all LIRs holding more than a /17 of IPv4 space? In many cases, no one really knows what kind of entities these are, or whether the addresses are being used in accordance with the originally approved addressing plans. I am genuinely appalled — a pile of nonsensical proposals and thousands of euros being thrown around in all directions. Michal Krajcirovic ------ Původní zpráva ------ Od "Simon-Jan Haytink" <simonjh@ripe.net> Komu "Clement Cavadore" <ccavadore@vedege.net>; members-discuss@ripe.net Datum 04.02.2026 14:50:35 Předmět [members-discuss] Re: [ncc-announce] [News] Phase 2 of the Charging Scheme Model Consultation
Dear Clement, all,
Thanks for the useful feedback. I want to address some of your broader points, which I think will be useful for all members. I will also send a second mail that clarifies the reasoning we have behind some of the charges you mention.
On the RIPE NCC budget, this won’t be affected by the charging scheme model we arrive at. If there are new separate charges, this will not be on top of what we aim to bring in as income - it will just mean adjustment of charges in other areas such as the annual fee. Usually at this time of year we explain that the budget discussions happen around the Draft Activity Plan consultation in the Autumn, which we understand is frustrating. This year, we will be presenting the RIPE NCC Strategy 2027-2031, and we want to present a five-year budget to go with it so members can see what we plan to do and how we can finance those plans for the longer term. This means there can be a good discussion on the overall RIPE NCC budget and what it funds at the same time as the charging discussion. But for the purposes of this consultation, we first really do want to get input on a wide range of charging options.
On the list of charges we presented, we fully expect not to implement all of these, and those that we do could have very different levels of charges depending on member input. But it’s important to explain why we present these charges in the way we do.
The first group of charges are based on the principles coming from the Charging Scheme Task Force. The task force worked hard to come up with the principles, and our Executive Board committed to proposing charges based on those principles. The task force was explicitly asked to come up with principles rather than set amounts, so this is something we as the RIPE NCC needed to do because in the past members have told us they cannot comment on proposals unless they get an idea of how much the associated charges would be. So the figures we attach to these ideas are to help members with better understanding the implications of such charges for them. If they are too high, or even too low, then letting us know that can help us a lot before we finalise a proposal for members to vote on.
The second group of charges are presented because we do not want to leave ideas off the table. These ideas have been proposed by members several times over the years or we have considered internally to address recurring issues - giving discounts for specific groups of members, or incentivising changes to the membership model via the charging scheme. We ourselves see many issues with these ideas, and implementing them would be very difficult. But we want members to know that all ideas are there to be discussed. In the past we have been criticised for not considering alternative means of charging. So we are happy to hear strong opinions against those ideas you don’t like, and why, because this gives us precisely the kind of input we need to make a solid proposal.
We are serious when we say none of these charges or the associated numbers are set in stone. We are carrying this consultation out in good faith with the hope that members will guide us in the right direction. We are also conscious that making all members happy is not something we are likely to achieve so, in the absence of that, getting reasoned input on the ideas we put forward can at least help us to arrive at a model that makes good sense for the membership.
So, in summary, we are asking the membership if it does indeed want changes to the charging model. And, if so, what do those changes look like?
Kind regards, Simon-Jan Haytink Chief Financial Officer RIPE NCC
On 03/02/2026 16:00, Clement Cavadore wrote:
Dear Simon, all...
Excuse me, but... *whaaaat am I reading ?!?!*
Are you trying to shock your membership with some crazy options, in order to better have an acceptance on your category-based models ? Where has the fairness spirit gone ?
Here are my comments:
On group 1:
Regarding the new member signup fees: I honestly don't care wether it's 1000 or 1500€, but it should be the same, IMHO, be it an additionnal member or not.
IPv4 waiting list signup fees: Errr... why ? If you pay a membership signup fee, it should be enough. IPv4 allocation fee: Same comment. Then if you really think about billing stuffs as a waiting list and allocation fee, then, just bill all those fees as a sign-up fee, just don't play with words...
I am not opposed to merger and acquisition fee, as it's additionnal paperwork for NCC.
Transfer fee: on the two ends ? what's the deal ? Maybe in incoming, as it's paperwork based on the buyer's needs.
Legacy registry update fee: Why not, as they do not have any contractual relationship. I think that ARIN does not allow updates on out of contract relationships, do they ?
PI/ASN fees should not change IMHO.
On groupe 2:
PI fee at 1k€: ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND ?! So, having lets say two PI and an ASN (ex: non-commercial IXP, for example) would lead to ~2k€ fee? this is a nonsence....
Alternative registry fee update: 1.5k€ ? Well, legacy would just stay legacy, and the DB would remain outdated...
Discount for educationnal or lower income: Well, fairness is totally gone.
Please, reconsider your options. Nothing is acceptable there. You cannot continue that way. I have seen way better suggestions (for example ALexis Hanicotte's suggestion on 20th january), that your phase2 suggestions. Maybe you should reconsider your 40M budget aswell. You cannot just continue to raise your member's fee (while protecting big players). If you just think it might be at risk with higher members, maybe we should introduce a policy restraining inter-rir transfers for big inetnums (incoming or outgoing, lets still be fair).
Kind regards,
Clément Cavadore
On Mon, 2026-02-02 at 12:24 +0100, Simon-Jan Haytink wrote:
Dear RIPE NCC members,
Thank you for your feedback on Phase 1 of the charging scheme model.
During the six week consultation period, members shared feedback via the members-discuss mailing list and we also heard from members directly. Thank you to everyone who took part and helped inform the next stage of this work. We are now analysing the feedback to identify where the models can be refined.
*Phase 2: Separate Charges*
We are now launching Phase 2 of the consultation, which focuses on separate charges. In this phase, we are asking for feedback on two groups of additional charges:
Group 1: Charges based on task force recommendations Group 2: Possible other charges, discounts and incentives
You can find charges and detailed explanations of each charge at:
https://www.ripe.net/s/charging-scheme-model-consultation-phase-2/
Important: Please note that this is the consultation phase, and we are looking for your opinion on which charges make sense and would be acceptable for members. No charges or figures are set in stone - we need your input before we make a final draft charging scheme that we can bring to the Executive Board for its consideration in March. In parallel, we are carrying out impact analyses to determine what changes would need to be made to our systems in order to accommodate new types of charges, and whether they would be possible to implement for 2027 or need to be phased in over multiple years. We plan to publish the impact analysis when proposing the draft charging scheme for members to vote on in April.
Phase 2 will run until the week of 16 February 2026. Your input is essential for shaping the Charging Scheme proposal which will be presented to the membership for a vote at the May 2026 General Meeting.
Please share your comments, questions, and suggestions on the Members Discuss mailing list.
*Next Steps: Phase 3*
Following Phase 2, we will use feedback from both phases to revise the proposal before publishing a combined draft covering the annual membership fee and separate charges.
We are also developing an online calculator to accompany Phase 3, using the final draft model figures and the additional charges proposed during Phase 2.
We expect to publish both a complete charging scheme draft, an impact analysis and the calculator at the beginning of April 2026.
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 all, I would like to explicitly support the points raised by Michal. As a small company and relatively new LIR, our practical experience highlights exactly the imbalance being discussed. We are required to pay the same annual membership fee as very large LIRs, while at the same time being forced to acquire IPv4 space from those same large LIRs at market prices (often €25–€30 per IP). In other words, we pay RIPE NCC fees on equal terms, yet we must additionally pay significant ongoing costs to entities that accumulated IPv4 space earlier and at far lower cost. This creates a structural disadvantage for smaller and newer operators that is not reflected at all in the proposed charging model. From our perspective, the current and proposed fee structure does not meaningfully reflect: - the amount of resources held, - the economic benefit derived from those resources, or - the actual operational cost imposed on RIPE NCC. While consultations are appreciated, it is difficult not to feel that outcomes are largely predetermined, as larger LIRs—who benefit most from the status quo—naturally have the voting power to approve models that preserve it. This reinforces the perception that smaller members are being asked to subsidize the system without having a realistic ability to influence it. We strongly believe that a charging model should better account for proportionality and fairness, particularly in a post-IPv4-exhaustion environment where access to resources is no longer equal. Kind regards, Mentor L. On Thu, Feb 5, 2026 at 5:14 PM Michal Krajčírovič via members-discuss < members-discuss@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear Simon,
I have a personal request for you: could you please, at least for a moment, drop the constant evasiveness, the avoidance of any responsibility, and the endless references to various task forces and working groups?
You wrote an email that is a full page long and, in substance, says almost nothing beyond generic managerial phrases. The email you sent could easily be reduced to about three sentences.
Yesterday I wrote a long email with a number of concrete questions. Clément wrote another long email with many rational and specific comments. You respond to none of that. Instead, you shield yourself behind unnamed working groups and vague statements.
*I believe I am not the only one who would like to understand:*
-
Why do the fees so fundamentally fail to reflect the amount of resources held? (Compare, for example, with ARIN: https://www.arin.net/resources/fees/fee_schedule/) -
Why should a small three-person ISP that becomes an LIR today pay the same as an entity that sells or leases IPv4 space it managed to accumulate (often in rather questionable ways) for millions of euros per year? Why should the largest operators in Europe, holding millions of IP addresses, pay the same as well? Does no one find this strange? (Especially given that others must buy IPv4 at ~€30 per IP just to have any at all.) -
What are the concrete costs of onboarding a new LIR, and what exactly do they consist of? Why does this cost €1,000 — and why does the proposal even speak of €1,500 for a second account of the same company, which is already verified and registered? -
What exactly does an LIR receive for the membership fee if not even a position on the IPv4 waiting list? Do you genuinely believe that processing a single registration (one contract) and charging €1,800 per year is an adequate price for an ASN and IPv6 resources — resources that are described as “infinite” and that, for RIPE, essentially amount to adding a row to a database?
Please respond concretely, without managerial fluff and without endlessly deferring responsibility to others. You sign your emails as CFO. If you are not the person with an overview of these matters, then perhaps it would also be appropriate to address whether it would be possible to reduce RIPE’s roughly 200 employees to, say, 50 and lower the fees accordingly — because for maintaining IP transfer updates in a database, that would surely be sufficient.
By the way, since we are talking so much about charging for PI resources (how exactly is maintaining PI in the registry more demanding than PA?) and about exorbitant fees for placement on the waiting list, wouldn’t it be time to carry out a thorough audit of all LIRs holding more than a /17 of IPv4 space? In many cases, no one really knows what kind of entities these are, or whether the addresses are being used in accordance with the originally approved addressing plans.
I am genuinely appalled — a pile of nonsensical proposals and thousands of euros being thrown around in all directions.
Michal Krajcirovic
------ Původní zpráva ------ Od "Simon-Jan Haytink" <simonjh@ripe.net> Komu "Clement Cavadore" <ccavadore@vedege.net>; members-discuss@ripe.net Datum 04.02.2026 14:50:35 Předmět [members-discuss] Re: [ncc-announce] [News] Phase 2 of the Charging Scheme Model Consultation
Dear Clement, all,
Thanks for the useful feedback. I want to address some of your broader points, which I think will be useful for all members. I will also send a second mail that clarifies the reasoning we have behind some of the charges you mention.
On the RIPE NCC budget, this won’t be affected by the charging scheme model we arrive at. If there are new separate charges, this will not be on top of what we aim to bring in as income - it will just mean adjustment of charges in other areas such as the annual fee. Usually at this time of year we explain that the budget discussions happen around the Draft Activity Plan consultation in the Autumn, which we understand is frustrating. This year, we will be presenting the RIPE NCC Strategy 2027-2031, and we want to present a five-year budget to go with it so members can see what we plan to do and how we can finance those plans for the longer term. This means there can be a good discussion on the overall RIPE NCC budget and what it funds at the same time as the charging discussion. But for the purposes of this consultation, we first really do want to get input on a wide range of charging options.
On the list of charges we presented, we fully expect not to implement all of these, and those that we do could have very different levels of charges depending on member input. But it’s important to explain why we present these charges in the way we do.
The first group of charges are based on the principles coming from the Charging Scheme Task Force. The task force worked hard to come up with the principles, and our Executive Board committed to proposing charges based on those principles. The task force was explicitly asked to come up with principles rather than set amounts, so this is something we as the RIPE NCC needed to do because in the past members have told us they cannot comment on proposals unless they get an idea of how much the associated charges would be. So the figures we attach to these ideas are to help members with better understanding the implications of such charges for them. If they are too high, or even too low, then letting us know that can help us a lot before we finalise a proposal for members to vote on.
The second group of charges are presented because we do not want to leave ideas off the table. These ideas have been proposed by members several times over the years or we have considered internally to address recurring issues - giving discounts for specific groups of members, or incentivising changes to the membership model via the charging scheme. We ourselves see many issues with these ideas, and implementing them would be very difficult. But we want members to know that all ideas are there to be discussed. In the past we have been criticised for not considering alternative means of charging. So we are happy to hear strong opinions against those ideas you don’t like, and why, because this gives us precisely the kind of input we need to make a solid proposal.
We are serious when we say none of these charges or the associated numbers are set in stone. We are carrying this consultation out in good faith with the hope that members will guide us in the right direction. We are also conscious that making all members happy is not something we are likely to achieve so, in the absence of that, getting reasoned input on the ideas we put forward can at least help us to arrive at a model that makes good sense for the membership.
So, in summary, we are asking the membership if it does indeed want changes to the charging model. And, if so, what do those changes look like?
Kind regards, Simon-Jan Haytink Chief Financial Officer RIPE NCC
On 03/02/2026 16:00, Clement Cavadore wrote:
Dear Simon, all...
Excuse me, but... *whaaaat am I reading ?!?!*
Are you trying to shock your membership with some crazy options, in order to better have an acceptance on your category-based models ? Where has the fairness spirit gone ?
Here are my comments:
On group 1:
Regarding the new member signup fees: I honestly don't care wether it's 1000 or 1500€, but it should be the same, IMHO, be it an additionnal member or not.
IPv4 waiting list signup fees: Errr... why ? If you pay a membership signup fee, it should be enough. IPv4 allocation fee: Same comment. Then if you really think about billing stuffs as a waiting list and allocation fee, then, just bill all those fees as a sign-up fee, just don't play with words...
I am not opposed to merger and acquisition fee, as it's additionnal paperwork for NCC.
Transfer fee: on the two ends ? what's the deal ? Maybe in incoming, as it's paperwork based on the buyer's needs.
Legacy registry update fee: Why not, as they do not have any contractual relationship. I think that ARIN does not allow updates on out of contract relationships, do they ?
PI/ASN fees should not change IMHO.
On groupe 2:
PI fee at 1k€: ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND ?! So, having lets say two PI and an ASN (ex: non-commercial IXP, for example) would lead to ~2k€ fee? this is a nonsence....
Alternative registry fee update: 1.5k€ ? Well, legacy would just stay legacy, and the DB would remain outdated...
Discount for educationnal or lower income: Well, fairness is totally gone.
Please, reconsider your options. Nothing is acceptable there. You cannot continue that way. I have seen way better suggestions (for example ALexis Hanicotte's suggestion on 20th january), that your phase2 suggestions. Maybe you should reconsider your 40M budget aswell. You cannot just continue to raise your member's fee (while protecting big players). If you just think it might be at risk with higher members, maybe we should introduce a policy restraining inter-rir transfers for big inetnums (incoming or outgoing, lets still be fair).
Kind regards,
Clément Cavadore
On Mon, 2026-02-02 at 12:24 +0100, Simon-Jan Haytink wrote:
Dear RIPE NCC members,
Thank you for your feedback on Phase 1 of the charging scheme model.
During the six week consultation period, members shared feedback via the members-discuss mailing list and we also heard from members directly. Thank you to everyone who took part and helped inform the next stage of this work. We are now analysing the feedback to identify where the models can be refined.
*Phase 2: Separate Charges*
We are now launching Phase 2 of the consultation, which focuses on separate charges. In this phase, we are asking for feedback on two groups of additional charges:
Group 1: Charges based on task force recommendations Group 2: Possible other charges, discounts and incentives
You can find charges and detailed explanations of each charge at: https://www.ripe.net/s/charging-scheme-model-consultation-phase-2/
Important: Please note that this is the consultation phase, and we are looking for your opinion on which charges make sense and would be acceptable for members. No charges or figures are set in stone - we need your input before we make a final draft charging scheme that we can bring to the Executive Board for its consideration in March. In parallel, we are carrying out impact analyses to determine what changes would need to be made to our systems in order to accommodate new types of charges, and whether they would be possible to implement for 2027 or need to be phased in over multiple years. We plan to publish the impact analysis when proposing the draft charging scheme for members to vote on in April.
Phase 2 will run until the week of 16 February 2026. Your input is essential for shaping the Charging Scheme proposal which will be presented to the membership for a vote at the May 2026 General Meeting.
Please share your comments, questions, and suggestions on the Members Discuss mailing list.
*Next Steps: Phase 3*
Following Phase 2, we will use feedback from both phases to revise the proposal before publishing a combined draft covering the annual membership fee and separate charges.
We are also developing an online calculator to accompany Phase 3, using the final draft model figures and the additional charges proposed during Phase 2.
We expect to publish both a complete charging scheme draft, an impact analysis and the calculator at the beginning of April 2026.
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/
-- *Sinqerisht / Sincerely,* AlbHost [image: Logo] <https://www.albahost.net/> AlbHost SH.P.K. Besim Beka p.n. 50000 Gjakovë, Kosovë. NIPT/VAT ID: 811442657 T: +383900501502 E: info@albahost.net W*: *wWw.AlbaHost.Net <http://www.albahost.net/> [image: Facebook icon] <https://www.facebook.com/albanianhosting> [image: Twitter icon] <https://twitter.com/albahost> [image: Instagram icon] <https://www.instagram.com/albahost_vpn/> [image: Banner] Përmbajtja e këtij emaili është konfidenciale dhe ka për qëllim marrësin e specifikuar vetëm në mesazh. Ndalohet rreptësisht shpërndarja e ndonjë pjese të këtij mesazhi me ndonjë palë të tretë, pa pëlqimin me shkrim të dërguesit. Nëse e keni marrë këtë mesazh gabimisht, ju lutemi përgjigjuni këtij mesazhi dhe ndiqni me fshirjen e tij, në mënyrë që të sigurohemi që një gabim i tillë të mos ndodhë në të ardhmen. The content of this email is confidential and intended for the recipient specified in message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this message with any third party, without a written consent of the sender. If you received this message by mistake, please reply to this message and follow with its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake does not occur in the future.
AlbHost SH.P.K via members-discuss wrote on 05/02/2026 16:26:
While consultations are appreciated, it is difficult not to feel that outcomes are largely predetermined, as larger LIRs—who benefit most from the status quo—naturally have the voting power to approve models that preserve it.
Mentor, Larger LIRs have the same voting power as smaller LIRs. Each member of the association has one vote, of equal weight, regardless of the size of their LIR. If a member has opened multiple LIRs on the same membership account, then that's one-vote-per-member, not one-vote-per-LIR. There are situations where due to mergers / buyouts / etc, some larger organisations will have corporate control over several member accounts, each with their own voting rights. But in general it's not correct to say that larger LIRs have more voting power. Nick
Larger LIRs have the same voting power as smaller LIRs.
i believe that this is not the case in APNIC. more space, more fees, more votes. my take-away is that 'fair' is not a simple universal concept. randy
Dear Simon We are completely agree with our colleagues, Mr. Michal, regarding the excessive inequality and the fact that fees have increased by 15 to 20% compared to the previous year. With these RIPE budgets, I believe they are capable of helping us, a small ISP, to launch our projects.Best Regards AllLiban AdenBPS SarlDjiboutiEnvoyé depuis mon appareil Galaxy -------- Message d'origine --------De : Michal Krajčírovič via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> Date : 05/02/2026 19:17 (GMT+03:00) À : Simon-Jan Haytink <simonjh@ripe.net>, members-discuss@ripe.net Objet : [members-discuss] Re: [ncc-announce] [News] Phase 2 of the Charging Scheme Model Consultation Dear Simon, I have a personal request for you: could you please, at least for a moment, drop the constant evasiveness, the avoidance of any responsibility, and the endless references to various task forces and working groups? You wrote an email that is a full page long and, in substance, says almost nothing beyond generic managerial phrases. The email you sent could easily be reduced to about three sentences. Yesterday I wrote a long email with a number of concrete questions. Clément wrote another long email with many rational and specific comments. You respond to none of that. Instead, you shield yourself behind unnamed working groups and vague statements. I believe I am not the only one who would like to understand: Why do the fees so fundamentally fail to reflect the amount of resources held? (Compare, for example, with ARIN: https://www.arin.net/resources/fees/fee_schedule/) Why should a small three-person ISP that becomes an LIR today pay the same as an entity that sells or leases IPv4 space it managed to accumulate (often in rather questionable ways) for millions of euros per year? Why should the largest operators in Europe, holding millions of IP addresses, pay the same as well? Does no one find this strange? (Especially given that others must buy IPv4 at ~€30 per IP just to have any at all.) What are the concrete costs of onboarding a new LIR, and what exactly do they consist of? Why does this cost €1,000 — and why does the proposal even speak of €1,500 for a second account of the same company, which is already verified and registered? What exactly does an LIR receive for the membership fee if not even a position on the IPv4 waiting list? Do you genuinely believe that processing a single registration (one contract) and charging €1,800 per year is an adequate price for an ASN and IPv6 resources — resources that are described as “infinite” and that, for RIPE, essentially amount to adding a row to a database? Please respond concretely, without managerial fluff and without endlessly deferring responsibility to others. You sign your emails as CFO. If you are not the person with an overview of these matters, then perhaps it would also be appropriate to address whether it would be possible to reduce RIPE’s roughly 200 employees to, say, 50 and lower the fees accordingly — because for maintaining IP transfer updates in a database, that would surely be sufficient.By the way, since we are talking so much about charging for PI resources (how exactly is maintaining PI in the registry more demanding than PA?) and about exorbitant fees for placement on the waiting list, wouldn’t it be time to carry out a thorough audit of all LIRs holding more than a /17 of IPv4 space? In many cases, no one really knows what kind of entities these are, or whether the addresses are being used in accordance with the originally approved addressing plans. I am genuinely appalled — a pile of nonsensical proposals and thousands of euros being thrown around in all directions. Michal Krajcirovic ------ Původní zpráva ------ Od "Simon-Jan Haytink" <simonjh@ripe.net> Komu "Clement Cavadore" <ccavadore@vedege.net>; members-discuss@ripe.net Datum 04.02.2026 14:50:35 Předmět [members-discuss] Re: [ncc-announce] [News] Phase 2 of the Charging Scheme Model Consultation Dear Clement, all, Thanks for the useful feedback. I want to address some of your broader points, which I think will be useful for all members. I will also send a second mail that clarifies the reasoning we have behind some of the charges you mention. On the RIPE NCC budget, this won’t be affected by the charging scheme model we arrive at. If there are new separate charges, this will not be on top of what we aim to bring in as income - it will just mean adjustment of charges in other areas such as the annual fee. Usually at this time of year we explain that the budget discussions happen around the Draft Activity Plan consultation in the Autumn, which we understand is frustrating. This year, we will be presenting the RIPE NCC Strategy 2027-2031, and we want to present a five-year budget to go with it so members can see what we plan to do and how we can finance those plans for the longer term. This means there can be a good discussion on the overall RIPE NCC budget and what it funds at the same time as the charging discussion. But for the purposes of this consultation, we first really do want to get input on a wide range of charging options. On the list of charges we presented, we fully expect not to implement all of these, and those that we do could have very different levels of charges depending on member input. But it’s important to explain why we present these charges in the way we do. The first group of charges are based on the principles coming from the Charging Scheme Task Force. The task force worked hard to come up with the principles, and our Executive Board committed to proposing charges based on those principles. The task force was explicitly asked to come up with principles rather than set amounts, so this is something we as the RIPE NCC needed to do because in the past members have told us they cannot comment on proposals unless they get an idea of how much the associated charges would be. So the figures we attach to these ideas are to help members with better understanding the implications of such charges for them. If they are too high, or even too low, then letting us know that can help us a lot before we finalise a proposal for members to vote on. The second group of charges are presented because we do not want to leave ideas off the table. These ideas have been proposed by members several times over the years or we have considered internally to address recurring issues - giving discounts for specific groups of members, or incentivising changes to the membership model via the charging scheme. We ourselves see many issues with these ideas, and implementing them would be very difficult. But we want members to know that all ideas are there to be discussed. In the past we have been criticised for not considering alternative means of charging. So we are happy to hear strong opinions against those ideas you don’t like, and why, because this gives us precisely the kind of input we need to make a solid proposal. We are serious when we say none of these charges or the associated numbers are set in stone. We are carrying this consultation out in good faith with the hope that members will guide us in the right direction. We are also conscious that making all members happy is not something we are likely to achieve so, in the absence of that, getting reasoned input on the ideas we put forward can at least help us to arrive at a model that makes good sense for the membership. So, in summary, we are asking the membership if it does indeed want changes to the charging model. And, if so, what do those changes look like? Kind regards, Simon-Jan Haytink Chief Financial Officer RIPE NCC On 03/02/2026 16:00, Clement Cavadore wrote: Dear Simon, all... Excuse me, but... *whaaaat am I reading ?!?!* Are you trying to shock your membership with some crazy options, in order to better have an acceptance on your category-based models ? Where has the fairness spirit gone ? Here are my comments: On group 1: Regarding the new member signup fees: I honestly don't care wether it's 1000 or 1500€, but it should be the same, IMHO, be it an additionnal member or not. IPv4 waiting list signup fees: Errr... why ? If you pay a membership signup fee, it should be enough. IPv4 allocation fee: Same comment. Then if you really think about billing stuffs as a waiting list and allocation fee, then, just bill all those fees as a sign-up fee, just don't play with words... I am not opposed to merger and acquisition fee, as it's additionnal paperwork for NCC. Transfer fee: on the two ends ? what's the deal ? Maybe in incoming, as it's paperwork based on the buyer's needs. Legacy registry update fee: Why not, as they do not have any contractual relationship. I think that ARIN does not allow updates on out of contract relationships, do they ? PI/ASN fees should not change IMHO. On groupe 2: PI fee at 1k€: ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND ?! So, having lets say two PI and an ASN (ex: non-commercial IXP, for example) would lead to ~2k€ fee? this is a nonsence.... Alternative registry fee update: 1.5k€ ? Well, legacy would just stay legacy, and the DB would remain outdated... Discount for educationnal or lower income: Well, fairness is totally gone. Please, reconsider your options. Nothing is acceptable there. You cannot continue that way. I have seen way better suggestions (for example ALexis Hanicotte's suggestion on 20th january), that your phase2 suggestions. Maybe you should reconsider your 40M budget aswell. You cannot just continue to raise your member's fee (while protecting big players). If you just think it might be at risk with higher members, maybe we should introduce a policy restraining inter-rir transfers for big inetnums (incoming or outgoing, lets still be fair). Kind regards, Clément Cavadore On Mon, 2026-02-02 at 12:24 +0100, Simon-Jan Haytink wrote: Dear RIPE NCC members, Thank you for your feedback on Phase 1 of the charging scheme model. During the six week consultation period, members shared feedback via the members-discuss mailing list and we also heard from members directly. Thank you to everyone who took part and helped inform the next stage of this work. We are now analysing the feedback to identify where the models can be refined. *Phase 2: Separate Charges* We are now launching Phase 2 of the consultation, which focuses on separate charges. In this phase, we are asking for feedback on two groups of additional charges: Group 1: Charges based on task force recommendations Group 2: Possible other charges, discounts and incentives You can find charges and detailed explanations of each charge at: https://www.ripe.net/s/charging-scheme-model-consultation-phase-2/ Important: Please note that this is the consultation phase, and we are looking for your opinion on which charges make sense and would be acceptable for members. No charges or figures are set in stone - we need your input before we make a final draft charging scheme that we can bring to the Executive Board for its consideration in March. In parallel, we are carrying out impact analyses to determine what changes would need to be made to our systems in order to accommodate new types of charges, and whether they would be possible to implement for 2027 or need to be phased in over multiple years. We plan to publish the impact analysis when proposing the draft charging scheme for members to vote on in April. Phase 2 will run until the week of 16 February 2026. Your input is essential for shaping the Charging Scheme proposal which will be presented to the membership for a vote at the May 2026 General Meeting. Please share your comments, questions, and suggestions on the Members Discuss mailing list. *Next Steps: Phase 3* Following Phase 2, we will use feedback from both phases to revise the proposal before publishing a combined draft covering the annual membership fee and separate charges. We are also developing an online calculator to accompany Phase 3, using the final draft model figures and the additional charges proposed during Phase 2. We expect to publish both a complete charging scheme draft, an impact analysis and the calculator at the beginning of April 2026. 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/
Hi Michal,
I believe I am not the only one who would like to understand: • Why do the fees so fundamentally fail to reflect the amount of resources held? (Compare, for example, with ARIN: https://www.arin.net/resources/fees/fee_schedule/)
Many RIPE NCC members are completely happy with a flat-fee model. They will vote for that model unless it disappears from the ballots. The redistribution leaves people confused and worried because the amounts vary each year. -- Best regards, Sergey Myasoedov
On 2/4/2026, at 22:13, Michal Krajčírovič via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear Simon, I have a personal request for you: could you please, at least for a moment, drop the constant evasiveness, the avoidance of any responsibility, and the endless references to various task forces and working groups? You wrote an email that is a full page long and, in substance, says almost nothing beyond generic managerial phrases. The email you sent could easily be reduced to about three sentences. Yesterday I wrote a long email with a number of concrete questions. Clément wrote another long email with many rational and specific comments. You respond to none of that. Instead, you shield yourself behind unnamed working groups and vague statements. I believe I am not the only one who would like to understand: • Why do the fees so fundamentally fail to reflect the amount of resources held? (Compare, for example, with ARIN: https://www.arin.net/resources/fees/fee_schedule/) • Why should a small three-person ISP that becomes an LIR today pay the same as an entity that sells or leases IPv4 space it managed to accumulate (often in rather questionable ways) for millions of euros per year? Why should the largest operators in Europe, holding millions of IP addresses, pay the same as well? Does no one find this strange? (Especially given that others must buy IPv4 at ~€30 per IP just to have any at all.) • What are the concrete costs of onboarding a new LIR, and what exactly do they consist of? Why does this cost €1,000 — and why does the proposal even speak of €1,500 for a second account of the same company, which is already verified and registered? • What exactly does an LIR receive for the membership fee if not even a position on the IPv4 waiting list? Do you genuinely believe that processing a single registration (one contract) and charging €1,800 per year is an adequate price for an ASN and IPv6 resources — resources that are described as “infinite” and that, for RIPE, essentially amount to adding a row to a database? Please respond concretely, without managerial fluff and without endlessly deferring responsibility to others. You sign your emails as CFO. If you are not the person with an overview of these matters, then perhaps it would also be appropriate to address whether it would be possible to reduce RIPE’s roughly 200 employees to, say, 50 and lower the fees accordingly — because for maintaining IP transfer updates in a database, that would surely be sufficient. By the way, since we are talking so much about charging for PI resources (how exactly is maintaining PI in the registry more demanding than PA?) and about exorbitant fees for placement on the waiting list, wouldn’t it be time to carry out a thorough audit of all LIRs holding more than a /17 of IPv4 space? In many cases, no one really knows what kind of entities these are, or whether the addresses are being used in accordance with the originally approved addressing plans. I am genuinely appalled — a pile of nonsensical proposals and thousands of euros being thrown around in all directions.
Michal Krajcirovic
------ Původní zpráva ------ Od "Simon-Jan Haytink" <simonjh@ripe.net> Komu "Clement Cavadore" <ccavadore@vedege.net>; members-discuss@ripe.net Datum 04.02.2026 14:50:35 Předmět [members-discuss] Re: [ncc-announce] [News] Phase 2 of the Charging Scheme Model Consultation
Dear Clement, all,
Thanks for the useful feedback. I want to address some of your broader points, which I think will be useful for all members. I will also send a second mail that clarifies the reasoning we have behind some of the charges you mention.
On the RIPE NCC budget, this won’t be affected by the charging scheme model we arrive at. If there are new separate charges, this will not be on top of what we aim to bring in as income - it will just mean adjustment of charges in other areas such as the annual fee. Usually at this time of year we explain that the budget discussions happen around the Draft Activity Plan consultation in the Autumn, which we understand is frustrating. This year, we will be presenting the RIPE NCC Strategy 2027-2031, and we want to present a five-year budget to go with it so members can see what we plan to do and how we can finance those plans for the longer term. This means there can be a good discussion on the overall RIPE NCC budget and what it funds at the same time as the charging discussion. But for the purposes of this consultation, we first really do want to get input on a wide range of charging options.
On the list of charges we presented, we fully expect not to implement all of these, and those that we do could have very different levels of charges depending on member input. But it’s important to explain why we present these charges in the way we do.
The first group of charges are based on the principles coming from the Charging Scheme Task Force. The task force worked hard to come up with the principles, and our Executive Board committed to proposing charges based on those principles. The task force was explicitly asked to come up with principles rather than set amounts, so this is something we as the RIPE NCC needed to do because in the past members have told us they cannot comment on proposals unless they get an idea of how much the associated charges would be. So the figures we attach to these ideas are to help members with better understanding the implications of such charges for them. If they are too high, or even too low, then letting us know that can help us a lot before we finalise a proposal for members to vote on.
The second group of charges are presented because we do not want to leave ideas off the table. These ideas have been proposed by members several times over the years or we have considered internally to address recurring issues - giving discounts for specific groups of members, or incentivising changes to the membership model via the charging scheme. We ourselves see many issues with these ideas, and implementing them would be very difficult. But we want members to know that all ideas are there to be discussed. In the past we have been criticised for not considering alternative means of charging. So we are happy to hear strong opinions against those ideas you don’t like, and why, because this gives us precisely the kind of input we need to make a solid proposal.
We are serious when we say none of these charges or the associated numbers are set in stone. We are carrying this consultation out in good faith with the hope that members will guide us in the right direction. We are also conscious that making all members happy is not something we are likely to achieve so, in the absence of that, getting reasoned input on the ideas we put forward can at least help us to arrive at a model that makes good sense for the membership.
So, in summary, we are asking the membership if it does indeed want changes to the charging model. And, if so, what do those changes look like?
Kind regards, Simon-Jan Haytink Chief Financial Officer RIPE NCC
On 03/02/2026 16:00, Clement Cavadore wrote:
Dear Simon, all...
Excuse me, but... *whaaaat am I reading ?!?!*
Are you trying to shock your membership with some crazy options, in order to better have an acceptance on your category-based models ? Where has the fairness spirit gone ?
Here are my comments:
On group 1:
Regarding the new member signup fees: I honestly don't care wether it's 1000 or 1500€, but it should be the same, IMHO, be it an additionnal member or not.
IPv4 waiting list signup fees: Errr... why ? If you pay a membership signup fee, it should be enough. IPv4 allocation fee: Same comment. Then if you really think about billing stuffs as a waiting list and allocation fee, then, just bill all those fees as a sign-up fee, just don't play with words...
I am not opposed to merger and acquisition fee, as it's additionnal paperwork for NCC.
Transfer fee: on the two ends ? what's the deal ? Maybe in incoming, as it's paperwork based on the buyer's needs.
Legacy registry update fee: Why not, as they do not have any contractual relationship. I think that ARIN does not allow updates on out of contract relationships, do they ?
PI/ASN fees should not change IMHO.
On groupe 2:
PI fee at 1k€: ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND ?! So, having lets say two PI and an ASN (ex: non-commercial IXP, for example) would lead to ~2k€ fee? this is a nonsence....
Alternative registry fee update: 1.5k€ ? Well, legacy would just stay legacy, and the DB would remain outdated...
Discount for educationnal or lower income: Well, fairness is totally gone.
Please, reconsider your options. Nothing is acceptable there. You cannot continue that way. I have seen way better suggestions (for example ALexis Hanicotte's suggestion on 20th january), that your phase2 suggestions. Maybe you should reconsider your 40M budget aswell. You cannot just continue to raise your member's fee (while protecting big players). If you just think it might be at risk with higher members, maybe we should introduce a policy restraining inter-rir transfers for big inetnums (incoming or outgoing, lets still be fair).
Kind regards,
Clément Cavadore
On Mon, 2026-02-02 at 12:24 +0100, Simon-Jan Haytink wrote:
Dear RIPE NCC members,
Thank you for your feedback on Phase 1 of the charging scheme model.
During the six week consultation period, members shared feedback via the members-discuss mailing list and we also heard from members directly. Thank you to everyone who took part and helped inform the next stage of this work. We are now analysing the feedback to identify where the models can be refined.
*Phase 2: Separate Charges*
We are now launching Phase 2 of the consultation, which focuses on separate charges. In this phase, we are asking for feedback on two groups of additional charges:
Group 1: Charges based on task force recommendations Group 2: Possible other charges, discounts and incentives
You can find charges and detailed explanations of each charge at:
https://www.ripe.net/s/charging-scheme-model-consultation-phase-2/
Important: Please note that this is the consultation phase, and we are looking for your opinion on which charges make sense and would be acceptable for members. No charges or figures are set in stone - we need your input before we make a final draft charging scheme that we can bring to the Executive Board for its consideration in March. In parallel, we are carrying out impact analyses to determine what changes would need to be made to our systems in order to accommodate new types of charges, and whether they would be possible to implement for 2027 or need to be phased in over multiple years. We plan to publish the impact analysis when proposing the draft charging scheme for members to vote on in April.
Phase 2 will run until the week of 16 February 2026. Your input is essential for shaping the Charging Scheme proposal which will be presented to the membership for a vote at the May 2026 General Meeting.
Please share your comments, questions, and suggestions on the Members Discuss mailing list.
*Next Steps: Phase 3*
Following Phase 2, we will use feedback from both phases to revise the proposal before publishing a combined draft covering the annual membership fee and separate charges.
We are also developing an online calculator to accompany Phase 3, using the final draft model figures and the additional charges proposed during Phase 2.
We expect to publish both a complete charging scheme draft, an impact analysis and the calculator at the beginning of April 2026.
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/
Michal, The flat fee structure is in place because the membership of the RIPE NCC, i.e. the LIRs, voted this into place some years back, and have consistently voted to keep flat fees for LIRs in place since then. Here's the history. Years ago, the fees paid by members roughly reflected the amount of address space they were allocated. A lot of LIRs grumbled about it at the time, so the Exec Board set up a charging scheme task force with volunteers from the membership in order to get more detailed feedback from the membership about what they might want from a charging model. This Task Force wrote a report, and in Sep 2012, the membership were given a choice of three charging schemes based on the recommendations from the task force. The membership voted in favour of the option for identical fees for all LIRs, in preference to the other two options presented, one of which was to keep the resource-based charging scheme. https://www.ripe.net/documents/924/Options_for_RIPE_NCC_Charging_Scheme_2013... This flat fee structure was kept in place for several years, but due to LIRs grumbling, an option was put to the members in 2019 to change the charging model from a flat fee structure back to a resource-based charging scheme. This was rejected by the membership, who voted to keep the flat fee charging structure https://www.ripe.net/documents/816/RIPE_NCC_Charging_Scheme_2020_Overview_wL... The flat fee was again maintained for a couple of years until May 2023, but LIRs kept grumbling about the charges. So the Exec Board again put different charging options to the membership for 2024 onwards. Once again, the membership voted to keep the flat fee charging option in place. https://www.ripe.net/membership/gm/meetings/may-2023/documentation-and-archi... As some LIRs were unhappy with the output of these votes, the Exec Board then created a new Charging Scheme Task Force, again populated by volunteers from the membership, to create a set of principles which could be used to create a charging scheme: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/member-and-community-consultations/char... You can follow the progress of this TF on that web page. The final report is well worth reading. The RIPE NCC is now following the recommendations from that Task Force report. This is why Simon-Jan talked about task forces, and member input. It's because the RIPE NCC is a member-owned organisation, and the Exec Board / the RIPE NCC is going to a lot of effort to give the NCC membership - i.e. member LIRs like your company or my company - meaningful input into what set of principles should be used to create a long term sustainable charging model, and then based on that, what exact charging scheme options should be created. At some point in the near future, the membership of the association will be able to vote on different options based on this consultation process. I.e. keep the flat fee structure that is currently in place, or replace it with something else. As a LIR, you'll be able to vote on this. As a LIR, you're also welcomed to provide input. Simon-Jan's email is part of this process of soliciting input from members. If you want to provide input to this process, a good starting point would be to read the report written by the Charging Scheme Task Force. A second point to consider will be that no matter what the outcome of this process is, some - and probably many - organisations will be unhappy with that outcome. There is no such thing as a charging scheme that everyone will be happy with. Briefly, in answer to your two questions about the charging structure: Michal Krajčírovič via members-discuss wrote on 04/02/2026 15:13:
*
Why do the fees so fundamentally fail to reflect the amount of resources held? (Compare, for example, with ARIN: https://www.arin.net/resources/fees/fee_schedule/)
Because the RIPE NCC membership voted in favour of identical fees for all LIRs in 2012 and since then has consistently voted to keep this in place.
*
Why should a small three-person ISP that becomes an LIR today pay the same as an entity that sells or leases IPv4 space it managed to accumulate (often in rather questionable ways) for millions of euros per year? Why should the largest operators in Europe, holding millions of IP addresses, pay the same as well?
Same as the previous answer. It's like this because the RIPE NCC membership voted for this, repeatedly, even when presented with options to change back to a resource-based charging scheme. Your other questions are about what membership fees are spent on. This is a separate discussion about the annual RIPE NCC Activity Plan. Here's the plan for 2026, which was presented to the members in May 2025: https://www.ripe.net/documents/4132/Draft_Activity_Plan_and_Budget_2026.pdf This is a different topic for a different thread. But just like the charging scheme discussion, people have differing opinions on what should or should not be in the Activity Plan. Nick
On Friday 06 February 2026 15:07:02 Nick Hilliard wrote:
Michal,
The flat fee structure is in place because the membership of the RIPE NCC, i.e. the LIRs, voted this into place some years back, and have consistently voted to keep flat fees for LIRs in place since then.
Here's the history.
[..]
Same as the previous answer. It's like this because the RIPE NCC membership voted for this, repeatedly, even when presented with options to change back to a resource-based charging scheme.
[..] The history is correct as far as i remember. BUT what is not said is that in all the proportional fee proposals that were rejected is the FACT that all proposal where modulated with a substantial annual fee increase for the small LIRs. In other words, with all proposals, even a small LIR whith only a base assignment was incurring in substantial more cost and a ginormous LIRs such as the telcos, will get a fee that, while increased, was to be very smallish to negligible for their balances. This was told to honour the policy one vote one member by leveling the playing field. IMHO this was fondamentally erroneus because it was for equality ( = all members are equal ) versus a more sane equity ( all members one vote but the larger the member, the larger the work for the member, the more it should pay) For myself, i am foundamentally a very small member, and my assigned ips doesn't move much and i basically do not require service from ripe besides the initial registration and assignment; why i must pay more? The community at the time chose the minor malus, remain with the status quo instead of allow much higher annual fees. And the discussion is repeating today, arguing about scale, arguing about fee models that penalizes the very small because today che concept of small changed froma /21 from when i began to a /none (wait list) to a /24 for the mode lucky. Yes i got some IPs, but that was my inital and, lately the last, allocation i was entitled for my membership at the time. And now, with all these models i find some (and ripe too) that want to treat me as a medium ISP with a more substantial fee (last proposal was to update my fee to double the normal amount) I am not changed, so tell me what changed please. Best Regards, Andrea Borghi --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Andrea Borghi - W KEY srl - http://www.wkey.it Tel. +39 0648919230 e +39 0648919231 Fax. +39 064871550 - Mobile: +39 3477135822 sede legale: Via Alfredo Catalani 30 - 00199 Roma - P.IVA e CF 08426171008
** *Dear Michal,* * Thanks for your feedback, opinion and questions. I refer to the Charging Scheme Task Force specifically as this initiative was intended to involve members in the direction of a new charging scheme. I refer to the report because it contains the principles we are using to guide our work on developing the charging scheme. The RIPE NCC as a membership organisation works for the benefit of its members and the RIPE community, and my personal opinion is that what makes the RIPE NCC and its community strong is that we aim to reach consensus together. However, reaching consensus with 20,000 members will always be challenging due to the amount of different opinions, needs and goals of our very diverse membership. The ideas we present for consultation reflect our attempt to cater for divergent views across the membership, and we do understand they will not be supported by all. The final set of proposals we put forward in April will most likely be different and will reflect the input we receive from you and others. To your mail, I understand you want concrete answers to your questions and I will do my best to give those. - Why do the fees so fundamentally fail to reflect the amount of resources held? (Compare, for example, with ARIN:https://www.arin.net/resources/fees/fee_schedule/ <https://www.arin.net/resources/fees/fee_schedule/>) Our current charging scheme treats all members pretty much equally as the annual membership fee is based on a fee per account. We are listening to the feedback from our members in regards to the models we have currently shared. Both the category and the formula model are a step in the direction to reflect the amount of resources held in the pricing. It is clear that there is feedback to further increase this price differentiation, and we will consider this. - Why should a small three-person ISP that becomes an LIR today pay the same as an entity that sells or leases IPv4 space it managed to accumulate (often in rather questionable ways) for millions of euros per year? Why should the largest operators in Europe, holding millions of IP addresses, pay the same as well? Does no one find this strange? (Especially given that others must buy IPv4 at ~€30 per IP just to have any at all.)I refer back to my answer above. Additionally, I would like to state that I do not think we as the RIPE NCC should be in a position that we make a judgment on how our members use or profit from IP resources. So we are attempting to change the charging scheme to objectively be able to make a differentiation in fees based on resources held and no more than that. - What are the concrete costs of onboarding a new LIR, and what exactly do they consist of? Why does this cost €1,000 — and why does the proposal even speak of €1,500 for a second account of the same company, which is already verified and registered? The costs of onboarding a new member depends heavily on the amount of compliance efforts that are required. You can imagine that onboarding a new member in the Netherlands will be rather quick and efficient simply because we as the RIPE NCC are based in that same jurisdiction. While the costs for onboarding a member from outside the EU could be significantly more. As we are a membership organisation that wants and should treat all members consistently, charging a fixed amount for onboarding seems fairest. This sign-up fee used to be EUR 2,000 and was halved in 2022 to reduce the barrier to entry and better reflect the costs of onboarding new members.Regarding the EUR 1,500 fee, I shared more detailed information today in my response to Clement. - What exactly does an LIR receive for the membership fee if not even a position on the IPv4 waiting list? Do you genuinely believe that processing a single registration (one contract) and charging €1,800 per year is an adequate price for an ASN and IPv6 resources — resources that are described as “infinite” and that, for RIPE, essentially amount to adding a row to a database? What you are touching on here is a fair question. Technically, members are paying for membership of the association. With the income from these membership fees, we do a number of things that are described in our Activity Plan & Budget on a yearly basis. In a nutshell, we are a registry, we provide objective data and information about the Internet, we protect the RIR system that has been developed by our community, and we invest in projects and services that are important for the stability of the Internet. We believe that all members benefit from a stable and resilient Internet, in part because of these efforts. In regards to the independent resources fee of EUR 1,000, please do not overlook that we also presented a fee of EUR 75 per assignment. The reason I wanted to share the ideas of a higher fee for independent resources is that this has the potential to increase the number of members the RIPE NCC has. By doing so, we could potentially lower the average membership fee per member. I have not stated that this is without risk or downside, but I wanted to put this option on the table for members' consideration. It is very much clear to me that you are not a supporter of this idea and it is duly noted. To your final comments. We have a very thorough compliance framework in which we identify and verify all of our members. Additionally, we review all our members periodically. My point of view is that the RIPE NCC should not make judgements on how a member uses their resources as long as they respect the applicable laws, regulations, policies and procedures. I hope this addresses the points you raise, at least from the RIPE NCC perspective. I’m more than happy to discuss these topics and other elements in the ideas proposed if that will help advance the consultation and bring more clarity for you and other members. Kind regards, Simon* On 04/02/2026 16:13, Michal Krajčírovič wrote:
Dear Simon,
I have a personal request for you: could you please, at least for a moment, drop the constant evasiveness, the avoidance of any responsibility, and the endless references to various task forces and working groups?
You wrote an email that is a full page long and, in substance, says almost nothing beyond generic managerial phrases. The email you sent could easily be reduced to about three sentences.
Yesterday I wrote a long email with a number of concrete questions. Clément wrote another long email with many rational and specific comments. You respond to none of that. Instead, you shield yourself behind unnamed working groups and vague statements.
*I believe I am not the only one who would like to understand:*
*
Why do the fees so fundamentally fail to reflect the amount of resources held? (Compare, for example, with ARIN: https://www.arin.net/resources/fees/fee_schedule/<https://www.arin.net/resources/fees/fee_schedule/>)
*
Why should a small three-person ISP that becomes an LIR today pay the same as an entity that sells or leases IPv4 space it managed to accumulate (often in rather questionable ways) for millions of euros per year? Why should the largest operators in Europe, holding millions of IP addresses, pay the same as well? Does no one find this strange? (Especially given that others must buy IPv4 at ~€30 per IP just to have any at all.)
*
What are the concrete costs of onboarding a new LIR, and what exactly do they consist of? Why does this cost €1,000 — and why does the proposal even speak of €1,500 for a second account of the same company, which is already verified and registered?
*
What exactly does an LIR receive for the membership fee if not even a position on the IPv4 waiting list? Do you genuinely believe that processing a single registration (one contract) and charging €1,800 per year is an adequate price for an ASN and IPv6 resources — resources that are described as “infinite” and that, for RIPE, essentially amount to adding a row to a database?
Please respond concretely, without managerial fluff and without endlessly deferring responsibility to others. You sign your emails as CFO. If you are not the person with an overview of these matters, then perhaps it would also be appropriate to address whether it would be possible to reduce RIPE’s roughly 200 employees to, say, 50 and lower the fees accordingly — because for maintaining IP transfer updates in a database, that would surely be sufficient.
By the way, since we are talking so much about charging for PI resources (how exactly is maintaining PI in the registry more demanding than PA?) and about exorbitant fees for placement on the waiting list, wouldn’t it be time to carry out a thorough audit of all LIRs holding more than a /17 of IPv4 space? In many cases, no one really knows what kind of entities these are, or whether the addresses are being used in accordance with the originally approved addressing plans.
I am genuinely appalled — a pile of nonsensical proposals and thousands of euros being thrown around in all directions.
Michal Krajcirovic
------ Původní zpráva ------ Od "Simon-Jan Haytink" <simonjh@ripe.net> Komu "Clement Cavadore" <ccavadore@vedege.net>; members-discuss@ripe.net Datum 04.02.2026 14:50:35 Předmět [members-discuss] Re: [ncc-announce] [News] Phase 2 of the Charging Scheme Model Consultation
Dear Clement, all,
Thanks for the useful feedback. I want to address some of your broader points, which I think will be useful for all members. I will also send a second mail that clarifies the reasoning we have behind some of the charges you mention.
On the RIPE NCC budget, this won’t be affected by the charging scheme model we arrive at. If there are new separate charges, this will not be on top of what we aim to bring in as income - it will just mean adjustment of charges in other areas such as the annual fee. Usually at this time of year we explain that the budget discussions happen around the Draft Activity Plan consultation in the Autumn, which we understand is frustrating. This year, we will be presenting the RIPE NCC Strategy 2027-2031, and we want to present a five-year budget to go with it so members can see what we plan to do and how we can finance those plans for the longer term. This means there can be a good discussion on the overall RIPE NCC budget and what it funds at the same time as the charging discussion. But for the purposes of this consultation, we first really do want to get input on a wide range of charging options.
On the list of charges we presented, we fully expect not to implement all of these, and those that we do could have very different levels of charges depending on member input. But it’s important to explain why we present these charges in the way we do.
The first group of charges are based on the principles coming from the Charging Scheme Task Force. The task force worked hard to come up with the principles, and our Executive Board committed to proposing charges based on those principles. The task force was explicitly asked to come up with principles rather than set amounts, so this is something we as the RIPE NCC needed to do because in the past members have told us they cannot comment on proposals unless they get an idea of how much the associated charges would be. So the figures we attach to these ideas are to help members with better understanding the implications of such charges for them. If they are too high, or even too low, then letting us know that can help us a lot before we finalise a proposal for members to vote on.
The second group of charges are presented because we do not want to leave ideas off the table. These ideas have been proposed by members several times over the years or we have considered internally to address recurring issues - giving discounts for specific groups of members, or incentivising changes to the membership model via the charging scheme. We ourselves see many issues with these ideas, and implementing them would be very difficult. But we want members to know that all ideas are there to be discussed. In the past we have been criticised for not considering alternative means of charging. So we are happy to hear strong opinions against those ideas you don’t like, and why, because this gives us precisely the kind of input we need to make a solid proposal.
We are serious when we say none of these charges or the associated numbers are set in stone. We are carrying this consultation out in good faith with the hope that members will guide us in the right direction. We are also conscious that making all members happy is not something we are likely to achieve so, in the absence of that, getting reasoned input on the ideas we put forward can at least help us to arrive at a model that makes good sense for the membership.
So, in summary, we are asking the membership if it does indeed want changes to the charging model. And, if so, what do those changes look like?
Kind regards, Simon-Jan Haytink Chief Financial Officer RIPE NCC
On 03/02/2026 16:00, Clement Cavadore wrote:
Dear Simon, all...
Excuse me, but... *whaaaat am I reading ?!?!*
Are you trying to shock your membership with some crazy options, in order to better have an acceptance on your category-based models ? Where has the fairness spirit gone ?
Here are my comments:
On group 1:
Regarding the new member signup fees: I honestly don't care wether it's 1000 or 1500€, but it should be the same, IMHO, be it an additionnal member or not.
IPv4 waiting list signup fees: Errr... why ? If you pay a membership signup fee, it should be enough. IPv4 allocation fee: Same comment. Then if you really think about billing stuffs as a waiting list and allocation fee, then, just bill all those fees as a sign-up fee, just don't play with words...
I am not opposed to merger and acquisition fee, as it's additionnal paperwork for NCC.
Transfer fee: on the two ends ? what's the deal ? Maybe in incoming, as it's paperwork based on the buyer's needs.
Legacy registry update fee: Why not, as they do not have any contractual relationship. I think that ARIN does not allow updates on out of contract relationships, do they ?
PI/ASN fees should not change IMHO.
On groupe 2:
PI fee at 1k€: ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND ?! So, having lets say two PI and an ASN (ex: non-commercial IXP, for example) would lead to ~2k€ fee? this is a nonsence....
Alternative registry fee update: 1.5k€ ? Well, legacy would just stay legacy, and the DB would remain outdated...
Discount for educationnal or lower income: Well, fairness is totally gone.
Please, reconsider your options. Nothing is acceptable there. You cannot continue that way. I have seen way better suggestions (for example ALexis Hanicotte's suggestion on 20th january), that your phase2 suggestions. Maybe you should reconsider your 40M budget aswell. You cannot just continue to raise your member's fee (while protecting big players). If you just think it might be at risk with higher members, maybe we should introduce a policy restraining inter-rir transfers for big inetnums (incoming or outgoing, lets still be fair).
Kind regards,
Clément Cavadore
On Mon, 2026-02-02 at 12:24 +0100, Simon-Jan Haytink wrote:
Dear RIPE NCC members,
Thank you for your feedback on Phase 1 of the charging scheme model.
During the six week consultation period, members shared feedback via the members-discuss mailing list and we also heard from members directly. Thank you to everyone who took part and helped inform the next stage of this work. We are now analysing the feedback to identify where the models can be refined.
*Phase 2: Separate Charges*
We are now launching Phase 2 of the consultation, which focuses on separate charges. In this phase, we are asking for feedback on two groups of additional charges:
Group 1: Charges based on task force recommendations Group 2: Possible other charges, discounts and incentives
You can find charges and detailed explanations of each charge at:
https://www.ripe.net/s/charging-scheme-model-consultation-phase-2/
Important: Please note that this is the consultation phase, and we are looking for your opinion on which charges make sense and would be acceptable for members. No charges or figures are set in stone - we need your input before we make a final draft charging scheme that we can bring to the Executive Board for its consideration in March. In parallel, we are carrying out impact analyses to determine what changes would need to be made to our systems in order to accommodate new types of charges, and whether they would be possible to implement for 2027 or need to be phased in over multiple years. We plan to publish the impact analysis when proposing the draft charging scheme for members to vote on in April.
Phase 2 will run until the week of 16 February 2026. Your input is essential for shaping the Charging Scheme proposal which will be presented to the membership for a vote at the May 2026 General Meeting.
Please share your comments, questions, and suggestions on the Members Discuss mailing list.
*Next Steps: Phase 3*
Following Phase 2, we will use feedback from both phases to revise the proposal before publishing a combined draft covering the annual membership fee and separate charges.
We are also developing an online calculator to accompany Phase 3, using the final draft model figures and the additional charges proposed during Phase 2.
We expect to publish both a complete charging scheme draft, an impact analysis and the calculator at the beginning of April 2026.
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/
This discussion about the amount of the fee can go on indefinitely. It seems that the 10th round has already started. As long as the position of the NCC leadership remains in its current state, nothing will change. BUT I'LL NOTE! We collect millions of euros per year, we develop not very clear tasks. BUT! The banal support for LIRs on billing@ripe.net can't answer simple questions operatively during the day. And this is already a sign of serious quality problems of the main NCC services! ----------------------------- Dmirty Serbulov
**
*Dear Michal,*
*
Thanks for your feedback, opinion and questions.
I refer to the Charging Scheme Task Force specifically as this initiative was intended to involve members in the direction of a new charging scheme. I refer to the report because it contains the principles we are using to guide our work on developing the charging scheme.
The RIPE NCC as a membership organisation works for the benefit of its members and the RIPE community, and my personal opinion is that what makes the RIPE NCC and its community strong is that we aim to reach consensus together. However, reaching consensus with 20,000 members will always be challenging due to the amount of different opinions, needs and goals of our very diverse membership. The ideas we present for consultation reflect our attempt to cater for divergent views across the membership, and we do understand they will not be supported by all. The final set of proposals we put forward in April will most likely be different and will reflect the input we receive from you and others.
To your mail, I understand you want concrete answers to your questions and I will do my best to give those.
- Why do the fees so fundamentally fail to reflect the amount of resources held? (Compare, for example, with ARIN:https://www.arin.net/resources/fees/fee_schedule/ <https://www.arin.net/resources/fees/fee_schedule/>)
Our current charging scheme treats all members pretty much equally as the annual membership fee is based on a fee per account. We are listening to the feedback from our members in regards to the models we have currently shared. Both the category and the formula model are a step in the direction to reflect the amount of resources held in the pricing. It is clear that there is feedback to further increase this price differentiation, and we will consider this.
- Why should a small three-person ISP that becomes an LIR today pay the same as an entity that sells or leases IPv4 space it managed to accumulate (often in rather questionable ways) for millions of euros per year? Why should the largest operators in Europe, holding millions of IP addresses, pay the same as well? Does no one find this strange? (Especially given that others must buy IPv4 at ~€30 per IP just to have any at all.)I refer back to my answer above. Additionally, I would like to state that I do not think we as the RIPE NCC should be in a position that we make a judgment on how our members use or profit from IP resources. So we are attempting to change the charging scheme to objectively be able to make a differentiation in fees based on resources held and no more than that.
- What are the concrete costs of onboarding a new LIR, and what exactly do they consist of? Why does this cost €1,000 — and why does the proposal even speak of €1,500 for a second account of the same company, which is already verified and registered?
The costs of onboarding a new member depends heavily on the amount of compliance efforts that are required. You can imagine that onboarding a new member in the Netherlands will be rather quick and efficient simply because we as the RIPE NCC are based in that same jurisdiction. While the costs for onboarding a member from outside the EU could be significantly more. As we are a membership organisation that wants and should treat all members consistently, charging a fixed amount for onboarding seems fairest. This sign-up fee used to be EUR 2,000 and was halved in 2022 to reduce the barrier to entry and better reflect the costs of onboarding new members.Regarding the EUR 1,500 fee, I shared more detailed information today in my response to Clement.
- What exactly does an LIR receive for the membership fee if not even a position on the IPv4 waiting list? Do you genuinely believe that processing a single registration (one contract) and charging €1,800 per year is an adequate price for an ASN and IPv6 resources — resources that are described as “infinite” and that, for RIPE, essentially amount to adding a row to a database?
What you are touching on here is a fair question. Technically, members are paying for membership of the association. With the income from these membership fees, we do a number of things that are described in our Activity Plan & Budget on a yearly basis. In a nutshell, we are a registry, we provide objective data and information about the Internet, we protect the RIR system that has been developed by our community, and we invest in projects and services that are important for the stability of the Internet. We believe that all members benefit from a stable and resilient Internet, in part because of these efforts.
In regards to the independent resources fee of EUR 1,000, please do not overlook that we also presented a fee of EUR 75 per assignment. The reason I wanted to share the ideas of a higher fee for independent resources is that this has the potential to increase the number of members the RIPE NCC has. By doing so, we could potentially lower the average membership fee per member. I have not stated that this is without risk or downside, but I wanted to put this option on the table for members' consideration. It is very much clear to me that you are not a supporter of this idea and it is duly noted.
To your final comments. We have a very thorough compliance framework in which we identify and verify all of our members. Additionally, we review all our members periodically. My point of view is that the RIPE NCC should not make judgements on how a member uses their resources as long as they respect the applicable laws, regulations, policies and procedures.
I hope this addresses the points you raise, at least from the RIPE NCC perspective. I’m more than happy to discuss these topics and other elements in the ideas proposed if that will help advance the consultation and bring more clarity for you and other members.
Kind regards,
Simon*
On 04/02/2026 16:13, Michal Krajčírovič wrote:
Dear Simon,
I have a personal request for you: could you please, at least for a moment, drop the constant evasiveness, the avoidance of any responsibility, and the endless references to various task forces and working groups?
You wrote an email that is a full page long and, in substance, says almost nothing beyond generic managerial phrases. The email you sent could easily be reduced to about three sentences.
Yesterday I wrote a long email with a number of concrete questions. Clément wrote another long email with many rational and specific comments. You respond to none of that. Instead, you shield yourself behind unnamed working groups and vague statements.
*I believe I am not the only one who would like to understand:*
*
Why do the fees so fundamentally fail to reflect the amount of resources held? (Compare, for example, with ARIN: https://www.arin.net/resources/fees/fee_schedule/<https://www.arin.net/resources/fees/fee_schedule/>)
*
Why should a small three-person ISP that becomes an LIR today pay the same as an entity that sells or leases IPv4 space it managed to accumulate (often in rather questionable ways) for millions of euros per year? Why should the largest operators in Europe, holding millions of IP addresses, pay the same as well? Does no one find this strange? (Especially given that others must buy IPv4 at ~€30 per IP just to have any at all.)
*
What are the concrete costs of onboarding a new LIR, and what exactly do they consist of? Why does this cost €1,000 — and why does the proposal even speak of €1,500 for a second account of the same company, which is already verified and registered?
*
What exactly does an LIR receive for the membership fee if not even a position on the IPv4 waiting list? Do you genuinely believe that processing a single registration (one contract) and charging €1,800 per year is an adequate price for an ASN and IPv6 resources — resources that are described as “infinite” and that, for RIPE, essentially amount to adding a row to a database?
Please respond concretely, without managerial fluff and without endlessly deferring responsibility to others. You sign your emails as CFO. If you are not the person with an overview of these matters, then perhaps it would also be appropriate to address whether it would be possible to reduce RIPE’s roughly 200 employees to, say, 50 and lower the fees accordingly — because for maintaining IP transfer updates in a database, that would surely be sufficient.
By the way, since we are talking so much about charging for PI resources (how exactly is maintaining PI in the registry more demanding than PA?) and about exorbitant fees for placement on the waiting list, wouldn’t it be time to carry out a thorough audit of all LIRs holding more than a /17 of IPv4 space? In many cases, no one really knows what kind of entities these are, or whether the addresses are being used in accordance with the originally approved addressing plans.
I am genuinely appalled — a pile of nonsensical proposals and thousands of euros being thrown around in all directions.
Michal Krajcirovic
------ Původní zpráva ------ Od "Simon-Jan Haytink" <simonjh@ripe.net> Komu "Clement Cavadore" <ccavadore@vedege.net>; members-discuss@ripe.net Datum 04.02.2026 14:50:35 Předmět [members-discuss] Re: [ncc-announce] [News] Phase 2 of the Charging Scheme Model Consultation
Dear Clement, all,
Thanks for the useful feedback. I want to address some of your broader points, which I think will be useful for all members. I will also send a second mail that clarifies the reasoning we have behind some of the charges you mention.
On the RIPE NCC budget, this won’t be affected by the charging scheme model we arrive at. If there are new separate charges, this will not be on top of what we aim to bring in as income - it will just mean adjustment of charges in other areas such as the annual fee. Usually at this time of year we explain that the budget discussions happen around the Draft Activity Plan consultation in the Autumn, which we understand is frustrating. This year, we will be presenting the RIPE NCC Strategy 2027-2031, and we want to present a five-year budget to go with it so members can see what we plan to do and how we can finance those plans for the longer term. This means there can be a good discussion on the overall RIPE NCC budget and what it funds at the same time as the charging discussion. But for the purposes of this consultation, we first really do want to get input on a wide range of charging options.
On the list of charges we presented, we fully expect not to implement all of these, and those that we do could have very different levels of charges depending on member input. But it’s important to explain why we present these charges in the way we do.
The first group of charges are based on the principles coming from the Charging Scheme Task Force. The task force worked hard to come up with the principles, and our Executive Board committed to proposing charges based on those principles. The task force was explicitly asked to come up with principles rather than set amounts, so this is something we as the RIPE NCC needed to do because in the past members have told us they cannot comment on proposals unless they get an idea of how much the associated charges would be. So the figures we attach to these ideas are to help members with better understanding the implications of such charges for them. If they are too high, or even too low, then letting us know that can help us a lot before we finalise a proposal for members to vote on.
The second group of charges are presented because we do not want to leave ideas off the table. These ideas have been proposed by members several times over the years or we have considered internally to address recurring issues - giving discounts for specific groups of members, or incentivising changes to the membership model via the charging scheme. We ourselves see many issues with these ideas, and implementing them would be very difficult. But we want members to know that all ideas are there to be discussed. In the past we have been criticised for not considering alternative means of charging. So we are happy to hear strong opinions against those ideas you don’t like, and why, because this gives us precisely the kind of input we need to make a solid proposal.
We are serious when we say none of these charges or the associated numbers are set in stone. We are carrying this consultation out in good faith with the hope that members will guide us in the right direction. We are also conscious that making all members happy is not something we are likely to achieve so, in the absence of that, getting reasoned input on the ideas we put forward can at least help us to arrive at a model that makes good sense for the membership.
So, in summary, we are asking the membership if it does indeed want changes to the charging model. And, if so, what do those changes look like?
Kind regards, Simon-Jan Haytink Chief Financial Officer RIPE NCC
On 03/02/2026 16:00, Clement Cavadore wrote:
Dear Simon, all...
Excuse me, but... *whaaaat am I reading ?!?!*
Are you trying to shock your membership with some crazy options, in order to better have an acceptance on your category-based models ? Where has the fairness spirit gone ?
Here are my comments:
On group 1:
Regarding the new member signup fees: I honestly don't care wether it's 1000 or 1500€, but it should be the same, IMHO, be it an additionnal member or not.
IPv4 waiting list signup fees: Errr... why ? If you pay a membership signup fee, it should be enough. IPv4 allocation fee: Same comment. Then if you really think about billing stuffs as a waiting list and allocation fee, then, just bill all those fees as a sign-up fee, just don't play with words...
I am not opposed to merger and acquisition fee, as it's additionnal paperwork for NCC.
Transfer fee: on the two ends ? what's the deal ? Maybe in incoming, as it's paperwork based on the buyer's needs.
Legacy registry update fee: Why not, as they do not have any contractual relationship. I think that ARIN does not allow updates on out of contract relationships, do they ?
PI/ASN fees should not change IMHO.
On groupe 2:
PI fee at 1k€: ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND ?! So, having lets say two PI and an ASN (ex: non-commercial IXP, for example) would lead to ~2k€ fee? this is a nonsence....
Alternative registry fee update: 1.5k€ ? Well, legacy would just stay legacy, and the DB would remain outdated...
Discount for educationnal or lower income: Well, fairness is totally gone.
Please, reconsider your options. Nothing is acceptable there. You cannot continue that way. I have seen way better suggestions (for example ALexis Hanicotte's suggestion on 20th january), that your phase2 suggestions. Maybe you should reconsider your 40M budget aswell. You cannot just continue to raise your member's fee (while protecting big players). If you just think it might be at risk with higher members, maybe we should introduce a policy restraining inter-rir transfers for big inetnums (incoming or outgoing, lets still be fair).
Kind regards,
Clément Cavadore
On Mon, 2026-02-02 at 12:24 +0100, Simon-Jan Haytink wrote:
Dear RIPE NCC members,
Thank you for your feedback on Phase 1 of the charging scheme model.
During the six week consultation period, members shared feedback via the members-discuss mailing list and we also heard from members directly. Thank you to everyone who took part and helped inform the next stage of this work. We are now analysing the feedback to identify where the models can be refined.
*Phase 2: Separate Charges*
We are now launching Phase 2 of the consultation, which focuses on separate charges. In this phase, we are asking for feedback on two groups of additional charges:
Group 1: Charges based on task force recommendations Group 2: Possible other charges, discounts and incentives
You can find charges and detailed explanations of each charge at:
https://www.ripe.net/s/charging-scheme-model-consultation-phase-2/
Important: Please note that this is the consultation phase, and we are looking for your opinion on which charges make sense and would be acceptable for members. No charges or figures are set in stone - we need your input before we make a final draft charging scheme that we can bring to the Executive Board for its consideration in March. In parallel, we are carrying out impact analyses to determine what changes would need to be made to our systems in order to accommodate new types of charges, and whether they would be possible to implement for 2027 or need to be phased in over multiple years. We plan to publish the impact analysis when proposing the draft charging scheme for members to vote on in April.
Phase 2 will run until the week of 16 February 2026. Your input is essential for shaping the Charging Scheme proposal which will be presented to the membership for a vote at the May 2026 General Meeting.
Please share your comments, questions, and suggestions on the Members Discuss mailing list.
*Next Steps: Phase 3*
Following Phase 2, we will use feedback from both phases to revise the proposal before publishing a combined draft covering the annual membership fee and separate charges.
We are also developing an online calculator to accompany Phase 3, using the final draft model figures and the additional charges proposed during Phase 2.
We expect to publish both a complete charging scheme draft, an impact analysis and the calculator at the beginning of April 2026.
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/
Dear Simon I don't understand why there are always changes to the annual fees for us LIR members, and why some ISPs are having difficulty moving forward with telecom projects. At least one fee change every 5 years would be acceptable. Comment!Liban AdenBPS SarlDJIBOUTIEnvoyé depuis mon appareil Galaxy -------- Message d'origine --------De : Clement Cavadore via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> Date : 04/02/2026 11:03 (GMT+03:00) À : members-discuss@ripe.net Objet : [members-discuss] Re: [ncc-announce] [News] Phase 2 of the Charging Scheme Model Consultation Dear Simon, all...Excuse me, but... *whaaaat am I reading ?!?!*Are you trying to shock your membership with some crazy options, inorder to better have an acceptance on your category-based models ?Where has the fairness spirit gone ?Here are my comments:On group 1:Regarding the new member signup fees: I honestly don't care wether it's1000 or 1500€, but it should be the same, IMHO, be it an additionnalmember or not.IPv4 waiting list signup fees: Errr... why ? If you pay a membershipsignup fee, it should be enough.IPv4 allocation fee: Same comment. Then if you really think aboutbilling stuffs as a waiting list and allocation fee, then, just billall those fees as a sign-up fee, just don't play with words...I am not opposed to merger and acquisition fee, as it's additionnalpaperwork for NCC.Transfer fee: on the two ends ? what's the deal ? Maybe in incoming, asit's paperwork based on the buyer's needs.Legacy registry update fee: Why not, as they do not have anycontractual relationship. I think that ARIN does not allow updates onout of contract relationships, do they ? PI/ASN fees should not change IMHO.On groupe 2:PI fee at 1k€: ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND ?! So, having lets say two PIand an ASN (ex: non-commercial IXP, for example) would lead to ~2k€fee? this is a nonsence....Alternative registry fee update: 1.5k€ ? Well, legacy would just staylegacy, and the DB would remain outdated...Discount for educationnal or lower income: Well, fairness is totallygone. Please, reconsider your options. Nothing is acceptable there.You cannot continue that way. I have seen way better suggestions (for example ALexis Hanicotte's suggestion on 20th january), that yourphase2 suggestions. Maybe you should reconsider your 40M budget aswell.You cannot just continue to raise your member's fee (while protectingbig players). If you just think it might be at risk with highermembers, maybe we should introduce a policy restraining inter-rirtransfers for big inetnums (incoming or outgoing, lets still be fair).Kind regards,Clément CavadoreOn Mon, 2026-02-02 at 12:24 +0100, Simon-Jan Haytink wrote:> > Dear RIPE NCC members,> > Thank you for your feedback on Phase 1 of the charging scheme model.> > During the six week consultation period, members shared feedback via> the members-discuss mailing list and we also heard from members> directly. Thank you to everyone who took part and helped inform the> next stage of this work. We are now analysing the feedback to> identify where the models can be refined.> > *Phase 2: Separate Charges*> > We are now launching Phase 2 of the consultation, which focuses on> separate charges. In this phase, we are asking for feedback on two> groups of additional charges:> > Group 1: Charges based on task force recommendations> Group 2: Possible other charges, discounts and incentives> > You can find charges and detailed explanations of each charge at:> https://www.ripe.net/s/charging-scheme-model-consultation-phase-2/> > Important: Please note that this is the consultation phase, and we> are looking for your opinion on which charges make sense and would be> acceptable for members. No charges or figures are set in stone - we> need your input before we make a final draft charging scheme that we> can bring to the Executive Board for its consideration in March. In> parallel, we are carrying out impact analyses to determine what> changes would need to be made to our systems in order to accommodate> new types of charges, and whether they would be possible to implement> for 2027 or need to be phased in over multiple years. We plan to> publish the impact analysis when proposing the draft charging scheme> for members to vote on in April.> > Phase 2 will run until the week of 16 February 2026. Your input is> essential for shaping the Charging Scheme proposal which will be> presented to the membership for a vote at the May 2026 General> Meeting.> > Please share your comments, questions, and suggestions on the> Members Discuss mailing list.> > *Next Steps: Phase 3*> > Following Phase 2, we will use feedback from both phases to revise> the proposal before publishing a combined draft covering the annual> membership fee and separate charges.> > We are also developing an online calculator to accompany Phase 3,> using the final draft model figures and the additional charges> proposed during Phase 2. > > We expect to publish both a complete charging scheme draft, an> impact analysis and the calculator at the beginning of April 2026.> > 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 yourRIPE 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 subscriptioncan be found at: https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/
** *Dear Clement, * * In addition to my previous mail on the broader topics, I want to give you some additional explanation on the idea of IPv4 Waiting List-related charges. And I will send further mails adding clarity on other topics that have come up on the list. In essence, these are put forward as a way to deal with a change from per LIR account charging to per member charging as recommended by the Charging Scheme Task Force. The current situation with regards to getting IPv4 resources from the RIPE NCC is that there are costs involved already, and the charges listed here ensure that there will be roughly similar fees involved in getting IPv4 from the waiting list. * There is the waiting list, which can take up to two years to get resources from * RIPE policy defines a two-year non-transfer requirement This means: Sign-up fee for new LIR:EUR 1,000 Annual fee per LIR Account:EUR 1,800 - First year annual fee (Uncertain timeframe estimated at one year) Annual fee per LIR Account:EUR 1,800 - Second year annual fee (First year of the non-transfer requirement) Annual fee per LIR Account:EUR 1,800 - third year annual fee (Second year of the non-transfer requirement) Total Fees: EUR 6,400 (Fee could be higher if time on the Waiting List exceeds one year) We fully realise that for a new member, the annual fee is a cost they will have to bear in any case. But also in the current situation multiple LIR accounts per member are possible, each of which can join the waiting list according to RIPE policy. This means existing members require a new LIR account to join the waiting list and will therefore pay an additional approximate EUR 6,400 for an allocation of IPv4 from the waiting list.The fees as stated in the consultation are slightly lower when combined, but this does depend on the total amount of resources a member holds. Based on an annual fee calculated using the Charging Scheme Model A, Category 1 consulted on in Phase 1, a new member would pay: Sign-up fee for new Member: EUR 1,000 Annual fee per LIR Account: EUR 500 - A base fee for no resources held Fee to join the IPv4 Waiting list: EUR 2,000 IPv4 Allocation fee:EUR 750 - Fee when allocation is received Annual fee per LIR Account: EUR 873 - Second year annual fee = Base fee + EUR 373 (First year of non-transfer requirement) Annual fee per LIR Account:EUR 873 - Third year annual fee = Base fee + EUR 373 (Second year of non-transfer requirement) Total fees: EUR 5,996 The total here of EUR 5,996 is in the same price range as the current situation, but the uncertain cost base on waiting time has been removed. As per RIPE policy, if an existing member want to join the waiting list again, they will have to create an additional LIR account, meaning the fees would be: Sign-up fee for new LIR Account: EUR 1,500 (Fee for second LIR account) Annual fee per LIR: EUR 873 (First year annual fee = Assumed 1 /24 IPv4 allocated to a member) Fee to join the IPv4 Waiting list: EUR 2,000 IPv4 Allocation fee:EUR 750 (Fee when allocation is received) Annual fee per LIR Account:EUR 1,268 Second year annual fee = Base fee + EUR 768 (First year of non-transfer requirement) Annual fee per LIR Account:EUR 1,268 Third year annual fee = Base fee + EUR 768 Total fees: EUR 7,659 With these separate fees for the waiting list and an allocation fee from this waiting list, I see three advantages: 1. It starts to remove the need for additional LIR accounts, while we acknowledge RIPE policy still requires a new LIR account to join the waiting list. 2. Splitting the waiting list fee from the annual fee gives us more options and more flexibility in how we set these fees. 3. We remove the time element from the pricing, as the waiting could take one year but potentially it could take much longer. But here again, what we are looking for is your input. How costly should it be for members to receive a /24 from the waiting list? Should the costs be roughly similar to what they are now? And we have noted your input on the other charges, which is very clear. Kind regards,Simon-Jan HaytinkChief Financial OfficerRIPE NCC * On 03/02/2026 16:00, Clement Cavadore wrote:
Dear Simon, all...
Excuse me, but... *whaaaat am I reading ?!?!*
Are you trying to shock your membership with some crazy options, in order to better have an acceptance on your category-based models ? Where has the fairness spirit gone ?
Here are my comments:
On group 1:
Regarding the new member signup fees: I honestly don't care wether it's 1000 or 1500€, but it should be the same, IMHO, be it an additionnal member or not.
IPv4 waiting list signup fees: Errr... why ? If you pay a membership signup fee, it should be enough. IPv4 allocation fee: Same comment. Then if you really think about billing stuffs as a waiting list and allocation fee, then, just bill all those fees as a sign-up fee, just don't play with words...
I am not opposed to merger and acquisition fee, as it's additionnal paperwork for NCC.
Transfer fee: on the two ends ? what's the deal ? Maybe in incoming, as it's paperwork based on the buyer's needs.
Legacy registry update fee: Why not, as they do not have any contractual relationship. I think that ARIN does not allow updates on out of contract relationships, do they ?
PI/ASN fees should not change IMHO.
On groupe 2:
PI fee at 1k€: ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND ?! So, having lets say two PI and an ASN (ex: non-commercial IXP, for example) would lead to ~2k€ fee? this is a nonsence....
Alternative registry fee update: 1.5k€ ? Well, legacy would just stay legacy, and the DB would remain outdated...
Discount for educationnal or lower income: Well, fairness is totally gone.
Please, reconsider your options. Nothing is acceptable there. You cannot continue that way. I have seen way better suggestions (for example ALexis Hanicotte's suggestion on 20th january), that your phase2 suggestions. Maybe you should reconsider your 40M budget aswell. You cannot just continue to raise your member's fee (while protecting big players). If you just think it might be at risk with higher members, maybe we should introduce a policy restraining inter-rir transfers for big inetnums (incoming or outgoing, lets still be fair).
Kind regards,
Clément Cavadore
On Mon, 2026-02-02 at 12:24 +0100, Simon-Jan Haytink wrote:
Dear RIPE NCC members,
Thank you for your feedback on Phase 1 of the charging scheme model.
During the six week consultation period, members shared feedback via the members-discuss mailing list and we also heard from members directly. Thank you to everyone who took part and helped inform the next stage of this work. We are now analysing the feedback to identify where the models can be refined.
*Phase 2: Separate Charges*
We are now launching Phase 2 of the consultation, which focuses on separate charges. In this phase, we are asking for feedback on two groups of additional charges:
Group 1: Charges based on task force recommendations Group 2: Possible other charges, discounts and incentives
You can find charges and detailed explanations of each charge at: https://www.ripe.net/s/charging-scheme-model-consultation-phase-2/
Important: Please note that this is the consultation phase, and we are looking for your opinion on which charges make sense and would be acceptable for members. No charges or figures are set in stone - we need your input before we make a final draft charging scheme that we can bring to the Executive Board for its consideration in March. In parallel, we are carrying out impact analyses to determine what changes would need to be made to our systems in order to accommodate new types of charges, and whether they would be possible to implement for 2027 or need to be phased in over multiple years. We plan to publish the impact analysis when proposing the draft charging scheme for members to vote on in April.
Phase 2 will run until the week of 16 February 2026. Your input is essential for shaping the Charging Scheme proposal which will be presented to the membership for a vote at the May 2026 General Meeting.
Please share your comments, questions, and suggestions on the Members Discuss mailing list.
*Next Steps: Phase 3*
Following Phase 2, we will use feedback from both phases to revise the proposal before publishing a combined draft covering the annual membership fee and separate charges.
We are also developing an online calculator to accompany Phase 3, using the final draft model figures and the additional charges proposed during Phase 2.
We expect to publish both a complete charging scheme draft, an impact analysis and the calculator at the beginning of April 2026.
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/
participants (10)
-
AlbHost SH.P.K -
Andrea Borghi -
Clement Cavadore -
Liban Aden N. -
Michal Krajčírovič -
Nick Hilliard -
Randy Bush -
sdy＠a-n-t.ru -
Sergey Myasoedov -
Simon-Jan Haytink