Hi, All! As I understand, we keep going in circles. Time after time, we are offered the same and same solutions with different sauces. Those with few resources are forced to pay for those who have too many. Let's do this! Either there will be an option where the payment for IPv4 resources will be strictly linear in the calculation formulas and without any restrictions, or let's LEAVE EVERYTHING AS IT IS. Looking at the socio-economic situation in the EU, in the next 2-3 years, the issue of calculating the amount of the annual payment will not be the most important subject for RIPE NCC at all. Moreover, it is not a fact that the INTERNET will remain the same as we are all used to. The time to change something in the near future is gone, it remains only to observe what is happening. Dmitry Serbulov.

Hello everybody

Just remember that this is a conversation that we collectively have quite often and it always ends up at least mildly heated.

Let's try and be nice to each other and remember that almost everyone here is not trying to be unreasonable! To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details.

Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription.

Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/

Simon-Jan I suspect I am not alone in being a little time poor. I appreciate that you’re providing us with spreadsheets that we can plug our data into to see how it will impact us. This makes it a lot easier for people like me to understand how it impacts us. As for the schemes themselves - I haven’t had a chance to review the proposals in any depth yet, but hope to do so in the next few days Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072<tel:+353599183072> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090<tel:+353599183090> Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 I have sent this email at a time that is convenient for me. I do not expect you to respond to it outside of your usual working hours. From: Simon-Jan Haytink <simonjh@ripe.net> Date: Tuesday, 16 December 2025 at 15:53 To: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: [members-discuss] Re: Consultation on Future RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Models [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Please use caution when opening attachments from unrecognised sources. Dear all, Thanks for the early feedback on the two draft models, both on the list and in reply to my original mail. This is exactly what we hoped for - discussion on the pros and cons of the two models and guidance on where the fees in each should be set. I will try to address some of the issues raised so far. First, it’s important to note that the two models were created with our interpretation of the principles of the Charging Scheme Task Force in mind. So we aim for greater equity while keeping in mind that all members should contribute to the funding of the association, and we should not be dependent on a small number of members to pay a large portion of the fees. I recommend that you look at the two models with the task force principles in mind and let us know if you think we can better match them. A linear model that charges per IP address is a good example of something that falls outside the principles set by the task force. The full report is available at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/member-and-community-consultations/char... The fees set in the models are always going to be criticised - we have seen criticism from a number of perspectives and from different types of members. That is good, however at this stage it is more important to get input on the boundaries (for Model A) and the formula (for Model B). This is because the fees have the potential to increase or decrease over time according to the RIPE NCC’s funding needs. What we are trying to get input on here is the relative distribution of costs between the membership. Equity as a concept is very hard to measure or be objective about - the previous model was a one-fee-per-LIR Account model, which has equality as a key concept. The models we share now do not focus on equality and have differentiation in fees. How equitable these differentiations are is what we need your input on. And on the point about using Excel-based calculators. We are able to transparently provide a lot of data and information in the spreadsheets that members can use to create different scenarios. Providing all this data and flexibility to calculate scenarios as members wish in a non-Excel application was not something we could do easily given time constraints and internal workload, and the anticipated level of feedback which will require ongoing updates. In the meantime, please keep the feedback and questions coming. It is hugely valuable to get them, and it will help us arrive at a better funding model in the long run. Kind regards, Simon-Jan Haytink Chief Financial Officer RIPE NCC On 15/12/2025 18:58, sdy@a-n-t.ru<mailto:sdy@a-n-t.ru> wrote: Hi, All! As I understand, we keep going in circles. Time after time, we are offered the same and same solutions with different sauces. Those with few resources are forced to pay for those who have too many. Let's do this! Either there will be an option where the payment for IPv4 resources will be strictly linear in the calculation formulas and without any restrictions, or let's LEAVE EVERYTHING AS IT IS. Looking at the socio-economic situation in the EU, in the next 2-3 years, the issue of calculating the amount of the annual payment will not be the most important subject for RIPE NCC at all. Moreover, it is not a fact that the INTERNET will remain the same as we are all used to. The time to change something in the near future is gone, it remains only to observe what is happening. Dmitry Serbulov. Hello everybody Just remember that this is a conversation that we collectively have quite often and it always ends up at least mildly heated. Let's try and be nice to each other and remember that almost everyone here is not trying to be unreasonable! To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details. Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription. Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/ To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details. Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription. Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/

Hi, All. Every time then I hear "we should not be dependent on a small number of members to pay a large portion of the fees", I want say only one thing: --->>> If NNC don't want to be dependent on large holders fees, then it is need take money and PLAN to spend it on something that we will not do if they will not pay :-). <<<--- For example, we can spend money on open source IPv6 training projects or on free online books on IPv6 for everyone, or on the best open source networking software projects, or IPv6 next protocol development, or upgareding NCC infrastracture. But! If this happens, and they do not pay, then dependence of NCC (or INTERNET) on large holders will be a little less, because these resources will be used by others who really need it and are willing to pay like every other participant. While NCC in fear "to depend" on someone, this someone making big money on the IPv4 shortage created by NCC. Dmitry Serbulov.

**

*Dear all,*

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kind regards,

Simon-Jan Haytink Chief Financial Officer RIPE NCC

*

On 15/12/2025 18:58, sdy@a-n-t.ru wrote:

...

Hi, All!

As I understand, we keep going in circles. Time after time, we are offered the same and same solutions with different sauces. Those with few resources are forced to pay for those who have too many.

Let's do this! Either there will be an option where the payment for IPv4 resources will be strictly linear in the calculation formulas and without any restrictions, or let's LEAVE EVERYTHING AS IT IS.

Looking at the socio-economic situation in the EU, in the next 2-3 years, the issue of calculating the amount of the annual payment will not be the most important subject for RIPE NCC at all.

Moreover, it is not a fact that the INTERNET will remain the same as we are all used to. The time to change something in the near future is gone, it remains only to observe what is happening.

Dmitry Serbulov.

...

Hello everybody

Just remember that this is a conversation that we collectively have quite often and it always ends up at least mildly heated.

Let's try and be nice to each other and remember that almost everyone here is not trying to be unreasonable! To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details.

Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription.

Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/

To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details.

Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription.

Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at:https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details.

Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription.

Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/

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

Dear all,

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

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

The fees set in the models are always going to be criticised - we have seen criticism from a number of perspectives and from different types of members. That is good, however at this stage it is more important to get input on the boundaries (for Model A) and the formula (for Model B). This is because the fees have the potential to increase or decrease over time according to the RIPE NCC’s funding needs. What we are trying to get input on here is the relative distribution of costs between the membership. Equity as a concept is very hard to measure or be objective about - the previous model was a one-fee-per-LIR Account model, which has equality as a key concept. The models we share now do not focus on equality and have differentiation in fees. How equitable these differentiations are is what we need your input on.   And on the point about using Excel-based calculators. We are able to transparently provide a lot of data and information in the spreadsheets that members can use to create different scenarios. Providing all this data and flexibility to calculate scenarios as members wish in a non-Excel application was not something we could do easily given time constraints and internal workload, and the anticipated level of feedback which will require ongoing updates. 

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

Kind regards,

Simon-Jan Haytink Chief Financial Officer RIPE NCC

On 15/12/2025 18:58, sdy@a-n-t.ru wrote:

...

Hi, All!

As I understand, we keep going in circles. Time after time, we are offered the same and same solutions with different sauces. Those with few resources are forced to pay for those who have too many.

Let's do this! Either there will be an option where the payment for IPv4 resources will be strictly linear in the calculation formulas and without any restrictions, or let's LEAVE EVERYTHING AS IT IS.

Looking at the socio-economic situation in the EU, in the next 2-3 years, the issue of calculating the amount of the annual payment will not be the most important subject for RIPE NCC at all.

Moreover, it is not a fact that the INTERNET will remain the same as we are all used to. The time to change something in the near future is gone, it remains only to observe what is happening.

Dmitry Serbulov.

...

Hello everybody

Just remember that this is a conversation that we collectively have quite often and it always ends up at least mildly heated.

Let's try and be nice to each other and remember that almost everyone here is not trying to be unreasonable! To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details.

Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription.

Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/

To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details.

Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription.

Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/

To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details.

Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members- discuss' subscription.

Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/

We seem to have different definitions of fair. Kaj ________________________________ From: D. Walde - Walde IT-Systeme <walde@wcs-online.de> Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2025 20:49 To: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: [members-discuss] Re: Consultation on Future RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Models The models in both A and B are definitely promising. Even regarding the basic distribution of weighting and prices, someone has clearly put a lot of effort into designing a fair system. I support a fair distribution because I myself am one of the small businesses that only received a /24 subnet via the waiting list and could easily use a second or third in the future, for which I would be willing to pay higher fees. Perhaps this will lead to a change of heart among those who own networks, since there are currently no consequences. Fairness begins where others can share. Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen Walde IT-Systemhaus - CEO Dirk Walde - IT-Specialist Mangenberger Str. 76 - D-42655 Solingen - Germany +49(0)212-3833235 - info@walde-it.de<mailto:info@walde-it.de> - http://www.walde-it.de<http://www.walde-it.de/> NETWORK AS203226 + AS199679 + AS199681 / ABUSE: abuse@waldeit.de<mailto:abuse@waldeit.de> ** RIPE NCC Full Member - RIPE LIR Service ** DREG ID: 11/075 (§6 TKG) - TAX ID: DE159795091 Simon-Jan Haytink schrieb: Dear RIPE NCC members, We have opened Phase 1 of the Charging Scheme Consultation and invite your feedback on two proposed models for the annual fee, which represents the significant majority of the RIPE NCC’s income. *What we are consulting on in Phase 1* The RIPE NCC’s income from members consists of two parts - together they make up the Membership Fee: 1. Annual Fee - the main part of our income 2. Additional Fees - currently these are ASN fees, independent assignment fees and other one-off charges In Phase 1, our focus is only on the annual fee, because this is the foundation of the Charging Scheme and the key element for our long-term financial stability. We are asking for your input on two possible annual fee models: - Model A – Category-based model - Model B – Formula-based model For each model, we have published an explanation and an interactive calculator so you can see how your annual fee would be calculated and explore different scenarios based on your IPv4 and IPv6 holdings. You can find the consultation details and the calculators at: https://www.ripe.net/s/cs-model-consultation-phase-1/ *What feedback we would like to hear* At this stage, we are interested in how the models work in practice, not in fixing the final revenue amount. The figures you see are illustrative and not final. We would particularly value your views on questions such as: - Are there too many categories in Model A, or too few? - Are the category boundaries appropriate - Is a formula-based approach (Model B) preferable to a category-based one? - Does the current formula setup make sense, or are there better options? - Do the models adequately reflect the principles defined by the Charging Scheme Task Force, especially the principle of equity? - Are there any issues you can see that we’ve overlooked? Both models are still drafts. Your feedback now is essential before we further develop the models. Please share your input on the Members Discuss mailing list by the end of January 2026. We will of course follow discussions and we will address queries and comments in early January after the holiday season. *Next steps in the consultation* This consultation is part of a three-phase process: - Phase 1 (now): Consult on two annual fee models (A and B), with calculators – published Dec 2025 - Phase 2: Consult on separate fees (e.g. ASN and independent resource fees) – planned for Jan/Feb 2026 - Phase 3: Publish a combined Charging Scheme proposal (Annual Fee + separate fees) that incorporates member feedback from Phases 1 and 2 – planned for April 2026 The final Charging Scheme proposal will be presented for a vote at the RIPE NCC General Meeting in May 2026. I strongly encourage you to review the two models, use the calculators, and share your perspective. Your participation is vital in helping us develop a Charging Scheme that is stable, transparent and equitable. Kind regards, Simon-Jan Haytink Chief Financial Officer RIPE NCC ________________________________ ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/ncc-announce.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/

Hi,

The huge majority of those are the new LIRs that were founded only to grab one of the last free assignments - many only with the goal to sell these IPs again after the prices rise to a 'good' level.

Please refrain yourself to put all this new LIR in the same bag. After having to wait one year and an half to be only to be granted a single /24 while paying the same fees than everyone during this whole time, like the ones who got a /22 without any waitlist not so long ago, I don't really appreciate to be considered like that. To my knowledge, the small LIR you are talking about have emptied the latest IPv4 reserves at the begining of 2022. The IPv4 pool received at this time are free of any transfert restrictions for some time now, even from the late ones. This kind of LIR will disappear over the years. Also, the small LIR paying the minimal fees in both models can be IPv6 only members. Let's not discourage LIR promoting/expanding the IPv6 usage with unappropriate considerations and biaised conclusions. As a reminder, any large IPv4 pool can be replaced by an IPv6 /29, and from a /29 one can make as much allocation as with an IPv4 /5. Kind regards, Alexandre Le 15/12/2025 à 17:25, Kaiser, Karl a écrit :

Hi,

looking at both proposals it strikes me that even the older ISPs, holding larger assignments (talking about something like /10 - /15) will face a huge increase, leaving the only conclusion that only the very small LIRs holding something like /22-/24 assignments will benefit. The huge majority of those are the new LIRs that were founded only to grab one of the last free assignments - many only with the goal to sell these IPs again after the prices rise to a 'good' level. These few LIRs holding larger assignments than that might benefit, but from a budget point of view it doesn't make much of a difference if this handful of LIR pay more or less than before. I'd like to see a calculation of both models getting run against all So as a conclusion: these adjustments are getting made to charge those who have real customers and act as ISPs more and reduce the cost for those with the main goal of using IPs for trading.

Kind regards, Karl

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: thiele@holomua.de <thiele@holomua.de> Gesendet: Montag, 15. Dezember 2025 16:08 An: members-discuss@ripe.net Betreff: [members-discuss] Consultation on Future RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Models

[Sie erhalten nicht häufig E-Mails von thiele@holomua.de. Weitere Informationen, warum dies wichtig ist, finden Sie unter https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]

Hi to everyone,

I have looked at both models. If I have understood the models correctly, it is striking that small and medium-sized LIRs suffer a significant increase in annual fees in both models. Looking at the cost contribution per IP address, it quickly becomes clear that older LIRs with /4 and larger networks in particular are making disproportionately low contributions, even though they have allocated significantly more resources. This should definitely be addressed. Why is the cost contribution per IP not kept linear?

Kind regards Peter

________________________________

Notice: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, notify the sender immediately, destroy all copies from your system and do not disclose or use the information for any purpose.

Diese E-Mail inklusive aller Anhaenge ist vertraulich und koennte bevorrechtigtem Schutz unterliegen. Wenn Sie nicht der beabsichtigte Adressat sind, informieren Sie bitte den Absender unverzueglich, loeschen Sie alle Kopien von Ihrem System und veroeffentlichen Sie oder nutzen Sie die Information keinesfalls, gleich zu welchem Zweck.

Think before you print!

MAGENTA TELEKOM (T-Mobile Austria GmbH) Geschaeftsführung: Mag. Thomas Kicker (Vorsitzender), Aufsichtsrat: Kyra Orth (Vorsitzende)

Firmenbuch: Handelsgericht Wien FN 171112 k, UID ATU 45011703 Konto: UniCredit Bank Austria AG IBAN: AT93 1200 0528 4407 2301, BIC: BKAUATWW ________________________________ 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/