Re: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month
Our task is to prevent the collapse of cooperation. However, the IPv4 situation is creating real tension in the community. The introduction of fees for scarce resources is a step towards solving the problem. And ignoring the situation is, of course, beneficial to speculators, but it will have a disastrous result. If you didn't understand, then redistributing IPv4 addresses, if necessary, is also not so difficult, however, as well as canceling them. Governments work stupid. The experience of forced transition is well known. P.S. Daniel, personaly for you and for 'like' you. Your threats are as stupid as the EU sanctions, any attempt to put pressure on the NCC participants will eventually lead to the collapse of the organization and the termination of RIPE's function as an free network association. As a result, it will not be the INTERNET, but the EURONET, the USANET, RUSNET and etc. When Euro fascism is being restored now. How are EUs doing with the production of shells and missiles? Have the armies been assembled yet? Do EUs like WWAR 3? Do EUs already have "nuclear bunkers"? Or, may be, are EUs hoping that the Russians soldiers will come to the streets of Berlin and Paris again to save Europe once again from dictators like Napoleon and Hitler? Or, that "jungles" will continue sell to "fine garden" resources the for a song? Unfortunately, those days are over. "By yourself, by yourself, by yourself... ". Learn to look for friends, not enemies. The habit of living at the expense of others is vicious. Serbulov Dmitry
Sure, in your personal case, he should apologize for your country brazenly attacking a country that you yourself previously recognized as sovereign.
And yes, a lot of Russians make money by speculating with IPv4. That's the harsh reality. We know about this - but we are not calling for any retroactivity in the rules. Maybe it's weakness, maybe it's just decency.
But yes, it would work. Then a not entirely small part of the address space would be freed up. But "few" Russians will be sad.
It's about working with information. There's a lot of it in the database. Too much. And you're betting on that.
If you really had any sense, you people from Russia wouldn't really be digging into today's system. ;-) Many things can turn against you.
- Daniel
On 5/31/25 11:23 PM, sdy@a-n-t.ru wrote:
Some mistakes (and crimes) not only have no statute of limitations, but can be successfully corrected.
Serbulov Dmitry
Thanks for public confirmation that *YOUR* participation in this discussion about the charging scheme change is just only about you want to grab something for yourself. Just personal profit.
I understand your fluustration. As a German entity you're paying to entity with Russian roots to earn your IPv4. From my point of view to speculators who found weaknesses in the distribution of the last /8 in IPv4 past years. But those rules were created by the community itself.
The responsibility has different aspects. And the aspect of which supplier you choose is one of them. Especially nowadays. You always have a choice. But the solution isn't to vent your personal anger on someone who is not the speculator. Gert isn't the cause of *your* problems.
- Daniel
On 5/31/25 9:22 PM, D. Walde - Walde IT-Systemhaus wrote:
Gerd, I'd suggest you just be social and give me a /24 or /22 via ripe transfer for €50 into your coffee account plus 19% German VAT.
If you don't have a problem with social responsibility among members.
Since I don't have a single IPv4, and you apparently have enough.
Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen Walde IT-Systemhaus - CEO Dirk Walde - IT-Specialist
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.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 from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.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/
Guess you not know, but 2 MOST holder of IPv4 in RIPE its - de.telekom and fr.orange :) Its 100% not Russian companies. If you do some DIG in LEGACY - you also find a lot of members like a UK.MotD who hold /8 IPv4 and similar ;) Moreover, these big EU holders prevent to make a charging for LEGACY resources and prevent pay by size fee :) P.S. most of LIRs in RIPE its UK, DE and TR - all countries is EU zone :) Im strongly suggest for you and other members - keep discussing as politics free place. Thanks. On 31.05.2025 21:32, Daniel Suchy via members-discuss wrote:
Sure, in your personal case, he should apologize for your country brazenly attacking a country that you yourself previously recognized as sovereign.
And yes, a lot of Russians make money by speculating with IPv4. That's the harsh reality. We know about this - but we are not calling for any retroactivity in the rules. Maybe it's weakness, maybe it's just decency.
But yes, it would work. Then a not entirely small part of the address space would be freed up. But "few" Russians will be sad.
It's about working with information. There's a lot of it in the database. Too much. And you're betting on that.
If you really had any sense, you people from Russia wouldn't really be digging into today's system. ;-) Many things can turn against you.
- Daniel
On 5/31/25 11:23 PM, sdy@a-n-t.ru wrote:
Some mistakes (and crimes) not only have no statute of limitations, but can be successfully corrected.
Serbulov Dmitry
Thanks for public confirmation that *YOUR* participation in this discussion about the charging scheme change is just only about you want to grab something for yourself. Just personal profit.
I understand your fluustration. As a German entity you're paying to entity with Russian roots to earn your IPv4. From my point of view to speculators who found weaknesses in the distribution of the last /8 in IPv4 past years. But those rules were created by the community itself.
The responsibility has different aspects. And the aspect of which supplier you choose is one of them. Especially nowadays. You always have a choice. But the solution isn't to vent your personal anger on someone who is not the speculator. Gert isn't the cause of *your* problems.
- Daniel
On 5/31/25 9:22 PM, D. Walde - Walde IT-Systemhaus wrote:
Gerd, I'd suggest you just be social and give me a /24 or /22 via ripe transfer for €50 into your coffee account plus 19% German VAT.
If you don't have a problem with social responsibility among members.
Since I don't have a single IPv4, and you apparently have enough.
Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen Walde IT-Systemhaus - CEO Dirk Walde - IT-Specialist
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.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 from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.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/
Le Sun, Jun 01, 2025 at 02:43:01AM +0000, ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED a écrit :
Moreover, these big EU holders prevent to make a charging for LEGACY resources and prevent pay by size fee :)
"1 member, 1 vote" just makes it impossible for a "big" member to block a change in policy if the majority is in favor. Moreover when there is only 10% of members voting, I would say that is a chance for people in favor of change as they only need to convince 10% of the members to turn the table :) Anyway, if talking about IPv6 is not relevant to the subject, then neither talking about IPv4 is :) I find the "1 member, 1 fee" fair yet I recognized that the membership may be too expensive for some countries in the RIPE NCC servicing area. I don't have a definitive opinion about the right charging scheme. Some will say there are too many side projects (Atlas, etc.) and they should be removed or paid only by users. Or maybe have less fancy office (but I'd like the employees to have a nice work place). Or don't go to the Cloud. Or don't rework the website every year. I am sure we can find many ways to lower expenses which would be a good start. -- Denis Fondras / Liopen
Well, here’s a true Russian. Always happy to rule the world. Kind regards, Miroslav Kozarik
01.06.25 v 3:10, sdy@a-n-t.ru:
Our task is to prevent the collapse of cooperation. However, the IPv4 situation is creating real tension in the community. The introduction of fees for scarce resources is a step towards solving the problem. And ignoring the situation is, of course, beneficial to speculators, but it will have a disastrous result.
If you didn't understand, then redistributing IPv4 addresses, if necessary, is also not so difficult, however, as well as canceling them. Governments work stupid. The experience of forced transition is well known.
P.S. Daniel, personaly for you and for 'like' you.
Your threats are as stupid as the EU sanctions, any attempt to put pressure on the NCC participants will eventually lead to the collapse of the organization and the termination of RIPE's function as an free network association. As a result, it will not be the INTERNET, but the EURONET, the USANET, RUSNET and etc.
When Euro fascism is being restored now. How are EUs doing with the production of shells and missiles? Have the armies been assembled yet? Do EUs like WWAR 3? Do EUs already have "nuclear bunkers"? Or, may be, are EUs hoping that the Russians soldiers will come to the streets of Berlin and Paris again to save Europe once again from dictators like Napoleon and Hitler? Or, that "jungles" will continue sell to "fine garden" resources the for a song? Unfortunately, those days are over. "By yourself, by yourself, by yourself... ".
Learn to look for friends, not enemies. The habit of living at the expense of others is vicious.
Serbulov Dmitry
Sure, in your personal case, he should apologize for your country brazenly attacking a country that you yourself previously recognized as sovereign.
And yes, a lot of Russians make money by speculating with IPv4. That's the harsh reality. We know about this - but we are not calling for any retroactivity in the rules. Maybe it's weakness, maybe it's just decency.
But yes, it would work. Then a not entirely small part of the address space would be freed up. But "few" Russians will be sad.
It's about working with information. There's a lot of it in the database. Too much. And you're betting on that.
If you really had any sense, you people from Russia wouldn't really be digging into today's system. ;-) Many things can turn against you.
- Daniel
On 5/31/25 11:23 PM, sdy@a-n-t.ru wrote: Some mistakes (and crimes) not only have no statute of limitations, but can be successfully corrected.
Serbulov Dmitry
Thanks for public confirmation that *YOUR* participation in this discussion about the charging scheme change is just only about you want to grab something for yourself. Just personal profit.
I understand your fluustration. As a German entity you're paying to entity with Russian roots to earn your IPv4. From my point of view to speculators who found weaknesses in the distribution of the last /8 in IPv4 past years. But those rules were created by the community itself.
The responsibility has different aspects. And the aspect of which supplier you choose is one of them. Especially nowadays. You always have a choice. But the solution isn't to vent your personal anger on someone who is not the speculator. Gert isn't the cause of *your* problems.
- Daniel
On 5/31/25 9:22 PM, D. Walde - Walde IT-Systemhaus wrote:
Gerd, I'd suggest you just be social and give me a /24 or /22 via ripe transfer for €50 into your coffee account plus 19% German VAT.
If you don't have a problem with social responsibility among members.
Since I don't have a single IPv4, and you apparently have enough.
Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen Walde IT-Systemhaus - CEO Dirk Walde - IT-Specialist
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.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 from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.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 from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.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/
Many LIR aren't interrested by the additional services provided by the RIPE NCC. Having a fixed membership fees pushes the smallest LIR to either migrate to an other RIR, or to merge with other LIR to reduce exploitation costs. If the incencitive to make the smallest LIR to close or leave the RIPE NCC continues, that will mean increase of the membership fees for all the remaining LIR. And like that, by the end of the decade, the fees will be with 5 figures, and there will be only big players remaining, effectively owning the RIPE NCC. I'm not sure many orgs will enjoy this situation. Kind regards, Alexandre Le 31/05/2025 à 16:05, Kaj Niemi a écrit :
ARIN offers much less ancillary services than RIPE. Imagine what would happen if RIPE's budget would be reduced and no one would have to pay more.
Anyway, I don't like the name calling that you do. It is not very professional or considerate.
Kaj
Sent from my iPad
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net> *Sent:* Saturday, May 31, 2025 4:45:32 PM *To:* Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> *Cc:* Gert Doering <gert@space.net>; members-discuss@ripe.net <members- discuss@ripe.net> *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month I think that small LIRs are better off moving to ARIN instead of arguing with the greedy Gerts of this world. You're leaving us no choice, pulling every trick in the book, just to avoid paying ONE additional Euro to RIPE's budget.
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 16:32 Jean Salim, <jean@bsmart-isp.net <mailto:jean@bsmart-isp.net>> wrote:
That's the ARIN fee structure, Gert, you'd end up paying 4000 EUR only while a small LIR with one /24 pays around 250 EUR Is that too much? I honestly don't comprehend why you're fighting it this much.
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 16:28 Kaj Niemi, <kajtzu@basen.net <mailto:kajtzu@basen.net>> wrote:
I think you misunderstand me.
Saying “the other RIRs do this, we must too” doesn’t make it right, fair, better, or even worse. Nothing provided supports why they’ve made that decision. Yet you're convinced it is better. Ok. I politely once again observe it'll be better for you.
You claim that tiered is better than flat. But in flat everyone pays the same. How can paying the same for membership be unfair?
I'm not the biggest fan of the RIPE NCC budget nor what it spends the funds on, as evidenced by previous posts over the years, yet here I'm arguing for it. Nuts.
Kaj (who qualified for the _extra small_ category in 2008 and every year since)
Sent from my iPad
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net <mailto:jean@bsmart- isp.net>> *Sent:* Saturday, May 31, 2025 4:06 PM *To:* Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net <mailto:kajtzu@basen.net>> *Cc:* Gert Doering <gert@space.net <mailto:gert@space.net>>; members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> <members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month Let me understand you well, we shouldn't have tiered charging because other LIRs are doing it and that would be copying? A tiered model is not right because it's of the benefit of the large majority of LIRs, but because it's fair. What has the cost per IP or economies of scale have anything to do with this discussion, this discussion is how to FAIRLY distribute the RIPE costs, and anyone that's 5 years or older knows that this current flat fee is very unfair for most LIRs, which are small. I don't understand why large LIRs are so much against this. Nobody's asking you to pay millions, but come on, it's only fair that you pay a bit more than LIRs with one /24 allocation are you that greedy?
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 15:53 Kaj Niemi, <kajtzu@basen.net <mailto:kajtzu@basen.net>> wrote:
Assuming Gert (or his employer) really has 11872 addresses, as you claim, the LTV is significantly higher to the organization considering what they've paid over the years.
Besides your statement, that a tiered model is the right thing to do [for your benefit is implied here], there isn't anything supporting it. There is a term for copying another someone else's charging scheme or business model. It's called cargo culting. They might have made other assumptions than what you have.
Similarly, I can claim that it cannot be a cost issue because, given current pricing, at less than two cents per day per IP address the pricing structure is certainly sustainable by anyone and thus fair given what we know about the market. Yes, if you have more addresses your cost per address will be even lower. Economies of scale and all that. What you seemingly want to do is to drive your own cost down at the expense of others. Which is far from fair.
Kaj (who doesn't have 11872 addresses)
Sent from my iPad
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net <mailto:jean@bsmart- isp.net>> *Sent:* Saturday, May 31, 2025 3:17 PM *To:* Gert Doering <gert@space.net <mailto:gert@space.net>> *Cc:* members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members- discuss@ripe.net> <members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members- discuss@ripe.net>> *Subject:* [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month And by the way, for those that say it has to be a flat fee because of taxes in the Netherlands or whatever. Currently there's a fee per ASN, so the LIRs pay 50 EUR ASN which isn't a flat fee. A tiered model is possible and the right thing to do (again, everyone other than RIPE does it) Only objectors are people like Gert that manage 11872 IPv4 and want to keep paying the same fees as someone that hold 256 IPs
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:45 Jean Salim, <jean@bsmart-isp.net <mailto:jean@bsmart-isp.net>> wrote:
That's not true, last time you were afraid of even putting a tiered model on the ballot while the vast majority of LIRs (which are very small LIRs) wanted to have an option to vote on a tiered model, but you didn't even have the guts to put it to vote.
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:41 Gert Doering, <gert@space.net <mailto:gert@space.net>> wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 01:36:27PM +0300, Jean Salim wrote: > We missed you Gert, I was surprised you disappeared as you're always the > one to mislead the conversation away from charging scheme. > I would like yo hear your proposal on an alternative charging scheme that > more fair to small LIRs. > I myself, as pointed out before, prefer the ARIN model.
"1 LIR, 1 vote, 1 fee for the membership" seems to be the one where most LIRs can actually *agree* on.
Every charging scheme will be unfair to some - we had categories, and that was unfair to some, we had flat fees, and those are unfair to some, and even if we introduce fee-by-/24, it will be unfair to some.
Even if we totally ignore IPv4, there will still be people that say "someone with a larger yearly budget should pay more", and "non-profit members should be free!", and maybe they are right. But if we go there, some people will have to pay more than they did the year before, and they will find this unfair.
Conclusions left as homework to the reader.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 <https://www.google.com/ maps/search/Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen+14? entry=gmail&source=g> Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.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/
100% Alexandre, the below accurately describes what has been happening and what will keep on happening if the current board doesn't take concrete action to introduce tiered charging fees. Many LIR aren't interrested by the additional services provided by the RIPE NCC. Having a fixed membership fees pushes the smallest LIR to either migrate to an other RIR, or to merge with other LIR to reduce exploitation costs. If the incencitive to make the smallest LIR to close or leave the RIPE NCC continues, that will mean increase of the membership fees for all the remaining LIR. And like that, by the end of the decade, the fees will be with 5 figures, and there will be only big players remaining, effectively owning the RIPE NCC. I'm not sure many orgs will enjoy this situation. On Mon, Jun 2, 2025 at 11:49 AM Alexandre <alexandre-ripe-ncc@lotharedon.org> wrote:
Many LIR aren't interrested by the additional services provided by the RIPE NCC. Having a fixed membership fees pushes the smallest LIR to either migrate to an other RIR, or to merge with other LIR to reduce exploitation costs. If the incencitive to make the smallest LIR to close or leave the RIPE NCC continues, that will mean increase of the membership fees for all the remaining LIR. And like that, by the end of the decade, the fees will be with 5 figures, and there will be only big players remaining, effectively owning the RIPE NCC. I'm not sure many orgs will enjoy this situation.
Kind regards, Alexandre
Le 31/05/2025 à 16:05, Kaj Niemi a écrit :
ARIN offers much less ancillary services than RIPE. Imagine what would happen if RIPE's budget would be reduced and no one would have to pay more.
Anyway, I don't like the name calling that you do. It is not very professional or considerate.
Kaj
Sent from my iPad
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net> *Sent:* Saturday, May 31, 2025 4:45:32 PM *To:* Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> *Cc:* Gert Doering <gert@space.net>; members-discuss@ripe.net <members- discuss@ripe.net> *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month I think that small LIRs are better off moving to ARIN instead of arguing with the greedy Gerts of this world. You're leaving us no choice, pulling every trick in the book, just to avoid paying ONE additional Euro to RIPE's budget.
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 16:32 Jean Salim, <jean@bsmart-isp.net <mailto:jean@bsmart-isp.net>> wrote:
That's the ARIN fee structure, Gert, you'd end up paying 4000 EUR only while a small LIR with one /24 pays around 250 EUR Is that too much? I honestly don't comprehend why you're fighting it this much.
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 16:28 Kaj Niemi, <kajtzu@basen.net <mailto:kajtzu@basen.net>> wrote:
I think you misunderstand me.
Saying “the other RIRs do this, we must too” doesn’t make it right, fair, better, or even worse. Nothing provided supports why they’ve made that decision. Yet you're convinced it is better. Ok. I politely once again observe it'll be better for you.
You claim that tiered is better than flat. But in flat everyone pays the same. How can paying the same for membership be unfair?
I'm not the biggest fan of the RIPE NCC budget nor what it spends the funds on, as evidenced by previous posts over the years, yet here I'm arguing for it. Nuts.
Kaj (who qualified for the _extra small_ category in 2008 and every year since)
Sent from my iPad
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net <mailto:jean@bsmart- isp.net>> *Sent:* Saturday, May 31, 2025 4:06 PM *To:* Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net <mailto:kajtzu@basen.net>> *Cc:* Gert Doering <gert@space.net <mailto:gert@space.net>>; members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> <members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month Let me understand you well, we shouldn't have tiered charging because other LIRs are doing it and that would be copying? A tiered model is not right because it's of the benefit of the large majority of LIRs, but because it's fair. What has the cost per IP or economies of scale have anything to do with this discussion, this discussion is how to FAIRLY distribute the RIPE costs, and anyone that's 5 years or older knows that this current flat fee is very unfair for most LIRs, which are small. I don't understand why large LIRs are so much against this. Nobody's asking you to pay millions, but come on, it's only fair that you pay a bit more than LIRs with one /24 allocation are you that greedy?
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 15:53 Kaj Niemi, <kajtzu@basen.net <mailto:kajtzu@basen.net>> wrote:
Assuming Gert (or his employer) really has 11872 addresses, as you claim, the LTV is significantly higher to the organization considering what they've paid over the years.
Besides your statement, that a tiered model is the right thing to do [for your benefit is implied here], there isn't anything supporting it. There is a term for copying another someone else's charging scheme or business model. It's called cargo culting. They might have made other assumptions than what you have.
Similarly, I can claim that it cannot be a cost issue because, given current pricing, at less than two cents per day per IP address the pricing structure is certainly sustainable by anyone and thus fair given what we know about the market. Yes, if you have more addresses your cost per address will be even lower. Economies of scale and all that. What you seemingly want to do is to drive your own cost down at the expense of others. Which is far from fair.
Kaj (who doesn't have 11872 addresses)
Sent from my iPad
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net <mailto:jean@bsmart- isp.net>> *Sent:* Saturday, May 31, 2025 3:17 PM *To:* Gert Doering <gert@space.net <mailto:gert@space.net>> *Cc:* members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members- discuss@ripe.net> <members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members- discuss@ripe.net>> *Subject:* [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the
month
And by the way, for those that say it has to be a flat fee because of taxes in the Netherlands or whatever. Currently there's a fee per ASN, so the LIRs pay 50 EUR ASN which isn't a flat fee. A tiered model is possible and the right thing to do (again, everyone other than RIPE does it) Only objectors are people like Gert that manage 11872 IPv4 and want to keep paying the same fees as someone that hold 256 IPs
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:45 Jean Salim, <jean@bsmart-isp.net <mailto:jean@bsmart-isp.net>> wrote:
That's not true, last time you were afraid of even putting a tiered model on the ballot while the vast majority of LIRs (which are very small LIRs) wanted to have an option to vote on a tiered model, but you didn't even have the guts to put it to vote.
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:41 Gert Doering, <gert@space.net <mailto:gert@space.net>> wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 01:36:27PM +0300, Jean Salim wrote: > We missed you Gert, I was surprised you disappeared as you're always the > one to mislead the conversation away from charging scheme. > I would like yo hear your proposal on an alternative charging scheme that > more fair to small LIRs. > I myself, as pointed out before, prefer the ARIN model.
"1 LIR, 1 vote, 1 fee for the membership" seems to be the one where most LIRs can actually *agree* on.
Every charging scheme will be unfair to some - we had categories, and that was unfair to some, we had flat fees, and those are unfair to some, and even if we introduce fee-by-/24, it will be unfair to some.
Even if we totally ignore IPv4, there will still be people that say "someone with a larger yearly budget should pay more", and "non-profit members should be free!", and maybe they are right. But if we go there, some people will have to pay more than they did the year before, and they will find this unfair.
Conclusions left as homework to the reader.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 <https://www.google.com/ maps/search/Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen+14? entry=gmail&source=g> Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.:
DE813185279
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription
options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.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 from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.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/
Your projection is 3600 LIRs left 1.1.2030 (36M/10k)? The official forecasts are nowhere near this. What data are you using? Kaj ________________________________ From: Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net> Sent: Monday, June 2, 2025 11:57 To: Alexandre <alexandre-ripe-ncc@lotharedon.org> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month 100% Alexandre, the below accurately describes what has been happening and what will keep on happening if the current board doesn't take concrete action to introduce tiered charging fees. Many LIR aren't interrested by the additional services provided by the RIPE NCC. Having a fixed membership fees pushes the smallest LIR to either migrate to an other RIR, or to merge with other LIR to reduce exploitation costs. If the incencitive to make the smallest LIR to close or leave the RIPE NCC continues, that will mean increase of the membership fees for all the remaining LIR. And like that, by the end of the decade, the fees will be with 5 figures, and there will be only big players remaining, effectively owning the RIPE NCC. I'm not sure many orgs will enjoy this situation. On Mon, Jun 2, 2025 at 11:49 AM Alexandre <alexandre-ripe-ncc@lotharedon.org<mailto:alexandre-ripe-ncc@lotharedon.org>> wrote: Many LIR aren't interrested by the additional services provided by the RIPE NCC. Having a fixed membership fees pushes the smallest LIR to either migrate to an other RIR, or to merge with other LIR to reduce exploitation costs. If the incencitive to make the smallest LIR to close or leave the RIPE NCC continues, that will mean increase of the membership fees for all the remaining LIR. And like that, by the end of the decade, the fees will be with 5 figures, and there will be only big players remaining, effectively owning the RIPE NCC. I'm not sure many orgs will enjoy this situation. Kind regards, Alexandre Le 31/05/2025 à 16:05, Kaj Niemi a écrit :
ARIN offers much less ancillary services than RIPE. Imagine what would happen if RIPE's budget would be reduced and no one would have to pay more.
Anyway, I don't like the name calling that you do. It is not very professional or considerate.
Kaj
Sent from my iPad
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net<mailto:jean@bsmart-isp.net>> *Sent:* Saturday, May 31, 2025 4:45:32 PM *To:* Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net<mailto:kajtzu@basen.net>> *Cc:* Gert Doering <gert@space.net<mailto:gert@space.net>>; members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> <members- discuss@ripe.net<mailto:discuss@ripe.net>> *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month I think that small LIRs are better off moving to ARIN instead of arguing with the greedy Gerts of this world. You're leaving us no choice, pulling every trick in the book, just to avoid paying ONE additional Euro to RIPE's budget.
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 16:32 Jean Salim, <jean@bsmart-isp.net<mailto:jean@bsmart-isp.net> <mailto:jean@bsmart-isp.net<mailto:jean@bsmart-isp.net>>> wrote:
That's the ARIN fee structure, Gert, you'd end up paying 4000 EUR only while a small LIR with one /24 pays around 250 EUR Is that too much? I honestly don't comprehend why you're fighting it this much.
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 16:28 Kaj Niemi, <kajtzu@basen.net<mailto:kajtzu@basen.net> <mailto:kajtzu@basen.net<mailto:kajtzu@basen.net>>> wrote:
I think you misunderstand me.
Saying “the other RIRs do this, we must too” doesn’t make it right, fair, better, or even worse. Nothing provided supports why they’ve made that decision. Yet you're convinced it is better. Ok. I politely once again observe it'll be better for you.
You claim that tiered is better than flat. But in flat everyone pays the same. How can paying the same for membership be unfair?
I'm not the biggest fan of the RIPE NCC budget nor what it spends the funds on, as evidenced by previous posts over the years, yet here I'm arguing for it. Nuts.
Kaj (who qualified for the _extra small_ category in 2008 and every year since)
Sent from my iPad
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net<mailto:jean@bsmart-isp.net> <mailto:jean@bsmart-<mailto:jean@bsmart-> isp.net<http://isp.net/>>> *Sent:* Saturday, May 31, 2025 4:06 PM *To:* Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net<mailto:kajtzu@basen.net> <mailto:kajtzu@basen.net<mailto:kajtzu@basen.net>>> *Cc:* Gert Doering <gert@space.net<mailto:gert@space.net> <mailto:gert@space.net<mailto:gert@space.net>>>; members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> <members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>>> *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month Let me understand you well, we shouldn't have tiered charging because other LIRs are doing it and that would be copying? A tiered model is not right because it's of the benefit of the large majority of LIRs, but because it's fair. What has the cost per IP or economies of scale have anything to do with this discussion, this discussion is how to FAIRLY distribute the RIPE costs, and anyone that's 5 years or older knows that this current flat fee is very unfair for most LIRs, which are small. I don't understand why large LIRs are so much against this. Nobody's asking you to pay millions, but come on, it's only fair that you pay a bit more than LIRs with one /24 allocation are you that greedy?
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 15:53 Kaj Niemi, <kajtzu@basen.net<mailto:kajtzu@basen.net> <mailto:kajtzu@basen.net<mailto:kajtzu@basen.net>>> wrote:
Assuming Gert (or his employer) really has 11872 addresses, as you claim, the LTV is significantly higher to the organization considering what they've paid over the years.
Besides your statement, that a tiered model is the right thing to do [for your benefit is implied here], there isn't anything supporting it. There is a term for copying another someone else's charging scheme or business model. It's called cargo culting. They might have made other assumptions than what you have.
Similarly, I can claim that it cannot be a cost issue because, given current pricing, at less than two cents per day per IP address the pricing structure is certainly sustainable by anyone and thus fair given what we know about the market. Yes, if you have more addresses your cost per address will be even lower. Economies of scale and all that. What you seemingly want to do is to drive your own cost down at the expense of others. Which is far from fair.
Kaj (who doesn't have 11872 addresses)
Sent from my iPad
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net<mailto:jean@bsmart-isp.net> <mailto:jean@bsmart-<mailto:jean@bsmart-> isp.net<http://isp.net/>>> *Sent:* Saturday, May 31, 2025 3:17 PM *To:* Gert Doering <gert@space.net<mailto:gert@space.net> <mailto:gert@space.net<mailto:gert@space.net>>> *Cc:* members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> <mailto:members-<mailto:members-> discuss@ripe.net<mailto:discuss@ripe.net>> <members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> <mailto:members-<mailto:members-> discuss@ripe.net<mailto:discuss@ripe.net>>> *Subject:* [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month And by the way, for those that say it has to be a flat fee because of taxes in the Netherlands or whatever. Currently there's a fee per ASN, so the LIRs pay 50 EUR ASN which isn't a flat fee. A tiered model is possible and the right thing to do (again, everyone other than RIPE does it) Only objectors are people like Gert that manage 11872 IPv4 and want to keep paying the same fees as someone that hold 256 IPs
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:45 Jean Salim, <jean@bsmart-isp.net<mailto:jean@bsmart-isp.net> <mailto:jean@bsmart-isp.net<mailto:jean@bsmart-isp.net>>> wrote:
That's not true, last time you were afraid of even putting a tiered model on the ballot while the vast majority of LIRs (which are very small LIRs) wanted to have an option to vote on a tiered model, but you didn't even have the guts to put it to vote.
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:41 Gert Doering, <gert@space.net<mailto:gert@space.net> <mailto:gert@space.net<mailto:gert@space.net>>> wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 01:36:27PM +0300, Jean Salim wrote: > We missed you Gert, I was surprised you disappeared as you're always the > one to mislead the conversation away from charging scheme. > I would like yo hear your proposal on an alternative charging scheme that > more fair to small LIRs. > I myself, as pointed out before, prefer the ARIN model.
"1 LIR, 1 vote, 1 fee for the membership" seems to be the one where most LIRs can actually *agree* on.
Every charging scheme will be unfair to some - we had categories, and that was unfair to some, we had flat fees, and those are unfair to some, and even if we introduce fee-by-/24, it will be unfair to some.
Even if we totally ignore IPv4, there will still be people that say "someone with a larger yearly budget should pay more", and "non-profit members should be free!", and maybe they are right. But if we go there, some people will have to pay more than they did the year before, and they will find this unfair.
Conclusions left as homework to the reader.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 <https://www.google.com/ maps/search/Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen+14? entry=gmail&source=g> Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.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 from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.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/
Many LIRs? I thing "few" is better word here. Each member has right to vote in many questions ultimately affects what services are provided. As a result, we vote ourselves out what RIPE does. ~20% members activelly voted (on last GM). The rest simply don't care, it doesn't bother them. From number of non-voters, it's impossible to infer their interest or disinterest. Not voting is also a way to exercise the right to vote. But let's not use the false argument that they aren't interested by additional services. There's no evidence for that. - Daniel On 6/2/25 10:43 AM, Alexandre wrote:
Many LIR aren't interrested by the additional services provided by the RIPE NCC. Having a fixed membership fees pushes the smallest LIR to either migrate to an other RIR, or to merge with other LIR to reduce exploitation costs. If the incencitive to make the smallest LIR to close or leave the RIPE NCC continues, that will mean increase of the membership fees for all the remaining LIR. And like that, by the end of the decade, the fees will be with 5 figures, and there will be only big players remaining, effectively owning the RIPE NCC. I'm not sure many orgs will enjoy this situation.
But let's not use the false argument that they aren't interested by additional services. There's no evidence for that.
My point isn't about the RIPE NCC services but the reduction of the number of members, which will mecanically increase the membership fees. The services provided by ARIN are good enough for all the LIR associated to this RIR. What makes the RIPE NCC region so special that we can't be satisfied by the ARIN services ? Especially when the fees are in a different order of magnitude. On my side, I'm aware of a big bunch of LIR ready to migrate to ARIN, especially with the LIR registration rule changes proposed this year. Yes they are probably the smallest LIR (actually not all of them, there are few notable actors), but when they will leave, how the RIPE NCC will manage the account balances in your opinion ? As a reminder, the last membership fees evolved partly because of merging and migrating LIR.
Many LIRs? I thing "few" is better word here. Each member has right to vote in many questions ultimately affects what services are provided.
"Few" in percentage is enough to start this migration. And it already started with the LIR merges this last years, else we wouldn't have this discussion now.
~20% members activelly voted (on last GM). The rest simply don't care, it doesn't bother them. From number of non-voters, it's impossible to infer their interest or disinterest. Not voting is also a way to exercise the right to vote.
The main big picture question in this aspect is : in the long run, would you prefer to make a significant part of this 20% of LIR disappear from the RIPE NCC region, with the increase fees associated, and be stuck with players bigger than you which don't care of "small" LIR like yours (unless you are AWS of Orange, you are always a small LIR compared to the biggest), or do you prefer to keep some diversity in the RIPE NCC ? Kind regards, Alexandre Le 02/06/2025 à 11:08, Daniel Suchy via members-discuss a écrit :
Many LIRs? I thing "few" is better word here. Each member has right to vote in many questions ultimately affects what services are provided.
As a result, we vote ourselves out what RIPE does.
~20% members activelly voted (on last GM). The rest simply don't care, it doesn't bother them. From number of non-voters, it's impossible to infer their interest or disinterest. Not voting is also a way to exercise the right to vote.
But let's not use the false argument that they aren't interested by additional services. There's no evidence for that.
- Daniel
On 6/2/25 10:43 AM, Alexandre wrote:
Many LIR aren't interrested by the additional services provided by the RIPE NCC. Having a fixed membership fees pushes the smallest LIR to either migrate to an other RIR, or to merge with other LIR to reduce exploitation costs. If the incencitive to make the smallest LIR to close or leave the RIPE NCC continues, that will mean increase of the membership fees for all the remaining LIR. And like that, by the end of the decade, the fees will be with 5 figures, and there will be only big players remaining, effectively owning the RIPE NCC. I'm not sure many orgs will enjoy this situation.
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members- discuss.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/
Many LIRs? I thing "few" is better word here. Each member has right to vote in many questions ultimately affects what services are provided.
As a result, we vote ourselves out what RIPE does.
~20% members activelly voted (on last GM). The rest simply don't care, Really? https://labs.ripe.net/author/ilke-ilhan/gm-may-2025-a-deep-dive-into-low-tur... This GM definitely stands out with a fall in voter participation. Out of 19,713 eligible members, 1,207 registered to vote and 1,039 cast
On Mon, 2025-06-02 at 11:08 +0200, Daniel Suchy via members-discuss wrote: their votes, resulting in a 5.3% turnout.
it doesn't bother them. From number of non-voters, it's impossible to infer their interest or disinterest. Not voting is also a way to exercise the right to vote.
But let's not use the false argument that they aren't interested by additional services. There's no evidence for that.
- Daniel
On 6/2/25 10:43 AM, Alexandre wrote:
Many LIR aren't interrested by the additional services provided by the RIPE NCC. Having a fixed membership fees pushes the smallest LIR to either migrate to an other RIR, or to merge with other LIR to reduce exploitation costs. If the incencitive to make the smallest LIR to close or leave the RIPE NCC continues, that will mean increase of the membership fees for all the remaining LIR. And like that, by the end of the decade, the fees will be with 5 figures, and there will be only big players remaining, effectively owning the RIPE NCC. I'm not sure many orgs will enjoy this situation.
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.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/
I say more... in this discussions only near 20-30 LIRs is active! It's looks like "a dead end". Serbulov Dmitry
Many LIRs? I thing "few" is better word here. Each member has right to vote in many questions ultimately affects what services are provided.
As a result, we vote ourselves out what RIPE does.
~20% members activelly voted (on last GM). The rest simply don't care, Really? https://labs.ripe.net/author/ilke-ilhan/gm-may-2025-a-deep-dive-into-low-tur... This GM definitely stands out with a fall in voter participation. Out of 19,713 eligible members, 1,207 registered to vote and 1,039 cast
On Mon, 2025-06-02 at 11:08 +0200, Daniel Suchy via members-discuss wrote: their votes, resulting in a 5.3% turnout.
it doesn't bother them. From number of non-voters, it's impossible to infer their interest or disinterest. Not voting is also a way to exercise the right to vote.
But let's not use the false argument that they aren't interested by additional services. There's no evidence for that.
- Daniel
On 6/2/25 10:43 AM, Alexandre wrote:
Many LIR aren't interrested by the additional services provided by the RIPE NCC. Having a fixed membership fees pushes the smallest LIR to either migrate to an other RIR, or to merge with other LIR to reduce exploitation costs. If the incencitive to make the smallest LIR to close or leave the RIPE NCC continues, that will mean increase of the membership fees for all the remaining LIR. And like that, by the end of the decade, the fees will be with 5 figures, and there will be only big players remaining, effectively owning the RIPE NCC. I'm not sure many orgs will enjoy this situation.
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.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 from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.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/
On 2 Jun 2025, at 20:02, sdy@a-n-t.ru wrote:
I say more... in this discussions only near 20-30 LIRs is active! It's looks like "a dead end".
That's because this thread is a repeat of last year, and possibly earlier. Partially in response to that, a task force was set up, with representatives from different types/origins of members, who wrote an excellent and thorough report. The report addresses many recurring ideas and questions, and makes clear recommendations. It feels like I should mention here that fixing IPv4 exhaustion was not within the scope or capabilities of the task force. This thread, originally a request for comments on that report, has had very few comments on the report. In fact, the mails in this giant thread make me question how many people in it have actually read the report. Which is too bad, because it's excellent work, and presents ideas on how we can actually move forward instead of in circles. Perhaps other members are simply bored of the repetition, and see no value in adding to this thread. Sasha
I agree, the report is not bad. But the report itself won't change anything. I initially made suggestions for changes, but also did not see any feedback (except for the clarification question). Serbulov Dmitry.
On 2 Jun 2025, at 20:02, sdy@a-n-t.ru wrote:
I say more... in this discussions only near 20-30 LIRs is active! It's looks like "a dead end".
That's because this thread is a repeat of last year, and possibly earlier. Partially in response to that, a task force was set up, with representatives from different types/origins of members, who wrote an excellent and thorough report. The report addresses many recurring ideas and questions, and makes clear recommendations. It feels like I should mention here that fixing IPv4 exhaustion was not within the scope or capabilities of the task force.
This thread, originally a request for comments on that report, has had very few comments on the report. In fact, the mails in this giant thread make me question how many people in it have actually read the report. Which is too bad, because it's excellent work, and presents ideas on how we can actually move forward instead of in circles.
Perhaps other members are simply bored of the repetition, and see no value in adding to this thread.
Sasha ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.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/
----------------------------- С уважением Сербулов Дмитрий ООО "Альфа Нет Телеком" +7(498)785-8-000 раб. +7(495)940-92-11 доп. +7(925)518-10-69 сот.
We should start with the elections. I'm just thinking this out loud. 1. Elections should last 30/31 days (possibly 4 weeks/28 days) or from the 1st of the month to the end of the month. We have time, or does one of you need to know the results tomorrow? OK. 2. Bonuses for voters, e.g., credits for courses and exams. 3. Or, votes cast should be recorded as an election point, and as long as there are more "no votes" than "votes," the election must be repeated. Then it might just take a while for elections to take place. A vote below 30% is ridiculous; below 50%, an election should be declared void and restarted. Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen Walde IT-Systemhaus - CEO Dirk Walde - IT-Specialist Daniel Suchy via members-discuss schrieb:
Many LIRs? I thing "few" is better word here. Each member has right to vote in many questions ultimately affects what services are provided.
As a result, we vote ourselves out what RIPE does.
~20% members activelly voted (on last GM). The rest simply don't care, it doesn't bother them. From number of non-voters, it's impossible to infer their interest or disinterest. Not voting is also a way to exercise the right to vote.
But let's not use the false argument that they aren't interested by additional services. There's no evidence for that.
- Daniel
On 6/2/25 10:43 AM, Alexandre wrote:
Many LIR aren't interrested by the additional services provided by the RIPE NCC. Having a fixed membership fees pushes the smallest LIR to either migrate to an other RIR, or to merge with other LIR to reduce exploitation costs. If the incencitive to make the smallest LIR to close or leave the RIPE NCC continues, that will mean increase of the membership fees for all the remaining LIR. And like that, by the end of the decade, the fees will be with 5 figures, and there will be only big players remaining, effectively owning the RIPE NCC. I'm not sure many orgs will enjoy this situation.
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.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/
You cannot force people to vote, you know. Kaj ________________________________ From: D. Walde - Walde IT-Systemhaus <walde@wcs-online.de> Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 00:01 To: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net>; Daniel Suchy <danny@danysek.cz> Subject: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month We should start with the elections. I'm just thinking this out loud. 1. Elections should last 30/31 days (possibly 4 weeks/28 days) or from the 1st of the month to the end of the month. We have time, or does one of you need to know the results tomorrow? OK. 2. Bonuses for voters, e.g., credits for courses and exams. 3. Or, votes cast should be recorded as an election point, and as long as there are more "no votes" than "votes," the election must be repeated. Then it might just take a while for elections to take place. A vote below 30% is ridiculous; below 50%, an election should be declared void and restarted. Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen Walde IT-Systemhaus - CEO Dirk Walde - IT-Specialist Daniel Suchy via members-discuss schrieb:
Many LIRs? I thing "few" is better word here. Each member has right to vote in many questions ultimately affects what services are provided.
As a result, we vote ourselves out what RIPE does.
~20% members activelly voted (on last GM). The rest simply don't care, it doesn't bother them. From number of non-voters, it's impossible to infer their interest or disinterest. Not voting is also a way to exercise the right to vote.
But let's not use the false argument that they aren't interested by additional services. There's no evidence for that.
- Daniel
On 6/2/25 10:43 AM, Alexandre wrote:
Many LIR aren't interrested by the additional services provided by the RIPE NCC. Having a fixed membership fees pushes the smallest LIR to either migrate to an other RIR, or to merge with other LIR to reduce exploitation costs. If the incencitive to make the smallest LIR to close or leave the RIPE NCC continues, that will mean increase of the membership fees for all the remaining LIR. And like that, by the end of the decade, the fees will be with 5 figures, and there will be only big players remaining, effectively owning the RIPE NCC. I'm not sure many orgs will enjoy this situation.
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailman.ripe.net%2Fmailman3%2Flists%2Fmembers-discuss.ripe.net%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C60d1a851fd98419665fe08dda2ade1bd%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638845589921463507%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=mSjdEcuc5bNWUITHrFtVWi0zyzUecq7i3kPbXKYLF1A%3D&reserved=0<https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.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://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.net%2Fmembership%2Fmail%2Fmailman-3-migration%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C60d1a851fd98419665fe08dda2ade1bd%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638845589921492301%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=sbA9AfVeGGFS83KmbBj5LF3z338GeuFf4HzJim1b%2FlY%3D&reserved=0<https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/>
To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailman.ripe.net%2Fmailman3%2Flists%2Fmembers-discuss.ripe.net%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C60d1a851fd98419665fe08dda2ade1bd%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638845589921514974%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=2v5th%2BsQ3rXKnu%2F8O%2FJv7e8Cfnkk2svCol4M2hkRqUQ%3D&reserved=0<https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.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://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.net%2Fmembership%2Fmail%2Fmailman-3-migration%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C60d1a851fd98419665fe08dda2ade1bd%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638845589921532580%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=aWX0cfZNfrUfAgEKxe8ySZWKcMseQcGFqym%2FlqbOYUQ%3D&reserved=0<https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/>
You can and you should. Countries with mandatory voting: - Australia - Belgium - Brazil - Argentina - Peru - Luxembourg - Singapore - Ecuador - Bolivia - Uruguay Australia has fines, Belgium will bar you from public employment, etc. Other countries dont have significant punishment, BUT, their last voting turnout 75%+. Non-profits? - International Trade Union Confederation - Mondragon Corporation - Amnestry international, Greenpeace and many others. Otherwise, you end up with situations like the one at RIPE, where 3.8% of voters changed the membership fee structure from category-based to a flat rate without asking many questions. On Tue, 2025-06-03 at 14:54 +0000, Kaj Niemi wrote:
You cannot force people to vote, you know.
Kaj From: D. Walde - Walde IT-Systemhaus <walde@wcs-online.de> Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 00:01 To: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net>; Daniel Suchy <danny@danysek.cz> Subject: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month
We should start with the elections.
I'm just thinking this out loud.
1. Elections should last 30/31 days (possibly 4 weeks/28 days) or from the 1st of the month to the end of the month. We have time, or does one of you need to know the results tomorrow? OK.
2. Bonuses for voters, e.g., credits for courses and exams.
3. Or, votes cast should be recorded as an election point, and as long as there are more "no votes" than "votes," the election must be repeated.
Then it might just take a while for elections to take place. A vote below 30% is ridiculous; below 50%, an election should be declared void and restarted.
Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Walde IT-Systemhaus - CEO Dirk Walde - IT-Specialist
Daniel Suchy via members-discuss schrieb:
Many LIRs? I thing "few" is better word here. Each member has right to vote in many questions ultimately affects what services are provided.
As a result, we vote ourselves out what RIPE does.
~20% members activelly voted (on last GM). The rest simply don't care, it doesn't bother them. From number of non-voters, it's impossible to infer their interest or disinterest. Not voting is also a way to exercise the right to vote.
But let's not use the false argument that they aren't interested by additional services. There's no evidence for that.
- Daniel
On 6/2/25 10:43 AM, Alexandre wrote:
Many LIR aren't interrested by the additional services provided by the RIPE NCC. Having a fixed membership fees pushes the smallest LIR to either migrate to an other RIR, or to merge with other LIR to reduce exploitation costs. If the incencitive to make the smallest LIR to close or leave the RIPE NCC continues, that will mean increase of the membership fees for all the remaining LIR. And like that, by the end of the decade, the fees will be with 5 figures, and there will be only big players remaining, effectively owning the RIPE NCC. I'm not sure many orgs will enjoy this situation.
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailman.ripe.net%2Fmailman3%2Flists%2Fmembers-discuss.ripe.net%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C60d1a851fd98419665fe08dda2ade1bd%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638845589921463507%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=mSjdEcuc5bNWUITHrFtVWi0zyzUecq7i3kPbXKYLF1A%3D&reserved=0 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://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.net%2Fmembership%2Fmail%2Fmailman-3-migration%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C60d1a851fd98419665fe08dda2ade1bd%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638845589921492301%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=sbA9AfVeGGFS83KmbBj5LF3z338GeuFf4HzJim1b%2FlY%3D&reserved=0
To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit:https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F %2Fmailman.ripe.net%2Fmailman3%2Flists%2Fmembers- discuss.ripe.net%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C60d1a851fd98419665fe08dda2ade1b d%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638845589921514974%7CU nknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAi OiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=2v 5th%2BsQ3rXKnu%2F8O%2FJv7e8Cfnkk2svCol4M2hkRqUQ%3D&reserved=0 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://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.net%2Fmembership%2Fmail%2Fmailman-3-migration%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C60d1a851fd98419665fe08dda2ade1bd%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638845589921532580%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=aWX0cfZNfrUfAgEKxe8ySZWKcMseQcGFqym%2FlqbOYUQ%3D&reserved=0 ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.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/
I will stick to the fundamental democratic voting system, to have free, equal and secret voting. Actually one has roughly one and a half days to cast the vote. I do not think that the time frame stops someone from voting. Matthias Am 02.06.25 um 23:01 schrieb D. Walde - Walde IT-Systemhaus:
We should start with the elections.
I'm just thinking this out loud.
1. Elections should last 30/31 days (possibly 4 weeks/28 days) or from the 1st of the month to the end of the month. We have time, or does one of you need to know the results tomorrow? OK.
2. Bonuses for voters, e.g., credits for courses and exams.
3. Or, votes cast should be recorded as an election point, and as long as there are more "no votes" than "votes," the election must be repeated.
Then it might just take a while for elections to take place. A vote below 30% is ridiculous; below 50%, an election should be declared void and restarted.
Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen Walde IT-Systemhaus - CEO Dirk Walde - IT-Specialist
Daniel Suchy via members-discuss schrieb:
Many LIRs? I thing "few" is better word here. Each member has right to vote in many questions ultimately affects what services are provided.
As a result, we vote ourselves out what RIPE does.
~20% members activelly voted (on last GM). The rest simply don't care, it doesn't bother them. From number of non-voters, it's impossible to infer their interest or disinterest. Not voting is also a way to exercise the right to vote.
But let's not use the false argument that they aren't interested by additional services. There's no evidence for that.
- Daniel
On 6/2/25 10:43 AM, Alexandre wrote:
Many LIR aren't interrested by the additional services provided by the RIPE NCC. Having a fixed membership fees pushes the smallest LIR to either migrate to an other RIR, or to merge with other LIR to reduce exploitation costs. If the incencitive to make the smallest LIR to close or leave the RIPE NCC continues, that will mean increase of the membership fees for all the remaining LIR. And like that, by the end of the decade, the fees will be with 5 figures, and there will be only big players remaining, effectively owning the RIPE NCC. I'm not sure many orgs will enjoy this situation.
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.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 from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.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/
First of all, I would be in favor of giving people more time. We have time zones and other things to do. Start making the voting period a bit more open. Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen Matthias Brumm schrieb:
I will stick to the fundamental democratic voting system, to have free, equal and secret voting. Actually one has roughly one and a half days to cast the vote. I do not think that the time frame stops someone from voting.
Matthias
Am 02.06.25 um 23:01 schrieb D. Walde - Walde IT-Systemhaus:
We should start with the elections.
I'm just thinking this out loud.
1. Elections should last 30/31 days (possibly 4 weeks/28 days) or from the 1st of the month to the end of the month. We have time, or does one of you need to know the results tomorrow? OK.
2. Bonuses for voters, e.g., credits for courses and exams.
3. Or, votes cast should be recorded as an election point, and as long as there are more "no votes" than "votes," the election must be repeated.
Then it might just take a while for elections to take place. A vote below 30% is ridiculous; below 50%, an election should be declared void and restarted.
Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen Walde IT-Systemhaus - CEO Dirk Walde - IT-Specialist
Daniel Suchy via members-discuss schrieb:
Many LIRs? I thing "few" is better word here. Each member has right to vote in many questions ultimately affects what services are provided.
As a result, we vote ourselves out what RIPE does.
~20% members activelly voted (on last GM). The rest simply don't care, it doesn't bother them. From number of non-voters, it's impossible to infer their interest or disinterest. Not voting is also a way to exercise the right to vote.
But let's not use the false argument that they aren't interested by additional services. There's no evidence for that.
- Daniel
On 6/2/25 10:43 AM, Alexandre wrote:
Many LIR aren't interrested by the additional services provided by the RIPE NCC. Having a fixed membership fees pushes the smallest LIR to either migrate to an other RIR, or to merge with other LIR to reduce exploitation costs. If the incencitive to make the smallest LIR to close or leave the RIPE NCC continues, that will mean increase of the membership fees for all the remaining LIR. And like that, by the end of the decade, the fees will be with 5 figures, and there will be only big players remaining, effectively owning the RIPE NCC. I'm not sure many orgs will enjoy this situation.
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.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 from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.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 from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.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/
I’d like to offer another perspective on this discussion: First, many members repeatedly raise the idea of leaving RIPE in favor of another RIR. Realistically, this isn’t feasible. A company operating primarily in the Middle East, for example, cannot simply register with ARIN. That path is only available to large international corporations with global incorporation. The vast majority of members must join RIPE - there was no real choice involved. Regarding voting: last year’s proposal to completely overhaul the charging scheme and abandon the flat fee model received over 900 votes - a significant number, likely representing more than half of actively engaged LIRs. It’s fair to say that many see the current model as deeply unfair. Last year, we were told that members cannot directly decide on fee levels because they are tied to the activity plan. But then it was clarified that the activity plan itself isn’t directly voted on either. This creates a governance loop that leaves members with little influence. “Start your own RIR” isn’t a viable solution. Lastly, the legal argument about Dutch law is confusing. RIPE covers a diverse region - from Israel and Lebanon to Russia and Ukraine - all under one umbrella. If the tiered model conflicts with Dutch regulations, could we not consider establishing a subsidiary in a more flexible jurisdiction (e.g., UAE)? That would better reflect the geographic and economic diversity of members.
On 3 Jun 2025, at 23:09, Matthias Brumm <matthias@brumm.net> wrote:
I will stick to the fundamental democratic voting system, to have free, equal and secret voting. Actually one has roughly one and a half days to cast the vote. I do not think that the time frame stops someone from voting.
Matthias
Am 02.06.25 um 23:01 schrieb D. Walde - Walde IT-Systemhaus: We should start with the elections.
I'm just thinking this out loud.
1. Elections should last 30/31 days (possibly 4 weeks/28 days) or from the 1st of the month to the end of the month. We have time, or does one of you need to know the results tomorrow? OK.
2. Bonuses for voters, e.g., credits for courses and exams.
3. Or, votes cast should be recorded as an election point, and as long as there are more "no votes" than "votes," the election must be repeated.
Then it might just take a while for elections to take place. A vote below 30% is ridiculous; below 50%, an election should be declared void and restarted.
Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen Walde IT-Systemhaus - CEO Dirk Walde - IT-Specialist
Daniel Suchy via members-discuss schrieb:
Many LIRs? I thing "few" is better word here. Each member has right to vote in many questions ultimately affects what services are provided.
As a result, we vote ourselves out what RIPE does.
~20% members activelly voted (on last GM). The rest simply don't care, it doesn't bother them. From number of non-voters, it's impossible to infer their interest or disinterest. Not voting is also a way to exercise the right to vote.
But let's not use the false argument that they aren't interested by additional services. There's no evidence for that.
- Daniel
On 6/2/25 10:43 AM, Alexandre wrote:
Many LIR aren't interrested by the additional services provided by the RIPE NCC. Having a fixed membership fees pushes the smallest LIR to either migrate to an other RIR, or to merge with other LIR to reduce exploitation costs. If the incencitive to make the smallest LIR to close or leave the RIPE NCC continues, that will mean increase of the membership fees for all the remaining LIR. And like that, by the end of the decade, the fees will be with 5 figures, and there will be only big players remaining, effectively owning the RIPE NCC. I'm not sure many orgs will enjoy this situation.
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.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 from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.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 from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.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/
Am Dienstag, 3. Juni 2025, 23:18:28 UTC+00:00:01 schrieb Mihail Fedorov:
Lastly, the legal argument about Dutch law is confusing. RIPE covers a diverse region - from Israel and Lebanon to Russia and Ukraine - all under one umbrella. If the tiered model conflicts with Dutch regulations, could we not consider establishing a subsidiary in a more flexible jurisdiction (e.g., UAE)? That would better reflect the geographic and economic diversity of members.
At least if Dutch law or EU (so called) law significantly interferes with the interests of the RIPE member community it should be an option to regularly check about relocation into a less restrictive jurisdiction (or even diversification over nultiple jurisdictions). cheers, niels. -- --- Niels Dettenbach Syndicat IT & Internet https://www.syndicat.com PGP: https://syndicat.com/pub_key.asc ---
Hi, On Wed, Jun 04, 2025 at 09:46:18AM +0200, Niels Dettenbach wrote:
At least if Dutch law or EU (so called) law significantly interferes with the interests of the RIPE member community it should be an option to regularly check about relocation into a less restrictive jurisdiction (or even diversification over nultiple jurisdictions).
I vastly prefer a *reliable* and non-discriminatory jurisdiction, even if sometimes annoying wrt GDPR or tax paying. The netherlands are a fairly good choice as far as history teaches us, other, especially non-EU countries in the RIPE service region, not so much. Some due to government stability, others due to corruption, again others due to human rights issues, general cost of living, etc. (Germany, for example, would not be a better choice than NL because you need 3 extra FTE to deal with Tax paperwork and nowadays immigration control...) Gert Doering -- long term RIPE member -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Am Freitag, 6. Juni 2025, 12:53:51 UTC+00:00:01 schrieben Sie:
(Germany, for example, would not be a better choice than NL because you need 3 extra FTE to deal with Tax paperwork and nowadays immigration control...) full ack ß)
The netherlands are a fairly good choice as far as history teaches us, other, especially non-EU countries in the RIPE service region, not so much. Some due to government stability, others due to corruption, again others due to human rights issues, general cost of living, etc. As someone who lives in EU / germany and in multiple countries of the RIPE service area i can understand why many RIPE memnbers from EU does that seems so while others (especially many from non-EU countries) have a different opinion about what they see as "reliability" or "stability" - not at least the (especially over the last decade - not to mention political games from the EU behind some of that) changed / exploded EU-regulation (which discriminates non EU citizens / companies / jurisdictions and is much higher then in many non-EU countries).
greetings from the transcaucasus, niels. -- --- Niels Dettenbach Syndicat IT & Internet https://www.syndicat.com PGP: https://syndicat.com/pub_key.asc ---
Hi,
Then it might just take a while for elections to take place. A vote below 30% is ridiculous; below 50%, an election should be declared void and restarted.
I don’t think the participation rate in RIPE NCC General Meetings is not exceptional for member-based not-for-profits in this sector. I’m aware of two IXPs that in the last week or two have had GMs with a turnout of 10% or less. One of those included a vote on a ground-up rewrite of the organisation’s MOU and a board election, plus the voting was open for a fortnight before the GM itself. I’m not saying this is desirable, I’m just saying it is not unusual. Rob
Supporting that. On Mon, 2025-06-02 at 23:01 +0200, D. Walde - Walde IT-Systemhaus wrote:
We should start with the elections.
I'm just thinking this out loud.
1. Elections should last 30/31 days (possibly 4 weeks/28 days) or from the 1st of the month to the end of the month. We have time, or does one of you need to know the results tomorrow? OK.
2. Bonuses for voters, e.g., credits for courses and exams.
3. Or, votes cast should be recorded as an election point, and as long as there are more "no votes" than "votes," the election must be repeated.
Then it might just take a while for elections to take place. A vote below 30% is ridiculous; below 50%, an election should be declared void and restarted.
Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Walde IT-Systemhaus - CEO Dirk Walde - IT-Specialist
Daniel Suchy via members-discuss schrieb:
Many LIRs? I thing "few" is better word here. Each member has right to vote in many questions ultimately affects what services are provided.
As a result, we vote ourselves out what RIPE does.
~20% members activelly voted (on last GM). The rest simply don't care, it doesn't bother them. From number of non-voters, it's impossible to infer their interest or disinterest. Not voting is also a way to exercise the right to vote.
But let's not use the false argument that they aren't interested by additional services. There's no evidence for that.
- Daniel
On 6/2/25 10:43 AM, Alexandre wrote:
Many LIR aren't interrested by the additional services provided by the RIPE NCC. Having a fixed membership fees pushes the smallest LIR to either migrate to an other RIR, or to merge with other LIR to reduce exploitation costs. If the incencitive to make the smallest LIR to close or leave the RIPE NCC continues, that will mean increase of the membership fees for all the remaining LIR. And like that, by the end of the decade, the fees will be with 5 figures, and there will be only big players remaining, effectively owning the RIPE NCC. I'm not sure many orgs will enjoy this situation.
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.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 from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.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/
I agree, but a little more, and we also need some kind of mechanism to involve all participants in important discussions. In the shared LIR space, rather than the wishes of those who voluntarily joined the mailing lists. Serbulov Dmitry.
Supporting that.
On Mon, 2025-06-02 at 23:01 +0200, D. Walde - Walde IT-Systemhaus wrote:
We should start with the elections.
I'm just thinking this out loud.
1. Elections should last 30/31 days (possibly 4 weeks/28 days) or from the 1st of the month to the end of the month. We have time, or does one of you need to know the results tomorrow? OK.
2. Bonuses for voters, e.g., credits for courses and exams.
3. Or, votes cast should be recorded as an election point, and as long as there are more "no votes" than "votes," the election must be repeated.
Then it might just take a while for elections to take place. A vote below 30% is ridiculous; below 50%, an election should be declared void and restarted.
Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Walde IT-Systemhaus - CEO Dirk Walde - IT-Specialist
Daniel Suchy via members-discuss schrieb:
Many LIRs? I thing "few" is better word here. Each member has right to vote in many questions ultimately affects what services are provided.
As a result, we vote ourselves out what RIPE does.
~20% members activelly voted (on last GM). The rest simply don't care, it doesn't bother them. From number of non-voters, it's impossible to infer their interest or disinterest. Not voting is also a way to exercise the right to vote.
But let's not use the false argument that they aren't interested by additional services. There's no evidence for that.
- Daniel
On 6/2/25 10:43 AM, Alexandre wrote:
Many LIR aren't interrested by the additional services provided by the RIPE NCC. Having a fixed membership fees pushes the smallest LIR to either migrate to an other RIR, or to merge with other LIR to reduce exploitation costs. If the incencitive to make the smallest LIR to close or leave the RIPE NCC continues, that will mean increase of the membership fees for all the remaining LIR. And like that, by the end of the decade, the fees will be with 5 figures, and there will be only big players remaining, effectively owning the RIPE NCC. I'm not sure many orgs will enjoy this situation.
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.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 from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.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 from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.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/
* Serbulov Dmitry wrote:
I agree, but a little more, and we also need some kind of mechanism to involve all participants in important discussions. In the shared LIR space, rather than the wishes of those who voluntarily joined the mailing lists.
How about a biyearly face-to-face meeting in changing countries, so everybody can join? Just kidding: Please stop this debate, it leads to nowhere.
I have been participating in GM online since the opportunity arose. In 2025 year Face to face meeting around 22000 LIRs members is not good idea . If you do nothing, then nothing will change. And I see, now a lot of people agreeing on at least 2 things. 1. The payment scheme and the nature of the costs are increasingly inconsistent with the purpose of the NCC establishment. 2. The scheme of making important decisions does not allow even 50% of LIRs to be involved in their vote. I think this is bad and something needs to be done. Sorry, it's not a joke. Serbulov Dmitry
* Serbulov Dmitry wrote:
I agree, but a little more, and we also need some kind of mechanism to involve all participants in important discussions. In the shared LIR space, rather than the wishes of those who voluntarily joined the mailing lists.
How about a biyearly face-to-face meeting in changing countries, so everybody can join?
Just kidding: Please stop this debate, it leads to nowhere. ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.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/
* Serbulov Dmitry wrote:
And I see, now a lot of people agreeing on at least 2 things.
No, you are extrapolating from a very small sample while ignoring the selection bias. Such claims are senseless.
I think this is bad and something needs to be done. Sorry, it's not a joke.
You want to change RIPE into a completely different organization, then it was founded and worked successfully for decades. I can only speculate about your reasoning behind, but I assume, that the (currently) silent majority does not agree with. So again: Please stop this debate, it leads to nowhere.
On Thursday, June 05, 2025 09:14 EEST, Lutz Donnerhacke <L.Donnerhacke@iks-service.de> wrote:
* Serbulov Dmitry wrote:
And I see, now a lot of people agreeing on at least 2 things.
No, you are extrapolating from a very small sample while ignoring the selection bias. Such claims are senseless.
I think this is bad and something needs to be done. Sorry, it's not a joke.
You want to change RIPE into a completely different organization, then it was founded and worked successfully for decades. I can only speculate about your reasoning behind, but I assume, that the (currently) silent majority does not agree with. RIPE worked successfully for decades under its original mission, but data analysis shows a clear trend of member rights erosion and declining performance in key operational areas compared to other RIRs. The organization is not adapting well to current trends and challenges. Mission adjustment isn't about destroying RIPE's legacy - it's about ensuring its continued relevance and effectiveness in today's environment. Even other RIRs, while imperfect, are outpacing RIPE NCC in several critical areas. Plus, you are claiming Dmitry have small sample, and making assumptions about silent majority without having any evidence at all.
So again: Please stop this debate, it leads to nowhere. I appreciate your perspective, but respectfully, no individual member has the authority to dictate when community debate should end. These discussions are fundamental to RIPE's democratic governance process. If you find the debate unproductive, you're welcome to disengage personally, but the community will continue discussing these important issues as long as members feel it's necessary.
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.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/
* Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote:
RIPE worked successfully for decades under its original mission,
True.
but data analysis shows a clear trend of member rights erosion
False.
and declining performance in key operational areas compared to other RIRs.
False.
The organization is not adapting well to current trends and challenges.
False.
[...] it's about ensuring its continued relevance and effectiveness in today's environment. Even other RIRs, while imperfect, are outpacing RIPE NCC in several critical areas.
Please define "today's environment" as well as "areas", especially why other RIR are doing better. And please do not come up with anything around IPv4. This is an historic issue, which was handled in an excellent way in the RIPE region, despite a lot of bad actors gambling the policies. Nobody can change the history, we all have to deal with the present, and prepare for the future. The arguments in this thread are about member participation. There are several - unsubstantiated - claims, which tried to change something for an - undefined - purpose. As long as we are in this situation, I'll repeat myself and kindly ask you: Please stop this debate, it leads to nowhere.
If you find the debate unproductive, you're welcome to disengage personally, but the community will continue discussing these important issues as long as members feel it's necessary.
Silencing uncomfortable voices will not work either. We need a factual, rational debate. Without proper input, it repeats itself and leads to nowhere ...
Sorry Lutz, but you seem to imagine that RIPE NCC is someone's private shop. This is a community with equal rights. Even with all your desire, it is impossible to stop the processes of time. Please stop your senseless appeals. It looks like a provocation. [members-discussions] were created to discuss any topic within the bounds of decency. Your calls are completely out of place. If you want to offer something else, offer it. If you have arguments, state them.
* Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote:
RIPE worked successfully for decades under its original mission,
True.
but data analysis shows a clear trend of member rights erosion
False.
and declining performance in key operational areas compared to other RIRs.
False.
The organization is not adapting well to current trends and challenges.
False.
[...] it's about ensuring its continued relevance and effectiveness in today's environment. Even other RIRs, while imperfect, are outpacing RIPE NCC in several critical areas.
Please define "today's environment" as well as "areas", especially why other RIR are doing better.
And please do not come up with anything around IPv4. This is an historic issue, which was handled in an excellent way in the RIPE region, despite a lot of bad actors gambling the policies. Nobody can change the history, we all have to deal with the present, and prepare for the future.
The arguments in this thread are about member participation. There are several - unsubstantiated - claims, which tried to change something for an - undefined - purpose.
As long as we are in this situation, I'll repeat myself and kindly ask you: Please stop this debate, it leads to nowhere.
If you find the debate unproductive, you're welcome to disengage personally, but the community will continue discussing these important issues as long as members feel it's necessary.
Silencing uncomfortable voices will not work either. We need a factual, rational debate. Without proper input, it repeats itself and leads to nowhere ...
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.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/
----------------------------- С уважением Сербулов Дмитрий ООО "Альфа Нет Телеком" +7(498)785-8-000 раб. +7(495)940-92-11 доп. +7(925)518-10-69 сот.
Hi, RIPE worked and still works the same way and I don't see any fundamental problem with it. And I don't see something else. Just some subjective feeling. But in this debate, I consider it a fundamental mistake to hide any argument behind the silent majority (and this argument is repeated). That is a false argument. if a real majority is dissatisfied, it will manifest itself differently. Yes, RIPE provides additional services that other RIRs don't. But mostly here is the value - for the good of the internet. Atlas is an amazing project, which helps detect problems, to anyone. Running one DNS root instance also makes sense. RIPEstat is also useful for troubleshoting routing issues. Policies in the region are determined not only by members, but by a much wider community. This allows non-members to participate. and I consider it a benefit that outside opinions can also enter the policy development process. There's no erosion in rights. Perhaps a relevant debate is some (real) split. If some regions are not satisfied, why not separate them into another (their) organization. If there;s 5 or 6-7 RIRs - that's not a problem. Of course, for RIPE, this would mean a decrease in income. And this may have an impact primarily on those services provided for the good of the internet. And of course this may lead to those who have "separated" from RIPE will lose access first. Or eventually the new RIR will start contributing himself to prevent it from happening. But I honestly don't think that this idea about split would gain wider support. And even if I mention it here, I probably wouldn't support it. TLDR: RIPE still works well... even though we may be dissatisfied with small details. but you can never satisfy everyone 100%. - Daniel On 6/5/25 11:38 AM, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote:
RIPE worked successfully for decades under its original mission, but data analysis shows a clear trend of member rights erosion and declining performance in key operational areas compared to other RIRs. The organization is not adapting well to current trends and challenges. Mission adjustment isn't about destroying RIPE's legacy - it's about ensuring its continued relevance and effectiveness in today's environment. Even other RIRs, while imperfect, are outpacing RIPE NCC in several critical areas.
Yes, with an unlimited budget, they operate very well. There’s no budget constraint. In the end, they can use whatever budget they want by simply referring to the formula “need / members”... Note important, if the member is de.telekom or the newest one. But i forgot i think, “THIS IS A MEMBER ORGANISATION”, isnt it… -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards Murat TERZIOGLU PREBITS - Premium Business IT Solutions Bochumer Str. 20 D-44866 Bochum Telefon: 0234/58825994 Telefax: 0234/58825995 www.prebits.de m.terzioglu@prebits.de USt-ID: DE315418902
Am 06.06.2025 um 10:48 schrieb Daniel Suchy via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net>:
Hi,
RIPE worked and still works the same way and I don't see any fundamental problem with it. And I don't see something else. Just some subjective feeling.
But in this debate, I consider it a fundamental mistake to hide any argument behind the silent majority (and this argument is repeated). That is a false argument. if a real majority is dissatisfied, it will manifest itself differently.
Yes, RIPE provides additional services that other RIRs don't. But mostly here is the value - for the good of the internet. Atlas is an amazing project, which helps detect problems, to anyone. Running one DNS root instance also makes sense. RIPEstat is also useful for troubleshoting routing issues.
Policies in the region are determined not only by members, but by a much wider community. This allows non-members to participate. and I consider it a benefit that outside opinions can also enter the policy development process. There's no erosion in rights.
Perhaps a relevant debate is some (real) split. If some regions are not satisfied, why not separate them into another (their) organization. If there;s 5 or 6-7 RIRs - that's not a problem.
Of course, for RIPE, this would mean a decrease in income. And this may have an impact primarily on those services provided for the good of the internet. And of course this may lead to those who have "separated" from RIPE will lose access first. Or eventually the new RIR will start contributing himself to prevent it from happening.
But I honestly don't think that this idea about split would gain wider support. And even if I mention it here, I probably wouldn't support it.
TLDR: RIPE still works well... even though we may be dissatisfied with small details. but you can never satisfy everyone 100%.
- Daniel
On 6/5/25 11:38 AM, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote: RIPE worked successfully for decades under its original mission, but data analysis shows a clear trend of member rights erosion and declining performance in key operational areas compared to other RIRs. The organization is not adapting well to current trends and challenges. Mission adjustment isn't about destroying RIPE's legacy - it's about ensuring its continued relevance and effectiveness in today's environment. Even other RIRs, while imperfect, are outpacing RIPE NCC in several critical areas.
To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.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, Yes, RIPE is still running and providing some valuable services. But the fact that a system still functions doesn’t mean it’s in good shape — North Korea functions too. A system can keep running for a long time even if it’s outdated, inefficient, or unjust. Survival alone isn’t a sign of health — it just means collapse hasn’t arrived yet. And in any such system, those benefiting from the status quo naturally resist change. “You can’t satisfy everyone 100%” is often used to shut down criticism, but in practice, it just protects those already satisfied. It turns real concerns into background noise. As for the silent majority — silence doesn’t equal support. Most people stay quiet not because they’re happy, but because they haven’t yet been pushed past their limits. That’s not approval; it’s tolerance, often temporary. About the idea of a split — I agree that fragmentation isn’t necessarily desirable. But not all internal conflict needs to end in separation. Germany is a good example: East and West had deep divides, but eventual reform and reintegration were possible. Sometimes the better path is fixing the system from within, not walking away. Best regards, Chenyang On Jun 6, 2025, at 16:46, Daniel Suchy via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> wrote: Hi, RIPE worked and still works the same way and I don't see any fundamental problem with it. And I don't see something else. Just some subjective feeling. But in this debate, I consider it a fundamental mistake to hide any argument behind the silent majority (and this argument is repeated). That is a false argument. if a real majority is dissatisfied, it will manifest itself differently. Yes, RIPE provides additional services that other RIRs don't. But mostly here is the value - for the good of the internet. Atlas is an amazing project, which helps detect problems, to anyone. Running one DNS root instance also makes sense. RIPEstat is also useful for troubleshoting routing issues. Policies in the region are determined not only by members, but by a much wider community. This allows non-members to participate. and I consider it a benefit that outside opinions can also enter the policy development process. There's no erosion in rights. Perhaps a relevant debate is some (real) split. If some regions are not satisfied, why not separate them into another (their) organization. If there;s 5 or 6-7 RIRs - that's not a problem. Of course, for RIPE, this would mean a decrease in income. And this may have an impact primarily on those services provided for the good of the internet. And of course this may lead to those who have "separated" from RIPE will lose access first. Or eventually the new RIR will start contributing himself to prevent it from happening. But I honestly don't think that this idea about split would gain wider support. And even if I mention it here, I probably wouldn't support it. TLDR: RIPE still works well... even though we may be dissatisfied with small details. but you can never satisfy everyone 100%. - Daniel On 6/5/25 11:38 AM, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote: RIPE worked successfully for decades under its original mission, but data analysis shows a clear trend of member rights erosion and declining performance in key operational areas compared to other RIRs. The organization is not adapting well to current trends and challenges. Mission adjustment isn't about destroying RIPE's legacy - it's about ensuring its continued relevance and effectiveness in today's environment. Even other RIRs, while imperfect, are outpacing RIPE NCC in several critical areas. ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.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/
My friend. If you don't want to discuss it, don't do it. No problem at all. But don't tell anyone else what to do or not to do. You're not the director here. Your position was clear from the first message. Don't repeat yourself in platitudes. With respect to your position, Serbulov Dmitry.
* Serbulov Dmitry wrote:
And I see, now a lot of people agreeing on at least 2 things.
No, you are extrapolating from a very small sample while ignoring the selection bias. Such claims are senseless.
I think this is bad and something needs to be done. Sorry, it's not a joke.
You want to change RIPE into a completely different organization, then it was founded and worked successfully for decades. I can only speculate about your reasoning behind, but I assume, that the (currently) silent majority does not agree with.
So again: Please stop this debate, it leads to nowhere. ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.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 Serbulov , Sorry, but at the moment, you're telling everyone else what to do and what not to do. You just received a reply telling you that you don’t speak for everyone. Do you not want to accept that? What high horse are you on? Your position is clear, yet you persist in repeating it. -- Kind regards Sebastian Becker Von: sdy@a-n-t.ru <sdy@a-n-t.ru> Datum: Freitag, 6. Juni 2025 um 10:38 An: Lutz Donnerhacke <L.Donnerhacke@iks-service.de> Cc: 'members-discuss@ripe.net' <members-discuss@ripe.net> Betreff: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month My friend. If you don't want to discuss it, don't do it. No problem at all. But don't tell anyone else what to do or not to do. You're not the director here. Your position was clear from the first message. Don't repeat yourself in platitudes. With respect to your position, Serbulov Dmitry.
* Serbulov Dmitry wrote:
And I see, now a lot of people agreeing on at least 2 things.
No, you are extrapolating from a very small sample while ignoring the selection bias. Such claims are senseless.
I think this is bad and something needs to be done. Sorry, it's not a joke.
You want to change RIPE into a completely different organization, then it was founded and worked successfully for decades. I can only speculate about your reasoning behind, but I assume, that the (currently) silent majority does not agree with.
So again: Please stop this debate, it leads to nowhere. ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://deu01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailman.ripe.net%2Fmailman3%2Flists%2Fmembers-discuss.ripe.net%2F&data=05%7C02%7CSebastian-Becker%40telekom.de%7C5bda5ac5ed7c45000a2308dda4d56f83%7Cbde4dffc4b604cf68b04a5eeb25f5c4f%7C0%7C0%7C638847958817823484%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=LDa3GE1uRzw36BTsrlp05HbWsvMOm6gkKdnXNQsh8Ys%3D&reserved=0<https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.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://deu01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.net%2Fmembership%2Fmail%2Fmailman-3-migration%2F&data=05%7C02%7CSebastian-Becker%40telekom.de%7C5bda5ac5ed7c45000a2308dda4d56f83%7Cbde4dffc4b604cf68b04a5eeb25f5c4f%7C0%7C0%7C638847958817850896%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=j6ccBfP036RrLxRK0glC6sfu90VYaLUSbqLL4nkB2Ac%3D&reserved=0<https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/>
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://deu01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailman.ripe.net%2Fmailman3%2Flists%2Fmembers-discuss.ripe.net%2F&data=05%7C02%7CSebastian-Becker%40telekom.de%7C5bda5ac5ed7c45000a2308dda4d56f83%7Cbde4dffc4b604cf68b04a5eeb25f5c4f%7C0%7C0%7C638847958817867067%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=7NYhaSl2X9Ys1hPJEqK%2F1828Cy1ypvDPhQzV%2FjoKcmU%3D&reserved=0<https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.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://deu01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.net%2Fmembership%2Fmail%2Fmailman-3-migration%2F&data=05%7C02%7CSebastian-Becker%40telekom.de%7C5bda5ac5ed7c45000a2308dda4d56f83%7Cbde4dffc4b604cf68b04a5eeb25f5c4f%7C0%7C0%7C638847958817884027%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=leh87atCBjRlxtLJ7N2xPSLGjisN7NHStp0%2BUM6ug7E%3D&reserved=0<https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/>
Hi!
Your position was clear from the first message. Don't repeat yourself in platitudes.
Can you do likewise ? I think this is what triggers the response. -- MfG/Best regards, Kurt Jaeger Now what ? Dr.-Ing. Nepustil & Co. GmbH fon +49 7123 93006-0 pi@nepustil.net Rathausstr. 3 mob +49 171 3101372 72658 Bempflingen
On 04/06/2025 10:02:21, sdy@a-n-t.ru wrote:
I agree, but a little more, and we also need some kind of mechanism to involve all participants in important discussions. In the shared LIR space, rather than the wishes of those who voluntarily joined the mailing lists.
You can't. Many do not want to be involved. To a business it does not matter than this service is provided by a not for profit with member involvement. All they want is the service to be provided without drama or rapid/radical surprise changes in policy or pricing. The higher voter turn out a few years back occurred when that stability was threatened. Generally we trust the NCC to just get on with it and go along with their suggestions, except when it was attempted to change the payment model from flat to categories which had significant failings. 1. the categories weighted the bulk of costs on lower tiers resulting in relatively small members paying more. There are only two fair models where everyone is equal - flat fee and per /24. With categories and similar you are choosing who to be unfair to. 2. it failed to account for the people who gamed the system to take lots of the final reserved v4 space and are now selling them off or consolidating the fake memberships. As they leave the costs will be split between fewer members. With the previous categories that would have resulted in the smaller members facing much larger cost increases. 3. the budget grew with those new LIRs, it is not being adjusted back down to match membership reductions, we are going to be paying more no matter how many vote for any charging scheme.
On Mon, 2025-06-02 at 23:01 +0200, D. Walde - Walde IT-Systemhaus wrote:
1. Elections should last 30/31 days (possibly 4 weeks/28 days) or from the 1st of the month to the end of the month. We have time, or does one of you need to know the results tomorrow? OK.
I don't object to longer but it likely won't affect the turn out much, the things being voted for can affect it.
3. Or, votes cast should be recorded as an election point, and as long as there are more "no votes" than "votes," the election must be repeated.
I suspect that will result in endless repeats. brandon
Anyway, I don't like the name calling that you do. It is not very professional or considerate.
Can I remind members that RIPE has a Code of Conduct (the scope covers this mailing list), and this discussion has gone well outside those boundaries. https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-766/#ripe-meeting-code-of-conduc... Please stop. Regards, Brett -- Brett Sheffield (he/him) Gladserv Ltd
Am 31.05.25 um 00:09 schrieb Kaj Niemi:
And the fees could be reduced to half by reducing the amount of costs but that’s a topic that nobody wants to discuss, either, but for other reasons. Anyway.
This was brought up, I think, two or three years ago already; decoupling the discussions of "redistributing the operational costs" and "what services are there to be financed by all members at all" – and the later is up solely to the Executive Board to decide upon – isn't the proper way anymore. Sure, given the choice, I'm rather certain a majority of members would reduce the NCC's task down to running the Portal, the DB and directly related duties — and get rid of RIPE Atlas, RIPEstat, K-Root, RPKI, maybe even the RIPE Meetings, if that cuts their member fees. But I think anyway it's time to change the bylaws and have the membership *decide* directly over the amount of services that it wants to continue to finance. Currently, by Article 15, a General Meeting will 'discuss' the draft Activity Plan, but does *decide* about it. There's currently no way for the membership to actively decide on the Activity Plan, as has been made clear by RIPE NCC officials in the past. Members only can decide about the "Charging Scheme […] upon proposal of the Executive Board" – i. e. the way the costs resulting from the Activity Plan they have no vote on are to be distributed – while Members are not allowed to propose a different Charging Scheme to that of the Executive Board (Article 15.4 b). To reduce the amount to finance, one needs to reduce the amount of spending, simple a=b/c math; if you have a given, or declining, c – number of members –, to reduce a – each member's share of the costs – you have to properly decrease b, the amount of money spent due to the Activity Plan. To finish this futile discussions once and for all, to me it's time to change Article 15.4 a from "/a discussion/ of the draft Activity Plan and draft budget after a presentation by theExecutive Board;" to "/the adoption/ of the draft Activity Plan and draft budget after a presentation by theExecutive Board;". Similar change should be considered for 15.4 c. Regards, -kai -- Kai Siering Senior System Engineer Friedrich-Ebert-Straße 70 D-33330 Gütersloh Tel.: +49 (0) 5241 / 74 34 986 Fax: +49 (0) 5241 / 74 34 987 E-Mail:k.siering@team.mail.de Web:https://mail.de/ Geschäftsführender Gesellschafter: Fabian Bock Sitz der Gesellschaft Nordhastedt Handelsregister Pinneberg HRB 8007 PI Steuernummer 18 293 20020
Dear Dmitry, all, Thank you for the input on the voting turnout. There are quite a few suggestions we noted from the discussions. Some seem like they could be implemented with some work, but others would require significant changes to our governance structures. We’ll review them all internally and see what’s feasible to implement. Increasing voter turnout is something we’ve worked very hard at since electronic voting was introduced. In summary, what we have done is: - Make registration and voting as easy as possible - registering takes no more than a minute or two via the LIR Portal - Provide remote options for discussions and the voting processes - Provide a recording immediately after the GM for those unable to attend or who have timezone restrictions so they can follow discussion and vote at their convenience - Publish extensive supporting documentation well in advance of the GMs, including explainers of more complicated resolutions to be voted on - Have Open Houses to allow members to interact directly with our Executive Board, candidates and RIPE NCC management on important issues - Send extensive communications and reminders on a number of channels, including a personalised mail to unregistered voters the week before the GM - Publish analyses of the voting after each GM to support discussion on the issues and the turnout Every year, we also improve our processes and the GM-related information on our website based on what we hear from members who vote. Given the above, it’s not clear to what extent changes to process will increase turnout. Although we do expect a vote on a new charging model based on the Charging Scheme Task Force’s proposed principles would see many more members exercise their voting rights. A good approach might be to see voter turnout as a shared responsibility between the RIPE NCC and its members. For instance, those members who are invested in seeing greater participation could play a big part by informing other members in their networks about the issues to be voted on, and persuading them to vote. People might well be more convinced by someone they know in their network than by an additional email from the RIPE NCC. And ensuring discussions stay positive and on-topic would also help. We lost many subscribers from members-discuss last year when discussions around the charging scheme and budget became overly heated. This caused over 500 people to unsubscribe from this mailing list, and these people will therefore not be participating in discussions or hearing what people think on important issues, including matters to be voted on. If the RIPE NCC can work on suggested improvements, and invested members can play their own part in helping to boost turnout, we could well see a much more involved and engaged membership. An excellent start would be to provide useful feedback to the Charging Scheme Task Force on the document they provided with principles for a new charging scheme model, which was the initial request that started the current discussions. Kind regards, Fergal Cunningham Head of Membership Engagement RIPE NCC On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 3:10 PM <sdy@a-n-t.ru> wrote:
It is clear: "If I got something for free, then I don't want to pay for it. Even if it is very expensive and necessary for everyone."
But arguments to not pay for /24 has next problems. 1. The equality of members and their votes is fixed by the charter of the NCC and does not depend on the payment in any way - forget this issue forever. 2. Payment in accordance with the amount of resources used is not prohibited anywhere or in any way - all these arguments about Dutch law are nonsense. 3. The nature of the activity (commercial or non-commercial) is determined not by the fundraising per peers, but by its established goals and the way income is distributed among the participants. And is fixed by the charter NCC.
!!! Now a little bit about the decision and the vote. !!!
The most important thing we are facing right now is the passivity of 90% of NCC members. They are all full-rights participants and should take part in General meetings in a good way.
But in fact, the issues are decided on GM by the votes of 600-700 members out of 22000. I see this as a purposeful approach by the core of the old NCC members (who are big resource holders) and unfortunately the NCC management. Most of the LIRs not to be subscribers on [members-discuss], do not participate in GM, and do not even understand their role and rights in the community. For a fair solution of such complex issues as the payment scheme and the prospects for the future of the NCC, it is necessary to attract the large number of LIRs. I would like the management of the NCC to take a closer look at these problems.
Serbulov Dmitry.
Hi,
On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 01:36:27PM +0300, Jean Salim wrote:
We missed you Gert, I was surprised you disappeared as you're always the one to mislead the conversation away from charging scheme. I would like yo hear your proposal on an alternative charging scheme that more fair to small LIRs. I myself, as pointed out before, prefer the ARIN model.
"1 LIR, 1 vote, 1 fee for the membership" seems to be the one where most LIRs can actually *agree* on.
Every charging scheme will be unfair to some - we had categories, and that was unfair to some, we had flat fees, and those are unfair to some, and even if we introduce fee-by-/24, it will be unfair to some.
Even if we totally ignore IPv4, there will still be people that say "someone with a larger yearly budget should pay more", and "non-profit members should be free!", and maybe they are right. But if we go there, some people will have to pay more than they did the year before, and they will find this unfair.
Conclusions left as homework to the reader.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.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 from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.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 Fergal, Thank you for the detailed overview of the current efforts to increase voter turnout — they are clearly thoughtful and well-executed. From my perspective, one simple and potentially very effective measure could be to introduce a small “voting deposit” as part of the annual membership fee. For example, an additional €50 could be added to each member’s invoice as a deposit tied to voting participation. At the end of the voting period, this deposit could be redistributed in one of two ways: * Either shared equally among those who actually voted (e.g. if 2,000 out of 20,000 members voted, each would receive €500), * Or refunded only to those who voted, with unclaimed deposits contributing to the following year’s RIPE NCC budget. This approach would not only encourage participation but also reinforce a sense of shared responsibility without introducing any technical complexity. Kind regards, Chenyang On Jun 7, 2025, at 00:00, Fergal Cunningham <fergalc@ripe.net> wrote: Dear Dmitry, all, Thank you for the input on the voting turnout. There are quite a few suggestions we noted from the discussions. Some seem like they could be implemented with some work, but others would require significant changes to our governance structures. We’ll review them all internally and see what’s feasible to implement. Increasing voter turnout is something we’ve worked very hard at since electronic voting was introduced. In summary, what we have done is: * Make registration and voting as easy as possible - registering takes no more than a minute or two via the LIR Portal * Provide remote options for discussions and the voting processes * Provide a recording immediately after the GM for those unable to attend or who have timezone restrictions so they can follow discussion and vote at their convenience * Publish extensive supporting documentation well in advance of the GMs, including explainers of more complicated resolutions to be voted on * Have Open Houses to allow members to interact directly with our Executive Board, candidates and RIPE NCC management on important issues * Send extensive communications and reminders on a number of channels, including a personalised mail to unregistered voters the week before the GM * Publish analyses of the voting after each GM to support discussion on the issues and the turnout Every year, we also improve our processes and the GM-related information on our website based on what we hear from members who vote. Given the above, it’s not clear to what extent changes to process will increase turnout. Although we do expect a vote on a new charging model based on the Charging Scheme Task Force’s proposed principles would see many more members exercise their voting rights. A good approach might be to see voter turnout as a shared responsibility between the RIPE NCC and its members. For instance, those members who are invested in seeing greater participation could play a big part by informing other members in their networks about the issues to be voted on, and persuading them to vote. People might well be more convinced by someone they know in their network than by an additional email from the RIPE NCC. And ensuring discussions stay positive and on-topic would also help. We lost many subscribers from members-discuss last year when discussions around the charging scheme and budget became overly heated. This caused over 500 people to unsubscribe from this mailing list, and these people will therefore not be participating in discussions or hearing what people think on important issues, including matters to be voted on. If the RIPE NCC can work on suggested improvements, and invested members can play their own part in helping to boost turnout, we could well see a much more involved and engaged membership. An excellent start would be to provide useful feedback to the Charging Scheme Task Force on the document they provided with principles for a new charging scheme model, which was the initial request that started the current discussions. Kind regards, Fergal Cunningham Head of Membership Engagement RIPE NCC On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 3:10 PM <sdy@a-n-t.ru<mailto:sdy@a-n-t.ru>> wrote: It is clear: "If I got something for free, then I don't want to pay for it. Even if it is very expensive and necessary for everyone." But arguments to not pay for /24 has next problems. 1. The equality of members and their votes is fixed by the charter of the NCC and does not depend on the payment in any way - forget this issue forever. 2. Payment in accordance with the amount of resources used is not prohibited anywhere or in any way - all these arguments about Dutch law are nonsense. 3. The nature of the activity (commercial or non-commercial) is determined not by the fundraising per peers, but by its established goals and the way income is distributed among the participants. And is fixed by the charter NCC. !!! Now a little bit about the decision and the vote. !!! The most important thing we are facing right now is the passivity of 90% of NCC members. They are all full-rights participants and should take part in General meetings in a good way. But in fact, the issues are decided on GM by the votes of 600-700 members out of 22000. I see this as a purposeful approach by the core of the old NCC members (who are big resource holders) and unfortunately the NCC management. Most of the LIRs not to be subscribers on [members-discuss], do not participate in GM, and do not even understand their role and rights in the community. For a fair solution of such complex issues as the payment scheme and the prospects for the future of the NCC, it is necessary to attract the large number of LIRs. I would like the management of the NCC to take a closer look at these problems. Serbulov Dmitry.
Hi,
On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 01:36:27PM +0300, Jean Salim wrote:
We missed you Gert, I was surprised you disappeared as you're always the one to mislead the conversation away from charging scheme. I would like yo hear your proposal on an alternative charging scheme that more fair to small LIRs. I myself, as pointed out before, prefer the ARIN model.
"1 LIR, 1 vote, 1 fee for the membership" seems to be the one where most LIRs can actually *agree* on.
Every charging scheme will be unfair to some - we had categories, and that was unfair to some, we had flat fees, and those are unfair to some, and even if we introduce fee-by-/24, it will be unfair to some.
Even if we totally ignore IPv4, there will still be people that say "someone with a larger yearly budget should pay more", and "non-profit members should be free!", and maybe they are right. But if we go there, some people will have to pay more than they did the year before, and they will find this unfair.
Conclusions left as homework to the reader.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.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 from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.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 from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.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/
On 06/06/2025 16:00:49, "Fergal Cunningham" <fergalc@ripe.net> wrote:
Increasing voter turnout is something we’ve worked very hard at since electronic voting was introduced. In summary, what we have done is:
The best way demonstrated so far is to have a high peril option that looks too risky to ignore.
Make registration and voting as easy as possible - registering takes no more than a minute or two via the LIR Portal
I have registered then later forgot vote, if you get my attention once maybe you should use it to collect my vote rather than a registration.
Given the above, it’s not clear to what extent changes to process will increase turnout.
Yes, most of the time we, and I suspect many others, just don't feel the need if there is nothing there that we object to.
Although we do expect a vote on a new charging model based on the Charging Scheme Task Force’s proposed principles would see many more members exercise their voting rights.
If you are going to try forcing another category based system that increases fees in the lower tiers and leaves them at risk of large increases as membership declines then yes we will need to turn out to say no again.
People might well be more convinced by someone they know in their network than by an additional email from the RIPE NCC.
That's how it works "oh shit, look what they have put up for vote". Really we don't need this drama. brandon
Hello Fergal and all, Thank you for outlining the steps RIPE NCC has taken to improve voter turnout. However, I believe these measures don't address the fundamental issue: the extremely low turnout creates a situation where approximately 2.46% of members can effectively change RIPE NCC policies, which raises serious questions about the legitimacy of our voting process. For context, at the Amsterdam GM (26-27 Sep 2012), Option A passed with 197 Yes / 105 No / 11 Abstain votes—representing only about 3.8% of ~8,000 LIRs. This means that the decision to implement the flat fee structure was effectively made by just 2.46% of LIRs, which is concerning for organizational health. Regarding the specific points raised: Registration and Voting Process: While the process may seem simple from a technical perspective, it presents significant barriers. Many 2FA token holders are non-technical managers or owners who find the current authentication requirements confusing and overly complex. The current TOTP/HOTP system is fundamentally flawed for voting purposes because: * The shared secret can be distributed to multiple people, creating accountability issues * There's no way to verify who actually possesses the authenticator * It requires manual code entry, which is error-prone and frustrating for non-technical users RIPE NCC should implement WebAuthn (passkeys), which offers significant advantages: * Single-click authentication that even non-technical users find intuitive * Cryptographically secure credentials that cannot be shared or extracted * Attestation capabilities that can verify the authenticity of the voting device * Support across all modern devices and browsers Registration Requirement: * Why is separate registration required at all? APNIC and LACNIC don't require this additional step—membership itself should suffice as registration to vote. * Evidence suggests that the registration requirement alone causes RIPE to lose 15-18% of potential votes annually. * If Dutch law truly requires separate registration (which I question), this warrants serious consideration of either legal clarification or structural changes(moving HQ?). Voting Window: * The 40-minute session limit is unnecessarily restrictive. Members should be able to vote at any time during the voting period. * RIPE has by far the shortest voting window among RIRs: RIPE NCC ~1.5 days vs. ARIN 8 days, APNIC ~14 days, LACNIC 7 days, and AFRINIC 7 days. This <48-hour window is a governance choice, not a technical limitation. Communication: * While I appreciate the reminder emails, RIPE NCC demonstrates much greater persistence when requesting information from members (even during wartime or government strikes) than when encouraging voting participation. Mailing List Participation: * The loss of 500 subscribers from members-discuss is indeed concerning. However, rather than accepting disengagement, RIPE NCC could offer digest options for those who prefer less frequent updates while maintaining their connection to community discussions. Participation in governance discussions should be viewed as a civic duty within our community, not an optional activity. I believe meaningful change requires addressing these structural barriers rather than placing the burden solely on engaged members to increase turnout. While I agree that providing feedback to the Charging Scheme Task Force is important, we must also address these fundamental governance issues that limit member participation. On Fri, 2025-06-06 at 17:00 +0200, Fergal Cunningham wrote:
Dear Dmitry, all,
Thank you for the input on the voting turnout. There are quite a few suggestions we noted from the discussions. Some seem like they could be implemented with some work, but others would require significant changes to our governance structures. We’ll review them all internally and see what’s feasible to implement.
Increasing voter turnout is something we’ve worked very hard at since electronic voting was introduced. In summary, what we have done is:
* Make registration and voting as easy as possible - registering takes no more than a minute or two via the LIR Portal * Provide remote options for discussions and the voting processes * Provide a recording immediately after the GM for those unable to attend or who have timezone restrictions so they can follow discussion and vote at their convenience * Publish extensive supporting documentation well in advance of the GMs, including explainers of more complicated resolutions to be voted on * Have Open Houses to allow members to interact directly with our Executive Board, candidates and RIPE NCC management on important issues * Send extensive communications and reminders on a number of channels, including a personalised mail to unregistered voters the week before the GM * Publish analyses of the voting after each GM to support discussion on the issues and the turnout
Every year, we also improve our processes and the GM-related information on our website based on what we hear from members who vote.
Given the above, it’s not clear to what extent changes to process will increase turnout. Although we do expect a vote on a new charging model based on the Charging Scheme Task Force’s proposed principles would see many more members exercise their voting rights.
A good approach might be to see voter turnout as a shared responsibility between the RIPE NCC and its members. For instance, those members who are invested in seeing greater participation could play a big part by informing other members in their networks about the issues to be voted on, and persuading them to vote. People might well be more convinced by someone they know in their network than by an additional email from the RIPE NCC.
And ensuring discussions stay positive and on-topic would also help. We lost many subscribers from members-discuss last year when discussions around the charging scheme and budget became overly heated. This caused over 500 people to unsubscribe from this mailing list, and these people will therefore not be participating in discussions or hearing what people think on important issues, including matters to be voted on.
If the RIPE NCC can work on suggested improvements, and invested members can play their own part in helping to boost turnout, we could well see a much more involved and engaged membership. An excellent start would be to provide useful feedback to the Charging Scheme Task Force on the document they provided with principles for a new charging scheme model, which was the initial request that started the current discussions.
Kind regards, Fergal Cunningham Head of Membership Engagement RIPE NCC
On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 3:10 PM <sdy@a-n-t.ru> wrote:
It is clear: "If I got something for free, then I don't want to pay for it. Even if it is very expensive and necessary for everyone."
But arguments to not pay for /24 has next problems. 1. The equality of members and their votes is fixed by the charter of the NCC and does not depend on the payment in any way - forget this issue forever. 2. Payment in accordance with the amount of resources used is not prohibited anywhere or in any way - all these arguments about Dutch law are nonsense. 3. The nature of the activity (commercial or non-commercial) is determined not by the fundraising per peers, but by its established goals and the way income is distributed among the participants. And is fixed by the charter NCC.
!!! Now a little bit about the decision and the vote. !!!
The most important thing we are facing right now is the passivity of 90% of NCC members. They are all full-rights participants and should take part in General meetings in a good way.
But in fact, the issues are decided on GM by the votes of 600-700 members out of 22000. I see this as a purposeful approach by the core of the old NCC members (who are big resource holders) and unfortunately the NCC management. Most of the LIRs not to be subscribers on [members-discuss], do not participate in GM, and do not even understand their role and rights in the community. For a fair solution of such complex issues as the payment scheme and the prospects for the future of the NCC, it is necessary to attract the large number of LIRs. I would like the management of the NCC to take a closer look at these problems.
Serbulov Dmitry.
Hi,
On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 01:36:27PM +0300, Jean Salim wrote:
We missed you Gert, I was surprised you disappeared as you're always the one to mislead the conversation away from charging scheme. I would like yo hear your proposal on an alternative charging scheme that more fair to small LIRs. I myself, as pointed out before, prefer the ARIN model.
"1 LIR, 1 vote, 1 fee for the membership" seems to be the one where most LIRs can actually *agree* on.
Every charging scheme will be unfair to some - we had categories, and that was unfair to some, we had flat fees, and those are unfair to some, and even if we introduce fee-by-/24, it will be unfair to some.
Even if we totally ignore IPv4, there will still be people that say "someone with a larger yearly budget should pay more", and "non- profit members should be free!", and maybe they are right. But if we go there, some people will have to pay more than they did the year before, and they will find this unfair.
Conclusions left as homework to the reader.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner- Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.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 from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.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 from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.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 Fergal, all, On 6/6/25 5:00 PM, Fergal Cunningham wrote:
And ensuring discussions stay positive and on-topic would also help. We lost many subscribers from members-discuss last year when discussions around the charging scheme and budget became overly heated. This caused over 500 people to unsubscribe from this mailing list, and these people will therefore not be participating in discussions or hearing what people think on important issues, including matters to be voted on.
Yes, the discussions was heated. But in general, loosing 500 people from list doesn't mean loosing 500 members from 20 000 in total (and if so, it's still a small number). And we don't even know how many of that people unsubscribed just because they're not interested in such discussion at all. And also the data alone on how many people left the discussion does not tell us how many LIRs are no longer participating in the discussion. The number based on the number of people is a bit manipulative here. Yes, if we have 20,000 members, even if everyone only commented once in discussion, there will be tons of emails. That's a fact you can't do anything about, this is expectable... yes potentially losing 2% of the opinion is not ideal, but it's not a disaster - just the choice. Yes, it is debatable whether to limit how many emails single sender can write at a period of time (day, week). But experience tells us that every limit can be circumvented somehow if there is some interest. But yes, we can introduce some limits some reducing chat. And when it comes to member discussion, actually identify LIRs - and not just count people without any link. RIPE NCC member discussions are not the same as other RIPE discussions - non-members can't discuss here. And yes, the limit can have dynamic parameters - the first comment in a given time interval is not subject to moderation, the next one is. But please, in these discussions, let's also consider the fact that there're thousands of members. In this context, email count from this list can be huge - by design... - Daniel
participants (26)
-
Alexandre -
Brandon Butterworth -
Brandon Butterworth -
Brett Sheffield -
D. Walde - Walde IT-Systemhaus -
Daniel Suchy -
Denis Fondras - Liopen -
Denys Fedoryshchenko -
Fergal Cunningham -
Gao Chenyang -
Gert Doering -
Jean Salim -
Kai Siering -
Kaj Niemi -
Kurt Jaeger -
Lutz Donnerhacke -
Matthias Brumm -
Mihail Fedorov -
Murat Terzioglu | PREBITS -
Niels Dettenbach -
Rob Evans -
ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED -
Sasha Romijn -
sdy＠a-n-t.ru -
Sebastian-Becker＠telekom.de -
Мирослав Козарик