April 2023 - members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024
by Maximilian Wilhelm 05 May '23

05 May '23

Dear Simon-Jan, * thanks for the update on the charging schema and the updated calculator! These models still introduce charges for ASNs, the questions on the "why?" has been raised multiple times and I haven't seen any explanation for that. Did I miss it? I think a transfer fee makes sense as tranfers create a lot of (paper)work for the RIPE NCC. What puzzles me is that with a /29 IPv6 allocation one ends up in category 3 (instead of cat 2 with /32). Given I was pushed to take a /29 allocation - instead of the /32 I requested - by the RIPE NCC, and only accepted the "upsell" to stop the back and forth with 24h delay and it didn't make a big difference at the time, this feels wrong now. If this were to becomer reality I would expect quite some LIRs opening tickets with the RIPE NCC to return their "extranous" IPv6 space (above /32), which I would expect to create some toil on the RIPE NCC. With this version I think option A would be the least bad option, but also hard to accept. Best, Max Anno domini 2023 Simon-Jan Haytink scripsit: > Dear RIPE NCC members, > > I want to thank all those who contributed to the consultation so far on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 and the model we should use for the coming years. > > We can now share three draft models that we developed based on input from the members on the Members Discuss mailing list and in the Charging Scheme Open House, as well as from the discussions at the recent Executive Board Meeting. > > The result is that we are proposing three draft charging scheme models: one category-based and two that are based on the previous "one LIR account, one fee" model. We hope to receive feedback on these models by 19 April so the Executive Board can propose the final versions on 26 April. The members will then vote on those three models at the upcoming General Meeting on 24-26 May. > > The three models all aim to fulfil a budget that is roughly the same as 2023 plus general cost increases including inflation, so EUR 42-45 million. By doing this, we can ensure that we can meet the potential budgetary requirements for 2024 while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contributions should we receive excess funds. The Activity Plan and Budget will be discussed with members this coming Autumn. > > The three models are available to review at: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/ch… > > We also provide an updated calculator where members can see for themselves how much they might pay under the draft models: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/ne… > > To summarise the main features of the three models: > > Model A - Category Model > > This model has ten categories to provide greater granularity. It also charges separately for independent and legacy resources in exactly the same way as in previous years. Additionally, a separate 50 EUR ASN assignment fee has been added. Both separately charged resources do not contribute to the category scores. This means there is no double charging and no specific charging for transfers or administrative work carried out by the RIPE NCC. There is a New /24 IPv4 administration fee to ensure there is a financial consequence to joining the IPv4 Waiting List. The fee would be payable upon receipt of the /24, and members joining the waiting list who do not have an eligible LIR account, would pay the new LIR sign-up fee to open a new LIR account and join the waiting list. > > With this model, approximately 68% of members would pay less than the current annual fee, with the remaining 32% paying more. > > The discussion with members helped us to see that a category-based model would receive significant support from members if the version was simplified. Should members see the need to charge for other elements, then that can be incorporated into the category model in the coming years. Any such additional charges could potentially then reduce the fees per category. > > Model B - Price increase and ASN fee > > This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there is a price increase of EUR 150 and a 50 EUR ASN fee to ensure we can meet our budgetary requirements while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contribution should we receive excess funds. > > Model C - Transfer fee and ASN fee > > This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there is a charge of EUR 1,000 per transfer to be paid by the receiving party and a 50 EUR ASN fee to ensure we can meet our budgetary requirements while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contribution should we receive excess funds. > > Further information on the charging scheme models is provided at: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/ch… > > The RIPE NCC Executive Board believes that a category-based model is the best option to help address uncertainty that might be caused by consolidation with multiple LIRs and to provide greater flexibility and fairness in how we charge members in the coming years. > > On 26 April, the final versions of the charging schemes that members will vote on will be published for the members to consider and discuss. If you have comments on the draft charging schemes, we therefore ask you to comment on the members-discuss mailing list by 19 April so we have time to incorporate any feedback if necessary. > > Importantly, we ask all members to register for the RIPE NCC General Meeting where the final decision will be in your hands. Register to participate and vote at: > https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active > > Simon-Jan Haytink > Chief Financial Officer > RIPE NCC > -- Friends are relatives you make for yourself.

21 34

Charging Scheme, Budget Questions
by Phillip Baker 03 May '23

03 May '23

Hello, Long time LIR, first time (I think?) list caller... I confess, mea culpa, I was not on members-discuss at the time to see the earlier conversation and despite my best efforts to read the archive I have not yet seen some of the answers from RIPE on list that I would have hoped to see. Perhaps some of this was addressed, but not documented on-list from, the open house I saw that took place. I have to say that this seems to me to be a deeply cynical way to get the revenue increase that RIPE wants (i.e. equal to a +10% increase of the current cost model). By presenting this "pay per size" proposal (which by my reading of RIPEs figures benefits nearly 70% of the vote and so seems a certainty if those members vote, as I expect, in their short term interest) as *only* being available with the option of increasing their revenue despite apparently fairly significant reserves, this seems likely to guarantee RIPE the same budget increase it clearly feels it needs as a 10% increase to the one-lir-one-fee model would (but which is, of course, much harder to get past a vote). In some ways, perhaps, this is good in that it has made several LIRs I have flagged this proposal to now sit up and take notice, in much the same way as some of the same people eventually did over at Nominet, that something at least appears like it might have gone wrong. This "final" option A charging model would see us paying more than we ever have, even after adjusting our 03-04 (also, then, 'pay per size') invoices for inflation (and our fees of course actually went down in 04/05). In the last 2 decades generally, we have made minimal demands of RIPE other than expecting them to maintain the database/RPKI. We nevertheless understand the utility and value of many "extra curricular" activities, but like others have questions about the amounts now apparently involved, the amount of staff required, and are a little dismayed at the options being presented at this point making a funding increase (not to mention a nearly 3x rise for us personally) a "fait accompli", as if the tapering in revenue from LIR memberships over the coming year was somehow unpredictable in November 2022 or previous years, when the budgets were set. I accept that we are now late to the discussion/shaping party as these are "final" charging schemes, but I would still like some specific answers from RIPE (some of these questions have been asked before, but not answered anywhere that I can see); I appreciate there are a lot of them so I have tried to order and group questions by topic, starting with the charging scheme and then turning more generally to RIPE itself; 1. Why were there no "pay per size, shrink RIPE budget in real terms" options presented? Would just charging more for transfers (which I imagine some of the most 'expensive' activity RIPE undertakes per action in terms of verification, sanctions checks, etc) and keeping the current model be sufficient? I did not see this modelled, but I might have missed it. 2. Why are the categories (still) so coarse? A member with /19 + /24 pays as much as a member with 2 x /19, does this seem "fair"? I understand from someone I was discussing this with that apparently "per IP" had to be ruled out for "tax reasons", but I actually saw no evidence on list of this, so this is only hearsay. Even if a linear scaling (i.e. per /24) model could not be used because of some tax implication - is the suggestion that the Dutch tax system really would only allow categories scaled in powers of two? RIPE certainly has plenty of computers - why was it not possible to make, say, 'categories' larger than the smallest sizes increase by say, /21s or /22s to reduce the steps between them? Why could RIPE not just *tell* members exactly what their projected costs will be for the new A model without having to fill out a spreadsheet (a very evidently error prone process particularly when several revisions of the spreadsheet have existed since the beginning of this conversation) 3. Why does it cap out where it does (and at €10,000)? Does it seem "fair" that i.e. DTAG pays the same as much smaller firms that nevertheless fall into Cat 10? 4. Has RIPE included in their model the likelihood of firms being suitably financially motivated to close multiple medium sized LIRs to make a single large LIR to take advantage of the cap? 5. What happens to all of our costs under Model A in year 2 after all the projected LIRs close and budget has increased by 12% again? How much more % will our ~3x increase need to go up by then? 6. Why did RIPE seem to make (and apparently plan on continuing to make) increasing non-registry budget commitments on the back of extra revenue from what were very obviously always going to be short-term LIR memberships? It seems from other messages on this list that RIPE already plans, conceptually, on a 5-12% budget increase in November... it seems we just voting to enable that now, without knowing what that money would be spent on? 7. If the outcome was that the membership somehow still voted against increasing the overall RIPE revenue this year, *what* areas would be cut? Has this truly not been assessed/forecast already? Are there really no RIPE / NCC functions, consultants, PR, outreach, etc that could be scaled back as the rest of industry has had to in the face of increasing costs to focus on more core RIR priorities? (accepting that this line of questioning opens a can of worms about what those priorities should be as everyone will have different priorities, but we could always have a collective weighting vote over which activities should be prioritised) What evidence is there of RIPE (NCC) working to ensure it's costs are in fact reasonable? 8. As someone who is old, but evidently not old enough, why are budget decisions decoupled by 6 months from discussions about how the funds to meet that projected budget should be collected? Is this to allow for inaccurate forecasting to be discovered during the 1H of the budget year to avoid a large shortfall at the end? If so is this not a remnant of times past before RIPE was a €40m a year entity that should be quite competent at forecasting? Is it still necessary? Certainly, today it has the effect of focusing member attention at the "wrong end of the telescope"; many are discussing only about how much each member should pay and what category they should fall into (short term view), rather than on how much money it is that RIPE is (and ought to be) spending (long term view). When budget time rolls around, people are less engaged because the change has no immediate financial impact upon them. In the meantime, people are told "now is not the time to talk budgets, please just give us more money". Does this approach seem in the interest of members generally? -- Regards, Phillip Baker Netcalibre - Managed Internet Solutions, Remote Hands & Network Engineering Services Netcalibre Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales #5172812 at 41, E4 6NA - VAT Reg GB842975002 -----Original Message----- From: ncc-announce <ncc-announce-bounces(a)ripe.net> On Behalf Of Raymond Jetten Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 4:31 PM To: ncc-announce(a)ripe.net Subject: [ncc-announce] [GM] Final RIPE NCC Charging Schemes for Members to Vote On Dear all, We have now published the final RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 options that will be voted on by members at the General Meeting on 24 May, together with an updated calculator that allows you to see how the different options would affect you. This can be viewed at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2023/documentatio… I would like to thank all members who contributed to the consultation on this important topic. A wide range of opinions were shared on many aspects of the RIPE NCC’s charging. Although not every suggestion could be accommodated, we did our best to produce voting options that took your feedback into consideration. The outcome is that we propose four charging schemes for the membership to choose from, with three votes in total. The projected 2024 income for each option is included for comparison. - Vote 1: Model A: Category-based model, (projected income: EUR 42M) Model B: Continuation of the “one LIR, one fee” model with a 10% LIR fee price increase (projected income: EUR 42M) Model C: Continuation of the “one LIR, one fee” model with a 5% LIR fee price increase (projected income: EUR 40M) Model D: Continuation of the “one LIR, one fee” model that is exactly the same as the 2023 model (projected income: EUR 38M) - Vote 2: Additional charge for ASN assignments (Yes/No) (projected income: EUR 1.8M) - Vote 3: Additional charge for transfer requests (Yes/No) (projected income: EUR 1.2M) We decided to separate the votes for ASN assignments and transfer requests because we think members should have a clear choice on the charging models themselves. There can then be a separate discussion on whether these other charges are appropriate. Note that the income from either/both of these charges would be in addition to income from Models A, B, C or D. The Board believes that the category-based model (Model A) will put the RIPE NCC in the best position to manage change in the future. It addresses the perceived unfairness of the current model, based on an objective measure of members’ resource holdings. It spreads the burden more fairly if future price increases are required, and it allows us to reduce the uncertainty caused by multiple LIRs and the associated loss of income due to the consolidation of LIR accounts. Comments on the IPv6 category limits have also been taken into account and corrected in the model; the lowest category is now a /29 rather than a /31 as it was in the previous version. Model A introduces a new fee to join the IPv4 Waiting List of EUR 1,000, and a yet-to-be-determined fee before the allocation can be made. In effect, these fees replace the current practice and fees involved with creating multiple LIRs to request additional allocations. More details are in the charging scheme document. We note that we saw many requests for a pure usage-based model. However, such a model would greatly distort the RIPE NCC’s income dynamics and may present new risks. Making the RIPE NCC reliant on a small number of members for a large part of its income could undermine its stability and independence, and it is reasonable to think these larger companies would want a greater say in the organisation’s governance as a result of their increased contribution. This is why the Board would prefer to see all fees stay within a reasonable bandwidth. The models B, C and D, which are based on the existing “one LIR, one fee” approach, are included not only to provide an alternative to Model A, but also to allow members to determine the level of the fees should they reject a category-based model. The Board’s advice to members is therefore to vote preferentially for Models A, B, C and D in that order, and to vote “yes” for votes 2 and 3 on additional charges for ASNs and transfers. Models A and B will provide for a cost-neutral budget compared to 2023 when inflation is taken into account. Approval of the separate charges for ASNs/transfers, together with approval for Models A or B, could see the RIPE NCC receive income in excess of its 2024 cost budget, which is set during the activity planning process every Autumn. However, this does not mean the RIPE NCC’s budget will automatically increase. The budget is set by the Board following consultation with the membership, and members also retain the ability to redistribute any future surplus in the following year. **** Projected Financial Impact of Different Models: Vote 1: Model A: Allows for a budget that is neutral compared to 2023 (taking inflation into account) Model B: Allows for a budget that is neutral compared to 2023 (taking inflation into account) / 10% increase on the per-LIR fee Model C: Reduction in budget (after inflation) / 5% increase in per-LIR fee Model D: Significant reduction in budget even before inflation is taken into account / per-LIR fee is unchanged – note that any resulting shortfall may have to be covered by the RIPE NCC’s reserves Vote 2/3: When combined with Model A or B this could allow for budget to further develop services. Otherwise, it could provide for a neutral budget (compared to 2023) if combined with Models C or D. *** The RIPE NCC Managing Director, Hans Petter Holen, will also present on high level budget development at the General Meeting, to continue the discussion members have started regarding the RIPE NCC’s budget. The Board has paid close attention to this conversation, and we hope it continues as we work to develop the Activity Plan and Budget for 2024. I would like to remind members that it is during this yearly activity planning phase that feedback on the RIPE NCC’s budget and activities is sought and that the present discussion is about how we fund the RIPE NCC’s operations from 2024 onward. I would also like to bring your attention to a Board resolution that freezes the IPv4 Waiting List, until a full analysis is carried out on how this might be best accommodated within a category-based charging scheme model and a discussion can be had with the RIPE community on this issue: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ncc-announce/2023-April/001643.html Finally, I strongly urge you to exercise your voting rights at the upcoming General Meeting. We have charged the members in the same way for ten years, and we are now proposing changes that will have a financial impact for you. We have tried to provide meaningful options for you to consider, and now we pass the responsibility to you, the membership. We ask that you take on this responsibility by registering to vote and participating in the General Meeting. Register to Vote: https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active Kind regards, Raymond Jetten RIPE NCC Executive Board Treasurer

4 4

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme
by Misak Khachatryan 03 May '23

03 May '23

Kinda strange that people suggest RIPE to ask money for free services which they think will reduce membership fees. But these services, if they are needed by anyone, or let's say by most, will become just another indirect membership fee. Or if too few of the members will pay for them, we just lose all these "nice to have services" due to lack of funding. Best regards, Misak Khachatryan, Network Administration and Monitoring Department Manager, GNC- ALFA CJSC 1 Khaghaghutyan str., Abovyan, 2201 Armenia Tel: +374 60 46 99 70 (9670), Mob.: +374 55 19 98 40 URL: www.rtarmenia.am<http://www.rtarmenia.am> On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 6:59 PM Kaj Niemi <kajtzu(a)basen.net<mailto:kajtzu@basen.net>> wrote: FWIW, the latest EB minutes can be found here [1] and pertain to what options for voting on the charging model will be presented at the GM in May. Everyone might want to take a look at it. [1] https://www.ripe.net/about-us/executive-board/minutes/2023/minutes-166th-ex… Kaj From: Kaj Niemi Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 12:47 To: Randy Bush <randy(a)psg.com<mailto:randy@psg.com>>; Paul Newton <paul.newton(a)f4rn.org.uk<mailto:paul.newton@f4rn.org.uk>> Cc: Sander Steffann <sander(a)steffann.nl<mailto:sander@steffann.nl>>; Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net<mailto:gert@space.net>>; <members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> <members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> Subject: RE: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Hi, It would probably be better to not single out a specific service to get rid of just like that but instead objectively look at the services NCC provides and should provide as part of the service commitment to its membership. To figure out whether they really are something a RIR should do as part of its basic services for LIRs or services that are value-add. Some of these services can be categorized as being in the interest of the public, like the K-root. On the other hand, I don't think anything prohibits charging for other services, if NCC truly wanted. Some of the charging models want to introduce transfer fees, for example, and I do believe people pay for RIPE meetings, too. Thinking creatively about some of the things mentioned: * Training and certs * This is a topic where there could actually be a possibility of upselling * many companies have training budgets * many allow employees to choose how to spend rather freely (subject to line manager approval, etc.) * NCC has 14 FTEs doing developing and doing training, spending around 2 million annually on development of said services * One would assume that there would at least be some kind of payback or plan on how to recoup the costs over time * Looking at 2022 financials, at most certifications were a 98k euro business in 2022 but since NCC sold voucher bundles lets assume generously that 50k of revenue was attributable to 2022 and the other half is classed as future revenue. * Conclusion: depending on viewpoint the costs are either 20x or 40x current revenue * Why should the membership pay for this year in, year out? * Suggestion: produce a realistic plan that demonstrates track to, at least, break even for training and certifications that includes spent past costs for X years * Network visibility * According to NCC there are about 10k atlas probes, there is RIS, etc. and people seem to find the data produced genuinely useful * If the data is useful, it should be possible to quantify its value * if there is value it should be possible to charge for it * Suggestion: produce a plan that demonstrates roadmap to breakeven of spent opex for the last X years As a side benefit one would have also diversify revenue away from being 98% to 90% or so membership fees but at least it would be a start. Now, if the answers are “we cannot charge for it, people will hate us for being greedy”, “nobody would ever pay for this”, “how can we convince someone to buy when we have given it for free in the past” - I think the issue is again that either people do not truly understand the value of the service or by itself is not valuable enough to anyone. The world is full of obscure sources of data for almost any industry charging for their produced/collected data, why should the networking industry be any different? I do not believe it is. In any case, why should the membership pay for such things? Alternatively, one could have “LIR services” package and a “the megacombo supersized LIR services and extra” package. Those who want something beyond the basics can elect to pay for the extra. Of course, for an organization that would sell SaaS and data, the data should be valuable enough that people pay for it year after year. And the services must then be relevant enough that people elect also to pay for them year after year, one cannot simply invent internal projects to keep busy while the money comes in. If one looks at the annual guides, much of the time seems to be spent on internal projects to improve something. The ugly truth, however, is that both potentially monetizable services will not be able to cover any larger deficits fees from decreasing membership numbers for quite some years even if they were run with a criterion to at least break even on direct costs. Given enough support a membership desiring to pay less, it would leave as the alternative to reduce expenditure in various ways. What normal companies do when times are tough is first to get rid of consultants. In this case it would reduce costs per member by 255 euro annually or on an annual budgetary level by 12.75%. I’m reasonably sure the almost 200 people working full time can handle things. Similarly, does everyone need to be in Amsterdam and does NCC need to market rates? EU is a large market and there are always alternatives to nearshore within EU. Does NCC really need to have an office in Dubai? Just to name a few. Lastly, perhaps all of these are great things that should be paid by the membership? Perhaps the real issue at hand is that the 22+ folks in Community Building and Member Engagement, spending 6 million euro inside the External Engagement and Community unit with 42 FTEs spending about 10 million euro annually - 1/4th of the whole budget - is not able to explain the wonderful benefits to us, so instead some of us send emails on members-discuss list and are seemingly unhappy with the direction things are going? Yeah, dunno, always a possibility. Kaj -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> On Behalf Of Randy Bush Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 04:53 To: Paul Newton <paul.newton(a)f4rn.org.uk<mailto:paul.newton@f4rn.org.uk>> Cc: Sander Steffann <sander(a)steffann.nl<mailto:sander@steffann.nl>>; Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net<mailto:gert@space.net>>; <members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> <members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme > It's beginning to look like rearranging deck chairs on the > Titanic. Spot the odd one out (if I've gathered the data correctly) > AFRINIC. $6m > LACNIC. $10m > APNIC. $22.5m > ARIN. $24m > RIPE NCC. €42 = $46m now list the services provided to operators by each. you wanna get rid of ris, atlas, many dns services, new engineer education, ...? to compare you will have to fold caida's budget into arin's. oh, and route views's too. this discussion sometimes reminds me of the US house of representatives debt ceiling discussion. let's cut everything that does not benefit my state, or fossil fuels. i am a ripe member because of the real services, open community, etc. ya gets what ya pay for. tanstaafl. randy _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.rip…<https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss> Unsubscribe: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.rip…<https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/kajtzu%40basen.net>

3 2

RIPE Executive Board Seat Discussion
by Daniel Pearson 02 May '23

02 May '23

Howdy all, I have not seen any discussion on this topic so I would like to bring it up to all members. Many of us are obviously very concerned about the direction that RIPE is heading with its charging scheme and their failure to acknowledge that you cannot discuss a charging scheme change without addressing the budget. I would like to propose that we as RIPE members, discuss and identify 3 candidates whom we can nominate and elect to the executive board that will address things from the perspective of its users and help keep this organization in check. I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts on this, as well as if anyone has any interest in taking up such a challenge. All the best. Daniel Pearson~

6 11

[ncc-announce] [GM] Final RIPE NCC Charging Schemes for Members to Vote On
by Brandon Butterworth 01 May '23

01 May '23

This vote looks rigged (hopefully unintentionally) Vote 1: Model A: Category-based model, (projected income: EUR 42M) Model B: Continuation of the one LIR, one fee model with a 10% LIR fee price increase (projected income: EUR 42M) Model C: Continuation of the one LIR, one fee model with a 5% LIR fee price increase (projected income: EUR 40M) Model D: Continuation of the one LIR, one fee model that is exactly the same as the 2023 model (projected income: EUR 38M) Three of the choices divide the vote for the current model while the one alternative model is category based with unfavourable lower category pricing, there is no per IP model choice. The categories are break even vs the current model at around category 3 to 4 while category 3 and below are 67.78% of membership. Thus it appears this is set up to ensure model A wins - the non A vote is split 3 ways making it quite unlikely to get close to model A votes where the categories favour the bulk of members who joined in the run out IP grab race. Per IP the lower categories are paying a lot more, it just happens that is currently lower than the existing model. This may not continue in the future. When a lot of these LIRs close, as RIPE are expecting in requesting this model change, then those remaining in the lower categories will shoulder an even larger portion of the costs. Be careful what you vote for, you could end up paying a lot more later. This vote also ensures RIPE will get a 10% rise in income, these is no model that is likely to get sufficient votes to avoid that. Now I don't mind that 10% increase as an RPI thing but that could have been done by just adding RPI this year and not greatly distorting the cost model fairness to achieve it. Model A is turkeys voting for xmas. A more reasonable vote is A vs D with a separate vote on allowing a 5 or 10% increase on D should it be chosen as that gives those who think the budget has grown too large on the back of the IP runout race a way to experess that. brandon

3 2

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Final RIPE NCC Charging Schemes for Members to Vote On
by Daniel Suchy 28 Apr '23

28 Apr '23

Hi all, The Board claims fairness of model A, but in reality it still significantly favors large LIRs (incumbents) over small ones - it unfair at all. It's just hiding that behind a lower absolute amount for small LIRs. But the curve does not flatten out too much, if we look on price per IP (see model-comparison.png attached). A and will bring only new problems in long-term perspective. Only the absolute payment for small LIRs will decrease. Model A really reminds me of trying to buy a vote instead of a fairer model at all (68% members are in category from 1 to 3 and their memberships will be cheaper), but basic principles of the original flat model have been preserved. The smaller you are, the more you pay per asset. The question is - why The Board protects (extra-)large LIRs, mostly telco-incumbents holding blocks like /14-/12 at the expense of the smaller LIRs, when we're talking about fairness? I don't see any attempt at a fairer approach here. Instead, they just scare us with highly improbable scenarios. On the contrary, that incumbents have money to buy smaller LIRs (ISPs) - and that counts members in categories from 4 to 7. Those incumbents will hold more and more addresses, the price for their address will keep just falling for them, as there's nothing above proposed Category 10. Yes, the market is continuously consolidating. But model A doesn't care about that, just brings new problems to the market (small enterprises; which are mostly somewhere beteeen category 4 and 7). And on the contrary, it helps the big players on the market. And let's in light of the concerns indicated by the Board try other view, if I detach discussion from IP assets and price fairness: 68% members mentioned above in category 1-3 will bring here only around 30% of the budget income. From this perspective, current flat model is much fairer. That's another point of view - this will also lead to consolidation in membership base especially in categories 4+. They just have to pay more, but in fact, their ability to influence anything is quite small and unequal from the point of view of the money they bring into the organization. Especially at the border of the categories, an effort to optimize the expenses can be assumed. RIPE incomes will fall as a result and this will be the primary consequence of category based model, which again is most problematic beteeen categories 4 and 7 - which makes 43% of income in category-based model. Sub-RIR organisations will simply start to share their costs. From the point of view of ip addresses, the advantage is increasing in higher categories - you have to pay less per IP. And it will not be difficult to maintain contractual or statutory relations within such SubRIRs - they already exists somewhat, but now it will be even more attractive from a financial point of view. From both points of view, the Board simply failed in it's primary role. Short-term populism trumps long-term vision after IPv4 depletion. They praise something that will cause problems in the future, even from a financial point of view. Medium LIRs were thrown overboard. So let's watch the dance on the upper deck of the sinking ship. I'll be really surprised if option A doesn't win. But I'm very afraid of the consequences. It's a good choice from my point of view. Soon we'll discuss even more about how to finance still growing beast. And even for the small ones (in category 1-3), costs will increase significantly as a result. Because the money from the middle LIRs ones will simply start to disappear as a result of formal mergers. The middle class is the real victim here. - Daniel On 4/26/23 17:31, Raymond Jetten wrote: > The Board believes that the category-based model (Model A) will put the RIPE NCC in the best position to manage change in the future. It addresses the perceived unfairness of the current model, based on an objective measure of members’ resource holdings. It spreads the burden more fairly if future price increases are required, and it allows us to reduce the uncertainty caused by multiple LIRs and the associated loss of income due to the consolidation of LIR accounts. Comments on the IPv6 category limits have also been taken into account and corrected in the model; the lowest category is now a /29 rather than a /31 as it was in the previous version. Model A introduces a new fee to join the IPv4 Waiting List of EUR 1,000, and a yet-to-be-determined fee before the allocation can be made. In effect, these fees replace the current practice and fees involved with creating multiple LIRs to request additional allocations. More details are in the charging scheme document. > > We note that we saw many requests for a pure usage-based model. However, such a model would greatly distort the RIPE NCC’s income dynamics and may present new risks. Making the RIPE NCC reliant on a small number of members for a large part of its income could undermine its stability and independence, and it is reasonable to think these larger companies would want a greater say in the organisation’s governance as a result of their increased contribution. This is why the Board would prefer to see all fees stay within a reasonable bandwidth.

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme
by Paul Lewis 28 Apr '23

28 Apr '23

On 2023-04-28 15:17, Paul Lewis wrote: > I feel that discussion is important otherwise nothing can potentially > change really. It shouldn't matter whether you're a small LIR, hobby > enthusiast or an enterprise, every voice matters. I feel that your > message sort of comes across as saying that smallest LIRs and hobby > enthusiasts are unimportant. > > --- > Regards, > Paul Lewis. > > On 2023-04-26 18:07, Michel Lanners wrote: > > All, > > Is the amount of money that is at stake here, i.e. the individual > member fee, worth all this discussion? I don't want to sound > disrespectful against members that operate on tight budgets. But except > for the smallest LIRs and hobby enthusiasts, the annual fee that we are > discussing should be, excuse the term, peanuts in any case. > > Of course one can discuss RIPE NCC budget and the value of services > this budget produces. > > But I don't like it when individual services are questioned for the > various reasons, mostly because they are not important to the ones or > the others. > > RIPE is about a community effort, and RIPE NCC's services should > benefit the community as a whole - not individual members. For that > reason member fees were traditionally equal for all. Whether you use > all of the services, or only a subset. As long as the fee is > sufficiently low, you should not care. And I feel it still is > sufficiently low. > > Cheers > > Michel LANNERS > CIO at LU-CIX Management G.I.E. > -- > Mail: michel.lanners(a)lu-cix.lu > Phone: (+352) 28 99 29 92-81 > LU-CIX Management G.I.E. > 202, Z.A.E. Wolser F > L-3290 Bettembourg > lu-cix.lu [1] > luxembourg-internet-days.com [2] > lunog.lu [3] > > On 26 Apr 2023, at 11:47, Kaj Niemi <kajtzu(a)basen.net> wrote: > > Hi, > > It would probably be better to not single out a specific service to get > rid of just like that but instead objectively look at the services NCC > provides _and should provide as part of the service commitment to its > membership._ To figure out whether they really are something a RIR > should do as part of its _basic services for LIRs_ or services that are > value-add. Some of these services can be categorized as being in the > interest of the public, like the K-root. > > On the other hand, I don't think anything prohibits charging for other > services, if NCC truly wanted. Some of the charging models want to > introduce transfer fees, for example, and I do believe people pay for > RIPE meetings, too. > > Thinking creatively about some of the things mentioned: > > * [...] > > * Network visibility > > * > > * According to NCC there are about 10k atlas probes, there is RIS, etc. > and people seem to find the data produced genuinely useful > > * If the data is useful, it should be possible to quantify its value > > * if there is value it should be possible to charge for it > > * Suggestion: produce a plan that demonstrates roadmap to breakeven of > spent opex for the last X years > > As a side benefit one would have also diversify revenue away from being > 98% to 90% or so membership fees but at least it would be a start. > > Now, if the answers are "we cannot charge for it, people will hate us > for being greedy", "nobody would ever pay for this", "how can we > convince someone to buy when we have given it for free in the past" - I > think the issue is again that either people do not truly understand the > value of the service or by itself is not valuable enough to anyone. The > world is full of obscure sources of data for almost any industry > charging for their produced/collected data, why should the networking > industry be any different? I do not believe it is. In any case, why > should the membership pay for such things? > > Alternatively, one could have "LIR services" package and a "the > megacombo supersized LIR services and extra" package. Those who want > something beyond the basics can elect to pay for the extra. Of course, > for an organization that would sell SaaS and data, the data should be > valuable enough that people pay for it year after year. And the > services must then be relevant enough that people elect also to pay for > them year after year, one cannot simply invent internal projects to > keep busy while the money comes in. If one looks at the annual guides, > much of the time seems to be spent on internal projects to improve > something. > > The ugly truth, however, is that both potentially monetizable services > will not be able to cover any larger deficits fees from decreasing > membership numbers for quite some years even if they were run with a > criterion to at least break even on direct costs. Given enough support > a membership desiring to pay less, it would leave as the alternative to > _reduce_ _expenditure_ in various ways. What normal companies do when > times are tough is first to get rid of consultants. In this case it > would reduce costs per member by 255 euro annually or on an annual > budgetary level by 12.75%. I'm reasonably sure the almost 200 people > working full time can handle things. Similarly, does everyone need to > be in Amsterdam and does NCC need to market rates? EU is a large market > and there are always alternatives to nearshore within EU. Does NCC > really need to have an office in Dubai? Just to name a few. > > Lastly, perhaps all of these are great things that should be paid by > the membership? Perhaps the real issue at hand is that the 22+ folks in > Community Building and Member Engagement, spending 6 million euro > inside the External Engagement and Community unit with 42 FTEs spending > about 10 million euro annually - 1/4th of the whole budget - is not > able to explain the wonderful benefits to us, so instead some of us > send emails on members-discuss list and are seemingly unhappy with the > direction things are going? Yeah, dunno, always a possibility. > > Kaj > > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net> On Behalf Of > Randy Bush > Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 04:53 > To: Paul Newton <paul.newton(a)f4rn.org.uk> > Cc: Sander Steffann <sander(a)steffann.nl>; Gert Doering > <gert(a)space.net>; <members-discuss(a)ripe.net> <members-discuss(a)ripe.net> > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE > NCC Charging Scheme > >> It's beginning to look like rearranging deck chairs on the >> Titanic. Spot the odd one out (if I've gathered the data correctly) >> AFRINIC. $6m >> LACNIC. $10m >> APNIC. $22.5m >> ARIN. $24m >> RIPE NCC. EUR42 = $46m > > now list the services provided to operators by each. you wanna get rid > of ris, atlas, many dns services, new engineer education, ...? > > to compare you will have to fold caida's budget into arin's. oh, and > route views's too. > > this discussion sometimes reminds me of the US house of representatives > debt ceiling discussion. let's cut everything that does not benefit my > state, or fossil fuels. > > i am a ripe member because of the real services, open community, etc. > ya gets what ya pay for. tanstaafl. > > randy > > members-discuss mailing list members-discuss(a)ripe.net > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/michel.lanners%40lu-… > _______________________________________________ > members-discuss mailing list > members-discuss(a)ripe.net > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/paul.lewis%40fr89.uk Links: ------ [1] https://www.lu-cix.lu [2] https://luxembourg-internet-days.com [3] https://www.lunog.lu

1 0

[ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme
by Simon-Jan Haytink 27 Apr '23

27 Apr '23

Dear all, First off, I apologise for the length of this email, but I hope to cover a number of points brought up in the consultation so far. I want to thank you again for your input so far on the models. We are busy looking at all the feedback. We have also seen over 100 members sign up for the Open House next week to discuss this further, so I appreciate your interest in helping us to reach a good outcome. Looking at the feedback we've seen so far, there are a number of questions and points raised where I can help to add clarity and also answer some specific questions. 1. Some of you asked for a breakdown of the IPv4 address space held by LIRs to help with your consideration of a category-based model. So here is a chart with that information: https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/di… I’d like to note that in the models we are developing, we are looking to move to a model that charges per member rather than per LIR account. So I also have an indicative spread of how many members would be in each category in the model we shared: https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/me… 2. To clarify what determines the category someone is placed within in the model I shared, it is the highest score for just one of the following types of resource: - IPv4 allocations - IPv6 allocations - ASN assignments - Independent resources (includes all resource assignments not in the previous three categories, including all sponsored items) Note: Independent resources are charged by number of assignments rather than by the amount of IPs within the assignment. So if your highest score is for IPv4 allocations, then the amount for IPv6 allocations, ASNs or independent resources does not contribute to the category you are placed in. The highest score of the four defines the category. The elements that we charge for in the categories or separately can of course change or be refined based on your feedback. 3. Another person asked for comparison with other RIR charging schemes, and I provide links to the information on their websites: APNIC: https://www.apnic.net/get-ip/apnic-membership/how-much-does-it-cost/ ARIN: https://www.arin.net/resources/fees/fee_schedule/ AFRINIC: https://afrinic.net/membership/cost#resource LACNIC: https://www.lacnic.net/2399/2/lacnic/membership-fees-and-categories 4. There was a question on how we charge for those who are still on the waiting list and have not yet received any IPv4 address space. We are still looking at how this might work and it is something I can bring up during the Open House. Potentially, there could be a base membership fee and another fee once IPv4 resources are received. 5. There was a request for comment on the idea that the RIPE NCC had permitted multiple LIRs in order to allow some members to receive more address space. In fact, the members themselves voted at the General Meeting to allow this in 2016. There had been a resolution by the Executive Board to stop the creation of multiple LIR accounts in 2015; there was a lengthy discussion about this and the Board therefore asked the members to discuss the issue and make a decision on the matter in 2016. Board Resolution: https://www.ripe.net/publications/news/announcements/board-resolution-to-su… Membership Vote: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2016 Finally, there was a comment that we need to achieve a balance between fairness and complexity. This comment really resonates with me, given that there are possibly as many ways to charge as there are IPv6 addresses. At the Open House next week, I plan to present updated models that take as much of your feedback as possible into account, and of course I'll share that information afterwards with the full membership. Charging Scheme 2024 Open House: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/open-house/ripe-ncc-open-house-ch… Kind regards, Simon Jan Haytink Finance Director RIPE NCC

18 26

[LIR] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024
by Asta S. 27 Apr '23

27 Apr '23

Seems that 1007 members in a waiting list won't be able to vote for Option A. The reason is that this scheme has additional fees that will be voted on only in November. How can we vote for a charging scheme that is unknown what fees will be added to it? | | On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 05:44:28 PM GMT+3, Carlos Friaças via members-discuss <members-discuss(a)ripe.net> wrote: Hi All, (my 2 cents with my nren LIR hat on) Model A doesn't make any type of sense for me. Model B is the most inline with the latest years. I like Model C (especially because we don't do transfers), *however* i suspect the transfer charges could be heavily avoided, which may cause serious impact on registration quality -- and no practical impact on the budget. I also think we seriously need to discuss the *cost* side. Activities/projects that can't find sponsors could/should be frozen or transferred to other organizations who wish to steer it. I personnally don't see RPKI as optional, as this is what really certifies ownership of address space. Best Regards, Carlos On Wed, 12 Apr 2023, Simon-Jan Haytink wrote: > Dear RIPE NCC members, > > I want to thank all those who contributed to the consultation so far on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 and the model we should use for the coming years. > > We can now share three draft models that we developed based on input from the members on the Members Discuss mailing list and in the Charging Scheme Open House, as well as from the discussions at the recent Executive Board Meeting. > > The result is that we are proposing three draft charging scheme models: one category-based and two that are based on the previous "one LIR account, one fee" model. We hope to receive feedback on these models by 19 April so the Executive Board can propose the final versions on 26 April. The members will then vote on those three models at the upcoming General Meeting on 24-26 May. > > The three models all aim to fulfil a budget that is roughly the same as 2023 plus general cost increases including inflation, so EUR 42-45 million. By doing this, we can ensure that we can meet the potential budgetary requirements for 2024 while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contributions should we receive excess funds. The Activity Plan and Budget will be discussed with members this coming Autumn. > > The three models are available to review at: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/ch… > > We also provide an updated calculator where members can see for themselves how much they might pay under the draft models: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/ne… > > To summarise the main features of the three models: > > Model A - Category Model > > This model has ten categories to provide greater granularity. It also charges separately for independent and legacy resources in exactly the same way as in previous years. Additionally, a separate 50 EUR ASN assignment fee has been added. Both separately charged resources do not contribute to the category scores. This means there is no double charging and no specific charging for transfers or administrative work carried out by the RIPE NCC. There is a New /24 IPv4 administration fee to ensure there is a financial consequence to joining the IPv4 Waiting List. The fee would be payable upon receipt of the /24, and members joining the waiting list who do not have an eligible LIR account, would pay the new LIR sign-up fee to open a new LIR account and join the waiting list. > > With this model, approximately 68% of members would pay less than the current annual fee, with the remaining 32% paying more. > > The discussion with members helped us to see that a category-based model would receive significant support from members if the version was simplified. Should members see the need to charge for other elements, then that can be incorporated into the category model in the coming years. Any such additional charges could potentially then reduce the fees per category. > > Model B - Price increase and ASN fee > > This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there is a price increase of EUR 150 and a 50 EUR ASN fee to ensure we can meet our budgetary requirements while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contribution should we receive excess funds. > > Model C - Transfer fee and ASN fee > > This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there is a charge of EUR 1,000 per transfer to be paid by the receiving party and a 50 EUR ASN fee to ensure we can meet our budgetary requirements while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contribution should we receive excess funds. > > Further information on the charging scheme models is provided at: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/ch… > > The RIPE NCC Executive Board believes that a category-based model is the best option to help address uncertainty that might be caused by consolidation with multiple LIRs and to provide greater flexibility and fairness in how we charge members in the coming years. > > On 26 April, the final versions of the charging schemes that members will vote on will be published for the members to consider and discuss. If you have comments on the draft charging schemes, we therefore ask you to comment on the members-discuss mailing list by 19 April so we have time to incorporate any feedback if necessary. > > Importantly, we ask all members to register for the RIPE NCC General Meeting where the final decision will be in your hands. Register to participate and vote at: > https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active > > Simon-Jan Haytink > Chief Financial Officer > RIPE NCC > > _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss(a)ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/eisina%40yahoo.com

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024
by Kaj Niemi 26 Apr '23

26 Apr '23

Hi, Well. It’s slightly different but…. I think the real issue at hand is still that topline is made to fit the projected – the word “intended” comes to mind – budget. A "normal" LIR, which I would imagine there are many of amongst the membership, with: * an IPv4 /21 assigned 20-ish years ago * an IPv4 /22 assigned from 185/8 * one ASN * one IPv6 /32 assigned 20-ish years ago because they truly believed IPv6 is superior in all aspects and everyone would rush to deploy it immediately that paid (I ignore any redistributions and look only at the list price to keep comparisons equivalent): * 1400 eur in 2021 * 1400 eur in 2022 * 1550 eur in 2023 would now pay, assuming I filled the excel calculator correctly, the following: * under model A: 2100 eur or 35.4% more * under model B: 1750 eur or 13.0% more * under model C: 1600 eur or 3.2% more I guess my fictive “normal” LIRs is one of the 1/3 of the membership, or ~7500 LIRs that would suddenly pay more yet gaining nothing. There aren’t very many industries where service companies can propose double digit percentage point price increases without their customers starting to look for alternatives... except if they cannot.😊 On the other hand, I would hardly characterize the forward-looking statement regarding another annual budget increase, that you expect the 2024 budget to balloon by 5% - 12.5% or 2-5 million euro, as very reasonable either. As I would like to seem as constructive dude rather than like the angry guy who likes to publicly disagree on members-discuss on the stuff you guys intend to spend money on, I propose the following. That RIPE NCC would email, well before the RIPE GM, the technical and billing contacts of each LIR, the pre-calculated numbers for the proposed three charging models for the 2024 billing cycle. Please do include a mention of the budgetary increase in that communication. This would help members choose which model they would like the most and thus which they would vote for. If proposed charging model A is truly beneficial for 2/3 of the membership (for 15000 members or so) one would imagine that it wins by a landslide number of votes. My “normal LIR” example certainly would prefer model C. Perhaps no one cares, as voter turnout tends to be extremely low comparing to number of members, perhaps everyone suddenly cares. Perhaps you gain more members to be interested in what RIPE NCC does which is good for the whole community. Will RIPE NCC budget reach 100M EUR before Y2038 occurs or the transition to IPv6 is complete? Asking on behalf of many friends. Kaj -----Original Message----- From: ncc-announce <ncc-announce-bounces(a)ripe.net> On Behalf Of Simon-Jan Haytink Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2023 16:46 To: ncc-announce(a)ripe.net Subject: [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024 Dear RIPE NCC members, I want to thank all those who contributed to the consultation so far on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 and the model we should use for the coming years. We can now share three draft models that we developed based on input from the members on the Members Discuss mailing list and in the Charging Scheme Open House, as well as from the discussions at the recent Executive Board Meeting. The result is that we are proposing three draft charging scheme models: one category-based and two that are based on the previous "one LIR account, one fee" model. We hope to receive feedback on these models by 19 April so the Executive Board can propose the final versions on 26 April. The members will then vote on those three models at the upcoming General Meeting on 24-26 May. The three models all aim to fulfil a budget that is roughly the same as 2023 plus general cost increases including inflation, so EUR 42-45 million. By doing this, we can ensure that we can meet the potential budgetary requirements for 2024 while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contributions should we receive excess funds. The Activity Plan and Budget will be discussed with members this coming Autumn. The three models are available to review at: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.…<https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/ch…> We also provide an updated calculator where members can see for themselves how much they might pay under the draft models: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.…<https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/ne…> To summarise the main features of the three models: Model A - Category Model This model has ten categories to provide greater granularity. It also charges separately for independent and legacy resources in exactly the same way as in previous years. Additionally, a separate 50 EUR ASN assignment fee has been added. Both separately charged resources do not contribute to the category scores. This means there is no double charging and no specific charging for transfers or administrative work carried out by the RIPE NCC. There is a New /24 IPv4 administration fee to ensure there is a financial consequence to joining the IPv4 Waiting List. The fee would be payable upon receipt of the /24, and members joining the waiting list who do not have an eligible LIR account, would pay the new LIR sign-up fee to open a new LIR account and join the waiting list. With this model, approximately 68% of members would pay less than the current annual fee, with the remaining 32% paying more. The discussion with members helped us to see that a category-based model would receive significant support from members if the version was simplified. Should members see the need to charge for other elements, then that can be incorporated into the category model in the coming years. Any such additional charges could potentially then reduce the fees per category. Model B - Price increase and ASN fee This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there is a price increase of EUR 150 and a 50 EUR ASN fee to ensure we can meet our budgetary requirements while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contribution should we receive excess funds. Model C - Transfer fee and ASN fee This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there is a charge of EUR 1,000 per transfer to be paid by the receiving party and a 50 EUR ASN fee to ensure we can meet our budgetary requirements while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contribution should we receive excess funds. Further information on the charging scheme models is provided at: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.…<https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/ch…> The RIPE NCC Executive Board believes that a category-based model is the best option to help address uncertainty that might be caused by consolidation with multiple LIRs and to provide greater flexibility and fairness in how we charge members in the coming years. On 26 April, the final versions of the charging schemes that members will vote on will be published for the members to consider and discuss. If you have comments on the draft charging schemes, we therefore ask you to comment on the members-discuss mailing list by 19 April so we have time to incorporate any feedback if necessary. Importantly, we ask all members to register for the RIPE NCC General Meeting where the final decision will be in your hands. Register to participate and vote at: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmy.ripe.n…<https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active> Simon-Jan Haytink Chief Financial Officer RIPE NCC

5 4