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

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

26 Apr '23

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 > >

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024
by Clement Cavadore 21 Apr '23

21 Apr '23

Hello Simon-Jan, * On Wed, 2023-04-12 at 15:45 +0200, Simon-Jan Haytink wrote: > 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. Could you please share how many LIRs would enter in each category ? And also, it still seems unfair to me that extra-large LIRs holding millions of IPv4 would pay a few thousand euros. National fixed or mobile internet service provider should be able to handle higher fees. I also feel that IPv6 should be less impacting than IPv4 on category calculation. > 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. Still not understanding why you are introducing an ASN fee. And regarding the transfer fee, I feel that the seller should pay the fee, but not the receiver. Best, Clément Cavadore

4 5

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024
by Jochen Bern 20 Apr '23

20 Apr '23

On 18.04.23 16:37, Clement Cavadore wrote: > On Tue, 2023-04-18 at 16:30 +0200, Gert Doering wrote: >> So a reclaim mechanism is required - the real question is, of course, >> what that mechanism should be. Pay NCC staff to go out and ask LIRs >> "is this ASN still in use? is the data accurate? can you return it?", >> or create an incentive for them to come back voluntarily. [...] > But AFAIK, RIPE NCC already does this kind of mechanism for ASN which > are not seen on the DFZ. They ask if it's in use, and why it's not seen > on the DFZ (and there are legit use case, for example for IXP route- > server ASN, or for out of internet routing domains). Make it a formal requirement to *either* be publicly connected *or* actively maintain the corresponding aut-num object, send annual reminders to those who seem AWOL, and investigate (+ bill extra?) only those who still haven't edited the "confirmed as of ..." field two months later, then. Speaking more generally, the impression I'm getting from this entire discussion is that we don't have an agreement on what the *basic principle* of RIPE's billing should be, much less on a specific charging scheme implementing any such principle: -- As a not-for-profit org, RIPE has an interest to charge in direct relation to the effort/expenses it has to cover. The *strictest* possible form of doing that would, of course, be to have fees paid for every activity (trouble ticket?) they undertake, possibly not even fixed ones. -- Since they *also* have an interest to generate a prima-facie-known income *before* expenses need to be paid and defaulters hunted down (who here would be willing to pay a fee for being *turned down* by RIPE because of due diligence?), they *actually* propose fees on resources held, as an *estimator*, however poor IMHO, of the activities that those will require/generate. -- For the polar opposite, there are those who said that plentiful resources that were handed RIPE for free should still be free for further distribution. Which essentially is an "eternally fixed prices" model, with IPv4 IPs being the striking example of a resource that *ceased* to be plentiful later on (and is unlikely to return to "free" short of IPv4 getting globally disabled, no matter how and how hard RIRs might try to push for that). -- Then there's the idea of assigning prices as a means of policing distribution/usage, in particular, to cause unused IPv4 to be handed back to RIPE. (Which means that RIPE would need to invoice *more* per IP than you can earn by renting/selling them on the free market - which will happily react by raising the price, etc. ad infinitum -, *or* somehow manage to disrupt said free market ... ho hum.) -- Last not least (though I'm probably still forgetting some), those who would like RIPE to stay with identical fees for all members, independent of their size. Which ultimately translates into "pay per vote" ... Two more thoughts: If there is pressure to give "back" IPv4 space that you don't use yourself (and, again, the price for which you could instead sell them *already is* such pressure), it'll get more fragmented than ever, and thus eat more RAM etc. on every EBGP peer. Are we really *helping* IPv4 there ... or handing it more rope to cut its misery ever shorter? :-3 Finally, I'd like to speak in favor of intentionally "overcharging" members with the charging scheme and "redistributing" the excess back to them (a year) later. Stripping RIPE down to the minimum viable budget may look good on everyone's invoice, but it also creates a representative of the community that is a defenseless pushover as soon as some commercial entity (with some money to spend, contacts to lobby, etc.) deigns to take over. Assuming that the "excess" stays roughly the same and *no* hostile takeover is attempted, it can be considered a deposit for the duration of one's membership, even though the figures on the bill *look* that much higher every year. Kind regards, -- Jochen Bern Systemingenieur Binect GmbH

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024
by Sergey Myasoedov 18 Apr '23

18 Apr '23

Hi Simon, Thank you for the summary of proposed charging schemes. I only have a concern whether the ASN fee has received a rough approval from members. Is the AS number a limited resource, especially 32-bit ASNs? Is it valuable somehow? I would suggest to prepare a scheme without the ASN fee. And of course, members whose invoice amount will be increased should receive the quarterly payments benefit. PS. It's sad when the only option to keep the flat fee is don't approve all the proposed models. -- Kind regards, Sergey Myasoedov > On Apr 12, 2023, at 09:45, Simon-Jan Haytink <simonjh(a)ripe.net> 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 >

7 9

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024
by Naira Kuroyan 18 Apr '23

18 Apr '23

Hello! Resending the email after subscription to the RIPE NCC Members Discuss mailing list (please see below). Regards, Naira "Have a great day!" -----Original Message----- From: Naira Kuroyan Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2023 11:13 AM To: 'members-discuss(a)ripe.net' <members-discuss(a)ripe.net>; 'Simon-Jan Haytink' <simonjh(a)ripe.net>; ncc-announce(a)ripe.net Cc: Vahagn Melikyan <vahagn.melikyan(a)telecomarmenia.am>; Aram Khalapyan <AKhalapyan(a)telecomarmenia.am>; Zaruhi Dadayan <zara.dadayan(a)telecomarmenia.am>; interconnect <interconnect(a)telecomarmenia.am> Subject: RE: [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024 Dear RIPE NCC Team, We have reviewed presented three draft models of Charging Scheme 2024 and here presenting our comments on behalf of "Telecom Armenia" OJSC. We understand Community's need to cover LIRs consolidation risk and to ensure collection of the revenue required to maintain its operations, and aim to fulfil a budget that is the same as 2023. However something seems inappropriate, in particular with the Model A - Category Model. Please note that with this model in some cases the cost of membership charge may increase significantly, 6-7 times in particular for our LIR (even more than in model suggested by you in previous communication). There is no sense in increase of charge from current 1600 EUR/year to 10550 EUR/year in the following years, when nothing has changed in our business activities and in resources assigned for us. This is not acceptable for us and anyhow for any business. We can not imagine any case in the world when the charge for services increases for several times. We believe that the maximum increase level shall be limited to 20%. You can imagine how the significant increase will impact the Company's business activities. E.g. we have planned our business cases and budget and requested resources from RIPE NCC with the existing charge level. Moreover, we have signed long-term contracts (3 years and more) with customers with prices calculated based on the existing costs, and in some cases it may be challenging or even not possible to change the pricing terms without risking a breach of contracts. So it is not acceptable to switch from the model where we pay only for Membership and have assigned resources free of charge, to the model where RIPE NCC in fact starts charging for already assigned resources currently in use in our business, and at very high level. We believe that new charges can be applicable to the new Members or the new resources to be assigned , but not to existing ones. As an alternative, discounts or other options for the price adjustment or payment plans offered for a long-standing members can be applied. After the review of the last three models we believe that Charging Model A application will stimulate even more members with multiple LIR accounts to merge these accounts in the coming year. One more note is concerning the remark that 67.69% of Members will pay less than they currently do, and 18.22% of Members will pay significantly more then they currently do. So in this situation even any further increase of charge for the minority of Members and corresponding decrease for the 67.69% of Members will encourage the majority to support this Model and vote for it. So we believe that the vote of these 18.22% members should have more weight in the calculation of the voting result. At the same time it may be reasonable to take into consideration also the current economic situation in the World and the impact on Member's businesses, so we suggest also take a closer look at RIPE NCC's expenses to consider if its operations costs could be potentially optimized to help keep the membership fees at a reasonable level, ex. negotiating better deals, reducing some expenses, etc. The significant increase of the price level is challenging and stuggleing for the Members (and their customers) from not stable and economically less developed regions. War or instability in the country region, polytical, economical, country development situation can have a significant impact on the local economy, with the ability of their members to pay increased charges, especially during difficult times. Below you can see also some technical remarks regarding the Models. In Model A - Category Model: In this Model we suggest to add a short description for Definition of Category based on assigned multiple IPv4 and/or IPv6 resources. In models B and C: Suggested to add in the price list table "ASN Fee" row (similar to "Price List per Separate Charge" table in Model A) In model C: Transfer Fee - We suggest to describe that this charge is one-time payment in the year following the transfer. Also we suggest to describe that only one Transfer Fee (Euro 1000) is payable for each transfer application regardless of the number of and different type of transferable resources. In all models: Suggested for avoidance of dual understanding to remove interpretation "AS Numbers are excluded from this charge." from description of independent Internet number resource assignment charges. We believe that some constructive adjustments in the new fee structure trying to balance the community's financial needs with the needs of its members will enable to find a solution that works for everyone. Thank you. Regards, NAIRA KUROYAN GLOBAL NETWORK CONNECTIVITY MANAGER +374 91 20 05 75 NKuroyan(a)telecomarmenia.am www.telecomarmenia.am -----Original Message----- From: ncc-announce [mailto:ncc-announce-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Simon-Jan Haytink Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2023 5:46 PM 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://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

1 0

Charging Scheme Models 2024
by Akayo 18 Apr '23

18 Apr '23

Today we received the email of 12th April 2023 about the RIPE NCC charging scheme models A, B and C for 2024. Of course we used the calculator to find out how much we would be required to pay in future for option A. We have 7 x IPv4 /22 and 7 x IPv6 /29 allocations and three ASNs. We are still a small LIR, even if we have a few thousand IPv4 addresses (7,168). No independent resources. Option A: Instead of €1,550.00 per year we would have to pay €10,400.00 per year - this is not a typo. Even if we would terminate customers and give back almost all IPv6 subnets, we still would have to pay €2,900.00 per year. With redistribution we normally only paid about €1,000.00 per year. I have no words for this.

9 8

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024
by Hank Nussbacher 18 Apr '23

18 Apr '23

On 12/04/2023 16:45, Simon-Jan Haytink wrote: I am so glad that NCC has totally ignored my previous email: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/2023-March/004800.h… where I stated: 2. The Excel calculator mentions "Independent Internet number resource assignments" yet the LIR Portal for everyone lists resources as either "My Resources" or "Sponsored Resources", or "Allocated PA" or "Legacy", etc. Can the calculator be adjusted so people can know exactly how each resource is priced in the new model? didn't warrant a response nor an adjustment in the Excel. So glad to be ignored when it comes to paying. -Hank > 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 >

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] 165th RIPE NCC Executive Board Meeting - Summary Notes
by Hank Nussbacher 18 Apr '23

18 Apr '23

On 14/04/2023 15:26, Hans Petter Holen wrote: I am disappointed that the matter of the ever-increasing NCC budget which was discussed extensively on this list was not brought up at the Executive Board member and not even listed as an agenda item for the May 2023 GM meeting. Regards, Hank > Dear RIPE NCC members, > > The RIPE NCC Executive Board held its 165th Meeting on 23-24 March 2023. The minutes from the meeting are now available. > > Minutes of the 165th Meeting: > https://www.ripe.net/about-us/executive-board/minutes/2023/minutes-165th-ex… > > The Executive Board publishes the minutes of its meetings so that the workings of the Board and the decisions it makes are transparent to the membership that it represents. The following is a summary of the main items from the meetings. Further details are available in the minutes. > > ----------------------- > Main Items > ----------------------- > > - I shared an update on RIPE NCC's objectives and key results for 2023, gave an overview of the salary adjustments for 2023, the results of the latest staff survey and the action points that resulted from it. I also informed the Board that Kaveh Ranjbar, the Chief Information Officer (CIO), had left the RIPE NCC. Felipe Victolla Silveira has now been appointed to the role of Chief Technology Officer (CTO) and the recruitment of a Chief Registry Officer has started. > > - Simon-Jan Haytink presented the Financial Report 2022 and the Charging Scheme 2024 to the Board. The Board asked Simon-Jan for further work on the 2024 Charging Scheme before submitting the document to the General Meeting. > > - RIPE Chair Mirjam Kühne shared her report on developments in the RIPE community such as preparations for RIPE 86 and current community initiatives. > > - Hisham Ibrahim shared a presentation on staff safety at events and discussed follow-up actions regarding a past meeting with Ukrainian representatives. > > - Several corporate governance topics were discussed, including the creation of a legal entity fully-owned by the RIPE NCC in Dubai, enquiries about who can suspend a Board member and mechanisms for evaluating board candidates prior to an election, as well as several changes to terms and conditions and procedural documents. > > - Fergal Cunningham presented the 2022 Annual Report to the Board and shared the timetable and key points for the next General Meeting. He also mentioned that the RIPE NCC Member Survey 2023 would be launched at RIPE 86. > > ---------------------------- > Resolutions Adopted > ---------------------------- > The RIPE NCC Executive Board approves the minutes of EB#163 and EB#164. > > The RIPE NCC Executive Board approves the submission of the audited RIPE NCC Financial Report 2022 to the upcoming RIPE NCC General Meeting for its adoption. > > The RIPE NCC Executive Board approves the selection of an investment partner that will manage the investment portfolio of the RIPE NCC. > > The RIPE NCC Executive Board approves the proposed amendments to the RIPE NCC Standard Service Agreement. > > The RIPE NCC Executive Board approves the proposed amendments to the RIPE NCC document “RIPE NCC LIR Account Agreement”. > > The RIPE NCC Executive Board approves the proposed amendments to the RIPE NCC procedural document “Closure of Members, Deregistration of Internet Resources and Legacy Internet Resources”. > > The RIPE NCC Executive Board approves the proposed amendments to the RIPE NCC procedural document “Due Diligence for the Quality of the RIPE NCC Registration Data”. > > The RIPE NCC Executive Board adopts the proposed amendments to the document “Management Regulations of the RIPE NCC”. > > The RIPE NCC Executive Board approves the RIPE NCC Annual Report 2022 and the publication of the document. > > The RIPE NCC Executive Board approves the publication of the draft agenda for the RIPE NCC General Meeting in May 2023. > > > Kind regards, > > Hans Petter Holen > Managing Director > RIPE NCC >

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024
by Robert Scheck 17 Apr '23

17 Apr '23

Hello Simon-Jan, On Wed, 12 Apr 2023, Simon-Jan Haytink wrote: > 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. thank you for the explanation and the analysis. However from my point of view, the RIPE NCC offers with this model an unfair incentive to members with IPv4 allocations (in total) of more than a /15 equivalent, because they are simply capped at 10k EUR per year. Deutsche Telekom, Orange, Societe Francaise Du Radiotelephone and Telecom Italia (if I did my research right, they should be the 4 largest members in the RIPE region) have each in total IPv4 allocations somewhere between /8 and /7 equivalent. And sorry, I might be totally wrong, but I think if a member needs these really large IPv4 allocations, the member should easily be able to pay much more than only 10k EUR per year. And a member still could charge its customers for their IPv4 usage (or make them simply moving to IPv6). But once it comes to IPv6, I think charging 350 EUR per year for a /29 is a very bad idea. In the past, RIPE NCC employees even encouraged RIPE members to extend their /32 up to a /29 ("because it's free", just informally and in non-written form e.g. during an Assisted Registry Check, but Maximilian Wilhelm mentioned on 2023-04-13 that it also happened in a documented way). Aside of this: Does the RIPE NCC currently see any lack of IPv6 address space to come up with this proposal? If a /29 leads to extra charging, I expect quite some members to return their IPv6 allocation (above /29), and especially in cases where it was advertised as "free benefit" in the past. Other than that: +1 to Gert Doering's e-mail from 2023-04-13. As longer I am looking to the IPv6 category scale, as more I am wondering why largest IPv6 allocations in the RIPE region to Deutsche Telekom, UK Ministry of Defence and Orange (each a /19) are just category 7 instead of 10. Honestly, I expect Deutsche Telekom and Orange made their homework before requesting an IPv6 allocation, thus I seriously wonder how realistic it is that the RIPE NCC allocates something even larger to another member in the next years (or maybe even ever?). So shouldn't the scale be adjusted to cover the largest members with the largest category? If my research was correct, the RIPE NCC in total has IPv6 allocations of /11 + /17 + /21 currently. A /11 allows up to 16 /15 allocations (this + 1 more IPv6 address is the minimum size for IPv6 category 10). I am not sure which huge future address needs by members the RIPE NCC is expecting. And seriously: If there is such a need in 5+ years, we anyway will discuss the next charging scheme, right? >From my point of view, both, the IPv4 and the IPv6 category scale should be aligned more to the current maximum of actual IP allocations of RIPE. This would, from my point of view, distribute the overall costs over the members somehow "per usage" (and be in-line with historical allocation requests). Do 32 bit ASNs cause costs to the RIPE NCC? Or is the RIPE NCC running out of them anytime soon? I understand that the situation for 16 bit ASNs is different, but I'm not sure what the benefit is to charge for 32 bit ASNs. > 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. While I consider a transfer fee of 1000 EUR to be somehow fair for larger IPv4 networks, it feels quite unfair to me for e.g. a IPv4 /24 or /23, or for a 32 bit ASN. Outside of the models, I am still worried about RIPE NCC having 172 FTEs, while other LIRs can operate with around the half (or even less). What is so unique/special with RIPE NCC that requires so many more FTEs? Is it the projects and activity outside of the RIR job (e.g. RIPE Atlas or RIPE NCC Certified Professionals)? While this question was raised in general earlier on this list already, I didn't notice a real answer so far. What I didn't see so far either is an overview/table for the FTEs similarly detailed like for the budget (page 27 of ripe-796 for FTEs is quite brief compared to page 43 of ripe-795 for budgets), thus "per activity". Did I overlook this? If not, could it be provided for the future, maybe for the RIPE 86 GM? It would be interesting to compare these details with the ones of the other RIRs. Kind regards Robert Scheck -- Robert Scheck Mail: robert.scheck(a)etes.de ETES GmbH Fon : +49 (7 11) 48 90 83 - 12 Talstraße 106 Fax : +49 (7 11) 48 90 83 - 50 D-70188 Stuttgart Web : http://www.etes.de/ Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart HRB 721182 Geschäftsführender Gesellschafter: Markus Espenhain Sitz der Gesellschaft: Stuttgart USt.-Id.Nr.: DE814767446

1 0

[ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024
by i7 NOC 14 Apr '23

14 Apr '23

Hello, It's great to see that member feedback has been taken into account when developing these models. However, I would like to reiterate my concerns regarding Model C and propose that it should be excluded from the final selection. In summary, Model C introduces transfer fees, which, as I mentioned earlier, bring potential challenges, such as unpredictability in the RIPE NCC's annual budget, payment difficulties for sanctioned countries, increased administrative burdens, complexities related to PI blocks and ASNs transfers, etc. These factors could negatively affect the RIPE NCC and its members. Considering the potential issues with Model C, I suggest that focusing on Models A and B would be a more reasonable approach. Both models provide sufficient options for the members and maintain their respective merits without the risks associated with Model C. By excluding Model C from the final proposals, the voting process will be more focused, enabling members to make a well-informed decision between the two remaining models. This strategy would prevent Model C from diluting the decision-making process and ensure the adoption of a more suitable and sustainable charging scheme. Furthermore, Model B represents a familiar charging scheme for the members, ensuring stability and continuity. In contrast, Model A offers an alternative, category-based system catering to the diverse needs of the membership base, promoting fairness and adaptability within the RIPE NCC community. Model C, on the other hand, only adds uncertainty by introducing transfer fees, which could negatively affect the RIPE NCC's financial stability. As this model doesn't provide any significant benefits over Models A and B, it would be more advantageous to concentrate on refining Models A and B, ensuring a well-balanced charging scheme for the RIPE NCC community. Regards, Victor > 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 >

3 2