- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
by sdy＠a-n-t.ru 15 Apr '24

15 Apr '24

If you pay more tax have you more rights? > On 15/04/2024 09:22, Michel Lanners wrote: >> Because RIPE is a MEMBERSHIP organisation. It’s not a commercial company selling something. >> >> If I’m asked to pay more I also want more voting rights. Consequence: the few big ones will dominate and steer RIPE in the direction THEY want. I don’t think that’s in the interest of those who yell at the unfair membership rate. >> >> RIPE is fair because every member has the same right and the same one vote. > > No, you're not getting more voting rights by paying more. > It is common practice in membership orgs to charge members according to their category or size, and it's still 1 member = 1 vote. > > > Sebastien Brossier > > _______________________________________________ > 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/sdy%40a-n-t.ru > ----------------------------- С уважением Сербулов Дмитрий ООО "Альфа Нет Телеком" +7(498)785-8-000 раб. +7(495)940-92-11 доп. +7(925)518-10-69 сот.

2 1

Response from Board on Charging Scheme Comments
by Ondrej Filip 13 Apr '24

13 Apr '24

Dear members, Thank you very much for your comments on the proposed Charging Scheme options. I am sorry I am not able to answer all your messages individually. It is not in my capability to do so. However, I want to assure you we read all your comments and take them seriously. In this message I will, of course, not address those comments that express a support for the board's proposal. First of all, the board is carefully listening to the members. We opened several channels to collect your feedback. We had the RIPE NCC Survey followed by the Open House discussion, and both indicated that members want the RIPE NCC to continue with the current projects helping our primary mission, which is to support technical coordination in our region. I understand that some of you have different opinions but we need to also consider the wishes and opinions of the wider membership. So we are preparing the Activity Plan and Budget in this regard. The discussion on this topic will be held in the Autumn. But whatever is the output of this discussion, the Charging Scheme should cover the expected company costs. Please note that a vast majority of our costs are related to salaries. That is something that we cannot get rid off quickly even if we decide to stop some of the projects. The RIPE NCC has to and will respect the local labour law in the Netherlands and other respective countries. We (the board and staff) will be very happy to discuss the usefulness of all activities, but again the survey very strongly indicated that the majority of the members does not want any radical change in this regard and is satisfied with the current NCC activities. The board and the management of the company take very seriously members' concerns related to the company costs. We made a lot of effort to cut many of them last year and again this year. However, it is necessary to note that cost saving cannot go on indefinitely. We strongly believe that the quality of our services cannot be affected and that we should continue to provide world class services to our members and community. On top of it, please keep in mind the rapidly changing environment we operate in. The high inflation in the previous years is one of the drivers of the costs. We employ highly skilled people and I guess that is something most of you recognize. But those people deserve corresponding salaries. Another aspect is related to security and privacy. As you know we have made a lot of improvements in this area. And yet with NIS2, there will be more of it. Last but not least, the changing geo-political situation brings many additional burdens that we need to deal with. By that I mean sanctions and other things related to the biggest war in our service region during the RIPE NCC’s existence. Saying all that, again I don't want to reconcile to the fact that costs are rising. The board with the management will continue to find opportunities for cost saving. Also please keep in mind that the fees are upper limits of what the NCC needs to operate. If we create a surplus (which is what we believe in) it can be redistributed by the standard mechanisms we use. We do not want to needlessly accumulate money, but we have to be sure the fees can allow the NCC to operate in this rapidly changing environment. It wouldn't be responsible to propose fees that would not allow the NCC to cover its costs. On the comments asking that the RIPE NCC budget be linked to the number of LIR accounts, it is true that the number of LIR accounts is reducing. But the number of members is actually very stable and using the membership number as a guide provides more stability than looking at LIR numbers. And the costs for the RIPE NCC are not necessarily linked to the number of accounts anyway. Also, as I noted above, IPv4 scarcity and the outbreak of war has added a lot of complexity to the work of the RIPE NCC just as the number of LIR accounts has started to reduce. For example, work to secure the registry or defend the registry system needs to happen regardless of how many LIR accounts there are. Let me also address the point of the fee structure and alternative suggestions raised by several of you. I understand and sympathise with the idea that the current fee structure means that the majority of the budget is covered by small members while larger and richer companies pay a minor part. This concept was approved a long time ago and the board unsuccessfully tried to propose changes. We are very open to discuss this topic again and again, but so far there is no solid model on the table. But we hear you and we will continue this discussion with you. Again, thank you for your comments and reactions. I am looking forward to meeting you for the GM in the beautiful town of Krakow or online. On behalf of the Executive Board Ondrej

10 12

Unfair RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025
by Евгений Удовихин 13 Apr '24

13 Apr '24

Hello colleagues! I propose to add option "D" of LIR fees proportional to the number of IP resources and ASNs of a given LIR. Now we have an unfair situation when small companies and huge corporations pay the same amount. Thank you!

4 7

RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Open House: Recording and Slides Available
by Fergal Cunningham 12 Apr '24

12 Apr '24

Dear all, This Wednesday, 20 March, we held an Open House with members about the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025. There was a presentation from RIPE NCC staff, including our CFO and Managing Director, as well as statements from both the Executive Board Chair and Treasurer. There was a productive discussion about the financial landscape we are operating in and thoughts about how best to fund the RIPE NCC. The Executive Board will meet on Monday and discuss what we heard this week, and they will decide on a draft charging proposal to put forward to the members in April. The session recording and the slides from the presentation are available at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/open-house/ripe-ncc-charging-schem… At the bottom of this mail you can find the timestamps for the sections of the presentation and Q&A. We greatly appreciate the input we received from members this week and the constructive nature of the discussions. We encourage you all to continue to discuss the charging scheme on this list. Kind regards, Fergal Cunningham Head of Membership Engagement RIPE NCC Open House Timestamps 01:30 Welcome and Agenda, Fergal Cunningham 04:30 Development and History of the Charging Scheme, Fergal Cunningham 12:45 Consolidation and Inflation, Simon Jan Haytink 19:10 The Work We Need to Fund, Simon Jan Haytink 22:30 Summary and Key Questions, Hans Petter Holen 27:20 Statement from Executive Board Chair, Ondřej Filip 30:30 Statement from Executive Board Treasurer, Raymond Jetten 32:45 Q&A with RIPE NCC Members

17 33

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
by Kaj Niemi 12 Apr '24

12 Apr '24

Hi, Very politely put I do not think any of the three proposed charging schemes are in the membership's interest - they certainly aren't in mine. All three seem to be designed to assure that NCC can continue along, business as usual, with its tasks. Thus, we could pretend that there isn't a big issue with the membership numbers declining. We could also pretend there isn't a real problem with the value proposition of the services. Furthermore, we could also pretend that we do not care that it all is conveniently funded by the membership. I mean, what is 1500 or 1900 euro to most people? I have heard the last several times in the past. After all, why should we care about the expenditure when the sums are so small for each LIR? Why should we care when it is not our own money? I'll tell you. Not caring about the transaction size is bad, if you are willing to let these kinds of sums slide, you'll let it slide on bigger amounts. As is treating other people's money (OPM) differently than if it were your own. These eventually lead to lack of accountability. What is being proposed is really a significant increase in membership fees. In particular, significantly above what it used to cost on average to produce services for each member (whether they use them or not). Note when I say what it used to cost, as in FY2024 the cost per LIR will be higher. Now, with the membership in further decline the average cost per member will once more be higher in FY2025. Next year, I forecast that we will have the same "discussion" for FY2026 as NCC comes around and asks for more money. Once again. Why? Because according to projections the amount of members will continue to decrease resulting in higher fees per organization. Once again. All in the advantageous name of the articles of association that allow pretty much anything. Following the above rational thought with another is, that what one should be doing is choosing what to either invoice separately or drop completely. Yes, really. Everyone is happy with free services, it is when you apply the money test - request someone to pay for something - when you see if what you create contains value. Considering NCC managed to "save" 5% in the FY2024 budget compared to FY2023, asking for 8.1% increase (4% annualized) the next year is, well, kind of cheeky. It restores the budget pretty much to what it would have been with two annual increases. As an exercise in budgetary engineering I do approve. As a paying member I do not. What really would be needed is competition. Competition would make the RIR market more efficient. It is rather obvious that the RIR markets aren't anywhere near the efficiency they could be at. Competition would mean that people wanting to pay 1900 - or even more in the future - could choose to do so and those who don't want could potentially pay less. Reduced to the very basics one is paying for bits in a database. In that sense this is rather similar to the certificate market where at one time the cost per certificate was sky high and there were only a few issuers. Today, I am guessing most do not pay thousands annually for a few bits in theirs. Neither do most people care whether the cert was issued by Verisign, Gandi or someone else. Having looked into it out of curiosity, real competition does not seem to be possible as the principles in ICP-2 pretty much state that there can/should only be one RIR per region. Which makes NCC the definition of a monopoly. Monopolies with nice and polite people, well intended purpose and mission creep are not good, they're bad. For everyone. Finally, the surplus. The concept itself is interesting and I do know where it comes from. But from an financial point of view it is really lending money to someone else and then (maybe) getting it back, a year later, less inflation if they did not spend it. I would kindly request that the EB would add option D or "Option D: No Changes from 2023". :) Kaj Kaj ________________________________ From: ncc-announce <ncc-announce-bounces(a)ripe.net> on behalf of Simon-Jan Haytink <simonjh(a)ripe.net> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 12:18 To: ncc-announce(a)ripe.net <ncc-announce(a)ripe.net> Subject: [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals You don't often get email from simonjh(a)ripe.net. Learn why this is important<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification> Dear RIPE NCC members, We can now share three draft charging scheme models for 2025 that the Executive Board approved with the following resolution at its meeting on 25 March 2024: The RIPE NCC Executive Board approves the submission of the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 options to the upcoming RIPE NCC General Meeting for members to vote on. - Option A - Charging Scheme as is with 22.58% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,900) and a 0% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 50) - Option B - Charging Scheme as is with 20.97% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,875) and a 50% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 75) - Option C - Charging Scheme as is with 16.13% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,800), a 50% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 75) and a new AS Numbers fee of EUR 50 per assignment *Resources falling under this charge are IPv4 and IPv6 PI assignments; Anycast assignments; IPv4 and IPv6 IXP assignments; and Legacy IPv4 resource registrations through a sponsoring LIR. The full draft charging scheme models are available from the GM Documentation page: https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2024/documentation… Although the proposed models are relatively simple, we provide a calculator where you can see exactly what you would pay under each of the proposed models: https://www.ripe.net/documents/3757/CS2025_Member_Calculator.xlsx The main considerations for the Executive Board in proposing these three models are: 1. The consolidation of LIR accounts, which means the burden to generate sufficient income must be met by fewer accounts 2. Increased costs due to inflation that were previously catered for by the large number of LIR accounts 3. Following the discussions last year and again this year, there appears to be no clear consensus among members on how a category-based model would work and the Board does not wish to put another category model forward at the upcoming GM that will be rejected by the members. Rather, the Board will propose a simple model that guarantees adequate funding for 2025 and 2026 - under this proposal, we expect there would be no need for a fee increase for 2026. The Board will work with the RIPE NCC on a more in-depth consultation with the members aimed at arriving at a sustainable solution for 2027 and beyond, possibly involving a new charging scheme task force. All three proposed models are designed to arrive at the same income of EUR 41.1 million for the RIPE NCC in 2025. This will cover all current services and activities, a 5% staff cost increase, a 2% inflation increase on all non-staff costs, and EUR 1 million for additional work relating to registry complexity and security projects aimed at ensuring the resilience of the Registry and the RIPE NCC more broadly. Any such additional work would be discussed with the membership during Activity Plan and Budget consultations and then need to be approved by the Board. This will also allow some leeway should more LIR accounts close than we expect. It’s important to note that the RIPE NCC aims for an income budget that will provide a surplus, and this means that should we meet our budgetary targets, a surplus can be returned to members in 2026 should they so wish. While the RIPE NCC continues to carry out cost-cutting efforts across the organisation, drastically reducing the budget at this time is not advisable due to the work that needs to be carried out, especially in relation to maintaining high-quality registry services and securing the registry and RIPE NCC systems. Cutting services or activities is not something the Board is planning to do, and such actions would take time and need full consultation with the membership. An overview of the activities and services that the membership fee covers is provided below this email. I also urge you to see the presentation we delivered at the charging scheme open house in March so that the full context of the situation and the financial landscape we face is clear to you. The slides are available at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/open-house/ripe-ncc-charging-schem… Finally, I want to thank all those who have contributed to the consultation so far on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025. The models we present here are draft and in two weeks we will announce the final proposal that members will vote on at the GM on 22-24 May. Please discuss the draft proposal on the members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> list - any input received by 19 April can be incorporated if possible into the final models we propose. And make sure to register for the GM so that you can vote on the charging scheme that will apply for you and all members next year: https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active Simon-Jan Haytink Chief Financial Officer RIPE NCC Services and Activities Covered by the Member Fee - A trusted, efficient, accurate and resilient registry that guarantees uniqueness of resources held by members - Neutral information services uninfluenced by commercial or government interests that allow both the RIPE NCC and the community to carry out useful research into the Internet - Engagement activities, including RIPE and regional meetings, that build an active membership and community and that contribute to the overall good of the Internet - A voice and influence for the membership in key decision-making fora, including with governments and regulators - Protection of the Joint Internet Number Registry as developed by the Internet community - Learning and development activities that help to address skills shortages and contribute to an educated membership - Support for the Policy Development Process (PDP) - An authoritative registry of routing information provided by RPKI and the RIPE Database - K-root and DNS services - A dedicated staff with considerable expertise contributing to all of the above

26 43

[RFC] Motion/Proposal for Amendments to RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025
by Denys Fedoryshchenko 11 Apr '24

11 Apr '24

Dear RIPE Members, I am writing to propose amendments to the "RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025" for discussion. Below are the details of the proposed changes: Proposal for a Proportional Charging Model: We suggest that RIPE NCC implement a charging model based on the number of IPv4 subnets allocated to each member. This model would replace the existing flat fee structure, aiming to distribute costs more equitably among members according to their usage of number resources. Such a model would ensure that charges correspond to the scale of each member's operations and resource needs. Reduction of Annual Budget Based on Current Economic Trends: Given the economic downturn affecting our industry, we recommend that RIPE NCC conduct a thorough review of its annual budget to identify and reduce non-essential expenditures. Prioritizing core activities is crucial, especially in light of the decline in LIR membership numbers. Adjusting budget allocations to current economic realities will help stabilize the organization and alleviate financial pressure on its members. Furthermore, I have reviewed the archive and identified 41 unique email addresses that participated in discussions about this charging scheme. It appears that a consensus of at least 21 affirmative votes should prompt RIPE NCC and the relevant working group to consider the community's stance seriously. Accordingly, I propose a motion to include the following options in the charging scheme discussion: A) Maintain the current budget. B) Reduce the budget, possibly in proportion to the decrease in LIR numbers. C) Introduce fees for LIRs based on their allocated IPv4 resources. I suggest conducting a non-binding poll to gauge preferences on these options. While I am not authorized to initiate official voting, gathering responses could help us understand whether the demand for significant changes represents a majority view or just a few vocal opinions. Please reply to this email with your vote: YES or NO after each option. Best regards, Denys Fedoryshchenko

4 5

Re: [members-discuss] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Open House: Recording and Slides Available
by sdy＠a-n-t.ru 11 Apr '24

11 Apr '24

Ivaylo, sorry but if you want count money in my pockets, let's count your too! How much IPv4 have you companies? Use or not IPv6 - is the choice! Everyone have different businesses. If we need we will use it!! Many companies now need more IPv4 for they work or grow! It is not right that some limit group of people was taken something and speculate it, when it is needed for other people. Many LIR's need IPv4, but now some 'oldmans' want to make buisness on free resources. It is not clear business for me. Sorry, it is abnormal then something that giving for free is resale for 10 euros per year. If RIPE and NCC will not decide problem with IPv4 and AS it will make much more problems for all. Unfortunately I can see another way - divide Internet by paths and redistribute resources again in this paths by new NCC or goverments - would you like it? > >> Sorry, it is already was discussed. >> It's wrong model with categories. ... > > So all other RIRs are wrong ? Only RIPE is on the right road ? > > From what I see "Alpha Net Telecom" still do not have IPV6 (why?) and your company holds sumary less of 2 x /19 IPV4 blocks so ... > > I wrote about my calculation (based on IANA resources delegated to RIPE) for charging scheme a week ago: Your company will pay 1500 euro / year and RIPE bugdet will be up to 64M - sustainable for the next 10 years. So why you lobbing for something worse for you ? > > Let me tell you what will happen if we keep going with the flat fee for all... Merging Merging Merging in the end will left 2k-3k members (levels around 2005). You will be pay then 21 000 Euro and your resources will be still same. When 10 other LIRs are merged each of them will pay 2k again and will have same resources. how it sounds to you ? What you will say then in that future moment ? Do you think you can make a change in RIPE charging scheme _THEN_ (when all will waht to keep going with the flat > model) ? > > > Ivaylo Josifov > VarnaIX / Varteh LTD > +359 52 969393 > Varna, Bulgaria > > > On Thu, 11 Apr 2024, sdy(a)a-n-t.ru wrote: > >> Sorry, it is already was discussed. >> It's wrong model with categories. It do not anything to decide resources deficits. >> It is strongly must be payment for each assigned deficit resource, like was the land tax in England. Only this way making all NCC equal in their >> rights, and will return unused resources to NCC. >> >> WE need to vote at first MUST we pay for each deficit resource or not. And >> it NEED to take in vote all NCC members! >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> >>> >>> i dont understand, why RIPE try to punish the small providers, as a non-profit organisation. They are trying to punish the small providers and >>> strengthen or favor big proividers. >>> >>> >>> >>> There are thousends of solution advices from members as i see. Many good >>> offers but also examples from other RIRs. Why still try to monopolize the >>> sector by doing this. >>> >>> >>> >>> For example: >>> >>> >>> >>> IPv4 = IPv4 Allocations /24 >>> >>> MF = Yearly Fee >>> >>> AF = Allocation Fee >>> >>> PR = Percentage of the Yearly Fee to the Allocation Fee >>> >>> >>> >>> IPv4 MF AF >>> PR >>> >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> 16384 1.875 1.228.800 >>> %0,15 >>> >>> 4096 1.875 307.200 >>> %0,6 >>> >>> 256 1.875 19.200 >>> %9,7 >>> >>> 16 1.875 1.200 >>> %156 >>> >>> 1 1.875 75 >>> %2500 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> All the adviced models are very similar and as you can see, for the smaller providers it is so dependant. >>> >>> >>> >>> And another point is, that the adviced schemes are almost identical. What >>> should be chosen, i am not sure. >>> >>> >>> >>> If needed, surely can be found many solution variations, and i am sure better than adviced schemes. >>> >>> >>> >>> Instead of monopolizing the big providers, by advicing consolidation, you >>> should provide some relif for small providers. >>> >>> >>> >>> And in all the adviced schemes the Yaerly Fee for every LIR account is too >>> much for small providers? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Mit freundlichen Gr??en / Best Regards >>> >>> Murat TERZIOGLU >>> PREBITS >>> >>> >>> >>> Bochumer Str. 20 >>> >>> 44866 Bochum >>> >>> Deutschland >>> >>> >>> >>> Telefon: 0234/58825994 >>> >>> Telefax: 0234/58825995 >>> >>> >>> >>> <http://www.prebits.de/> www.prebits.de >>> >>> <mailto:info@prebits.de> info(a)prebits.de >>> >>> >>> >>> USt-ID: DE315418902 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Von: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net> Im Auftrag von Martin Millnert via members-discuss >>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 11. April 2024 14:43 >>> An: Fergal Cunningham <fergalc(a)ripe.net> >>> Cc: members-discuss(a)ripe.net >>> Betreff: Re: [members-discuss] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Open House: >>> Recording and Slides Available >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear Fergal, >>> >>> >>> >>> I don?t envy the challenge of the board with this feedback, but I suspect >>> it is wise to listen to it else the platform for new candidates to the board the next 5 years seems to be pretty straightforward and likely to be >>> elected: Cost reductions. >>> >>> >>> >>> As a side, doesn?t the articles of association allow for membership organized items for AGM to vote on as well? >>> >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Martin Millnert >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 10 Apr 2024, at 15:38, Fergal Cunningham <fergalc(a)ripe.net >>> <mailto:fergalc@ripe.net> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear Martin, >>> >>> The Executive Board decided on these draft options at its meeting on 25th >>> of March. So now the Board and management will follow the feedback on the >>> draft proposal on the list. They will decide by 24 April if these will be >>> the final options to vote on at the GM or if they want to make amendments. >>> So essentially the decision on what gets voted on at the GM is made by the >>> Board. You can see the minutes from that meeting here (section 3.3 on the >>> Charging Scheme): >>> https://www.ripe.net/about-us/executive-board/minutes/2024/174th-executive-… >>> >>> And it's worth mentioning that this list is for members to discuss the issues while we and the board will listen. But we will of course reply and >>> provide information to address the points raised if at all possible. >>> >>> All the best, >>> Fergal >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 2:41?PM <sdy(a)a-n-t.ru <mailto:sdy@a-n-t.ru> > wrote: >>> >>> Hi all! >>> >>> I want to ask add to vote variant D. >>> All as was before+5% inflation and 10E per 1024 addresses IPv4 per year (counting at 31 december). Can we try to vote it too? >>> >>>> >>>>> On 22 Mar 2024, at 15:27, Fergal Cunningham <fergalc(a)ripe.net <mailto:fergalc@ripe.net> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> This Wednesday, 20 March, we held an Open House with members about the >>>>> RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025. There was a presentation from RIPE NCC staff, including our CFO and Managing Director, as well as statements from both the Executive Board Chair and Treasurer. >>>>> >>>>> There was a productive discussion about the financial landscape we are >>>>> operating in and thoughts about how best to fund the RIPE NCC. The Executive Board will meet on Monday and discuss what we heard this week, >>>>> and they will decide on a draft charging proposal to put forward to the >>>>> members in April. >>>>> >>>>> The session recording and the slides from the presentation are available >>>>> at: >>>>> https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/open-house/ripe-ncc-charging-schem… >>>>> >>>>> At the bottom of this mail you can find the timestamps for the sections >>>>> of the presentation and Q&A. >>>>> >>>>> We greatly appreciate the input we received from members this week and >>>>> the constructive nature of the discussions. We encourage you all to continue to discuss the charging scheme on this list. >>>>> >>>>> Kind regards, >>>>> >>>>> Fergal Cunningham >>>>> Head of Membership Engagement >>>>> RIPE NCC >>>>> >>>>> Open House Timestamps >>>>> >>>>> 01:30 Welcome and Agenda, Fergal Cunningham >>>>> 04:30 Development and History of the Charging Scheme, Fergal Cunningham >>>>> 12:45 Consolidation and Inflation, Simon Jan Haytink >>>>> 19:10 The Work We Need to Fund, Simon Jan Haytink >>>>> 22:30 Summary and Key Questions, Hans Petter Holen >>>>> 27:20 Statement from Executive Board Chair, Ond?ej Filip >>>>> 30:30 Statement from Executive Board Treasurer, Raymond Jetten 32:45 Q&A with RIPE NCC Members >>>> >>>> Dear Fergal, >>>> >>>> What is the formal process of deciding what options the AGM get to vote >>>> at, during the upcoming AGM? >>>> >>>> >>>> I would like to suggest a Consumer Price Index based re-indexing of the >>>> costs, using standard European CPI numbers from Eurostat. We all have to >>>> deal with increases in costs due to inflation, and it?s fair that RIPE does not have to fight inflation alone. Yearly inflation as released in >>>> March 2024 was at 2.4% ? >>>> https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-euro-indicators/w/2-03042024-ap >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> Martin_______________________________________________ >>>> members-discuss mailing list >>>> members-discuss(a)ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> >>>> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss >>>> Unsubscribe: >>>> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/sdy%40a-n-t.ru >>>> >>> >>> >>> ----------------------------- >>> ? ????????? ???????? ??????? >>> ??? "????? ??? ???????" >>> +7(498)785-8-000 ???. >>> +7(495)940-92-11 ???. >>> +7(925)518-10-69 ???. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> members-discuss mailing list >>> members-discuss(a)ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> >>> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss >>> Unsubscribe: >>> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/martin.millnert%40br… >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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/sdy%40a-n-t.ru >>> >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> ? ????????? ???????? ??????? >> ??? "????? ??? ???????" >> +7(498)785-8-000 ???. >> +7(495)940-92-11 ???. >> +7(925)518-10-69 ???. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/ivaylo%40bglans.net >> > ----------------------------- С уважением Сербулов Дмитрий ООО "Альфа Нет Телеком" +7(498)785-8-000 раб. +7(495)940-92-11 доп. +7(925)518-10-69 сот. ----------------------------- С уважением Сербулов Дмитрий ООО "Альфа Нет Телеком" +7(498)785-8-000 раб. +7(495)940-92-11 доп. +7(925)518-10-69 сот.

2 5

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
by ivaylo 11 Apr '24

11 Apr '24

First let look to other RIR charging schemes: ARIN: https://www.arin.net/resources/fees/fee_schedule/ APNIC: https://www.apnic.net/get-ip/apnic-membership/how-much-does-it-cost/member-… LACNIC: https://www.lacnic.net/5448/2/lacnic/ _All charging schemes are based on LIR resourse holding_ I dont understand why RIPE NCC keep shooting self in the head. With the 3 options the board presenting we - members have 2 options to act: 1. Aggressively consolidating 2. Pressing to lower the budget If the LIRs number drop to 2000 members with budget of 42M will lead to ---> 21 000 EURO <--- fee for each. Wich will lead to 100% budget cuts. So we are in a close circle which will 100% disrupt Internet work in the region. The only way to get out of this is to follow the other RIRs. Let bigger resource holder take their responsibility and finance RIPE work bigger share ! To RIPE's board, check other RIRs charging schemes and offer something fair and sustainable in long term, not like last year non sense scheme ! Ivaylo Josifov VarnaIX / Varteh LTD +359 52 969393 Varna, Bulgaria On Wed, 10 Apr 2024, Simon-Jan Haytink wrote: > > Dear RIPE NCC members, > > > We can now share three draft charging scheme models for 2025 that the > Executive Board approved with the following resolution at its meeting on 25 > March 2024: > > > The RIPE NCC Executive Board approves the submission of the RIPE NCC > Charging Scheme 2025 options to the upcoming RIPE NCC General Meeting for > members to vote on. > > > - Option A - Charging Scheme as is with 22.58% price increase for the annual > contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,900) and a 0% price increase for > Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 50) > > - Option B - Charging Scheme as is with 20.97% price increase for the annual > contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,875) and a 50% price increase for > Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 75) > > - Option C - Charging Scheme as is with 16.13% price increase for the annual > contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,800), a 50% price increase for > Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 75) and a new AS > Numbers fee of EUR 50 per assignment > > > *Resources falling under this charge are IPv4 and IPv6 PI assignments; > Anycast assignments; IPv4 and IPv6 IXP assignments; and Legacy IPv4 resource > registrations through a sponsoring LIR. > > > The full draft charging scheme models are available from the GM > Documentation page: > https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2024/documentation > -and-archives/supporting-documents/ > > > Although the proposed models are relatively simple, we provide a calculator > where you can see exactly what you would pay under each of the proposed > models: > > https://www.ripe.net/documents/3757/CS2025_Member_Calculator.xlsx > > > The main considerations for the Executive Board in proposing these three > models are: > > 1. The consolidation of LIR accounts, which means the burden to generate > sufficient income must be met by fewer accounts > > 2. Increased costs due to inflation that were previously catered for by the > large number of LIR accounts > > 3. Following the discussions last year and again this year, there appears to > be no clear consensus among members on how a category-based model would work > and the Board does not wish to put another category model forward at the > upcoming GM that will be rejected by the members. Rather, the Board will > propose a simple model that guarantees adequate funding for 2025 and 2026 - > under this proposal, we expect there would be no need for a fee increase for > 2026. The Board will work with the RIPE NCC on a more in-depth consultation > with the members aimed at arriving at a sustainable solution for 2027 and > beyond, possibly involving a new charging scheme task force. > > > All three proposed models are designed to arrive at the same income of EUR > 41.1 million for the RIPE NCC in 2025. This will cover all current services > and activities, a 5% staff cost increase, a 2% inflation increase on all > non-staff costs, and EUR 1 million for additional work relating to registry > complexity and security projects aimed at ensuring the resilience of the > Registry and the RIPE NCC more broadly. Any such additional work would be > discussed with the membership during Activity Plan and Budget consultations > and then need to be approved by the Board. This will also allow some leeway > should more LIR accounts close than we expect. > > > It?s important to note that the RIPE NCC aims for an income budget that will > provide a surplus, and this means that should we meet our budgetary targets, > a surplus can be returned to members in 2026 should they so wish. > > > While the RIPE NCC continues to carry out cost-cutting efforts across the > organisation, drastically reducing the budget at this time is not advisable > due to the work that needs to be carried out, especially in relation to > maintaining high-quality registry services and securing the registry and > RIPE NCC systems. Cutting services or activities is not something the Board > is planning to do, and such actions would take time and need full > consultation with the membership. An overview of the activities and services > that the membership fee covers is provided below this email. > > > I also urge you to see the presentation we delivered at the charging scheme > open house in March so that the full context of the situation and the > financial landscape we face is clear to you. The slides are available at: > > https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/open-house/ripe-ncc-charging-schem > e-2025/ > > > Finally, I want to thank all those who have contributed to the consultation > so far on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025. The models we present here are > draft and in two weeks we will announce the final proposal that members will > vote on at the GM on 22-24 May. Please discuss the draft proposal on the > members-discuss(a)ripe.net list - any input received by 19 April can be > incorporated if possible into the final models we propose. And make sure to > register for the GM so that you can vote on the charging scheme that will > apply for you and all members next year: > > https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active > > > Simon-Jan Haytink > > Chief Financial Officer > > RIPE NCC > > > Services and Activities Covered by the Member Fee > > > - A trusted, efficient, accurate and resilient registry that guarantees > uniqueness of resources held by members > > - Neutral information services uninfluenced by commercial or government > interests that allow both the RIPE NCC and the community to carry out useful > research into the Internet > > - Engagement activities, including RIPE and regional meetings, that build an > active membership and community and that contribute to the overall good of > the Internet > > - A voice and influence for the membership in key decision-making fora, > including with governments and regulators > > - Protection of the Joint Internet Number Registry as developed by the > Internet community > > - Learning and development activities that help to address skills shortages > and contribute to an educated membership > > - Support for the Policy Development Process (PDP) > > - An authoritative registry of routing information provided by RPKI and the > RIPE Database > > - K-root and DNS services > > - A dedicated staff with considerable expertise contributing to all of the > above > > >

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
by Kai Siering 11 Apr '24

11 Apr '24

Hi, am 10.04.24 um 11:18 schrieb Simon-Jan Haytink: > The RIPE NCC Executive Board approves the submission of the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 options to the upcoming RIPE NCC General Meeting for members to vote on. > > - Option A - Charging Scheme as is with 22.58% price increase […] > > - Option B - Charging Scheme as is with 20.97% price increase […] > > - Option C - Charging Scheme as is with 16.13% price increase […] > > > […] > > All three proposed models are designed to arrive at the same income of EUR 41.1 million for the RIPE NCC in 2025. This will cover all current services and activities, […] Unlike 2023, when there was an "Option D - No Change" – keeping the Bugdet at EUR 38 million –, there no such option this time: Why? Coming from a EUR 38 million budget for 2024, reaching EUR 41.1 million would mean an increase of about 8.16%. Already in 2023 there was a call from members to revisit, actually: reduce appropriately, the spendings — when did I miss the voting on which projects to reduce and/or stop, to adjust the Budget due to the diminishing number of paying members? It's stated every now and then that RIPE NCC is a membership association. Statements like »cutting services or activities is not something the Board is planning to do« – especially reviewing yesteryear's discussion about the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 – make this sound like a hollow phrase. The membership raised concerns on an ever-growing Budget in the past — why is the Board still ignoring these? Furthermore, offering no option to express »none of the above, go back to square 1« constitutes a disturbing ignorance of expressed member's concerns. Regards, -kai -- Kai Siering Senior System Engineer mail.de GmbH Münsterstraße 3 D-33330 Gütersloh Tel.: +49 (0) 5241 / 74 34 986 Fax: +49 (0) 5241 / 74 34 987 E-Mail:k.siering@team.mail.de Web:https://mail.de/ Geschäftsführender Gesellschafter: Fabian Bock Sitz der Gesellschaft Nordhastedt Handelsregister Pinneberg HRB 8007 PI Steuernummer 18 293 20020

3 3

[ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
by Pim van Pelt 10 Apr '24

10 Apr '24

Hi Simon-Jan, list, The RIPE NCC Executive Board approves the submission of the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 options to the upcoming RIPE NCC General Meeting for members to vote on. - Option A - Charging Scheme as is with 22.58% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,900) and a 0% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 50) - Option B - Charging Scheme as is with 20.97% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,875) and a 50% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 75) - Option C - Charging Scheme as is with 16.13% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,800), a 50% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 75) and a new AS Numbers fee of EUR 50 per assignment This charging scheme proposal ignores essential feedback from the community for the last several years about the expenses of RIPE NCC with respect to critical services of a registry, versus other, non-critical services in the research and development arena. The enumeration of services covered by the member fee does not exhaustively list all projects and expenses from the RIPE NCC, nor does it make a distinction which are necessary as a part of the RIR services, versus which are nice to have. While I am not opposed to the options the board gave, per se, I would vote for the repeatedly requested 'option D', and defund non-critical, non-registry related activities before raising membership prices. An operating expense of 40MM/yr strikes me as an inefficient use of membership fees for the purposes of operating a registry, and as others have pointed out: because membership is required, it can be considered logical for registry services, but it should not be taken as a given that LIRs wish to fund non-registry services and projects. I also find it questionable that the cost of registration services are not scaled by size of allocation, as the # of requests and administrative operations, as well as the compute needed to run the registry's core services will likely scale with number of objects/resources/operations, not with the number of LIRs. groet, Pim -- Pim van Pelt<pim(a)ipng.ch> PBVP1-RIPEhttps://ipng.ch/

1 0