- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

Opt-out from "How did we do ?" survey after a support request at RIPE NCC
by Clement Cavadore 30 Mar '23

30 Mar '23

Dear RIPE NCC, I would like to see you implement an opt out regarding the survey email after each NCC ticket closure. I think I am not the only one to be tired having to rate basically *ANY* customer service interaction I have to deal with: That kind of survey is, in my humble opinion, a poor way to give metrics to customer support's staff management, and even worse: You tend not to answer when the reply could be "it's fine, thanks", and to answer (and give bad feedback) when it was bad. Could you find any alternate methods (such as maybe an optionnal satisfaction survey prior each GM, for example) rather than this kind of survey ? Thanks ! -- Clément Cavadore

4 3

NRO letter to ICANN re AFRINIC
by Sander Steffann 29 Mar '23

29 Mar '23

Hi all, I was in vocal opposition to the previous letter the NRO sent that regarded AFRINIC, so I think it’s only fair to be vocal about my support for the "Proposal to Re-engage the AFRINIC Community” sent earlier this week. I appreciate the strong bottom-up approach in this letter. Many bad things have happened at AFRINIC and its Board, and the African community deserves better! Empowering them to get a healthy RIR that they can rely on has my full support. Cheers, Sander

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
by i7 NOC 28 Mar '23

28 Mar '23

Hello Everyone, As a representative of one of the country's largest sponsoring LIRs and IPv4 transfer brokers, I would like to express my concerns about the proposed charging models, particularly the inclusion of transfer fees. I believe these fees introduce a significant degree of unpredictability to the RIPE NCC's annual budget due to the fluctuations in the number of transfers each year, making it difficult for the organization to maintain financial stability. I also see the following disadvantages of charging transfer fees: 1) It would create an additional administrative burden on the RIPE NCC, resulting in longer transfer ticket processing times. 2) It could cause payment difficulties from sanctioned countries such as Russia, Iran, Syria and parts of Ukraine that currently have issues even with the annual membership fees payments. 3) PI blocks and ASNs transfers might become more challenging, as LIRs may be reluctant to pay for their end users. 4) Charging transfer fees would lead to additional administration, accounting and taxes issues for the sponsoring LIRs, which may negatively impact their operations. Instead, I propose focusing on increasing fees for PI resources and ASNs, which are more stable and manageable sources of revenue. By adjusting LIR fees based on the amount of resources held (as per the Model 2 ranging from 200 to 6400 euros) and increasing the fees for PI resources and AS numbers, we can establish a more solid financial foundation for the RIPE NCC. If we raise the fees for PI IPv4 and IPv6 resources to 100 euros and ASNs to 100 euros, the RIPE NCC can generate consistent revenue while allowing for future fee adjustments based on demand and financial needs. To demonstrate the potential financial benefits of this approach, consider the following calculations: Current RIPE NCC resources (approx. to date, PI IPv6 are excluded): 26,440 PI IPv4 blocks 14,910 ASNs 26,440 x (100 - 50) + 14,910 x 100 = 2,813,000 EUR Now, let's compare this with the potential revenue from transfer fees, assuming a rate of 500 EUR per transfer based on last year's statistics of 5,082 transfers: 5,082 x 500 = 2,541,000 EUR As seen in these calculations, by increasing the fees for PI and ASN, the RIPE NCC could generate similar or even higher revenue compared to the unpredictable transfer fees, while avoiding the associated disadvantages. This approach, which relies on the more predictable nature of PI resources and ASNs, ensures that the RIPE NCC can adapt to changing circumstances without putting undue strain on its operations or financial stability. Additionally, this strategy aligns with the practices of other RIRs and would not create an additional administrative burden on the RIPE NCC. Regards, Victor > Dear RIPE NCC members, > > We would like to re-open the consultation we began with the membership in 2021 on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme model, and we would like to carry out that consultation well in advance of the RIPE NCC General Meeting (GM) May 2023. > > In 2021, we presented on this topic at the GM, and we also surveyed our members and held an open house to get direct input on the charging scheme model that members would like to see implemented by the RIPE NCC. The outcome at that stage of the consultation was that there were strong cases made for both the current one-LIR, one-fee model and for a category-based model that would charge based on the number of resources held by a member. A strong case was also made to charge for all resources allocated or assigned by the RIPE NCC, including ASNs, and to charge a fee for transfers. > > The Executive Board decided to suspend the consultation in light of the war in Ukraine, but we are eager to decide on a way forward on this matter together with the membership. > > One of the main reasons that we would like to advance the discussion on the charging model is that we expect many members with multiple LIR accounts who received resources in 2021 to merge these accounts in the coming year. This means that the income the RIPE NCC receives will be reduced by a significant amount and we will need to ensure that our charging model allows us to collect the revenue required to maintain our operations. We believe that a category-based model would be best suited to cover this consolidation risk. Continuing with the existing model would mean that an increase in fees for all members would be required. Our ultimate goal is to arrive at a charging scheme model that will be sustainable for many years to come, meeting the needs of the RIPE NCC’s members. > > To help with discussion and to provide something tangible for members to assess, we are putting forward two draft models for members to review. These models can be summarised as: > > Model 1: A “one-LIR, one-fee” model based on the current RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2023 that also charges for independent resources, ASNs, transfers and changes in business structure such as Mergers & Acquisitions. > > Model 2: A category-based model that charges per member (not per LIR account) and is based on resources registered and that also charges for independent resources, ASNs, transfers and changes in business structure such as Mergers & Acquisitions. > > In order to allow members to form an opinion based on their own situation, we are providing an Excel sheet that will allow you to calculate the fees you would pay under each of the draft models. It is important to be aware that at this stage, the numbers assigned for each item are indicative and would be reviewed in light of the discussion with members. We plan to review these figures following consultation with the members, and giving input on those figures would greatly help to arrive at a good model. > > You can download the Excel sheet from: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/me… > > We also plan to hold another Open House meeting on the Charging Scheme in March to further discuss the charging scheme models. The Executive Board will then take the input and decide on one or more charging schemes for the membership to vote on at the GM to be held on 24 May 2023. The outcome of that vote will determine the charging scheme model to be used in the coming years. > > I ask that you provide your input on this important consultation on the Membership Discussion mailing list (members-discuss(a)ripe.net) by 26 April. Input provided up to this date will be considered by the Board when formulating the charging schemes to be proposed for the GM. Input after this date is of course also welcome although it might not be reflected in the schemes put forward to the membership at the GM. > > The consultation will also be recorded and available from: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations > > I look forward to your input. > > Kind regards, > > Simon Jan Haytink > Finance Director > RIPE NCC > > Summary > > 7 March: Start consultation with membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme model > 21 March: Open House to discuss charging scheme with membership > 24 March: Executive Board meeting to discuss input received so far > 12 April: Publication of Draft RIPE NCC Charging Schemes 2024 > 26 April: Publication of Final RIPE NCC Charging Schemes to be voted on by members > 24 May: RIPE NCC General Meeting May 2023 > > References > > Open House and Survey Results > https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/open-house/ripe-ncc-open-house-ch… > > Presentation at General Meeting > https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2021/documentatio… >

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
by Mark Schouten 24 Mar '23

24 Mar '23

Hello everyone, First of all, thanks to everyone working on these proposals. I’ve been silent in the RIPE community so far, but I tried to read most of the messages in this thread. I thought it might come in handy to leave my two cents as well. For the first matter, this actual proposal. I tend to agree with model 2, except for the categories. If you are assigning points to various resources to get to a category, you might as well assign prices to that resource, and invoice those tariffs. I would expect the amount of IP’s to be in balance with the size of a member. Which makes the invoice fair (although we’re completely ignoring the fact of different economical circumstances in the RIPE region). I would like to see a different price for IPv4 (not sure if anyone is actually still using those ;)), and a lower price for IPv6 after the first /32 allocation. Then there is the matter of the actual tariffs. There’s been a lot of feedback on the tariff being too high, and a connection to the budget. I think the hight of the tariff would be less important if members have the sense that the budget is in balance. The issue is, members are in charge of the budget. Members decide on the activity plan each year, as you can see on [1], page 2. I’ve looked at the archives of this mailing list. There has been one discussion on this list on the activity plan since 2013. One. I’ve also looked at https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/october-2022/livestre…, where the budget has been presented, there were no questions. None. If you disagree with the amount of money RIPE is spending (which I completely understand, I have some concerns too), schedule ‘Read the ncc-announce mailinglist’ for every day in September, and respond to that. We might even setup a discussion here beforehand, so the board can take the input into account before setting up the budget. [1]: https://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-786.pdf — Mark Schouten, CTO Tuxis B.V. mark(a)tuxis.nl / +31 318 200208 ------ Original Message ------ >From "Simon Jan Haytink" <simon(a)ripe.net> To ncc-announce(a)ripe.net Date 3/7/2023 10:35:22 AM Subject [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 >Dear RIPE NCC members, > >We would like to re-open the consultation we began with the membership in 2021 on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme model, and we would like to carry out that consultation well in advance of the RIPE NCC General Meeting (GM) May 2023. > >In 2021, we presented on this topic at the GM, and we also surveyed our members and held an open house to get direct input on the charging scheme model that members would like to see implemented by the RIPE NCC. The outcome at that stage of the consultation was that there were strong cases made for both the current one-LIR, one-fee model and for a category-based model that would charge based on the number of resources held by a member. A strong case was also made to charge for all resources allocated or assigned by the RIPE NCC, including ASNs, and to charge a fee for transfers. > >The Executive Board decided to suspend the consultation in light of the war in Ukraine, but we are eager to decide on a way forward on this matter together with the membership. > >One of the main reasons that we would like to advance the discussion on the charging model is that we expect many members with multiple LIR accounts who received resources in 2021 to merge these accounts in the coming year. This means that the income the RIPE NCC receives will be reduced by a significant amount and we will need to ensure that our charging model allows us to collect the revenue required to maintain our operations. We believe that a category-based model would be best suited to cover this consolidation risk. Continuing with the existing model would mean that an increase in fees for all members would be required. Our ultimate goal is to arrive at a charging scheme model that will be sustainable for many years to come, meeting the needs of the RIPE NCC’s members. > >To help with discussion and to provide something tangible for members to assess, we are putting forward two draft models for members to review. These models can be summarised as: > >Model 1: A “one-LIR, one-fee” model based on the current RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2023 that also charges for independent resources, ASNs, transfers and changes in business structure such as Mergers & Acquisitions. > >Model 2: A category-based model that charges per member (not per LIR account) and is based on resources registered and that also charges for independent resources, ASNs, transfers and changes in business structure such as Mergers & Acquisitions. > >In order to allow members to form an opinion based on their own situation, we are providing an Excel sheet that will allow you to calculate the fees you would pay under each of the draft models. It is important to be aware that at this stage, the numbers assigned for each item are indicative and would be reviewed in light of the discussion with members. We plan to review these figures following consultation with the members, and giving input on those figures would greatly help to arrive at a good model. > >You can download the Excel sheet from: >https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/me… > >We also plan to hold another Open House meeting on the Charging Scheme in March to further discuss the charging scheme models. The Executive Board will then take the input and decide on one or more charging schemes for the membership to vote on at the GM to be held on 24 May 2023. The outcome of that vote will determine the charging scheme model to be used in the coming years. > >I ask that you provide your input on this important consultation on the Membership Discussion mailing list (members-discuss(a)ripe.net) by 26 April. Input provided up to this date will be considered by the Board when formulating the charging schemes to be proposed for the GM. Input after this date is of course also welcome although it might not be reflected in the schemes put forward to the membership at the GM. > >The consultation will also be recorded and available from: >https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations > >I look forward to your input. > >Kind regards, > >Simon Jan Haytink >Finance Director >RIPE NCC > >Summary > >7 March: Start consultation with membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme model >21 March: Open House to discuss charging scheme with membership >24 March: Executive Board meeting to discuss input received so far >12 April: Publication of Draft RIPE NCC Charging Schemes 2024 >26 April: Publication of Final RIPE NCC Charging Schemes to be voted on by members >24 May: RIPE NCC General Meeting May 2023 > >References > >Open House and Survey Results >https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/open-house/ripe-ncc-open-house-ch… > >Presentation at General Meeting >https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2021/documentatio… >

2 2

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
by Daniel Pearson 23 Mar '23

23 Mar '23

We have a relatively small deployment with a single LIR, single ASN , two IPv4 allocations and one IPv6 allocation. Model 1 has me paying 28.2% more , €2,050 Model 2 has me paying 89.7% more.... €4,050 For a small provider.. that is a SIGNIFICANT price increase and burden for what is effectively a centralized database and verification service. For what exactly are you telling me I am paying for with those increases? Why has your budget grown to the point that you are worried about LIR accounts merging? Why are you not exploring other options by reducing your budget and being proper stewards of our money. Please do not forget that RIPE, as your own definition is a "We're a not-for-profit membership association, a Regional Internet Registry and the secretariat for the RIPE community supporting the Internet through technical coordination." You are not for profit, and as such I would recommend instead of increasing the LIR pricing, we acknowledge that the world is a much tougher place and review not only the budget expenses of the organization but additional expenses that are not necessary. You're offering up to €250,000 per year funding projects with presumably our registration fee's and funds of which you selected 8 recipients, for a presumed funding of €2,000,000 of our funds..... If that program was cut or reduced, how much would that make up for your budget short fall? Otherwise how about we also investigate other avenues of budget expenditure from RIPE and determine your total projected short fall. Ripe appears to have Approx 190 Employees on payroll as well, but yet RIPE only has 23,397 LIR's and 20,244 members. That is a significantly high ratio of employee to members, - 106 Members per 1 employee - why is this so high, what audits have been conducted recently to ensure RIPE is not suffering from technical creep and employee bloat? Your own budget for 2023 shows you've assigned less IPv4 resources in 2021 and 2022 than in prior years and have completed significantly fewer registry checks. The only real increase seen has been in RPKI's created. You're also projecting more trips this year than previous as well, a 10% increase. I'm sorry but this feels like a huge cash grab to maintain your current life style and I fully reject both Models. If I have more time I'll continue to dig into your financials and we can all have discussions on how as an organization you can be better stewards of our Money. You have to remember, at the end of the day your job is to manage a registry of finite resources. Spending money on events, trade shows, travel and excess employees is not a necessity to conduct your original goals and objectives. The rest of the world, and all of the small companies who utilize your services often times do not have the liberty to simply talk about raising prices, especially in many of the economically impacted areas that RIPE services. RIPE should follow the same course of action as many of their customers do, evaluate internal expenditures and operate within the budget provided by your members, not come to the membership and request we continue to pay for donations to random projects, or a 10% increase in employee travel. Sincerely Daniel C Pearson Private Systems Networks~ On 3/7/23 03:35, Simon Jan Haytink wrote: > Dear RIPE NCC members, > > We would like to re-open the consultation we began with the membership in 2021 on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme model, and we would like to carry out that consultation well in advance of the RIPE NCC General Meeting (GM) May 2023. > > In 2021, we presented on this topic at the GM, and we also surveyed our members and held an open house to get direct input on the charging scheme model that members would like to see implemented by the RIPE NCC. The outcome at that stage of the consultation was that there were strong cases made for both the current one-LIR, one-fee model and for a category-based model that would charge based on the number of resources held by a member. A strong case was also made to charge for all resources allocated or assigned by the RIPE NCC, including ASNs, and to charge a fee for transfers. > > The Executive Board decided to suspend the consultation in light of the war in Ukraine, but we are eager to decide on a way forward on this matter together with the membership. > > One of the main reasons that we would like to advance the discussion on the charging model is that we expect many members with multiple LIR accounts who received resources in 2021 to merge these accounts in the coming year. This means that the income the RIPE NCC receives will be reduced by a significant amount and we will need to ensure that our charging model allows us to collect the revenue required to maintain our operations. We believe that a category-based model would be best suited to cover this consolidation risk. Continuing with the existing model would mean that an increase in fees for all members would be required. Our ultimate goal is to arrive at a charging scheme model that will be sustainable for many years to come, meeting the needs of the RIPE NCC’s members. > > To help with discussion and to provide something tangible for members to assess, we are putting forward two draft models for members to review. These models can be summarised as: > > Model 1: A “one-LIR, one-fee” model based on the current RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2023 that also charges for independent resources, ASNs, transfers and changes in business structure such as Mergers & Acquisitions. > > Model 2: A category-based model that charges per member (not per LIR account) and is based on resources registered and that also charges for independent resources, ASNs, transfers and changes in business structure such as Mergers & Acquisitions. > > In order to allow members to form an opinion based on their own situation, we are providing an Excel sheet that will allow you to calculate the fees you would pay under each of the draft models. It is important to be aware that at this stage, the numbers assigned for each item are indicative and would be reviewed in light of the discussion with members. We plan to review these figures following consultation with the members, and giving input on those figures would greatly help to arrive at a good model. > > You can download the Excel sheet from: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/me… > > We also plan to hold another Open House meeting on the Charging Scheme in March to further discuss the charging scheme models. The Executive Board will then take the input and decide on one or more charging schemes for the membership to vote on at the GM to be held on 24 May 2023. The outcome of that vote will determine the charging scheme model to be used in the coming years. > > I ask that you provide your input on this important consultation on the Membership Discussion mailing list (members-discuss(a)ripe.net) by 26 April. Input provided up to this date will be considered by the Board when formulating the charging schemes to be proposed for the GM. Input after this date is of course also welcome although it might not be reflected in the schemes put forward to the membership at the GM. > > The consultation will also be recorded and available from: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations > > I look forward to your input. > > Kind regards, > > Simon Jan Haytink > Finance Director > RIPE NCC > > Summary > > 7 March: Start consultation with membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme model > 21 March: Open House to discuss charging scheme with membership > 24 March: Executive Board meeting to discuss input received so far > 12 April: Publication of Draft RIPE NCC Charging Schemes 2024 > 26 April: Publication of Final RIPE NCC Charging Schemes to be voted on by members > 24 May: RIPE NCC General Meeting May 2023 > > References > > Open House and Survey Results > https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/open-house/ripe-ncc-open-house-ch… > > Presentation at General Meeting > https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2021/documentatio… >

9 11

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
by Hank Nussbacher 22 Mar '23

22 Mar '23

On 07/03/2023 11:35, Simon Jan Haytink wrote: > In order to allow members to form an opinion based on their own situation, we are providing an Excel sheet that will allow you to calculate the fees you would pay under each of the draft models. It is important to be aware that at this stage, the numbers assigned for each item are indicative and would be reviewed in light of the discussion with members. We plan to review these figures following consultation with the members, and giving input on those figures would greatly help to arrive at a good model. > > You can download the Excel sheet from: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/me… 1. The Excel calculator has a different pricing model for model #2 as compared to: https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/me… The numbers between both should match. 2. The Excel calculator mentions "Independent Internet number resource assignments" yet the LIR Portal for every 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? Regards, Hank

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
by Kaj Niemi 18 Mar '23

18 Mar '23

Hi, Thanks, the email and the excel made for some quite interesting reading. There are a few other reasonable options which were not listed on the slide deck from 2021 nor in your email. An obvious option would be to reduce budgeted RIPE NCC expenditure to the level of forecasted revenue. This is what most normal companies, without assured funding, must do. Another option would be to charge LIRs for the services they use. With this I do not mean IP addresses and ASNs that were mentioned in your model but for everything. Someone who is using only basic LIR services (IP/ASN assignments, reverse name services) would not have to pay for "value-added services" (VAS). With VAS I mean RIPE NCC's varied extracurricular activities such as outreach, education programs and software development that have expanded considerably over the years and have undoubtedly been of some value to some of its members. Still, many of the same roles/functions are also conducted by membership organizations, NOGs, and independent software developers. Imposition of the costs of such programs on members, who either don't benefit from or do not use them, equates the charging model functioning mostly as an ATM to finance the ambitions and initiatives of the RIPE NCC leadership and a small group of active advocates. Some of us would be happy with a Big Mac meal rather than the expensive all you can eat seafood buffet 😉 Kaj -----Original Message----- From: ncc-announce <ncc-announce-bounces(a)ripe.net> On Behalf Of Simon Jan Haytink Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 11:35 To: ncc-announce(a)ripe.net Subject: [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 Dear RIPE NCC members, We would like to re-open the consultation we began with the membership in 2021 on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme model, and we would like to carry out that consultation well in advance of the RIPE NCC General Meeting (GM) May 2023. In 2021, we presented on this topic at the GM, and we also surveyed our members and held an open house to get direct input on the charging scheme model that members would like to see implemented by the RIPE NCC. The outcome at that stage of the consultation was that there were strong cases made for both the current one-LIR, one-fee model and for a category-based model that would charge based on the number of resources held by a member. A strong case was also made to charge for all resources allocated or assigned by the RIPE NCC, including ASNs, and to charge a fee for transfers. The Executive Board decided to suspend the consultation in light of the war in Ukraine, but we are eager to decide on a way forward on this matter together with the membership. One of the main reasons that we would like to advance the discussion on the charging model is that we expect many members with multiple LIR accounts who received resources in 2021 to merge these accounts in the coming year. This means that the income the RIPE NCC receives will be reduced by a significant amount and we will need to ensure that our charging model allows us to collect the revenue required to maintain our operations. We believe that a category-based model would be best suited to cover this consolidation risk. Continuing with the existing model would mean that an increase in fees for all members would be required. Our ultimate goal is to arrive at a charging scheme model that will be sustainable for many years to come, meeting the needs of the RIPE NCC’s members. To help with discussion and to provide something tangible for members to assess, we are putting forward two draft models for members to review. These models can be summarised as: Model 1: A “one-LIR, one-fee” model based on the current RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2023 that also charges for independent resources, ASNs, transfers and changes in business structure such as Mergers & Acquisitions. Model 2: A category-based model that charges per member (not per LIR account) and is based on resources registered and that also charges for independent resources, ASNs, transfers and changes in business structure such as Mergers & Acquisitions. In order to allow members to form an opinion based on their own situation, we are providing an Excel sheet that will allow you to calculate the fees you would pay under each of the draft models. It is important to be aware that at this stage, the numbers assigned for each item are indicative and would be reviewed in light of the discussion with members. We plan to review these figures following consultation with the members, and giving input on those figures would greatly help to arrive at a good model. You can download the Excel sheet from: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.… We also plan to hold another Open House meeting on the Charging Scheme in March to further discuss the charging scheme models. The Executive Board will then take the input and decide on one or more charging schemes for the membership to vote on at the GM to be held on 24 May 2023. The outcome of that vote will determine the charging scheme model to be used in the coming years. I ask that you provide your input on this important consultation on the Membership Discussion mailing list (members-discuss(a)ripe.net) by 26 April. Input provided up to this date will be considered by the Board when formulating the charging schemes to be proposed for the GM. Input after this date is of course also welcome although it might not be reflected in the schemes put forward to the membership at the GM. The consultation will also be recorded and available from: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.… I look forward to your input. Kind regards, Simon Jan Haytink Finance Director RIPE NCC Summary 7 March: Start consultation with membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme model 21 March: Open House to discuss charging scheme with membership 24 March: Executive Board meeting to discuss input received so far 12 April: Publication of Draft RIPE NCC Charging Schemes 2024 26 April: Publication of Final RIPE NCC Charging Schemes to be voted on by members 24 May: RIPE NCC General Meeting May 2023 References Open House and Survey Results https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.… Presentation at General Meeting https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.…

28 44

RIPE NCC Budget Discussions
by Hans Petter Holen 17 Mar '23

17 Mar '23

Dear all, We have seen many comments on the RIPE NCC's budget, expenses and staffing. We take all those comments on board and they will be valuable when we start work on our Activity Plan and Budget 2024 later this year. However, for this consultation, we are working to come up with a charging scheme model that will work for the foreseeable future regardless of whether the budget is higher, lower or the same as the current one. I understand that there is a connection to our charging model, but the two consultation processes aim at different things. This one is about how we charge in a way that is acceptable to the membership. The later one is about what activities we carry out, as well as how much we pay for them and how we resource them. I note that currently over 50% of our costs (budget and actuals) are staff-related costs. Having said that, we have seen some comments that might create misconceptions about our staff levels and our overall budget. For instance, our Community Projects Fund allocates 250,000 euro across all Good of the Internet projects rather than 250,000 euro for each project. Also, there have been comments that fewer LIRs should have meant less work for the RIPE NCC. However, this has not proven to be the case for many reasons. We still need to ensure there is an accurate registry, and there has been a dramatic increase in the amount of transfers since IPv4 run-out that need proper due diligence from our side. Similarly, the effects of sanctions compliance on the RIPE NCC has been significant for our work on the registry side but also on the legal, financial and political fronts. We also need to put resources into ensuring a resilient and secure RPKI Trust Anchor. We have seen the need to greatly increase our security and compliance efforts to protect our infrastructure and your resources. Members across our service region have very different needs in terms of capacity building and training. We provide measurements on the Internet that we are uniquely placed to provide and we see much demand for those insights. And of course the effect of instability in the service region (war and dealing with ultra high-risk countries, for example) has caused uncertainty around being able to collect part of the membership fees and that has in turn increased our workload. There are many other examples of how our workload has increased in recent years, and I encourage you to look at our Activity Plans over the past few years to see more details on this. Best regards, Hans Petter Holen Managing Director RIPE NCC

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
by J Pawlus 17 Mar '23

17 Mar '23

Hello, There is no basis for any LIR membership fee to be based on the IPv4 allocated address space and there are several reasons for this: - RIPE has never charged LIRs for IP addresses - It is true that at the beginning RIPE membership fee was based on categories, as far as I remember: SMALL, MEDIUM, LARGE and EXTRA LARGE, but it was because of work required to serve IPv4 resources. At that time IPv4 allocation and assignement policies had to be developed, every allocation of IPv4 address space to a LIR had to be checked and done by RIPE. What is more, if the IPv4 assignement made by a LIR to its End User exceeded the LIR Window size such assignement had to be checked and approved by the RIPE staff. RevDNS for allocated resources had to be made. This work is long gone. - The amount of work required to serve leftover IPv4 space cannot be compared to what it was required before - As far as I know RIPE does not pay IANA for IPv4 space allocated to Europe Region and any attempt of RIPE to require such payment from LIRs should be considered major abuse of RIPE mandate as a RIR. In conclusion, RIPE has always charged its members for Services not an address space. If a reverse model is to be developed it has to be with IANA cooperation. But in my opinion it could lead to splitting Internet to many privately administered parts. Kind regards, Jerzy Pawlus ACK Cyfronet AGH

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
by Sander Steffann 16 Mar '23

16 Mar '23

Hi Simon Jan, > Model 2: A category-based model that charges per member (not per LIR account) and is based on resources registered and that also charges for independent resources, ASNs, transfers and changes in business structure such as Mergers & Acquisitions. I feel this model double-charges for PI and ASN. LIRs with many of those resources both pay €50 per resource, and also run the risk of being pushed up into a higher category. I strongly feel that PI and ASN should be excluded from the category score calculation. On a side note, I also feel that the RIPE NCC’s budget is getting a bit out of control. RIPE NCC is primarily an Internet Registry, and I would like to see focus concentrating on Registration Services, and less on anything else. I understand that the RIPE NCC is in a useful position to do nice research projects, represent the internet community etc. But looking at the budget it looks like the rest of the organisation is growing much faster than the registry function. I therefore also object to the €450 price increase in model 1. Cheers, Sander

11 13