- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

Re: Latest voting
by Fergal Cunningham 02 Nov '26

02 Nov '26

Dear Hank, The draft agenda containing the resolution was published and announced to members on 17 September, six weeks before the GM. This provides four weeks for members to review and comment on the resolutions before the agenda is final. The draft agenda was also highlighted in subsequent mails to the members. The resolution change was highlighted in the mail that the Executive Board Chair sent to members two weeks ahead of the GM with the Board’s recommendations on voting on the resolutions: https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/ncc-announce@ripe.net/thread/C3YEARA… And the change was also explained in two of the presentations delivered at the GM - the Report from the Executive Board and the Financial Update and RIPE NCC Surplus presentations: https://www.ripe.net/membership/gm/meetings/october-2026/documents-and-arch… We were conscious that this was a change that needed to be clearly communicated to members, and we made these efforts to do just that. If you or other members have thoughts on how we can better make sure that changes like this are well communicated, then please do let us know. Best regards, Fergal Cunningham Head of Membership Engagement RIPE NCC In the latest voting that took place at the GM, there was the following summary: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- The General Meeting approves to add/subtract the excess contribution/deficit paid in the financial year 2026 in the following way: - In case there is an excess contribution, this will be added to the RIPE NCC reserves. - In case of a deficit, this will be covered by the RIPE NCC membership in 2027.” NOTE: If the membership does not approve the resolution, the excess contribution paid will be redistributed to the membership in 2027 according to the RIPE NCC Clearing House procedure and the deficit will be paid by RIPE NCC reserves. Yes - 57% No - 42% ------------------------------------------------------------- I think that the wording on this resolution determined the results. Everyone on this list has complained over the increase of budgets and the need for a smaller budget. In the past, excess budget has been redistributed to the members. If the resolution had been worded as: The General Meeting approves to redistribute the excess contribution to the membership in 2027 according to the RIPE NCC Clearing House procedure and if there is a deficit it will be paid by RIPE NCC reserves. Then it would have easily passed. Perhaps, in the future, wording of resolutions can be vetted by the membership so as to eliminate these kinds of issues? Thanks, Hank

1 0

Latest voting
by hank＠interall.co.il 31 Oct '26

31 Oct '26

In the latest voting that took place at the GM, there was the following summary: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- The General Meeting approves to add/subtract the excess contribution/deficit paid in the financial year 2026 in the following way: - In case there is an excess contribution, this will be added to the RIPE NCC reserves. - In case of a deficit, this will be covered by the RIPE NCC membership in 2027.” NOTE: If the membership does not approve the resolution, the excess contribution paid will be redistributed to the membership in 2027 according to the RIPE NCC Clearing House procedure and the deficit will be paid by RIPE NCC reserves. Yes - 57% No - 42% ------------------------------------------------------------- I think that the wording on this resolution determined the results. Everyone on this list has complained over the increase of budgets and the need for a smaller budget. In the past, excess budget has been redistributed to the members. If the resolution had been worded as: The General Meeting approves to redistribute the excess contribution to the membership in 2027 according to the RIPE NCC Clearing House procedure and if there is a deficit it will be paid by RIPE NCC reserves. Then it would have easily passed. Perhaps, in the future, wording of resolutions can be vetted by the membership so as to eliminate these kinds of issues? Thanks, Hank

1 0

Re: [ncc-announce] [News] Draft Activity Plan and Budget 2027 Published
by Kaj Niemi 27 Oct '26

27 Oct '26

Hi, Okay, I’ll bite. The plan shows a 1.7M EUR operating deficit, partly offset by 0.6M EUR in budgeted financial income, leaving a net deficit of 1.1M EUR. When does RIPE NCC expect operations to return to balance, and what changes will get them there? If I have the figures right, RIPE NCC had 182 FTEs and four EoR staff in 2024. The 2027 budget puts the combined figure at around 208. What accounts for that increase, and how much of it is temporary staffing for the infrastructure project? The infrastructure renewal may be justified, but I have more questions about its cost after reading the draft than I did before: * Page 17 mentions expected savings of 27K EUR. Surely it can't be all. Is that per month or per year? * The plan includes 7.7M EUR in capital expenditure for infrastructure renewal. What additional data center and IT capital expenditure is expected in each year from 2028 to 2031? * The associated operating expenditure appears to be 1.2M EUR in 2027 and at least 1.4M EUR in 2028. What is projected for each year through 2031? Which existing costs will this spending replace? * What resilience does the proposed design provide beyond the lower-cost 5M EUR option? If the proposed approach proves unworkable, what is the fallback? * Page 18 discusses using Clearing House reserves. As I understand it, these reserves were built largely from past membership fees (while the same paragraph implies there are plenty of alternatives to raising it via membership fees.......) Is that correct, and what would using them leave as a reserve buffer? * What is the opportunity cost for this proposed project? I would also like a bit more color on the 2.2M EUR office renovation. * What kind of work does it cover? * Will the landlord contribute, or will RIPE NCC pay the full amount? * What would be the cost per sqm? Spreading the cost over nine years for accounting purposes does not change the upfront cash requirement. The quoted 12 EUR per LIR per year describes the annual depreciation, not what RIPE NCC must spend on the renovation. The same distinction applies to the infrastructure project: allocating its cost across LIRs over five years does not show how it will be funded or what it will cost to operate. Depreciation is relevant to the income statement and the asset's carrying value on the balance sheet, but it does not show when the cash is spent, which is much more interesting in my opinion. Finally, I am concerned about the prospect of another membership fee increase. If members are asked to vote on higher fees again next spring, how does RIPE NCC expect to fund these plans without raising fees year after year? What tangible benefit will members receive in return for the additional cost? Please don't take it the wrong way, but I'm very concerned that the membership exists for RIPE NCC and not NCC existing for us. Kaj ________________________________ From: Hans Petter Holen <hph+announce(a)ripe.net> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2026 22:08 To: ncc-announce(a)ripe.net <ncc-announce(a)ripe.net> Subject: [ncc-announce] [News] Draft Activity Plan and Budget 2027 Published Dear members, The Draft RIPE NCC Activity Plan and Budget 2027 is now available for your review at: https://www.ripe.net/s/gm/oct-2026-supporting-docs/ This document begins our 2027-2031 strategic cycle and introduces a more streamlined approach to the Activity Plan. Key budget points for 2027 include: - Income of EUR 42.5 M - Operational costs of EUR 44.2 M - Deficit from operations at EUR 1.7M EUR - Financial Income and Expenditures at EUR 0.6 M - Deficit at EUR 1.1 M - Combined FTE and Employer of Record (EoR) count increasing by 2.5% The overall budgets for Registry, External Engagement & Community, and Organisational Sustainability remain at the same level as 2026. General personnel increases and inflation have been incorporated, with savings made within these divisions through continuous cost optimisation and control. The main change is the investment required to renew our technical infrastructure. This project has already started in 2026 and will run until 2028. As a result, capital expenditure will increase from 930 kEUR in the 2026 Budget to EUR 10.5 M in 2027. Included in this total is EUR 2.2 M for repairs and renovations to our offices. Our budgeted income also reflects the Charging Scheme approved by the membership at the General Meeting in May 2026, including the EUR 1,894 membership fee, the introduction of fees for legacy IPv4 resources and changes to ASN fees. We have budgeted to start 2027 with 20,000 LIR accounts, the same as in 2026. RIPE NCC expense per LIR is expected to be EUR 2,056, a 7% increase compared to the 2026 Budget. Please read the document and share any feedback on members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>. The document was approved for publication by the Executive Board at its 196th meeting: https://www.ripe.net/about-us/executive-board/minutes/executive-board-minut… The Draft Activity Plan and Budget 2027 will be discussed at the General Meeting (GM) alongside RIPE 93 and in the RIPE NCC Services Working Group on Wednesday, 28 October 2026. The Executive Board will consider all feedback on our activities before approving the final version that will be published in December 2026. If you would like to participate or vote in the GM, you will need to register. You can find all information about the GM, including the draft agenda and how to register, at: https://www.ripe.net/s/gm/oct-2026/ Kind regards, Hans Petter Holen, Managing Director and CEO RIPE NCC

2 3

Board Resolution to Suspend the Acquisition of Multiple LIR Accounts
by Lucas Rolff 07 Oct '26

07 Oct '26

Hello, How is this going to work in reality? People who are merging companies or converting companies (for example I'm moving from sole trader to BV), I can no longer make this move happen in RIPE I'm now forced to keep my resources under me as a natural person instead of moving my resources where it belongs: to the BV Billing wise I'm no longer able to use the VAT on my invoice for input VAT (voorbelasting), and the LIR membership belongs to me as a natural person so moving the expense into the BV becomes rather hard to justify. Effectively increasing the cost of being LIR quite a bit. I can understand that there's certain restrictions, but preventing things like company mergers, when you don't allow updating LIR accounts to a new entity seems like an odd thing to do, especially considering that the manual work largely is caused by your own policy. Sent from my iPhone

8 11

Re: Board Resolution to Suspend the Acquisition of Multiple LIR Accounts
by Akayo 05 Oct '26

05 Oct '26

Hi! There is one thing I don't understand: What's the plan of RIPE NCC to actually prevent it? People would simply start to create new entities to bypass the prohibition. This is an additional burden and we've seen this 10 years ago when the last allocations were handed out. This lead to the decision to allow multiple LIR accounts. Also a second or third LIR account comes with additional membership fees. These are already kind of compensation for the effort. I don't understand why this is not enough. --Kayo

1 0

Re: [ncc-announce] [GM] Proposed Change to RIPE NCC Articles of Association - Board Structure
by Kaj Niemi 25 Sep '26

25 Sep '26

Hi, Interesting post. Calling this a technical clarification understates slightly the governance change. Making the Managing Director an executive director places the person being supervised within the legal board responsible for that supervision. This is really not a good thing even if the spin is that it's a nothingburger and business as usual. RIPE NCC is not a conventional company seeking faster commercial decision-making.... I think. It is a member-funded, community-accountable organization entrusted with critical Internet-number-resource services. Its governance should therefore prioritize independence, transparency, and clear lines of accountability over administrative convenience. I don't think the issue is whether the MD has the authority to run daily operations. The person already does. The issue is whether the member-elected board can independently challenge management, assess performance, set remuneration, plan succession, investigate failures and, if necessary, dismiss the MD. Those functions are inherently more difficult when the MD is a fellow board member rather than clearly accountable to a separate supervisory body. Recusal rules can help with formal votes, but they do not remove the wider problem. A MD who is a board member still participates in board dynamics, receives the same information, influences discussion and may affect what is brought to the board and how it is framed. Other directors may be less willing to raise concerns openly, especially in a relatively small board. If the aim is to align legal responsibility with operational control, the cleaner solution is a genuine separation: management is responsible for execution, while a separately elected supervisory board oversees it. That preserves accountability without mixing the executive and supervisory roles. In a member-funded organization, the board must be able to hold the Managing Director to account independently and without avoidable conflicts. Neither does there seem to be safeties in place, in the AoA, for the MD to not be designated/chosen as (at least) COB. There must be. Combining the executive and chair roles ("CEO Duality") would be a much more serious governance problem than merely making the MD an executive director. The executive runs RIPE NCC; the COB leads the board that must supervise that executive. Giving both roles to one person means that the person being held accountable can also shape the agenda, information flow, and discussion through which accountability is exercised. Again, formal recusals on individual votes do not prevent that structural conflict. In a member-funded organization, the COB should be an independent, member-elected non-executive director, able to organize genuine scrutiny of management and to lead discussions on performance, pay, succession and, where necessary, removal. Given that legal and governance experts were consulted, I would have expected the implications of combining executive and supervisory roles to have been addressed more explicitly. Kaj ________________________________ From: Fergal Cunningham <fergalc(a)ripe.net> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2026 16:03 To: ncc-announce(a)ripe.net <ncc-announce(a)ripe.net> Subject: [ncc-announce] [GM] Proposed Change to RIPE NCC Articles of Association - Board Structure Dear RIPE NCC members, At the upcoming General Meeting, we are proposing a change to the RIPE NCC Articles of Association (AoA) to bring our formal governance structure in line with the way the organisation already works in practice. Under the proposal, the current RIPE NCC Executive Board will become the RIPE NCC Board. The seven Board members elected by the membership will continue to serve as non-executive Board members, while the RIPE NCC CEO will become an executive member of the same Board. This is primarily a matter of making our legal structure accurately reflect the roles that the Board and the CEO already perform, without changing the fundamental balance of governance at the RIPE NCC. Our Chief Legal Officer, Athina Fragkouli, has published a RIPE Labs article that explains what these changes are and why we are proposing them. https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flabs.ripe…<https://labs.ripe.net/author/athina/moving-to-a-new-board-structure/> Supporting documentation will be published on 30 September. Members will vote on the proposed changes to the AoA at the upcoming RIPE NCC General Meeting on 28-30 October. Details on how to participate in the GM and register your vote are available at: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.…<https://www.ripe.net/s/gm/oct-2026/> If you have questions or comments on the proposed changes, please comment on the article or discuss with fellow members on the Members Discuss mailing list: <members-discuss(a)ripe.net>. Kind regards, Fergal Cunningham Head of Membership Engagement RIPE NCC ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailman.r…<https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/ncc-announce.ripe.net/> As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.…<https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/>

4 7

RIPE NCC Quarterly Planning Q4 2026
by Boris Duval 17 Sep '26

17 Sep '26

Dear colleagues, We have now published the upcoming quarterly plans for our development teams: https://www.ripe.net/quarterly-planning We publish these plans each quarter to showcase the work items we will be carrying out over the next months. We welcome your feedback and encourage you to suggest items that the RIPE NCC should be working on going forward. The plans cover the following areas: - RIPE Database - Business Applications, including the LIR Portal, Registry Services and other applications. - DNS and K-root - RIPE Atlas - RIPEstat - Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) - Routing Information Service (RIS) - Information Security, Risk, and Compliance - Training and Certification If you have any questions or input on these plans, please share your suggestions on this list or the RIPE NCC Forum: https://forum.ripe.net/ Kind regards, Boris Duval Communications Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Analysis on May 2026 GM
by Ilke Ilhan 22 Jun '26

22 Jun '26

Hi all, We just published a new article on the May 2026 GM. As well as analysing participation, we also reflect on the outcome of the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme vote. You can find it on RIPE Labs: https://labs.ripe.net/author/ilke-ilhan/gm-may-2026-why-did-people-vote-the… Cheers, Ilke

10 13

RIPE NCC Quarterly Planning Q3 2026
by Boris Duval 11 Jun '26

11 Jun '26

Dear colleagues, We have now published the upcoming quarterly plans for our development teams: https://www.ripe.net/quarterly-planning We publish these plans each quarter to showcase the work items we will be carrying out over the next months. We welcome your feedback and encourage you to suggest items that the RIPE NCC should be working on going forward. The plans cover the following areas: - RIPE Database - Business Applications, including the LIR Portal, Registry Services and other applications. - DNS and K-root - RIPE Atlas - RIPEstat - Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) - Routing Information Service (RIS) - Information Security, Risk, and Compliance - Training and Certification If you have any questions or input on these plans, please share your suggestions on this list or the RIPE NCC Forum: https://forum.ripe.net/ Kind regards, Boris Duval Communications Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Proposals - result announced.
by Joachim Tingvold 08 Jun '26

08 Jun '26

On 2 Jun 2026, at 10:20, Chano Klinck Andersen wrote: > It’s interesting how often the assumption is made that IPv4 > addresses will be returned if they cost more to hold on to. Well, I don’t see how such a change would make it worse than what we see today? For a lot of organizations, the ~€2-3k they have to pay for their multiple /16’s or whatever that they don’t really need, is a rounding error in a lot of budgets (and “a couple of /16’s is being generous — some have WAY more that they barely use). But for a small ISP with a /24 or whatever, the ~€2-3k+++ is starting to actually matter in their total budget (I know because I’m one of them). > The way I see it, they will not be returned. Instead, they will be > sold/leased to the highest bidder. Higher fees to RIPE NCC will make > IPv4 addresses more valuable as an asset, which in turn would raise > the market price. That assumption only applies to those who are already leasing out excess address space they own… and they might also re-consider if their fee to RIPE would increase significantly. That would be the same logic as landlords in some countries that are selling their rental properties due to increased loan interest (aka its not profitable anymore). I don’t know if you still don’t have to pay for legacy address space, but that used to be the case. That’s literally zero incentive to do anything but “sit on it” (unless you speculate to sell it off, as many also have done). And those organizations that do register, can get away with the equivalent of PA-as-PI address space via sponsoring LIR (AFAIK) with essentially zero cost as well (compared to the current price of being a LIR). Ironically, for those ISPs that have “a lot of resources”, the “per resource”-model for sponsoring LIR would be more fair than the current flat-fee (i.e. they would have to pay more than they currently do via the flat-fee). I also know of individuals with /16 as PI via sponsored LIR. They pay like €150 or whatever, and use it for “shits & giggles” (sure they use *some* part of it for labbing or whatever, but still). Individuals/organizations that have these amounts of resources that are not strictly needed would for sure either a) sell, or b) return to the pool, if they had to pay “accordingly” based on their resource size. > Instead of trying to reclaim IPv4 addresses (which I don’t believe > is going to happen in any meaningful capacity), what about trying to > figure out how we can complete the transition to IPv6, making IPv4 > addresses irrelevant and ending this yearly recurring discussion once > and for all? Even if we do at some point, the dual-stack scenario is still going to be there for many decades still. Sure, we’re at a better place than just a few years back, but it’s going to take time. A long time. > The only reason, as I see it, why some members want the tiered or fee > per IPv4 address model is because they can’t get the IPv4 addresses > they need. If we had all just transitioned to IPv6 a long time ago, > when the problem became apparent and before the last /8 was used up, > no one would be complaining about the charging scheme the way they are > today. I simply want it because it’s fair to pay more for more things. If you want 100 cars, you have to pay for 100 cars. As a consultant I have worked for more organizations than I can count that has way more IPv4-resources than they would ever need. And they just sit on it because it doesn’t cost them anything. Some of them are universities that historically had a flat, one-VRF network, zero firewall, and “fully open for everyone due to being research oriented” with public IPs on every device. That was fine historically, and I don’t blame them. However, most of these have now transitioned to fully segregated networks with firewall and NAT-boxes due to the increased need for cyber security. As part of that change, many of them started to use RFC1918 address space. The old argument that “we use our public addresses because then we don’t need to have expensive NAT boxes” are no longer valid. But do they do anything about the excess IPv4 address space they have? No, they just keep it because it’s essentially zero-cost for them, even if they literally don’t use it anymore (or maybe they use a couple of /24’s of their multiple /16’s as NAT pool). Should they return it to adhere to RIPE policies? Of course. But there’s no way to reliably check if they actually use it or not. Which is part of the problem. > Prior to IPv4 run-out, we rarely ever discussed the fees, but since > running out, we have the same discussion, with the same arguments, and > the same result (no change at all) every year. I don’t technically care about the lack of IPv4 address space, and the need to return it. Its just a nice way to solve several problems; * Make sure that you pay for the service you get according to the size/value (ASN/IPv4/IPv6-resources) * Give good monetary incentive to return unneeded resources to RIPE (or sell it, both solves the problem that they don’t have to pay for it anymore) * Reduce the cost for smaller LIRs and increase it for the bigger LIRs (pay more for more things) > Furthermore, RIPE NCC is a membership association. In many > associations, members pay the same fee even if they make different > levels of use of the shared facilities or services. I have rarely seen > associations require members to pay based on their wealth or exact > usage of shared resources. I’ve seen differentiated prices for kids > vs. adults, but that’s about it. If we only received equal service (whois, etc), then I would agree with your argument. But that membership also gives you access to a resource that has a real-life monetary value, and the more you have of it, the more valuable is it. There is no way around that fact, no matter what you argue. > The discussion on RIPE NCC providing more than just barebones registry > services, the way I see it, is really a question of “for the good of > the internet community as a whole” vs. “for the good of my bottom > line”. I agree (hence why I said I like the idea of a lot of these extra services). But they still benefit a big international ISP more than a small regional one. And the big international ISP usually has a lot more money, so having to pay 10x or even 100x the current LIR fee would in most cases be unproblematic (in some cases just a rounding error on their budget). I’m not saying “pay more for more resources” will be without problems. But I think it will be a LOT better than the current price model. -- Joachim

6 7

Re: RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Proposals Announced
by Akayo 01 Jun '26

01 Jun '26

Dear colleagues! Just a few thoughts. I have - 7 x IPv4 /22 PA - 1 x IPv4 /24 PA - 4 ASNs which is equivalent to 29 x IPv4 /24. Therefore I am not a very small LIR, but between small and medium sized. As very small LIR I would consider a LIR with less than a IPv4 /22 equivalent. With Option B, the Category Model, I will pay €2,567. With Option A, the One LIR Account-One Fee Model, I will pay €2,044. Before redistribution: In 2022 I paid €1,400. In 2023 I paid €1,550. In 2025 I paid €2,000. In three years, the fees raised by 43% (2022-2025). If option B is selected, the fees raised totally by 83% in five years (2022-2027). Even if option A is selected, we have a total change of 46% in five years (2022-2027). While it is my opinion, that a very small LIR should pay less than me, the main concern here is that the costs of the RIPE NCC are just too high: How much shall I pay after the 2027-2031 period? Will I pay €5,000 then in 2032? Will very small LIRs then also pay €1,700 or so, so that the change (which first looked good for them) was useless, especially since it is likely that they received resources in the meantime? The RIPE NCC may still forget that this may cause many LIRs to sell their resources to large companies. Thanks for your time. --Kayo

36 46

Re: RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Proposals - result announced.
by Akayo 26 May '26

26 May '26

Dear Stephen, to be honest, I don't understand the question. The majority—again as in April 2023—decided to keep the simple flat fee based model. Now the mandate for RIPE NCC is clear: Lower the costs. The RIPE NCC is great, but in order to preserve that, costs need to be lowered drastically. Really. Further discussions or polls about the charging scheme models are not helpful. --Kayo ---------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Carter (Fujitsu) via members-discuss <members-discuss(a)ripe.net> Sent: Friday, 22. May 2026 – 13:15 CEST +0200 To: members-discuss(a)ripe.net CC: Subject: [members-discuss] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Proposals - result announced. It's appearing that the charging model is staying as is - But the question must be asked, as it was mentioned in the meeting that 75% of members would be better off, so as an interim measure could the charging be a 50/50 split, it could even be over more year’s thirds ? quarters ? So, a member pays half of the flat fee and half of the category fee – as I could see some members having a large increase in their fees if 75% are better off – and that ‘jump’ may not be budgeted for. Stephen Unless otherwise stated, this email has been sent from Fujitsu Services Limited (registered in England No 96056); Fujitsu EMEA PLC (registered in England No 2216100) both with registered offices at: Lovelace Road, Bracknell, Berkshire RG12 8SN; PFU (EMEA) Limited, (registered in England No 1578652) registered offices at: Belmont, Belmont Road, Uxbridge, England, UB8 1HE and Fujitsu Research of Europe Ltd (registered in England No. 4153469) 4th Floor, Building 3, Hyde Park Hayes, 11 Millington Road, Hayes, UB3 4AZ. This email is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a duty of confidence and may be privileged. Fujitsu does not guarantee that this email has not been intercepted and amended or that it is virus-free.

3 2

Recording of Meet the RIPE NCC Executive Board Candidates Open House Now Available
by Fergal Cunningham 19 May '26

19 May '26

Dear all, The recording of this week’s Meet the RIPE NCC Executive Board Candidates Open House is now available to watch: https://www.ripe.net/meetings/open-house/meet-the-executive-board-candidate… All five candidates (Maria Häll, Raymond Jetten, Danko Jevtović, Lars-Johan Liman and Harald A. Summa) answered questions on a range of topics of interest to the membership. If you’d like to follow up with the candidates on any of the topics raised, or ask them different questions, you should feel free to do so on this list. Finally, please remember to register for next week’s General Meeting (GM) so that you can cast your vote for your preferred candidates, as well as the resolutions that members vote on including the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2027. You can do this very quickly and easily via the LIR Portal: https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active All the information you need to participate fully in the GM is available from: https://www.ripe.net/membership/gm/meetings/may-2026/ Kind regards, Fergal Cunningham Head of Membership Engagement RIPE NCC

1 1

Meet the Executive Board Candidates Open House Today
by Fergal Cunningham 13 May '26

13 May '26

Dear all, At 11:00 UTC today (13:00 CEST), we'll have the Meet the Executive Board Candidates Open House, where members have the chance to ask questions of the five candidates for next week's Executive Board election. There's still time to register if you'd like to participate: https://www.ripe.net/meetings/open-house/meet-the-executive-board-candidate… I will also mail the list when the recording is available. All information on the election is available from our GM webpages: https://www.ripe.net/membership/gm/meetings/may-2026/executive-board-electi… Best regards, Fergal Cunningham Head of Membership Engagement RIPE NCC

1 0

RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Proposals Announced
by Fergal Cunningham 06 May '26

06 May '26

Dear all, This morning our Executive Board Chair announced the charging scheme voting options for members to vote on at the upcoming General Meeting: https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/ncc-announce@ripe.net/thread/IZFVMQN… All the information, and a calculator you can use to predict your potential fees for 2027, is available from: https://www.ripe.net/s/gm/may-2026-documents/ We are of course interested to hear what members think about the proposal. And, very importantly, registration for the GM and to vote on your preferred option can be done quickly and easily through the LIR Portal: https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active Kind regards, Fergal Cunningham Head of Membership Engagement RIPE NCC

28 37

Re: RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Proposals Announced
by Andrew Velder 22 Apr '26

22 Apr '26

Think most voted will be option #0: “Leave CURRENT scheme” Board SHOULD add it poll From: Kari Mattsson (Trivore) <kari.mattsson(a)trivore.fi> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2026 5:33 PM To: Andrew Velder <aev(a)zond.ru> Cc: members-discuss(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Proposals Announced Agree, very very easy to choose.. br, Kari On 21. Apr 2026, at 17.22, Andrew Velder <aev(a)zond.ru <mailto:aev@zond.ru> > wrote: Choosing between double and triple (x3,5) annual increase is a very good and wide alternative From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight via members-discuss <members-discuss(a)ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> > Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2026 2:46 PM To: Fergal Cunningham <fergalc(a)ripe.net <mailto:fergalc@ripe.net> >; members-discuss(a)ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Proposals Announced Fergal thanks for sharing this. The fee calculator in particular is very useful and makes my vote on this very easy. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains <https://www.blacknight.com/> https://www.blacknight.com/ <https://blacknight.blog/> https://blacknight.blog/ Intl. <tel:+353599183072> +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: <tel:+353599183090> +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: <https://michele.blog/> https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: <https://ceo.hosting/> https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 I have sent this email at a time that is convenient for me. I do not expect you to respond to it outside of your usual working hours. From: Fergal Cunningham <fergalc(a)ripe.net <mailto:fergalc@ripe.net> > Date: Tuesday, 21 April 2026 at 10:14 To: members-discuss(a)ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> <members-discuss(a)ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> > Subject: [members-discuss] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Proposals Announced [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Please use caution when opening attachments from unrecognised sources. Dear all, This morning our Executive Board Chair announced the charging scheme voting options for members to vote on at the upcoming General Meeting: <https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/ncc-announce@ripe.net/thread/IZFVMQN…> https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/ncc-announce@ripe.net/thread/IZFVMQN… All the information, and a calculator you can use to predict your potential fees for 2027, is available from: <https://www.ripe.net/s/gm/may-2026-documents/> https://www.ripe.net/s/gm/may-2026-documents/ We are of course interested to hear what members think about the proposal. And, very importantly, registration for the GM and to vote on your preferred option can be done quickly and easily through the LIR Portal: <https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active> https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active Kind regards, Fergal Cunningham Head of Membership Engagement RIPE NCC To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details. Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription. Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/

2 2

RIPE NCC Quarterly Planning Q2 2026
by Boris Duval 27 Mar '26

27 Mar '26

Dear colleagues, We have now published the upcoming quarterly plans for our development teams: https://www.ripe.net/quarterly-planning <https://www.ripe.net/support/documentation/quarterly-planning> We publish these plans each quarter to showcase the work items we will be carrying out over the next months. We welcome your feedback and encourage you to suggest items that the RIPE NCC should be working on going forward. The plans cover the following areas: - RIPE Database - Business Applications, including the LIR Portal, Registry Services and other applications. - DNS and K-root - RIPE Atlas - RIPEstat - Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) - Routing Information Service (RIS) - Information Security, Risk, and Compliance - Training and Certification If you have any questions or input on these plans, please share your suggestions on this list or the RIPE NCC Forum: https://forum.ripe.net/ Kind regards, Boris Duval Communications Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

FW: [ripe-list] Discussion about Charging Scheme to RIPE NCC Members List
by Tiberiu Gîndu 17 Mar '26

17 Mar '26

Dear members, Please see attached a positioning document issued by us (ANISP / RoNIX) related to the charging scheme and other conversations that were exchanged on the RIPE community list (example attached). Best regards, Tiberiu Gîndu ANISP / RoNIX -----Original Message----- From: Mirjam Kuehne <mir(a)zu-hause.nl> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2026 2:27 PM To: RIPE List <ripe-list(a)ripe.net> Subject: [ripe-list] Discussion about Charging Scheme to RIPE NCC Members List Dear colleagues, Please note that conversations related to the RIPE NCC budget and charging scheme should take place on the RIPE NCC members list and not on the RIPE community list: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/ripe-ncc-mailing-lists/members-discuss/ Kind regards, Mirjam Kühne (RIPE Chair and List Moderator) ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/ripe-list.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/

2 1

NCC Charging scheme
by Akayo 17 Mar '26

17 Mar '26

In my opinion it would not be wise to aggressively audit members. We have 2026 and not 2009. It would cost much money and would lead to cost-intensive lawsuits: Millions of USD for a questionable cause. We should keep things simple: If a LIR with 128-times more IPv4 space only pays 2.7-times (= Model A) or 2.3 times (= Model B) so much we already have found the problem. --Kayo ---------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kaj Niemi <kajtzu(a)basen.net> Sent: Wednesday, 11. Mar 2026 – 17:27 CET +0100 To: Lutz Donnerhacke <L.Donnerhacke(a)iks-service.de> 'members-discuss(a)ripe.net' <members-discuss(a)ripe.net> Michal Krajčírovič <michal(a)krajcirovic.cz> CC: Subject: [members-discuss] Re: NCC Charging scheme You can't turn back time. Realistically, I mean. All this silly talk, no offense, of looting and industrial scale falsifying, etc - please. You don't need to be on a waiting list. I get 10+ emails weekly from various brokers offering, unsolicited, blocks of addresses. I can forward some of them to you if you want. The same offer is available to anyone else, too. Kaj ---------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michal Krajčírovič via members-discuss <members-discuss(a)ripe.net> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2026 17:23 To: Lutz Donnerhacke <L.Donnerhacke(a)iks-service.de>; 'members-discuss(a)ripe.net' <members-discuss(a)ripe.net> Subject: [members-discuss] Re: NCC Charging scheme Hello, I apologize to everyone; what we are discussing here seems absurd to me. Undoubtedly it is the fault of us, the small LIRs, that we do not participate in the voting where the question of how much we should pay is decided. However, the main issue is not being addressed — that IP addresses were historically allocated inefficiently, often based on fabricated addressing plans, and those who obtained them in this way now pay the same as small LIRs, who must purchase IP addresses at high prices. And what does RIPE propose? That they should also pay for a place on the waiting list. I have a different proposal: immediately stop all inter-RIR transfers initiate a complete audit of IP usage in accordance with addressing plans after the audit, return all IPs used in violation of addressing plans (which includes at least all those being sold at various auctions) to the free pool Where are the days when Arne Kiessling was almost shutting down LIRs? When every minor issue and every suspicion of non-compliance was examined? I personally experienced such an audit at one of my former employers. Today nobody cares, and some “CEO of I-don’t-know-what” writes here that he trusts the members. Sure. We have allowed our own registry to be looted. And now small LIRs are supposed to pay the same as large ones. I call on all small LIRs: let us take RIPE back into our own hands, push for votes not only on payment issues but also on a complete audit, and make it the first registry that will have IP addresses again — because it will reclaim them from those who falsified addressing plans in the past on an industrial scale and are now making millions from it. Michal ------ Původní zpráva ------ Od "Lutz Donnerhacke" <L.Donnerhacke(a)iks-service.de> Komu "'members-discuss(a)ripe.net'" <members-discuss(a)ripe.net> Datum 11.03.2026 14:10:47 Předmět [members-discuss] Re: NCC Charging scheme +1 for Sebastian Wiesinger and Gert Döring from my side. We are a small ISP and will be hurt by a price increase for PI and AS resources, because we are doing business with them. 75€ are an irrelevant level of pricing. Even 1000€ per year is not that much compared to the other costs we have (personal, energy, licences, taxes, hardware, …). OTOH those independent resources are a burden to all of us, because they require resources at each of our routers: They increase the routing table and we have no option to filter them out (like we could do on traffic engineering at PA space). So I’ve to compare the increasing hardware costs against a „prohibitive” fee. Not an easy decision. Lutz Donnerhacke Von: Sebastian Wiesinger <sebastian.wiesinger(a)noris.de> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 11. März 2026 11:12 An: members-discuss(a)ripe.net Betreff: [members-discuss] Re: NCC Charging scheme > On 11. Mar 2026, at 00:36, sdy(a)a-n-t.ru wrote: > > I completely disagree with you. > > I've personally proposed several linear models. I've proposed various risk > scenarios for the NCC and burden on participants. All proposals are being > ignored. Linear models are simply being removed from discussions by the > administration. Why? The MAJORITY of those participating in this > discussion here have spoken about linear models! This gives me reason to > suspect a certain vested interest on the part of the group and those who > set its goals. The majority of those participating in this discussion is not the majority of those reading or voting. There are not a lot of members that are outspoken about linear models. I’m having trouble to understand which group you mean. The RIPE NCC? The charging scheme taskforce? The members? Could you define what you have identified as the group having a vested interest in keeping linear models out of the charging scheme? > You claim IPv4 is closed. Then explain to us why the market price of one > IP address is already reaching $50? Why don't we see free resources, only > rising prices? The prices for IPv4 are falling for a while now. Still there will be no free resources until IPv6 adoption reaches 100%. (Taken from https://auctions.ipv4.global/prior-sales) > The schemes proposed by the working group not only create inequality among > NCC participants; they cement a system in which the majority will pay for > the very profitable business of a small number of NCC participants. This > group of participants has historically acquired vast amounts of address > space, in part by establishing an inadequate distribution model. Although > warnings about the risks of such a "helicopter distribution" of resources > have been voiced repeatedly, it seems as if the group is strictly > advocating for their interests. This is unacceptable! No-one is paying for the profitable business of anyone. Your membership fees are not handed out to other RIPE members. You’re paying for your RIPE NCC Services. This myth of an “inadequate distribution model” comes up again and again, can you define what you mean by that? The policy before the runout was based on the demonstrated need for addresses. Everyone that could proof a need for addresses got them. That doesn’t seem inadequate to me. There are no more IPv4 addresses to distribute so I’m not sure what you mean by “helicopter distribution”. There is no cake left to hand out. > The refusal to discuss linear models has led to the failure of votes on > new models time after time. This, as I understand it, also benefits this > group of NCC members. We voted almost 15 years ago for a flat model. This model was again and again chosen. The RIPE NCC is a membership organization, not a commercial undertaking. A strict “price per IP” model would move it towards a commercial offering which has a whole lot of implications. This was discussed again and again. I would assume that if a majority of members thinks that a more resource based approach to the fees would be good they would vote for the charging scheme model that moves towards that goal? That wasn’t the case in the past. The last time there was a category based model to vote on was for the Charging Scheme 2024 and that option didn’t win. > I believe the working group should be disbanded. Its work is pointless; > we've already voted against such payment options twice. We voted to keep the current model. If that is what the members want that is fine. > Ultimately, it's not the administration that decides what the payment > model should be. It should be the decision of NCC members, and it should > be a fair choice with all options, including linear models. > > Otherwise, all these "elections" will once again degenerate into a farce! What elections are you talking about? If you’re unhappy, there is an Executive Board Election coming up. I don’t see you on the candidate list right now but there is still time. If you want change there is your chance to influence the future of the organization. In general I don’t like these more or less subtle hints that there is supposed to be some sort of secret group or cabal or whatever you want to name it. The truth is that there are a lot of people and most of them have different goals and motivations. Getting 100% what you want is basically impossible. It will always be a compromise. Best Regards Sebastian -- Sebastian Wiesinger Senior Principal Network Architect Service Integration noris network AG 90471 Nürnberg • Deutschland Tel +49 911 9352 1459 E-Mail sebastian.wiesinger(a)noris.de Vorstand: Ingo Kraupa (Vorsitzender), Joachim Astel, Florian Sippel Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Stefan Schnabel • AG Nürnberg HRB 17689

7 11

Re: NCC Charging scheme
by Evgeniy Brodskiy 12 Mar '26

12 Mar '26

Загальнодоступна інформація/Public information. Hi Michal, You mentioned that 'IP addresses were historically allocated inefficiently, often based on fabricated addressing plans.' This is an interesting point of view, though I won't even start on how much speculation is in those words. Accusing people without evidence simply because you can doesn't seem like a solid foundation. But if we follow your logic, why stop halfway? If these resources were truly 'misallocated,' why should they return to RIPE at all? Why not return them directly to IANA for global redistribution? After all, why shouldn't a small LIR from the AFRINIC region have the same right to this 'inefficiently allocated' space as a small LIR from RIPE? The reality we must acknowledge is that RIPE NCC only obtained and managed such a vast amount of IPv4 space because LIRs proactively requested it in the past. It was the demand from these members that built the registry's current scale and justified its existence. And you should be very careful with calls to 'seize and divide.' We have already seen the legal and operational chaos that occurs when a RIR (like AFRINIC) attempts to pivot from a service organization to a punitive body. It doesn't result in more addresses; it results in instability for everyone (AFRINIC vs. Cloud Innovation case). Best regards. P.S. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/afrinic-vs-cloud-innovation-why-legal-battle… From: Michal Krajčírovič via members-discuss <members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2026 5:23 PM To: Lutz Donnerhacke <L.Donnerhacke(a)iks-service.de<mailto:L.Donnerhacke@iks-service.de>>; 'members-discuss(a)ripe.net' <members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> Subject: [members-discuss] Re: NCC Charging scheme Hello, I apologize to everyone; what we are discussing here seems absurd to me. Undoubtedly it is the fault of us, the small LIRs, that we do not participate in the voting where the question of how much we should pay is decided. However, the main issue is not being addressed — that IP addresses were historically allocated inefficiently, often based on fabricated addressing plans, and those who obtained them in this way now pay the same as small LIRs, who must purchase IP addresses at high prices. And what does RIPE propose? That they should also pay for a place on the waiting list. I have a different proposal: * immediately stop all inter-RIR transfers * initiate a complete audit of IP usage in accordance with addressing plans * after the audit, return all IPs used in violation of addressing plans (which includes at least all those being sold at various auctions) to the free pool Where are the days when Arne Kiessling was almost shutting down LIRs? When every minor issue and every suspicion of non-compliance was examined? I personally experienced such an audit at one of my former employers. Today nobody cares, and some “CEO of I-don’t-know-what” writes here that he trusts the members. Sure. We have allowed our own registry to be looted. And now small LIRs are supposed to pay the same as large ones. I call on all small LIRs: let us take RIPE back into our own hands, push for votes not only on payment issues but also on a complete audit, and make it the first registry that will have IP addresses again — because it will reclaim them from those who falsified addressing plans in the past on an industrial scale and are now making millions from it. Michal ------ Původní zpráva ------ Od "Lutz Donnerhacke" <L.Donnerhacke(a)iks-service.de<mailto:L.Donnerhacke@iks-service.de>> Komu "'members-discuss(a)ripe.net'" <members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> Datum 11.03.2026 14:10:47 Předmět [members-discuss] Re: NCC Charging scheme +1 for Sebastian Wiesinger and Gert Döring from my side. We are a small ISP and will be hurt by a price increase for PI and AS resources, because we are doing business with them. 75€ are an irrelevant level of pricing. Even 1000€ per year is not that much compared to the other costs we have (personal, energy, licences, taxes, hardware, …). OTOH those independent resources are a burden to all of us, because they require resources at each of our routers: They increase the routing table and we have no option to filter them out (like we could do on traffic engineering at PA space). So I’ve to compare the increasing hardware costs against a „prohibitive” fee. Not an easy decision. Lutz Donnerhacke Von: Sebastian Wiesinger <sebastian.wiesinger(a)noris.de<mailto:sebastian.wiesinger@noris.de>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 11. März 2026 11:12 An: members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Betreff: [members-discuss] Re: NCC Charging scheme > On 11. Mar 2026, at 00:36, sdy(a)a-n-t.ru<mailto:sdy@a-n-t.ru> wrote: > > I completely disagree with you. > > I've personally proposed several linear models. I've proposed various risk > scenarios for the NCC and burden on participants. All proposals are being > ignored. Linear models are simply being removed from discussions by the > administration. Why? The MAJORITY of those participating in this > discussion here have spoken about linear models! This gives me reason to > suspect a certain vested interest on the part of the group and those who > set its goals. The majority of those participating in this discussion is not the majority of those reading or voting. There are not a lot of members that are outspoken about linear models. I’m having trouble to understand which group you mean. The RIPE NCC? The charging scheme taskforce? The members? Could you define what you have identified as the group having a vested interest in keeping linear models out of the charging scheme? > You claim IPv4 is closed. Then explain to us why the market price of one > IP address is already reaching $50? Why don't we see free resources, only > rising prices? The prices for IPv4 are falling for a while now. Still there will be no free resources until IPv6 adoption reaches 100%. [cid:image001.png@01DCB258.D14505A0] (Taken from https://auctions.ipv4.global/prior-sales) > The schemes proposed by the working group not only create inequality among > NCC participants; they cement a system in which the majority will pay for > the very profitable business of a small number of NCC participants. This > group of participants has historically acquired vast amounts of address > space, in part by establishing an inadequate distribution model. Although > warnings about the risks of such a "helicopter distribution" of resources > have been voiced repeatedly, it seems as if the group is strictly > advocating for their interests. This is unacceptable! No-one is paying for the profitable business of anyone. Your membership fees are not handed out to other RIPE members. You’re paying for your RIPE NCC Services. This myth of an “inadequate distribution model” comes up again and again, can you define what you mean by that? The policy before the runout was based on the demonstrated need for addresses. Everyone that could proof a need for addresses got them. That doesn’t seem inadequate to me. There are no more IPv4 addresses to distribute so I’m not sure what you mean by “helicopter distribution”. There is no cake left to hand out. > The refusal to discuss linear models has led to the failure of votes on > new models time after time. This, as I understand it, also benefits this > group of NCC members. We voted almost 15 years ago for a flat model. This model was again and again chosen. The RIPE NCC is a membership organization, not a commercial undertaking. A strict “price per IP” model would move it towards a commercial offering which has a whole lot of implications. This was discussed again and again. I would assume that if a majority of members thinks that a more resource based approach to the fees would be good they would vote for the charging scheme model that moves towards that goal? That wasn’t the case in the past. The last time there was a category based model to vote on was for the Charging Scheme 2024 and that option didn’t win. > I believe the working group should be disbanded. Its work is pointless; > we've already voted against such payment options twice. We voted to keep the current model. If that is what the members want that is fine. > Ultimately, it's not the administration that decides what the payment > model should be. It should be the decision of NCC members, and it should > be a fair choice with all options, including linear models. > > Otherwise, all these "elections" will once again degenerate into a farce! What elections are you talking about? If you’re unhappy, there is an Executive Board Election coming up. I don’t see you on the candidate list right now but there is still time. If you want change there is your chance to influence the future of the organization. In general I don’t like these more or less subtle hints that there is supposed to be some sort of secret group or cabal or whatever you want to name it. The truth is that there are a lot of people and most of them have different goals and motivations. Getting 100% what you want is basically impossible. It will always be a compromise. Best Regards Sebastian -- [PDF Creator] Sebastian Wiesinger Senior Principal Network Architect Service Integration noris network AG 90471 Nürnberg • Deutschland Tel +49 911 9352 1459 E-Mail sebastian.wiesinger(a)noris.de<mailto:sebastian.wiesinger@noris.de> Vorstand: Ingo Kraupa (Vorsitzender), Joachim Astel, Florian Sippel Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Stefan Schnabel • AG Nürnberg HRB 17689

1 0

Concerns Regarding Proposed Increase of Fees for IPv4 PI Resources
by Oleksandr Tsaran 12 Mar '26

12 Mar '26

Dear colleagues, I would like to express my concern regarding the proposal to increase the annual fees for Provider Independent (PI) resources, particularly IPv4 PI assignments, from the current EUR75 per block to EUR1,000 per block. PI address space serves a critical operational role, enabling routing independence, multi-homing, and rapid reconfiguration of upstream connectivity without renumbering infrastructure. For many operators, PI resources are essential for maintaining stable and resilient networks. For operators in Ukraine, this is especially important. Networks continue to operate under extraordinary circumstances, including infrastructure damage, power outages, and ongoing disruptions. PI resources allow these networks to maintain connectivity and quickly restore service during such events. Given that the administrative costs of maintaining all LIR resources are largely covered by the annual LIR membership fee, the proposed increase in the PI block fee represents a very steep and disproportionate rise compared to the current PI fee. It could place a significant financial burden on smaller operators, whose primary focus is on infrastructure stability rather than commercial expansion. I believe many operators in the RIPE region share similar concerns, particularly smaller networks and those operating in challenging economic or operational environments. I would also like to highlight that many Internet Exchange Points rely on PI address space and operate on a non-commercial basis. A sharp increase in PI fees could make some IXPs financially unviable, potentially leading to their closure and negatively impacting overall network stability. For these reasons, I respectfully encourage the RIPE community not to support proposals that increase fees for IPv4 PI resources. -- Kind regards, Oleksandr Tsaran NET-CITY 2020 LLC RIPE NCC Member

1 0

NCC Charging scheme
by thiele＠holomua.de 12 Mar '26

12 Mar '26

Hello everyone, unfortunately, the discussion here in Phase 2 reflects the experiences and contributions from Phase 1 and shows that we are all engaged in a sham discussion here. RIPE NCC set conditions for the working group in advance that were intended to prevent any discussion of a pricing model based linearly on the amount of RIPE resources (IPs, etc.) used. As a result, only the price limits of models and various ancillary costs can now be discussed. As many members clearly pointed out in Phase 1, this inevitably leads to unfair pricing and thus unfair cost distribution. According to the class-based Charging scheme models presented, users with small IP resources would have to pay up to 100 times more per IP address per year than users with large IP resources. I personally consider the argument that the latter users would otherwise pay too much and might switch RIRs to be highly questionable, as the associated effort/costs and also the question of whether other RIRs could even provide replacements for these resources suggest that these users would not switch. The models currently presented disadvantage all small and medium-sized users and favor the large early adopters. It is regrettable that the entire discussion on the pricing model could not/was not allowed to be conducted in an open-ended manner, taking into account another possible model with a linear resource-dependent cost approach. In my opinion, at least, a fair pricing model can never be achieved with the models currently being presented. Kind regards Peter Thiele -- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast-Antivirussoftware auf Viren geprüft. www.avast.com

13 18

The new proposal regarding the payment scheme is disgraceful and shows signs of collusion among big businesses.
by FAP_IMC 12 Mar '26

12 Mar '26

My sincere congratulations, Members-discuss. Protection of Small Telecom Businesses in Ukraine Today, the Ukrainian internet services market operates under the conditions of resisting Russian aggression, missile attacks, and constant cyber threats. In these circumstances, thousands of local operators continue to ensure stable connectivity for citizens, businesses, and the state. Proposals to change the payment model for numbering resources (including PI addresses) have raised serious concerns among market operators. Ukraine has around 4,000 registered internet providers, and this decentralized structure is one of the key reasons for the resilience of the Ukrainian internet. Local operators often provide connectivity in small towns and communities where large companies do not operate. Most providers are small and medium-sized businesses that have invested for many years in their own infrastructure and network development. For them, Provider Independent (PI) addresses are the foundation of technical independence. Sudden changes in financial conditions may threaten the stability of their operations. In the context of a full-scale war, a decentralized internet structure is an important element of national resilience. A large number of independent operators allows for faster restoration of connectivity after attacks and supports the operation of critical infrastructure. Any financial or regulatory changes that weaken small providers create a risk of market concentration in the hands of a few large companies and may reduce the overall resilience of the telecommunications infrastructure. Under the current wartime conditions, any changes to the payment model for numbering resources are premature and unacceptable. We call for maintaining stability in the existing rules and for open dialogue with the industry in order to find solutions that will support Ukrainian providers and preserve the resilience of the national internet infrastructure. Respectfully Oleksandr Fedienko

2 1

Ukrainian Internet Association letter regarding proposed PI fee increase
by V.Kukovsky 12 Mar '26

12 Mar '26

Dear Members of the Executive Board, Dear Mr Holen, Dear RIPE Chair, Dear colleagues! Please find attached a letter from the Ukrainian Internet Association regarding the proposed increase of the annual fee for Provider Independent (PI) resources that is expected to be considered at the upcoming May 2026 General Meeting of the RIPE NCC. Given the potential impact on Ukrainian network operators and organisations relying on PI resources, we would be grateful if the Executive Board could take the considerations outlined in the letter into account. We remain available for further dialogue and would be happy to contribute to any discussions within the RIPE community on this matter. Best regards Volodymyr Kukovsky Executive Director of the Ukrainian Internet Association dir(a)inau.ua www.inau.ua <http://www.inau.ua/>

3 3

Re: Charging model discussion - keeping the system simple and transparent
by Matej 11 Mar '26

11 Mar '26

Dear RIPE NCC and community, This is a transparent and simple charging scheme that we totally agree with. Best, Matej Serc From: bs(a)gemini.net.pl Sent: 11. marec 2026 13:05 To: members-discuss(a)ripe.net Subject: [members-discuss] Charging model discussion - keeping the system simple and transparent Dear RIPE NCC and community, I would like to share a short observation regarding the ongoing discussion about the charging model. The original purpose of the RIR system, including RIPE NCC, was to maintain an orderly and transparent registry of Internet number resources. The role of the registry was primarily coordination, documentation and stewardship of address space usage for the benefit of the Internet as a whole. Today the IPv4 address pool is effectively closed. The total number of addresses is finite and well known, and the operational costs of RIPE NCC are publicly documented. Because of this, the basic parameters of the system are clear and measurable. Over time, IPv4 addresses have also acquired significant market value due to their scarcity. In some cases, the value of address holdings has become comparable to, or even larger than, the operational value of the organisations that originally received them. While this development is understandable in a scarce resource environment, it was not the primary objective of the registry system. At the same time, any change in the RIPE charging model would not significantly affect the market value of IPv4 addresses. The scarcity of IPv4 space will continue to determine its market dynamics regardless of the registry fee structure. However, a transparent and proportional charging approach could contribute to better stewardship and more efficient use of the remaining address space. It could also encourage organisations holding unused resources to reconsider their utilisation of this finite pool. From a purely mathematical perspective, the model can remain very simple and transparent. If the annual operational cost of RIPE NCC is divided by the total number of allocated IPv4 addresses in the RIPE region, we obtain the real cost of maintaining the system per address. In principle: total RIPE NCC operational cost ÷ total allocated IPv4 addresses = annual cost per IPv4 address Such an approach would be predictable, transparent and directly proportional to the resources being maintained by the registry. In addition, a modest administrative component could be introduced to support the maintenance of other services provided by RIPE NCC, such as operational infrastructure, security initiatives and community activities. This would allow the overall structure of fees to remain realistic and balanced, while still keeping the model simple and understandable. Keeping the charging model simple and aligned with the original coordination role of the RIR system may help preserve the long-term stability and neutrality of Internet number resource management. Kind regards Bartłomiej Sztefko

1 0