- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

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

28 Apr '23

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

1 0

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

27 Apr '23

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

18 26

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

27 Apr '23

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

1 0

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

26 Apr '23

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

5 4

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

26 Apr '23

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

1 0

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

21 Apr '23

Hello Simon-Jan, * On Wed, 2023-04-12 at 15:45 +0200, Simon-Jan Haytink wrote: > The three models all aim to fulfil a budget that is roughly the same > as 2023 plus general cost increases including inflation, so EUR 42-45 > million. By doing this, we can ensure that we can meet the potential > budgetary requirements for 2024 while retaining the option for > members to redistribute any excess contributions should we receive > excess funds. The Activity Plan and Budget will be discussed with > members this coming Autumn. > > The three models are available to review at: > > https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/ch… > > > We also provide an updated calculator where members can see for > themselves how much they might pay under the draft models: > > https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/ne… > > > To summarise the main features of the three models: > > Model A - Category Model > > This model has ten categories to provide greater granularity. It also > charges separately for independent and legacy resources in exactly > the same way as in previous years. Additionally, a separate 50 EUR > ASN assignment fee has been added. Both separately charged resources > do not contribute to the category scores. This means there is no > double charging and no specific charging for transfers or > administrative work carried out by the RIPE NCC. There is a New /24 > IPv4 administration fee to ensure there is a financial consequence to > joining the IPv4 Waiting List. The fee would be payable upon receipt > of the /24, and members joining the waiting list who do not have an > eligible LIR account, would pay the new LIR sign-up fee to open a new > LIR account and join the waiting list. > > With this model, approximately 68% of members would pay less than the > current annual fee, with the remaining 32% paying more. > > The discussion with members helped us to see that a category-based > model would receive significant support from members if the version > was simplified. Should members see the need to charge for other > elements, then that can be incorporated into the category model in > the coming years. Any such additional charges could potentially then > reduce the fees per category. Could you please share how many LIRs would enter in each category ? And also, it still seems unfair to me that extra-large LIRs holding millions of IPv4 would pay a few thousand euros. National fixed or mobile internet service provider should be able to handle higher fees. I also feel that IPv6 should be less impacting than IPv4 on category calculation. > Model B - Price increase and ASN fee > > This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there > is a price increase of EUR 150 and a 50 EUR ASN fee to ensure we can > meet our budgetary requirements while retaining the option for > members to redistribute any excess contribution should we receive > excess funds. > > Model C - Transfer fee and ASN fee > > This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there > is a charge of EUR 1,000 per transfer to be paid by the receiving > party and a 50 EUR ASN fee to ensure we can meet our budgetary > requirements while retaining the option for members to redistribute > any excess contribution should we receive excess funds. > > Further information on the charging scheme models is provided at: > > https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/ch… > > > The RIPE NCC Executive Board believes that a category-based model is > the best option to help address uncertainty that might be caused by > consolidation with multiple LIRs and to provide greater flexibility > and fairness in how we charge members in the coming years. Still not understanding why you are introducing an ASN fee. And regarding the transfer fee, I feel that the seller should pay the fee, but not the receiver. Best, Clément Cavadore

4 5

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

20 Apr '23

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

1 0

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

18 Apr '23

Hi Simon, Thank you for the summary of proposed charging schemes. I only have a concern whether the ASN fee has received a rough approval from members. Is the AS number a limited resource, especially 32-bit ASNs? Is it valuable somehow? I would suggest to prepare a scheme without the ASN fee. And of course, members whose invoice amount will be increased should receive the quarterly payments benefit. PS. It's sad when the only option to keep the flat fee is don't approve all the proposed models. -- Kind regards, Sergey Myasoedov > On Apr 12, 2023, at 09:45, Simon-Jan Haytink <simonjh(a)ripe.net> wrote: > > Dear RIPE NCC members, > > I want to thank all those who contributed to the consultation so far on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 and the model we should use for the coming years. > > We can now share three draft models that we developed based on input from the members on the Members Discuss mailing list and in the Charging Scheme Open House, as well as from the discussions at the recent Executive Board Meeting. > > The result is that we are proposing three draft charging scheme models: one category-based and two that are based on the previous "one LIR account, one fee" model. We hope to receive feedback on these models by 19 April so the Executive Board can propose the final versions on 26 April. The members will then vote on those three models at the upcoming General Meeting on 24-26 May. > > The three models all aim to fulfil a budget that is roughly the same as 2023 plus general cost increases including inflation, so EUR 42-45 million. By doing this, we can ensure that we can meet the potential budgetary requirements for 2024 while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contributions should we receive excess funds. The Activity Plan and Budget will be discussed with members this coming Autumn. > > The three models are available to review at: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/ch… > > We also provide an updated calculator where members can see for themselves how much they might pay under the draft models: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/ne… > > To summarise the main features of the three models: > > Model A - Category Model > > This model has ten categories to provide greater granularity. It also charges separately for independent and legacy resources in exactly the same way as in previous years. Additionally, a separate 50 EUR ASN assignment fee has been added. Both separately charged resources do not contribute to the category scores. This means there is no double charging and no specific charging for transfers or administrative work carried out by the RIPE NCC. There is a New /24 IPv4 administration fee to ensure there is a financial consequence to joining the IPv4 Waiting List. The fee would be payable upon receipt of the /24, and members joining the waiting list who do not have an eligible LIR account, would pay the new LIR sign-up fee to open a new LIR account and join the waiting list. > > With this model, approximately 68% of members would pay less than the current annual fee, with the remaining 32% paying more. > > The discussion with members helped us to see that a category-based model would receive significant support from members if the version was simplified. Should members see the need to charge for other elements, then that can be incorporated into the category model in the coming years. Any such additional charges could potentially then reduce the fees per category. > > Model B - Price increase and ASN fee > > This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there is a price increase of EUR 150 and a 50 EUR ASN fee to ensure we can meet our budgetary requirements while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contribution should we receive excess funds. > > Model C - Transfer fee and ASN fee > > This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there is a charge of EUR 1,000 per transfer to be paid by the receiving party and a 50 EUR ASN fee to ensure we can meet our budgetary requirements while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contribution should we receive excess funds. > > Further information on the charging scheme models is provided at: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/ch… > > The RIPE NCC Executive Board believes that a category-based model is the best option to help address uncertainty that might be caused by consolidation with multiple LIRs and to provide greater flexibility and fairness in how we charge members in the coming years. > > On 26 April, the final versions of the charging schemes that members will vote on will be published for the members to consider and discuss. If you have comments on the draft charging schemes, we therefore ask you to comment on the members-discuss mailing list by 19 April so we have time to incorporate any feedback if necessary. > > Importantly, we ask all members to register for the RIPE NCC General Meeting where the final decision will be in your hands. Register to participate and vote at: > https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active > > Simon-Jan Haytink > Chief Financial Officer > RIPE NCC >

7 9

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

18 Apr '23

Hello! Resending the email after subscription to the RIPE NCC Members Discuss mailing list (please see below). Regards, Naira "Have a great day!" -----Original Message----- From: Naira Kuroyan Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2023 11:13 AM To: 'members-discuss(a)ripe.net' <members-discuss(a)ripe.net>; 'Simon-Jan Haytink' <simonjh(a)ripe.net>; ncc-announce(a)ripe.net Cc: Vahagn Melikyan <vahagn.melikyan(a)telecomarmenia.am>; Aram Khalapyan <AKhalapyan(a)telecomarmenia.am>; Zaruhi Dadayan <zara.dadayan(a)telecomarmenia.am>; interconnect <interconnect(a)telecomarmenia.am> Subject: RE: [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024 Dear RIPE NCC Team, We have reviewed presented three draft models of Charging Scheme 2024 and here presenting our comments on behalf of "Telecom Armenia" OJSC. We understand Community's need to cover LIRs consolidation risk and to ensure collection of the revenue required to maintain its operations, and aim to fulfil a budget that is the same as 2023. However something seems inappropriate, in particular with the Model A - Category Model. Please note that with this model in some cases the cost of membership charge may increase significantly, 6-7 times in particular for our LIR (even more than in model suggested by you in previous communication). There is no sense in increase of charge from current 1600 EUR/year to 10550 EUR/year in the following years, when nothing has changed in our business activities and in resources assigned for us. This is not acceptable for us and anyhow for any business. We can not imagine any case in the world when the charge for services increases for several times. We believe that the maximum increase level shall be limited to 20%. You can imagine how the significant increase will impact the Company's business activities. E.g. we have planned our business cases and budget and requested resources from RIPE NCC with the existing charge level. Moreover, we have signed long-term contracts (3 years and more) with customers with prices calculated based on the existing costs, and in some cases it may be challenging or even not possible to change the pricing terms without risking a breach of contracts. So it is not acceptable to switch from the model where we pay only for Membership and have assigned resources free of charge, to the model where RIPE NCC in fact starts charging for already assigned resources currently in use in our business, and at very high level. We believe that new charges can be applicable to the new Members or the new resources to be assigned , but not to existing ones. As an alternative, discounts or other options for the price adjustment or payment plans offered for a long-standing members can be applied. After the review of the last three models we believe that Charging Model A application will stimulate even more members with multiple LIR accounts to merge these accounts in the coming year. One more note is concerning the remark that 67.69% of Members will pay less than they currently do, and 18.22% of Members will pay significantly more then they currently do. So in this situation even any further increase of charge for the minority of Members and corresponding decrease for the 67.69% of Members will encourage the majority to support this Model and vote for it. So we believe that the vote of these 18.22% members should have more weight in the calculation of the voting result. At the same time it may be reasonable to take into consideration also the current economic situation in the World and the impact on Member's businesses, so we suggest also take a closer look at RIPE NCC's expenses to consider if its operations costs could be potentially optimized to help keep the membership fees at a reasonable level, ex. negotiating better deals, reducing some expenses, etc. The significant increase of the price level is challenging and stuggleing for the Members (and their customers) from not stable and economically less developed regions. War or instability in the country region, polytical, economical, country development situation can have a significant impact on the local economy, with the ability of their members to pay increased charges, especially during difficult times. Below you can see also some technical remarks regarding the Models. In Model A - Category Model: In this Model we suggest to add a short description for Definition of Category based on assigned multiple IPv4 and/or IPv6 resources. In models B and C: Suggested to add in the price list table "ASN Fee" row (similar to "Price List per Separate Charge" table in Model A) In model C: Transfer Fee - We suggest to describe that this charge is one-time payment in the year following the transfer. Also we suggest to describe that only one Transfer Fee (Euro 1000) is payable for each transfer application regardless of the number of and different type of transferable resources. In all models: Suggested for avoidance of dual understanding to remove interpretation "AS Numbers are excluded from this charge." from description of independent Internet number resource assignment charges. We believe that some constructive adjustments in the new fee structure trying to balance the community's financial needs with the needs of its members will enable to find a solution that works for everyone. Thank you. Regards, NAIRA KUROYAN GLOBAL NETWORK CONNECTIVITY MANAGER +374 91 20 05 75 NKuroyan(a)telecomarmenia.am www.telecomarmenia.am -----Original Message----- From: ncc-announce [mailto:ncc-announce-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Simon-Jan Haytink Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2023 5:46 PM To: ncc-announce(a)ripe.net Subject: [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024 Dear RIPE NCC members, I want to thank all those who contributed to the consultation so far on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 and the model we should use for the coming years. We can now share three draft models that we developed based on input from the members on the Members Discuss mailing list and in the Charging Scheme Open House, as well as from the discussions at the recent Executive Board Meeting. The result is that we are proposing three draft charging scheme models: one category-based and two that are based on the previous "one LIR account, one fee" model. We hope to receive feedback on these models by 19 April so the Executive Board can propose the final versions on 26 April. The members will then vote on those three models at the upcoming General Meeting on 24-26 May. The three models all aim to fulfil a budget that is roughly the same as 2023 plus general cost increases including inflation, so EUR 42-45 million. By doing this, we can ensure that we can meet the potential budgetary requirements for 2024 while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contributions should we receive excess funds. The Activity Plan and Budget will be discussed with members this coming Autumn. The three models are available to review at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/ch… We also provide an updated calculator where members can see for themselves how much they might pay under the draft models: https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/ne… To summarise the main features of the three models: Model A - Category Model This model has ten categories to provide greater granularity. It also charges separately for independent and legacy resources in exactly the same way as in previous years. Additionally, a separate 50 EUR ASN assignment fee has been added. Both separately charged resources do not contribute to the category scores. This means there is no double charging and no specific charging for transfers or administrative work carried out by the RIPE NCC. There is a New /24 IPv4 administration fee to ensure there is a financial consequence to joining the IPv4 Waiting List. The fee would be payable upon receipt of the /24, and members joining the waiting list who do not have an eligible LIR account, would pay the new LIR sign-up fee to open a new LIR account and join the waiting list. With this model, approximately 68% of members would pay less than the current annual fee, with the remaining 32% paying more. The discussion with members helped us to see that a category-based model would receive significant support from members if the version was simplified. Should members see the need to charge for other elements, then that can be incorporated into the category model in the coming years. Any such additional charges could potentially then reduce the fees per category. Model B - Price increase and ASN fee This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there is a price increase of EUR 150 and a 50 EUR ASN fee to ensure we can meet our budgetary requirements while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contribution should we receive excess funds. Model C - Transfer fee and ASN fee This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there is a charge of EUR 1,000 per transfer to be paid by the receiving party and a 50 EUR ASN fee to ensure we can meet our budgetary requirements while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contribution should we receive excess funds. Further information on the charging scheme models is provided at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/ch… The RIPE NCC Executive Board believes that a category-based model is the best option to help address uncertainty that might be caused by consolidation with multiple LIRs and to provide greater flexibility and fairness in how we charge members in the coming years. On 26 April, the final versions of the charging schemes that members will vote on will be published for the members to consider and discuss. If you have comments on the draft charging schemes, we therefore ask you to comment on the members-discuss mailing list by 19 April so we have time to incorporate any feedback if necessary. Importantly, we ask all members to register for the RIPE NCC General Meeting where the final decision will be in your hands. Register to participate and vote at: https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active Simon-Jan Haytink Chief Financial Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Charging Scheme Models 2024
by Akayo 18 Apr '23

18 Apr '23

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

9 8

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

18 Apr '23

On 12/04/2023 16:45, Simon-Jan Haytink wrote: I am so glad that NCC has totally ignored my previous email: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/2023-March/004800.h… where I stated: 2. The Excel calculator mentions "Independent Internet number resource assignments" yet the LIR Portal for everyone lists resources as either "My Resources" or "Sponsored Resources", or "Allocated PA" or "Legacy", etc. Can the calculator be adjusted so people can know exactly how each resource is priced in the new model? didn't warrant a response nor an adjustment in the Excel. So glad to be ignored when it comes to paying. -Hank > Dear RIPE NCC members, > > I want to thank all those who contributed to the consultation so far on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 and the model we should use for the coming years. > > We can now share three draft models that we developed based on input from the members on the Members Discuss mailing list and in the Charging Scheme Open House, as well as from the discussions at the recent Executive Board Meeting. > > The result is that we are proposing three draft charging scheme models: one category-based and two that are based on the previous "one LIR account, one fee" model. We hope to receive feedback on these models by 19 April so the Executive Board can propose the final versions on 26 April. The members will then vote on those three models at the upcoming General Meeting on 24-26 May. > > The three models all aim to fulfil a budget that is roughly the same as 2023 plus general cost increases including inflation, so EUR 42-45 million. By doing this, we can ensure that we can meet the potential budgetary requirements for 2024 while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contributions should we receive excess funds. The Activity Plan and Budget will be discussed with members this coming Autumn. > > The three models are available to review at: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/ch… > > We also provide an updated calculator where members can see for themselves how much they might pay under the draft models: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/ne… > > To summarise the main features of the three models: > > Model A - Category Model > > This model has ten categories to provide greater granularity. It also charges separately for independent and legacy resources in exactly the same way as in previous years. Additionally, a separate 50 EUR ASN assignment fee has been added. Both separately charged resources do not contribute to the category scores. This means there is no double charging and no specific charging for transfers or administrative work carried out by the RIPE NCC. There is a New /24 IPv4 administration fee to ensure there is a financial consequence to joining the IPv4 Waiting List. The fee would be payable upon receipt of the /24, and members joining the waiting list who do not have an eligible LIR account, would pay the new LIR sign-up fee to open a new LIR account and join the waiting list. > > With this model, approximately 68% of members would pay less than the current annual fee, with the remaining 32% paying more. > > The discussion with members helped us to see that a category-based model would receive significant support from members if the version was simplified. Should members see the need to charge for other elements, then that can be incorporated into the category model in the coming years. Any such additional charges could potentially then reduce the fees per category. > > Model B - Price increase and ASN fee > > This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there is a price increase of EUR 150 and a 50 EUR ASN fee to ensure we can meet our budgetary requirements while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contribution should we receive excess funds. > > Model C - Transfer fee and ASN fee > > This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there is a charge of EUR 1,000 per transfer to be paid by the receiving party and a 50 EUR ASN fee to ensure we can meet our budgetary requirements while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contribution should we receive excess funds. > > Further information on the charging scheme models is provided at: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/ch… > > The RIPE NCC Executive Board believes that a category-based model is the best option to help address uncertainty that might be caused by consolidation with multiple LIRs and to provide greater flexibility and fairness in how we charge members in the coming years. > > On 26 April, the final versions of the charging schemes that members will vote on will be published for the members to consider and discuss. If you have comments on the draft charging schemes, we therefore ask you to comment on the members-discuss mailing list by 19 April so we have time to incorporate any feedback if necessary. > > Importantly, we ask all members to register for the RIPE NCC General Meeting where the final decision will be in your hands. Register to participate and vote at: > https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active > > Simon-Jan Haytink > Chief Financial Officer > RIPE NCC >

1 0

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

18 Apr '23

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

1 0

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

17 Apr '23

Hello Simon-Jan, On Wed, 12 Apr 2023, Simon-Jan Haytink wrote: > Model A - Category Model > > This model has ten categories to provide greater granularity. It also charges separately for independent and legacy resources in exactly the same way as in previous years. Additionally, a separate 50 EUR ASN assignment fee has been added. Both separately charged resources do not contribute to the category scores. This means there is no double charging and no specific charging for transfers or administrative work carried out by the RIPE NCC. There is a New /24 IPv4 administration fee to ensure there is a financial consequence to joining the IPv4 Waiting List. The fee would be payable upon receipt of the /24, and members joining the waiting list who do not have an eligible LIR account, would pay the new LIR sign-up fee to open a new LIR account and join the waiting list. > > With this model, approximately 68% of members would pay less than the current annual fee, with the remaining 32% paying more. > > The discussion with members helped us to see that a category-based model would receive significant support from members if the version was simplified. Should members see the need to charge for other elements, then that can be incorporated into the category model in the coming years. Any such additional charges could potentially then reduce the fees per category. thank you for the explanation and the analysis. However from my point of view, the RIPE NCC offers with this model an unfair incentive to members with IPv4 allocations (in total) of more than a /15 equivalent, because they are simply capped at 10k EUR per year. Deutsche Telekom, Orange, Societe Francaise Du Radiotelephone and Telecom Italia (if I did my research right, they should be the 4 largest members in the RIPE region) have each in total IPv4 allocations somewhere between /8 and /7 equivalent. And sorry, I might be totally wrong, but I think if a member needs these really large IPv4 allocations, the member should easily be able to pay much more than only 10k EUR per year. And a member still could charge its customers for their IPv4 usage (or make them simply moving to IPv6). But once it comes to IPv6, I think charging 350 EUR per year for a /29 is a very bad idea. In the past, RIPE NCC employees even encouraged RIPE members to extend their /32 up to a /29 ("because it's free", just informally and in non-written form e.g. during an Assisted Registry Check, but Maximilian Wilhelm mentioned on 2023-04-13 that it also happened in a documented way). Aside of this: Does the RIPE NCC currently see any lack of IPv6 address space to come up with this proposal? If a /29 leads to extra charging, I expect quite some members to return their IPv6 allocation (above /29), and especially in cases where it was advertised as "free benefit" in the past. Other than that: +1 to Gert Doering's e-mail from 2023-04-13. As longer I am looking to the IPv6 category scale, as more I am wondering why largest IPv6 allocations in the RIPE region to Deutsche Telekom, UK Ministry of Defence and Orange (each a /19) are just category 7 instead of 10. Honestly, I expect Deutsche Telekom and Orange made their homework before requesting an IPv6 allocation, thus I seriously wonder how realistic it is that the RIPE NCC allocates something even larger to another member in the next years (or maybe even ever?). So shouldn't the scale be adjusted to cover the largest members with the largest category? If my research was correct, the RIPE NCC in total has IPv6 allocations of /11 + /17 + /21 currently. A /11 allows up to 16 /15 allocations (this + 1 more IPv6 address is the minimum size for IPv6 category 10). I am not sure which huge future address needs by members the RIPE NCC is expecting. And seriously: If there is such a need in 5+ years, we anyway will discuss the next charging scheme, right? >From my point of view, both, the IPv4 and the IPv6 category scale should be aligned more to the current maximum of actual IP allocations of RIPE. This would, from my point of view, distribute the overall costs over the members somehow "per usage" (and be in-line with historical allocation requests). Do 32 bit ASNs cause costs to the RIPE NCC? Or is the RIPE NCC running out of them anytime soon? I understand that the situation for 16 bit ASNs is different, but I'm not sure what the benefit is to charge for 32 bit ASNs. > Model C - Transfer fee and ASN fee > > This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there is a charge of EUR 1,000 per transfer to be paid by the receiving party and a 50 EUR ASN fee to ensure we can meet our budgetary requirements while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contribution should we receive excess funds. While I consider a transfer fee of 1000 EUR to be somehow fair for larger IPv4 networks, it feels quite unfair to me for e.g. a IPv4 /24 or /23, or for a 32 bit ASN. Outside of the models, I am still worried about RIPE NCC having 172 FTEs, while other LIRs can operate with around the half (or even less). What is so unique/special with RIPE NCC that requires so many more FTEs? Is it the projects and activity outside of the RIR job (e.g. RIPE Atlas or RIPE NCC Certified Professionals)? While this question was raised in general earlier on this list already, I didn't notice a real answer so far. What I didn't see so far either is an overview/table for the FTEs similarly detailed like for the budget (page 27 of ripe-796 for FTEs is quite brief compared to page 43 of ripe-795 for budgets), thus "per activity". Did I overlook this? If not, could it be provided for the future, maybe for the RIPE 86 GM? It would be interesting to compare these details with the ones of the other RIRs. Kind regards Robert Scheck -- Robert Scheck Mail: robert.scheck(a)etes.de ETES GmbH Fon : +49 (7 11) 48 90 83 - 12 Talstraße 106 Fax : +49 (7 11) 48 90 83 - 50 D-70188 Stuttgart Web : http://www.etes.de/ Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart HRB 721182 Geschäftsführender Gesellschafter: Markus Espenhain Sitz der Gesellschaft: Stuttgart USt.-Id.Nr.: DE814767446

1 0

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

14 Apr '23

Hello, It's great to see that member feedback has been taken into account when developing these models. However, I would like to reiterate my concerns regarding Model C and propose that it should be excluded from the final selection. In summary, Model C introduces transfer fees, which, as I mentioned earlier, bring potential challenges, such as unpredictability in the RIPE NCC's annual budget, payment difficulties for sanctioned countries, increased administrative burdens, complexities related to PI blocks and ASNs transfers, etc. These factors could negatively affect the RIPE NCC and its members. Considering the potential issues with Model C, I suggest that focusing on Models A and B would be a more reasonable approach. Both models provide sufficient options for the members and maintain their respective merits without the risks associated with Model C. By excluding Model C from the final proposals, the voting process will be more focused, enabling members to make a well-informed decision between the two remaining models. This strategy would prevent Model C from diluting the decision-making process and ensure the adoption of a more suitable and sustainable charging scheme. Furthermore, Model B represents a familiar charging scheme for the members, ensuring stability and continuity. In contrast, Model A offers an alternative, category-based system catering to the diverse needs of the membership base, promoting fairness and adaptability within the RIPE NCC community. Model C, on the other hand, only adds uncertainty by introducing transfer fees, which could negatively affect the RIPE NCC's financial stability. As this model doesn't provide any significant benefits over Models A and B, it would be more advantageous to concentrate on refining Models A and B, ensuring a well-balanced charging scheme for the RIPE NCC community. Regards, Victor > Dear RIPE NCC members, > > I want to thank all those who contributed to the consultation so far on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 and the model we should use for the coming years. > > We can now share three draft models that we developed based on input from the members on the Members Discuss mailing list and in the Charging Scheme Open House, as well as from the discussions at the recent Executive Board Meeting. > > The result is that we are proposing three draft charging scheme models: one category-based and two that are based on the previous "one LIR account, one fee" model. We hope to receive feedback on these models by 19 April so the Executive Board can propose the final versions on 26 April. The members will then vote on those three models at the upcoming General Meeting on 24-26 May. > > The three models all aim to fulfil a budget that is roughly the same as 2023 plus general cost increases including inflation, so EUR 42-45 million. By doing this, we can ensure that we can meet the potential budgetary requirements for 2024 while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contributions should we receive excess funds. The Activity Plan and Budget will be discussed with members this coming Autumn. > > The three models are available to review at: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/ch… > > We also provide an updated calculator where members can see for themselves how much they might pay under the draft models: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/ne… > > To summarise the main features of the three models: > > Model A - Category Model > > This model has ten categories to provide greater granularity. It also charges separately for independent and legacy resources in exactly the same way as in previous years. Additionally, a separate 50 EUR ASN assignment fee has been added. Both separately charged resources do not contribute to the category scores. This means there is no double charging and no specific charging for transfers or administrative work carried out by the RIPE NCC. There is a New /24 IPv4 administration fee to ensure there is a financial consequence to joining the IPv4 Waiting List. The fee would be payable upon receipt of the /24, and members joining the waiting list who do not have an eligible LIR account, would pay the new LIR sign-up fee to open a new LIR account and join the waiting list. > > With this model, approximately 68% of members would pay less than the current annual fee, with the remaining 32% paying more. > > The discussion with members helped us to see that a category-based model would receive significant support from members if the version was simplified. Should members see the need to charge for other elements, then that can be incorporated into the category model in the coming years. Any such additional charges could potentially then reduce the fees per category. > > Model B - Price increase and ASN fee > > This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there is a price increase of EUR 150 and a 50 EUR ASN fee to ensure we can meet our budgetary requirements while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contribution should we receive excess funds. > > Model C - Transfer fee and ASN fee > > This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there is a charge of EUR 1,000 per transfer to be paid by the receiving party and a 50 EUR ASN fee to ensure we can meet our budgetary requirements while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contribution should we receive excess funds. > > Further information on the charging scheme models is provided at: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/ch… > > The RIPE NCC Executive Board believes that a category-based model is the best option to help address uncertainty that might be caused by consolidation with multiple LIRs and to provide greater flexibility and fairness in how we charge members in the coming years. > > On 26 April, the final versions of the charging schemes that members will vote on will be published for the members to consider and discuss. If you have comments on the draft charging schemes, we therefore ask you to comment on the members-discuss mailing list by 19 April so we have time to incorporate any feedback if necessary. > > Importantly, we ask all members to register for the RIPE NCC General Meeting where the final decision will be in your hands. Register to participate and vote at: > https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active > > Simon-Jan Haytink > Chief Financial Officer > RIPE NCC >

3 2

Re: [members-discuss] Charging Scheme Models 2024
by Akayo 14 Apr '23

14 Apr '23

Dear colleagues! The €10,400.00 is the result of the calculator. You can try it out, I get this result for 7 x IPv4 /22, 7 x IPv6 /29 and 3 x ASNs. No transfers, no PI space. Here is a screenshot: https://imgur.com/vVnHTyG Anyway, this scheme is not fair due to the capping. It raises the costs for small and mid-sized companies dramatically while huge companies are not affected. I think there are only two ways. Either 1. all should pay the same or 2. all exactly as many IPv4 addresses and ASNs they hold (*). (*) IPv6 should not be punished. These category instead of real-usage based schemes make no sense for me. They are not fair as they stop on the half way.

3 2

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024
by Patrick Velder 14 Apr '23

14 Apr '23

Hi, thanks for publishing these (much) improved charging schemes. My inputs (to the model based one): * I agree on previous posts that a /29 IPv6 should be treated like /23-/24 IPv4. We have enough IPv6. * Depending on the category, some ASNs should be included for free. Reasons: o Imagine, holding a /24 would be cheaper (!) than holding an ASN. o Most LIRs need an ASN for their own use o A small amount of ALL resource types (IPv4, IPv6, ASN) should be included in the membership * I would be fine if just one ASN (for the LIRs own use) is included * Small categories increase far too quickly, compared to big categories. Now I'm looking forward to the many new ticketsystem accounts I'll receive as reply to this message! Best regards & happy weekend Patrick On 4/12/23 15:45, Simon-Jan Haytink wrote: > Dear RIPE NCC members, > > I want to thank all those who contributed to the consultation so far on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 and the model we should use for the coming years. > > We can now share three draft models that we developed based on input from the members on the Members Discuss mailing list and in the Charging Scheme Open House, as well as from the discussions at the recent Executive Board Meeting. > > The result is that we are proposing three draft charging scheme models: one category-based and two that are based on the previous "one LIR account, one fee" model. We hope to receive feedback on these models by 19 April so the Executive Board can propose the final versions on 26 April. The members will then vote on those three models at the upcoming General Meeting on 24-26 May. > > The three models all aim to fulfil a budget that is roughly the same as 2023 plus general cost increases including inflation, so EUR 42-45 million. By doing this, we can ensure that we can meet the potential budgetary requirements for 2024 while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contributions should we receive excess funds. The Activity Plan and Budget will be discussed with members this coming Autumn. > > The three models are available to review at: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/ch… > > We also provide an updated calculator where members can see for themselves how much they might pay under the draft models: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/ne… > > To summarise the main features of the three models: > > Model A - Category Model > > This model has ten categories to provide greater granularity. It also charges separately for independent and legacy resources in exactly the same way as in previous years. Additionally, a separate 50 EUR ASN assignment fee has been added. Both separately charged resources do not contribute to the category scores. This means there is no double charging and no specific charging for transfers or administrative work carried out by the RIPE NCC. There is a New /24 IPv4 administration fee to ensure there is a financial consequence to joining the IPv4 Waiting List. The fee would be payable upon receipt of the /24, and members joining the waiting list who do not have an eligible LIR account, would pay the new LIR sign-up fee to open a new LIR account and join the waiting list. > > With this model, approximately 68% of members would pay less than the current annual fee, with the remaining 32% paying more. > > The discussion with members helped us to see that a category-based model would receive significant support from members if the version was simplified. Should members see the need to charge for other elements, then that can be incorporated into the category model in the coming years. Any such additional charges could potentially then reduce the fees per category. > > Model B - Price increase and ASN fee > > This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there is a price increase of EUR 150 and a 50 EUR ASN fee to ensure we can meet our budgetary requirements while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contribution should we receive excess funds. > > Model C - Transfer fee and ASN fee > > This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there is a charge of EUR 1,000 per transfer to be paid by the receiving party and a 50 EUR ASN fee to ensure we can meet our budgetary requirements while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contribution should we receive excess funds. > > Further information on the charging scheme models is provided at: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/ch… > > The RIPE NCC Executive Board believes that a category-based model is the best option to help address uncertainty that might be caused by consolidation with multiple LIRs and to provide greater flexibility and fairness in how we charge members in the coming years. > > On 26 April, the final versions of the charging schemes that members will vote on will be published for the members to consider and discuss. If you have comments on the draft charging schemes, we therefore ask you to comment on the members-discuss mailing list by 19 April so we have time to incorporate any feedback if necessary. > > Importantly, we ask all members to register for the RIPE NCC General Meeting where the final decision will be in your hands. Register to participate and vote at: > https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active > > Simon-Jan Haytink > Chief Financial Officer > RIPE NCC >

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] Charging Scheme Models 2024
by Akayo 13 Apr '23

13 Apr '23

I also want to state that this brings me into a legally uncomfortable situation. I am only a small LIR and therefore I have an own responsibility. When I began many years ago, I also had many small customers. They have low prices for their IPv4 /24 subnets and I never increased these prices, also not due to the pandemic or the war. Why should I have - there was no factual reason to do so. I am not legally entitled to increase prices without customers consent. A contract where I have the right to change prices from month to month would be illegal. In case of missing consent I would be required to terminate the contract and look for a new customer - which is hard to find with increased prices due to competitors which benefit from the capping limit in option A. That will definitely lead to a high risk for a law suit including damages, even if I am contractually allowed to terminate the contract. I am allowed to request the customer for a slight price increase, but not for huge price increases. But if RIPE NCC hugely increases the prices, I may be required to also hugely increase my prices. That violates my independence and responsibility as a LIR, as I will never use my position to enforce higher prices against customers. This is absolutely wrong. I would now get punished for charging too less in the past. Therefore, I highly recommend to either charge the same for all members *or* according to a pure usage based scheme, not a category based scheme. The latter prevents that smaller or mid-sized companies pay the same as the largest LIRs RIPE NCC has and the most LIRs will benefit from it.

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024
by Michele Neylon - Blacknight 13 Apr '23

13 Apr '23

Simon-Jan The spreadsheet is very helpful and I appreciate that you’re making it available. I tried to follow some of the previous discussion of the earlier proposed schemes, but I have to admit that it was nigh on impossible to keep track of the emails. I do, however, get the distinct impression that a lot of vocal members aren’t overly impressed with the proposals. While I appreciate that the NCC needs to collect enough fees from members in order to pay staff and maintain the various services that it offers I do find it a little counterintuitive that the billing model, which will have a massive impact on the budget and work plan, is being voted on months before the work plan and budget is discussed. Put another way: you’re putting the cart before the horse Some of the frustration being voiced by members stems from the perceived growth of the organisation’s expenditure which is not clearly tied back to either core services or perceived value for members ie. You’re spending more and more, but we as members aren’t seeing much growth in benefits. Looking at the proposed charging schemes most recently presented the difference in cost is significant. I have no idea how much of an impact the various models could have on other members, but speaking on behalf of ourselves: * Model A would see us paying nearly 3 times what we currently pay * Model B would see us paying more than we currently do (similar to Kaj’s calculations) * Model C would see us paying about 50% more than we currently do As a company based in the RIPE region we have no choice but to pay the fees that RIPE imposes and the current set of options are not particularly palatable. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: 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: ncc-announce <ncc-announce-bounces(a)ripe.net> on behalf of Simon-Jan Haytink <simonjh(a)ripe.net> Date: Wednesday, 12 April 2023 at 14:56 To: ncc-announce(a)ripe.net <ncc-announce(a)ripe.net> Subject: [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024 [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Please use caution when opening attachments from unrecognised sources. Dear RIPE NCC members, I want to thank all those who contributed to the consultation so far on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 and the model we should use for the coming years. We can now share three draft models that we developed based on input from the members on the Members Discuss mailing list and in the Charging Scheme Open House, as well as from the discussions at the recent Executive Board Meeting. The result is that we are proposing three draft charging scheme models: one category-based and two that are based on the previous "one LIR account, one fee" model. We hope to receive feedback on these models by 19 April so the Executive Board can propose the final versions on 26 April. The members will then vote on those three models at the upcoming General Meeting on 24-26 May. The three models all aim to fulfil a budget that is roughly the same as 2023 plus general cost increases including inflation, so EUR 42-45 million. By doing this, we can ensure that we can meet the potential budgetary requirements for 2024 while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contributions should we receive excess funds. The Activity Plan and Budget will be discussed with members this coming Autumn. The three models are available to review at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/ch… We also provide an updated calculator where members can see for themselves how much they might pay under the draft models: https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/ne… To summarise the main features of the three models: Model A - Category Model This model has ten categories to provide greater granularity. It also charges separately for independent and legacy resources in exactly the same way as in previous years. Additionally, a separate 50 EUR ASN assignment fee has been added. Both separately charged resources do not contribute to the category scores. This means there is no double charging and no specific charging for transfers or administrative work carried out by the RIPE NCC. There is a New /24 IPv4 administration fee to ensure there is a financial consequence to joining the IPv4 Waiting List. The fee would be payable upon receipt of the /24, and members joining the waiting list who do not have an eligible LIR account, would pay the new LIR sign-up fee to open a new LIR account and join the waiting list. With this model, approximately 68% of members would pay less than the current annual fee, with the remaining 32% paying more. The discussion with members helped us to see that a category-based model would receive significant support from members if the version was simplified. Should members see the need to charge for other elements, then that can be incorporated into the category model in the coming years. Any such additional charges could potentially then reduce the fees per category. Model B - Price increase and ASN fee This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there is a price increase of EUR 150 and a 50 EUR ASN fee to ensure we can meet our budgetary requirements while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contribution should we receive excess funds. Model C - Transfer fee and ASN fee This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there is a charge of EUR 1,000 per transfer to be paid by the receiving party and a 50 EUR ASN fee to ensure we can meet our budgetary requirements while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contribution should we receive excess funds. Further information on the charging scheme models is provided at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/ch… The RIPE NCC Executive Board believes that a category-based model is the best option to help address uncertainty that might be caused by consolidation with multiple LIRs and to provide greater flexibility and fairness in how we charge members in the coming years. On 26 April, the final versions of the charging schemes that members will vote on will be published for the members to consider and discuss. If you have comments on the draft charging schemes, we therefore ask you to comment on the members-discuss mailing list by 19 April so we have time to incorporate any feedback if necessary. Importantly, we ask all members to register for the RIPE NCC General Meeting where the final decision will be in your hands. Register to participate and vote at: https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active Simon-Jan Haytink Chief Financial Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024
by Ondrej Zajicek 13 Apr '23

13 Apr '23

On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 03:45:41PM +0200, Simon-Jan Haytink wrote: > Dear RIPE NCC members, > > I want to thank all those who contributed to the consultation so far on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 and the model we should use for the coming years. > > We can now share three draft models that we developed based on input > from the members on the Members Discuss mailing list and in the Charging > Scheme Open House, as well as from the discussions at the recent > Executive Board Meeting. Hello Thanks for these drafts and your work on it. I am much pleased with the result of the consultation process, and i personally consider this category model much better than the one proposed originally. -- Ondrej 'Santiago' Zajicek (email: santiago(a)crfreenet.org) "To err is human -- to blame it on a computer is even more so."

1 0

RIPE NCC Quarterly Planning Q2 2023
by Fergal Cunningham 30 Mar '23

30 Mar '23

Dear all, We have published our Q2 2023 plans for our development teams. These are available at: https://www.ripe.net/support/documentation/quarterly-planning Our quarterly planning includes the work we will be carrying out in the next few months in: - RPKI - Learning & Development - RIPE Database - Business Applications, including the LIR Portal, Registry Services and other applications - DNS and K-root - RIPE Atlas - RIPEstat - RIS - Information Technology - Information Security, Risk, and Compliance The goals of publishing our planning are to be transparent about the work we will be carrying out in the coming months, to get your input on those plans, and to foster a dialogue with our members and the community about what you would like to see the RIPE NCC work on going forward. If you have any input on our plans or want to let us know what you would like to see us work on, please let us know. Kind regards, Fergal Cunningham Head of Membership Engagement RIPE NCC

1 0

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