- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
by Maria Merkel 14 Mar '23

14 Mar '23

Hi all, While I am responding to the parent message, I will also address some points raised in other replies. Our LIR primarily provides services to other group companies, but we also provide LIR services to some business and personal customers. My biggest concern is that if ASN assignments not only have their own fixed fee but also determine the membership fee tier, the cost of providing an ASN will become difficult to predict. This may be fine for internal and business customers as these can be charged a higher fee to compensate for this (perhaps by just assuming the worst case), but this may be more difficult for personal customers and we might be forced to discontinue this service for them entirely. If there is already a recurring per-ASN charge I do not see why the number of ASNs should also influence the membership fee tier. It is also unclear to me whether "Independent Internet number resource assignments" includes ASNs? I assume not as PI and ASN Category Scores are listed separately in Model 2, but it would be helpful if this could be clarified. I also do not understand why there is a separate sign-up fee and a "New membership Fee". Why are these not combined into a single sign-up fee? There is also some concern regarding the transfer fee. When something like a /22 is sold, a 1,000 € transfer fee obviously doesn't have too much of an impact, but this would be very different with a /24. It's unclear to me whether the transfer fee also applies to transfers of ASNs but if it does that also seems problematic for cases where ASNs are transferred free of charge between affiliated companies (and might actually encourage more ASNs being requested than are required). While I understand some of the concerns from others regarding the RIPE NCC's activities not being solely related to registry functions, I believe that this is justified and ultimately benefits its members. Maybe there should be a separate (cheaper) option to become an LIR without becoming a full member? — Maria Merkel [https://cdn.staclar.com/logos/novecore/newlogo.png] This email was sent from Staclar, Inc. Any statements contained in this email are personal to the author and are not necessarily the statements of the company unless specifically stated. Novecore and Staclar are collective trading names of Novecore Ltd., registered in England and Wales under company number 11748197, Novecore Licensing Ltd., registered in England and Wales under company number 11544982, Staclar Carrier Ltd., registered in England and Wales under company number 12219686, Staclar Financial Services Ltd., registered in England and Wales under company number 13843292 (registered offices 54 Portland Place, London, UK, W1B 1DY); Novecore Professional Services Ltd., registered in England and Wales under company number 13965912 (registered office 13 Freeland Park, Wareham Road, Poole, UK, BH16 6FA); Novecore (Estonia) OÜ, registered in Estonia under registry code 16543205 (local contact Baltic Business Services OÜ, Narva mnt 5, 10117 Tallinn, Estonia); Novecore (USA) Inc., registered in Delaware under file number 6707907, Novecore Licensing (USA) LLC, registered in Delaware under file number 4030866, and Staclar, Inc., registered in Delaware under file number 7413401 (registered agents The Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange St, Wilmington DE 19801, USA). Novecore Licensing Ltd. is registered for VAT in the United Kingdom under VAT registration number 347 4545 80. Novecore (Estonia) OÜ is registered for VAT in the European Union under VAT registration number EE102518979. Staclar Financial Services Ltd. is an Annex 1 financial institution registered with and supervised by the Financial Conduct Authority under the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 (firm reference number 989521). Registration is not equivalent to authorisation and is not an endorsement to do business with a firm. Staclar Financial Services Ltd. is not an authorised person within the meaning of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and does not review, approve, or endorse financial promotions for securities issues it is involved in or provide any form of investment advice. [Sent from Front] On March 7, 2023 at 10:43 AM GMT+1 simon(a)ripe.net<mailto:simon@ripe.net> 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<mailto:members-discuss@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…<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 Fabien SCHENKELS 13 Mar '23

13 Mar '23

Dear Members, We are exactly of the same opinion as "ServeByte" which says: « ServeByte Limited is in favor of the new proposed pricing model 2, to abolish the current membership fee model. We find that it is a much fairer pricing model for small service providers. All of our costs have increased over the past few years, but clawing higher fees from small LIR members is unsustainable. It discourages direct RIPE membership and instead encourages people to merge their resources, under a single LIR for little to no extra cost. We have even considered this. » We also want Model 2. It is about the survival of thousands of LIRs and the neutrality and independence of the Internet. Small members must be supported. Thank you for making the right choices and that the little LIRs can continue to live. Kind regards, Fabien Schenkels > Le 7 mars 2023 à 10:35, Simon Jan Haytink <simon(a)ripe.net> a écrit : > > 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… >

3 2

[ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme
by Simon-Jan Haytink 13 Mar '23

13 Mar '23

Dear all, Thank you for the discussion so far - we've seen a lot of great input and it really helps us to figure out what the members want to see (or not see) in their charging model. We hope to see more in the coming weeks. I'd like to clarify a couple of things that might address some concerns. First, the figures included in the calculator are by no means final. We include figures for a range of items because we want you to consider them, and we make the figures high enough to be worth consideration. The numbers attached to each item would likely result in more income than required, and it is unlikely we would charge on all criteria. Second, there has been no discussion on the Budget with the Executive Board yet. As was pointed out, the Budget discussions will happen in the run-up to the November General Meeting, and the draft Activity Plan and Budget will be shared with you well in advance. And we would welcome a similar level of discussion on that document. For the purposes of the charging scheme model discussion and the income we would need to derive, we are aiming for something roughly similar to the current budget. However, this may be different once we start the planning process for 2024 with your involvement. I also note that the mechanism to redistribute excess fees paid by members remains in place. In summary, what we are mainly looking for is input on the models so we can bring a good proposal to the Executive Board based on the input from the members. Your feedback is already helping us to develop that proposal. Understanding which model members want and which items we should or should not charge for is our main concern at the moment. Then we can then come up with a more developed proposal for members to consider. We will also have an Open House on this topic on 21 March at 14:00 CET (UTC+1). At that session, I'll be happy to dive into further details on the models and hope to get further input from the members. We will announce this shortly on our Announce list but you can already register at: https://www.ripe.net/s/charging-scheme-2024-open-house We are also collating the feedback and preparing answers that will address some of the comments we've seen. Also, a member pointed out an error in the calculator - cell L50 was calculating total PI rather than ASN assignments as expected. This has been fixed and the updated calculator is now available to download from the consultation page: https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/ch… Best regards, Simon Jan Haytink Finance Director RIPE NCC

3 2

New pricing proposal - it goes out of control
by Servperso 10 Mar '23

10 Mar '23

Hello Everyone, I'm analyzing the new charging scheme proposed by RIPE NCC. Adopt the new scheme like that KILL every small hosting provider include us. I don't think that's a good idea for RIPE NCC to kill a lot of small provider. It kill net neutrality, and i think a lot of small isp call IANA to sanction the RIPE board for that. In practice, you ask 8000€ / year because a provider has one ASN ? It's mostly mandatory for all members to own at least one. Why not doing some in between prupose: More "reasonable" base membership. Small ISP doesn't have to pay mush. Let imagine a resource quantity category. IPv6 only => category 1 < 10 000 IPv4 => category 2 50 000 IPv4 => .... ... - Extra fee for every PI of 50€ Like that, big isp who can pay for the RIPE work because they extract high value from them. Also people who sponsor a lot of PI (who generate a lot of work for RIPE resource analyst) pay for the employment time. As a reminder, ARIN use this model. Best regards, Sarah

10 10

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
by Sebastien Brossier 10 Mar '23

10 Mar '23

Hi all, Model 1 is no longer sustainable for very small orgs. Model 2 is better, as contribution would adjust to resource usage. Having cheaper categories encourages diversity, and more members guarantees a more stable income. Of course category 4 & 5 members will pay more than model 1, but this is just 0.50 EUR / IPv4 / year in the worst case. If you can't afford this, there is a serious problem with your business model. One big problem, though: Including independent resources in the category system will lead to LIRs stopping sponsorship of these resources. It also makes no sense, as these resources already have a separate charge. Category 0 membership should have a cost (like 100 EUR), because there is still an administrative cost. I see a 0 EUR membership as a vulnerability that could allow to take over the RIPE NCC. The transfer fee is too high for small IP amounts. Regardless of which charging scheme gets chosen, I also think it is time for RIPE NCC to wake up and severely reduce its expenses. The budget should adapt to what the members can contribute, not the other way around. Divide membership costs by 2 and both models will be seen more favourably. With kind regards, Sebastien Brossier

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
by George Porter 10 Mar '23

10 Mar '23

Good morning, From our perspective as a fairly small LIR, who got in the IP address space in around 2002, and hold a /21 and two /22's which were cheap then, and do actually utilize most of our held address space, we feel we are some of the people that will be most affected by this. On our usage of the calculator, both model 1 and model 2 in our case will cost us the same amount next year. This is 2000 euros, which is an almost 60% increase from last year. Therefore whether model 1 or 2 goes ahead in this current iteration is meaningless to us. We do however believe that neither of these models are correct, and the figures for resources are far over inflated to what they should be. There are a couple of questions that we have: 1. In the initial post from Simon Jan Haytink, it was mentioned by RIPE that they expect that over the next year, organizations with lots of LIR accounts who received resources in 2021 will start to conglomerate those into less amounts of larger LIRs. This would decrease their income according to them. Please can someone from RIPE provide some justification into why they think this will happen, and what data supports that theory? From the RIPE NCC IPv4 pool, it looks to us that in 2021, RIPE built up a collection of IP addresses that had been handed back, and then towards the end of the year they handed those IP addresses out to members on the waiting list. It is our theory that RIPE allowed members to create many LIRs to request resources, so that those members had a greater chance of receiving large amounts of resources. If the above scenario is correct, this is massive failing on RIPE's part, and they were the direct cause of the issue they are now trying to charge us for. Can someone from RIPE please comment? 2. Clearly RIPE must have a budget for expenditure and income for the forthcoming year, can RIPE indicate whether they have a planned increase in both income and expenditure and what reasons are given for any increase especially in expenditure. RIPE need to be far more transparent and also understand that they are spending our money, their stewardship needs to be improved. As someone else has said, why does RIPE have a multi-million Euro PR budget. They are the only people in this space in Europe, what does this budget go towards? 3. Why does Model 2 seem to have an upper cap of 8 000 Euros? This means that large companies with millions of IPv4 addresses aren’t paying a proportional share of the costs. RIPE’s pricing should be fair to ALL members, and charging a disproportionally low amount to multi-national corporations seems like RIPE are just shifting the cost on to smaller LIRs. We believe that the way that RIPE should charge FOR IT'S CORE SERVICES is through set fees for resources, as is similar to model 2, but that the prices on model 2 are far too high. RIPE must also decrease it's expenditure. They offer so many training and community based sessions that are often at in person locations, and the vast majority of the time, those events are free to members. Many small companies would love to be able to send colleagues out to these events, but due to travel/accommodation costs, they simply cannot. It doesn't make sense then that the small companies should have to bear the burden through increased membership prices of financing these events. We would be more accepting if these events were supplemented by RIPE if it truly is for the good of the internet community, but we think that there should be a price to pay from members for these events. If RIPE want to increase our membership costs, and don't provide justification as to why, and don't put forward actionable plans to decrease their expenditure, we will be voting NO to both of the proposed models. George Porter Integrated Network Services Ltd 01928 238390 07956592260 george.porter(a)in-services.co.uk Note. This email is confidential, may be legally privileged, and is for the intended recipient only. Access, disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance on any of it by anyone else is prohibited and may be a criminal offence. Please delete if obtained in error and email confirmation to the sender -----Original Message----- From: ncc-announce <ncc-announce-bounces(a)ripe.net> On Behalf Of Simon Jan Haytink Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 9:35 AM To: ncc-announce(a)ripe.net Subject: [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 [You don't often get email from simon(a)ripe.net. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] 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…

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
by Josh Jameson 10 Mar '23

10 Mar '23

Dear all, There's a lot of misinformation being spread around on members-discuss regarding the new pricing model 2 scheme. I think RIPE management did a poor job of implementing a quotation system on a spread sheet. People are failing to calculate their pricing correctly. Would it really have been out of the question to have a temporary calculator on the RIPE site that would show the proposed costs for a member? I'm sorry to say that we need something that allows us all to be on the same page regarding fees to make a well informed decision. Regards, Josh Jameson Technical Director ServeByte Ltd

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
by Martin Volf 10 Mar '23

10 Mar '23

Hello, in my opinion the IPv4 Category Calculation in the provided XLSX file is too strict. Maybe doubling the Max Assignments values would be more appropriate, i.e.: Extra Small 1024 Small 4096 Medium 16384 Large 65536 Extra Large > instead of: Extra Small 512 Small 2048 Medium 8192 Large 32768 Extra Large > Best regards, Martin Volf Dragon Internet a.s. AS15614 On Tue, 7 Mar 2023, 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…

8 7

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
by Hans Govenius 09 Mar '23

09 Mar '23

Hello Is there a statistic of how many LIR:s would go to which bracket? Is there any statistic of usage of IP:s for a bit larger organizations? I think its a good way forward to somehow take allocated resources as base for fees. This is because i would hope that some organizations which would not use IP:s efficiently might reconsider their allocations. That is why i would even consider higher prices for larger allocations. Im not sure how it could be done so that if you have let say a company that has legacy IP:s of 100 000 + and it does not use them for ISP services but are just for own network needs, would start to reconsider their need for allocation. It might also be that this is more of a problem in ARIN region as they probably have more large allocations to private companies. But let say a industry company that in reality uses 5% of their IP:s and a bean counter would receive a invoice of 100 000 euros, he might start to question things 😊 But if there is many companies that have so called oversized allocations (non-ISP ie. industry companies) i would definately vote for more punising pricing for every IP allocated. But it might also be that im picturing a problem that in reality does not exists. I think if one is using IP:s for its customers (being ISP or similar service provider) its very hard to see that the price of IP:s would be too high on any scenario. There is probably some problem with pricing in that case 😊 I can see that ASN resources might be a different story. I also agree with comments that RIPE also needs to think about its budget in these hard times. So at the same time i would like them to check the expenses and increase fees to get organizations return part of allocations (i know this is a conflicting thing...) Maybe RIPE could even start a IP repurchase program 😊 ? Excess of membership fees would be used to pay some modest compensation for returning IP:s and then redistribute them to new LIR:s. This is also why i think that non-profit organizations should not get different pricing bracket as im my hopes price at some beautiful day would actually make every organization think how many IP:s they have. Also even if IP:s would costs 0,5 euros/IP/year it would still be quite modest amount for even largest allocations. Lets say German Telecom who seems to have around 30 million of them, it would only be 15 million a year. Thats nothing for them. But it would be problematic for RIPE to use all that money 😊 But if the amount would be let say 0,1 euros/IP/year no one with 100 000 IP allocation would care about the invoice... so no allocations would be returned... I am well aware that it might simply be impossible to get unused allocations back with money incentive but i would probably still vote for suggestions that even try to achieve it... So my vote goes for option 2 or if option to is revised to increase the price even more for larger allocations i will still vote for that. Br. Hans Govenius DevNet Oy -----Alkuperäinen viesti----- Lähettäjä: ncc-announce <ncc-announce-bounces(a)ripe.net> Puolesta Simon Jan Haytink Lähetetty: tiistai 7. maaliskuuta 2023 11.35 Vastaanottaja: ncc-announce(a)ripe.net Aihe: [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 1

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
by Sebastian Graf 09 Mar '23

09 Mar '23

Hello! *) In general: It appears to me, that a large portion of membership fees goes towards expenses that are not part of the core task(s)/mission. ...So instead of a "we want/need more" - there should be an evaluation/review of what spendings the ripencc can reduce - and how to optimise for the "core mission". *) Membership fee model: If our aim is create a fair membership model, then we should take a couple of factores into consideration such as services used. Lets consider a basic LIR that just mostly uses the DB (plus LIR Portal) to manage its resources. ...Why is there a need for them to also finance "events" ouside of the yearly conference? - Any "Training Programs" or "Community Building Events",... - Should be billed to those attending. A small LIR with will send a lot fewer Humans to Trainings/Events compared to a bigger (in terms of Humans, not resources) LIR. Similarly, a LIR holding or sponsoring more resources should contribute more twoards the total budget when it comes to operating expenses. In a fair model, this would be a linear cost for resources alloacted to the LIR directly (ie: per /24 for ipv4 or per /29 for ipv6). Then there are the "Staff Intensive" Things - Such as: Resource Sponsoring/Transfer Tickets. Those have an initial "workload" for the staff evalutating the request. However i do not really see any big "followup" cost. So may i propose a "verification/evlauation fee" (ie 50 or 80 or 100) fee for those. With a "lowered" yearly fee for resource sponsorings in order to compensate for the extra work that they make during a LIR audit (ie 15 or 25 per resource per year). *) Numbers we are missing: Can the NCC Staff plese provide the numbers for how how many LIR's are a total aggreated allocation of (ipv4): - only a /24 - a /23 - a /22 - ....... - a /16 This should help us get a clearer picture what the billing/fees could look like. Kind Regards Sebastian Graf On 3/7/23 10:35, 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… >

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
by Hank Nussbacher 09 Mar '23

09 Mar '23

On 07/03/2023 11:35, Simon Jan Haytink wrote: > 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… Have to admit, very cleverly done. Present model 1 which is the current model and then present model 2 which everyone will hate due to its increased membership costs. So when discussion arises it will be model 1 vs model 2 and everyone will select model 1 which is what RIPE wants to begin with. :-) I'd like to suggest model 3. Same as model 1 but membership fee is 1800€ and all the rest is the same. Regards, Hank

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
by Cynthia Revström 09 Mar '23

09 Mar '23

Hi Simon, In the current form there is no way that I can support Model 2 but I also have significant problems with Model 1 and don't want to support it either. I like the idea but the categories have to be a lot more sensible or alternatively don't use categories at all and purely do it based on the amount of IP space. I have listed my main issues with Model 1 and Model 2 below. Model 1: 1) Having a transfer fee of €1k is ludicrous in my opinion. I think this fee should be removed along with the M&A fee, but I can accept it if they are both €50. 2) Having a sign up fee and a separate new membership fee doesn't make any sense to me, there should just be one setup fee. Model 2: 1) The largest category is too small. It doesn't make sense that an org with a /16 would get charged the same amount as one of the giant ISPs with over a /8 worth of IPv4 space. 2) With regards to the category prices, it doesn't make sense that the largest ISPs would just pay as much as 8 members who received a /22 or 16 members who received a /24. 3) With regards to PI/ASN, they should be left outside of any category calculations and just have the €50 fixed fee. 4) Same as issue 1 with model 1, the transfer fee is ludicrous. While not one of my main objections, I would also prefer to only see the charge for ASNs applied to 16-bit ASNs to discourage use of 16-bit ASNs when there is no real need for them. I feel like this would be helpful because I have seen quite a few questionable new 16-bit ASN assignments while realistically we are not running out of 32-bit ASNs anytime soon. -Cynthia On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 10:43 AM Simon Jan Haytink <simon(a)ripe.net> 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… > >

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
by Michele Neylon - Blacknight 09 Mar '23

09 Mar '23

All First off I’d like to thank the RIPE NCC staff for preparing the spreadsheet to clearly show the impact of the proposed pricing. It’s very helpful to be able to plug in our resources etc., and see how they impact our costs. Model 1 is definitely more attractive for most members I’d suspect. I would wonder about some of the charges like “transfers” – seeing those broken out more clearly would be helpful. For my own company Model 1 is definitely the model we’d want – model 2 would cost us significantly more. Model 2 sounds good in theory, but the reality is that it heavily penalises members with larger IP assignments. Just because a company has a lot of IP addresses does not mean that they are “richer”. 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.

1 0

[GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
by Paul Lewis 09 Mar '23

09 Mar '23

Hi, Regarding the two proposed charging models for 2024, I honestly think that the pricing is a bit on the steep side. Model 1 certainly seems to have a sharp increase. The 50 EUR 'per ASN' charge I imagine might be a problem for LIR members with many ASNs. I feel that it would be better to have this charge apply to 16-bit ASNs which are in limited supply. This could be seen as a surcharge or penalty for holding onto legacy hardware and/or supporting providers that do so. As for 32-bit ASNs, they could still be charged something but I think they should be charged quite a bit less. There's no description in the spreadsheet about the categories in model 2 (e.g. the thresholds), short of taking a look at the formulas used. It would be nice if there's further clarity around this. As it stands, for me personally model 2 is considerably cheaper than model 1. However, if model 2 was chosen then it may need some further changes for larger LIR members based on more feedback. -- Regards, Paul Lewis.

3 2

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
by Marcus Stoegbauer 08 Mar '23

08 Mar '23

Hi, On 7 Mar 2023, at 10:35, Simon Jan Haytink wrote: > 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. It is not immediately clear to me if the count for independent resources and ASNs also include resources from other parties which are sponsored by the member (i.e.: are those only resources directly assigned to the member?) Could you clarify how this is meant in your current planning please? Thanks, Marcus

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
by Patrick Velder 08 Mar '23

08 Mar '23

Hi, just my 2 cents: 1. @RIPE NCC, you want to be a company, but *you are not a company*. You are a non profit organisation which should behave in the interest of its members. 2. Before increasing prices again (since the last invoice was already doubled), you should check out other options to reduce your expenses, like any other organisation has to do on the free market. Do you really need an office direct at the Amsterdam Centraal station? Or would another (not so fancy) location be cheaper? Do you really need to sponsor tons of projects? Or should you focuss more on your core things? With this massive price increasements, you bring many small members into financial trouble. 3. Model 1 is unfair in my opinion 4. Model 2 is my preference, but it is unfair too. As some other people mentioned, the price is good for 1x v4, 1x v6, 1x ASN, or n*/8 and a ton of ASNs. While categories are increasing VERY fast with only a small amount of resources, large companies have a cost cap and "a few more networks" have no impact on the price. 5. Also I strongly disagree with counting PI and ASN assignments towards the category. This leads to very big or very small LIRs being able to offer better prices to their customers than medium LIRs. Also these resources are already paid with the 50€/y fee. Please also keep in mind that LIRs save you a lot of effort with all the document checking, communication with customers etc etc. Also, a lot of LIRs would just terminate all End User Agreements to reach a lower category. I'm not sure if this is what you want. Best regards Patrick

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCCCharging Scheme 2024
by Jørgen Hovland ☁️ 08 Mar '23

08 Mar '23

1 0

[ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
by Asta S. 08 Mar '23

08 Mar '23

Hello, I think it is beneficial for RIPE to change the model because 2022 showed that in the long term, the current model doesn't have a future. Reserves will be exhausted or the fees per LIR account will have to be increased significantly.Also, it would be interesting to hear how this new charging scheme model would affect the current IPv4 waiting list. Now the members have to pay sign-up fees and yearly fees without receiving resources. How these members (that are still waiting in a list) will be charged after implementing this new model? And how new members applying for resources would be charged? | |

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
by Josh Jameson 07 Mar '23

07 Mar '23

Dear Members, ServeByte Limited is in favor of the new proposed pricing model 2, to abolish the current membership fee model. We find that it is a much fairer pricing model for small service providers. All of our costs have increased over the past few years, but clawing higher fees from small LIR members is unsustainable. It discourages direct RIPE membership and instead encourages people to merge their resources, under a single LIR for little to no extra cost. We have even considered this. Thank you for your time. Yours Faithfully, Josh Jameson Technical Director ServeByte Limited

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
by Daniel Suchy 07 Mar '23

07 Mar '23

Hello, can you provide analysis for "Model 2" describing number of LIRs in each category drafted in calculation? Can you demonstrate RIPE NCC income from membership fees based on that model you're presenting currently? I expect NCC has such numbers and shoult present them to members. - Daniel On 3/7/23 10:35, 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… >

1 0

Board minutes regarding investigation
by Sander Steffann 24 Jan '23

24 Jan '23

Hi board, I am looking at the minutes of board meeting 163, and I have a few questions. The minutes state that "The investigation was tasked to identify whether there have been violations of the RIPE NCC Code of Conduct”. At the last AGM I asked if there was a Code of Conduct for board members, and as far as I remember there wasn’t any. So which Code of Conduct do you refer to here? If it is different from the RIPE Code of Conduct please provide either a link or the full text. Looking at the RIPE Code of Conduct, which applies to all of us in this community, it identifies some examples of positive behaviour, like accepting differing viewpoints and experiences, being considerate and showing empathy towards others, especially when disagreeing or raising issues, and giving/receiving feedback or suggestions in a positive way. It follows with "Behaviours that undermine our values are unacceptable and will not be tolerated." I have personally definitely seen behaviour contradicting the points mentioned above from the board member in question (and I have heard many others express the same) but apparently they ARE now being tolerated. Please explain this discrepancy between the Code of Conduct and the outcome of this investigation. The goals of the Code of conduct are to help everyone feel safe and included and to make everyone aware of expected behaviour. As far as I can see we have failed on both accounts here… Sincerely, Sander Steffann PS: just to make sure, who actually performed the investigation? I assume it was a completely independent party with no previous, current or future ties to the RIPE NCC, financial or otherwise. Please confirm.

7 7

Re: [members-discuss] Board minutes regarding investigation
by Terrence de Kat 20 Jan '23

20 Jan '23

Hi Sander, Yeah, maybe "neutral" isn't the best way to describe it. Let's say there's a spectrum that goes: positive > neutral > negative but tolerable > intolerable/unacceptable (undermines values) Where only the worst category would be actionable. For your "death by a thousand cuts principle", that could in certain cases be harassment that would be actionable (eg when repeatedly directed at the same person), and the CoC explicitly leaves room for this by specifying the list is non-exhaustive. However, this is well into subjective territory. Some people have a natural communication style that's abrasive (it's been said about me). Someone may experience this as negative communication, while others may describe it as direct and therefore actually positive (I myself prefer to interpret it like this if possible). Besides that, life in general isn't only positive, so to communicate effectively negative communication is a necessary tool in the toolbox. Negative doesn't equal bad. So, we shouldn't want negative communication chilled by subjecting it to process just because it's negative. Personally I'd err on the side of not interfering in communication unless it's clearly malicious as the examples in the CoC. Having said that, I don't actually know what communication by the board member you're referring to, so I don't mean to defend that specifically. Though, it seems the investigator came to the conclusion that it didn't rise to the intolerable/unacceptable level. But that doesn't mean it's positive in any way. -- Regards, Terrence de Kat, PhD/MTh/BPsy Darkness Reigns (Holding) B.V. Please quote relevant replies. From: Sander Steffann <sander(a)steffann.nl> Sent: Wednesday, 18 January 2023 15:38 To: Terrence de Kat Cc: <members-discuss(a)ripe.net>; Christian Kaufmann Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Board minutes regarding investigation > Hi Terrence, > > > So, there exists a (very wide) range of communication that doesn't align with the given "examples of positive behavior", nor with the given "examples [of behaviours that undermine our values]". Let's call this "neutral" communication. > > Hmmm. I see your point. I feel it’s a given that behaviour that is totally opposite to "positive behaviour" is automatically “bad behaviour”, so I wouldn’t call that “neutral”. > > My feeling is that there is a gap between “bad behaviour that warrants immediate consequences” and “bad behaviour that is just annoying by itself, but should warrant consequences if it becomes a pattern”. The death by a thousand cuts principle. The consequences for the victim are no less in the latter case, but it is much harder to determine which little cut was the one that crossed the line. > > How to protect victims from both behaviours, sadly I do know know :( > > Cheers, > Sander >

3 2

Re: [members-discuss] Board minutes regarding investigation
by Terrence de Kat 18 Jan '23

18 Jan '23

Hi Sander, While reading your email I noticed that you may be making an error in interpreting the CoC, or at least leaving it ambiguous as to what you mean. You reproduce the "examples of positive behaviour" and the following statement that "Behaviours that undermine our values are unacceptable and will not be tolerated". Next you refer to "the points mentioned above", which creates the impression that you believe communication that does not align with the given "examples of positive behavior" is also communication that "undermine[s] our values" and therefore breaches the CoC. I don't think that follows from the CoC as what follows the statement that "Behaviours that undermine our values are unacceptable and will not be tolerated" is "Below are some examples [of behaviours that undermine our values]". So, there exists a (very wide) range of communication that doesn't align with the given "examples of positive behavior", nor with the given "examples [of behaviours that undermine our values]". Let's call this "neutral" communication. This may explain the discrepancy you complain about. If I have interpreted your message incorrectly I apologize but suggest you clarify. -- Regards, Terrence de Kat, PhD/MTh/BPsy Darkness Reigns (Holding) B.V. Please quote relevant replies. From: Sander Steffann <sander(a)steffann.nl> Sent: Wednesday, 18 January 2023 14:08 To: members-discuss(a)ripe.net; exec-board(a)ripe.net Subject: [members-discuss] Board minutes regarding investigation > Hi board, > > I am looking at the minutes of board meeting 163, and I have a few questions. > > The minutes state that "The investigation was tasked to identify whether there have been violations of the RIPE NCC Code of Conduct”. At the last AGM I asked if there was a Code of Conduct for board members, and as far as I remember there wasn’t any. So which Code of Conduct do you refer to here? If it is different from the RIPE Code of Conduct please provide either a link or the full text. > > Looking at the RIPE Code of Conduct, which applies to all of us in this community, it identifies some examples of positive behaviour, like accepting differing viewpoints and experiences, being considerate and showing empathy towards others, especially when disagreeing or raising issues, and giving/receiving feedback or suggestions in a positive way. It follows with "Behaviours that undermine our values are unacceptable and will not be tolerated." > > I have personally definitely seen behaviour contradicting the points mentioned above from the board member in question (and I have heard many others express the same) but apparently they ARE now being tolerated. Please explain this discrepancy between the Code of Conduct and the outcome of this investigation. > > The goals of the Code of conduct are to help everyone feel safe and included and to make everyone aware of expected behaviour. As far as I can see we have failed on both accounts here… > > Sincerely, > Sander Steffann > > PS: just to make sure, who actually performed the investigation? I assume it was a completely independent party with no previous, current or future ties to the RIPE NCC, financial or otherwise. Please confirm. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/terrence%40darkness-…

2 1

RIPE NCC Quarterly Planning Q1 2023
by Fergal Cunningham 03 Jan '23

03 Jan '23

Dear RIPE NCC members, We have now published our Q1 2023 plans for our development teams. These are available at: https://www.ripe.net/support/documentation/quarterly-planning <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 Previously, any work items related to information security, risk and compliance were included in the Information Technology area. As the Information Security, Risk, and Compliance area keeps developing, we split the work items and created a separate area for them that can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/support/documentation/quarterly-planning/information-s… 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, and best wishes for the new year. Fergal Cunningham Head of Membership Engagement RIPE NCC

1 0

Transfers from Ukraine
by Leonid Khorolets 08 Nov '22

08 Nov '22

We are against the initiative to ban all the transfers of IP addresses from Ukraine! We want to have this source of funds to keep our network running and pay salaries! Please note, there are NO CONSENSUS about transfer block in Ukrainian community, and those people on the meeting does not represent a majority of Ukrainian LIRs, they represent only themselves.

8 9