- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

Charging model discussion - keeping the system simple and transparent
by Bartlomiej Sztefko 11 Mar '26

11 Mar '26

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

1 0

NCC Charging scheme
by ТзОВ "Інтелект Груп" 11 Mar '26

11 Mar '26

Dear Members of the Working group, I hope you understand how difficult the situation in Ukraine is right now. These changes could have a catastrophic impact on the situation of small internet providers. We are against these changes. I propose to leave the cost for IXP at EUR 75. -- ТзОВ "Інтелект Груп" м. Чернівці просп. Незалежності 106\102 +380997043200

1 0

A note on the new payment scheme.
by Iwao Internet 10 Mar '26

10 Mar '26

As representatives of small ISPs (with 1000 - 3000 customers), we perceive the current state of affairs as extremely disadvantageous and discriminatory compared to large national operators. It is not possible for us that an operator with billion-dollar turnover should pay a similar fee as a small local ISP. We clearly support a selection that will increase the membership price in any way. For example, by the number of IP address ranges. We also think that this could result in the return of a lot of public IP addresses that are lying idle at those large operators. Thank you CUBESOL, s.r.o.

1 0

Re: RIPE NCC Charging Scheme - Feedback
by Akayo 10 Mar '26

10 Mar '26

Hi Randy! I am a small hoster with an < IPv4 /19 equivalent ("Between /19 and /20")—less than 8K IPs for all my new and old customers for almost forever, since it is hard to get new IPv4 space. Yes—for a newcomer that sounds much; but that doesn't make me suddenly a medium-sized or even large LIR. Model A: I would pay €2,593.00 per year only for these subnets. Would I have not 8K IPs, but 65K IPs (8-times so much) I would only pay €4,681.00. For 1 Million IPs (128-times so much) I would only pay €7,137.00. Model B: I would pay €2,895.00 per year only for these subnets. For 65K IPs (8-times so much) I would only pay €4,454.00. For 1 Million IPs (128-times so much) I would only pay €6,715.00. Conclusion: This will have disastrous financial consequences for us, especially since these increases will not stop. This will result in more and more LIRs having to sell their networks to the large LIRs for cost reasons. And you can't even blame the large LIRs for this. --Kayo ---------------------------------------------------------------- From: Randy Bush <randy(a)psg.com> Sent: Monday, 9. Mar 2026 – 17:46 CET +0100 To: Akayo <ripe(a)akayo.eu> CC: members-discuss(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme - Feedback > the new models will lead to fees of €3,000 per year even for small > LIRs. i played witht he calculator spreadsheet a bit, and that is not what i saw. could you please send an example? thanks. randy

2 1

RIPE NCC Charging Scheme - Feedback
by Akayo 09 Mar '26

09 Mar '26

Dear colleagues, the new models will lead to fees of €3,000 per year even for small LIRs. Not only is this not fair and contrary to the official goals, but the result will be that small and medium-sized LIRs are forced to sell their space long-term. The demand for IPv4 is way lower than it was 10 years ago and the bankruptcy rate is high. So long-term we will see less and less small/medium-sized LIRs with IPv4. It will be too expensive for them and so more and more space moves to larger LIRs. --Kayo

3 2

Re: [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme - Share your Feedback
by Andrejs Guba 06 Mar '26

06 Mar '26

Dear members, I would like to ask a question and make a proposal regarding LEGACY resources. The proposed one-time fee — what kinds of changes would it apply to? Would it cover any changes such as abuse contact, geolocation, description, organization data updates, IRR changes, etc.? If different parameters need to be changed across different network blocks, would that be considered one fee or multiple fees? If that is the case, it seems to me that this could actually worsen the situation regarding Internet security and the accuracy of data. I doubt that LEGACY resource holders who have not previously spent money on maintaining their resources will be willing to go through administrative procedures and pay fees, for example just to update an abuse contact. In addition, the working group noted that there may be difficulties with the process of collecting payments from parties that are not contractually bound members. RIPE is a non-profit organization; it should not promote situations where someone is required to pay it more money, but should primarily focus on the security and integrity of the Internet. Without important clarifications, the proposed changes may, in my opinion, produce the opposite effect. I propose taking the ARIN approach as a basis: allow any changes to LEGACY objects without entering into a contractual relationship, except for IRR changes. This approach seems logical. In most cases, an IRR change itself represents a technical infrastructure change that usually involves financial costs (for example, changing a provider), and introducing a RIPE fee at that stage for administrative purposes could be justified. Andrejs Guba LVNET.LV On 2026-03-05 14:16, Simon-Jan Haytink wrote: > Dear members, > There is still time to provide any input you might have before we > publish the final charging scheme options to be voted on by the > membership in May. The RIPE NCC Executive Board will decide on the > draft charging scheme options for members to vote on at their meeting > on 26 March and will review all feedback received from the membership. > > These options could lead to significant changes to the fees you will > pay. While many members may see a fee decrease, others could see > substantial increases. > Please review the consultation pages and provide input on the > members-discuss mailing list: > > https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/member-and-community-consultations/cs-… > [1] > https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/member-and-community-consultations/cha… > [2] > In April, following the Executive Board meeting, we will publish the > draft charging scheme proposals for your review. > And please remember to register to vote at the GM: > > https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active [3] > Kind regards, > > Simon-Jan Haytink > > Chief Financial Officer > > RIPE NCC > > > > Links: > ------ > [1] > https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/member-and-community-consultations/cs-… > [2] > https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/member-and-community-consultations/cha… > [3] https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active > ----- > To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription > options, please visit: > https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/ncc-announce.ripe.net/ > As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account > with the email matching your subscription before you can change your > settings. > More details at: > https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/

1 0

RIPE NCC Charging Scheme - Share your Feedback
by Andreas Grabmüller | QuarIT GmbH 05 Mar '26

05 Mar '26

Hello Simon, I’m sorry to say that I didn’t have the time to read all the feedback that was already on this list, or the background information you published. Still, I’d like to give quick feedback to the proposed fees. I’m limiting myself to those positions I have an opinion on. New Member Sign-up Fee: EUR 1,000 * Sure, signups cause work and the costs need to be paid somehow. LIR Account Sign-up Fee (additional LIR account): EUR 1,500 IPv4 Waiting List Sign-up Fee: EUR 2,000 IPv4 Allocation Fee (from waiting list): EUR 750 * Wait, what? This is basically selling IPv4 space for 4250 € (split into three payments). I thought we aren’t in the business of selling resources. * The additional LIRs were a fiction that is no longer relevant if we move to a member-based charging model. Get rid of that in favor of other methods. * Why exactly does signup of a LIR for an existing member make more work and as such require a higher signup fee than member signup, anyway? * Instead, I would prefer to just allow a member to book one or more places on a “waiting list” service, which has a fixed yearly fee. Maybe increase the fee per place the more places a member books. When the member receives an IPv4 block, their place on the waiting list gets re-added to the bottom of the list. That way it’s not a selling of IP space, it’s a service provided. Additional ASN Fee: EUR 50 * Why is an ASN a different resource than an IP network? Merger and Acquisition Fee: EUR 500 * I think that such a fee makes sense as it produces work for RIPE NCC. 50% discount for educational institutions * Why? We’re not talking small schools here; we’re talking large universities. Those who are big enough to be members of RIPE are large corporations by themselves. * I believe some of those were “early adopters” and have larges address space. Maybe if the don’t want to pay much they could just implement NAT? * The idea why companies like Microsoft subsidize educational institutions is to push their product in front of students in the expectations that those students get used to it and then keep on using the products in their future life. I don’t expect many students to become RIPE members just because their university was one. * To be clear, I don’t have numbers backing that up or anything, these are just my assumptions. Discount for members in lower income countries * I like the idea on principle, but I worry about finding a way to implement that fairly that doesn’t trigger years of complaining by everyone. I believe this should not be part of the original charging scheme vote and if members want to implement it, make it a separate vote after the charging scheme is implemented. Just my two cents. Best regards, Andreas Von: Simon-Jan Haytink <simonjh(a)ripe.net> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 5. März 2026 13:17 An: ncc-announce(a)ripe.net Betreff: [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme - Share your Feedback Dear members, There is still time to provide any input you might have before we publish the final charging scheme options to be voted on by the membership in May. The RIPE NCC Executive Board will decide on the draft charging scheme options for members to vote on at their meeting on 26 March and will review all feedback received from the membership. These options could lead to significant changes to the fees you will pay. While many members may see a fee decrease, others could see substantial increases. Please review the consultation pages and provide input on the members-discuss mailing list: <https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/member-and-community-consultations/cs-…> https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/member-and-community-consultations/cs-… <https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/member-and-community-consultations/cha…> https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/member-and-community-consultations/cha… In April, following the Executive Board meeting, we will publish the draft charging scheme proposals for your review. And please remember to register to vote at the GM: <https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active> https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active Kind regards, Simon-Jan Haytink Chief Financial Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Objection to Group 2 Proposals – Impact on Small Internet Providers in Ukraine
by Олена Кушнір 26 Feb '26

26 Feb '26

Dear Members of the Working Group, I would like to express my strong objection to the proposals listed under *Group 2: Possible Additional Fees, Discounts and Incentives*, especially the proposal to increase the "PI assignment fee to EUR 1,000". There are approximately 4,000 Internet providers in Ukraine, most of which are sponsored by around 300 LIRs. These small providers form the backbone of the country’s Internet connectivity. If the PI assignment fee is increased from EUR 75 to EUR 1,000, these costs will inevitably be passed on to small providers. For many of them, especially under wartime conditions, such a fee would be unaffordable. Ukraine is currently in the midst of a full-scale war. Many small ISPs: * repair damaged networks, * operate during power outages, * invest in generators and batteries, * support schools, hospitals, and local authorities, * work with very limited financial margins. An additional fee from EUR 1,000 would represent a serious financial shock and could force many small ISPs to cease operations. Connectivity in Ukraine depends primarily on small local ISPs rather than large national operators. Weakening them means weakening the resilience of Ukraine's entire network and society. I would also like to remind the Working Group that Ukraine is ranked among the "Top-10 countries worldwide in terms of network resilience", precisely because of its highly diversified ISP market. This decentralised structure has proven to be a key factor in maintaining connectivity during wartime. Any measure that financially pressures small providers risks undermining this resilience model. For these reasons, I believe that this proposal will seriously harm the market for small Internet providers in Ukraine and should not be put to a vote at all in its current situation. Thank you for considering this feedback. Best regards, Olena Kushnir

1 0

Conflict between National M&A Laws and RIPE NCC's "Personal Membership" interpretation
by support＠c1vhosting.it 25 Feb '26

25 Feb '26

Dear RIPE Community, I am writing to bring to your attention a critical legal and operational impasse we are currently facing with RIPE NCC. We believe this situation exposes a systemic flaw in how RIPE NCC handles corporate reorganizations for SMEs, effectively paralyzing business operations and forcing members into legal paradoxes. I am sharing this to understand if other members have faced similar barriers and to urge the Executive Board to review policies that currently clash with European corporate laws. Our company, Lumanex S.r.l., is the legal successor of the LIR business branch previously operated by the sole proprietorship "Cinzia Tocci" (LIR: it.c1vdi). The business was transferred via a formal Public Notarial Deed (Conferimento d'Azienda) in February 2025. This is a standard M&A transaction where an SME evolves from a sole proprietorship into a limited liability company. We promptly notified RIPE NCC, requesting the update of the Member’s registered details to reflect the legal succession. RIPE NCC Legal Department has formally refused the update, stating the following: They acknowledge that under Italian Law (Art. 2558 of the Civil Code), Lumanex S.r.l. succeeds ope legis (by operation of law) to all ongoing B2B contractual relationships related to the business. However, they argue that under Dutch Law (Art. 2:34 of the Dutch Civil Code), the "membership of an association is personal". Therefore, they refuse to recognize the LIR membership as an instrumental business asset, treating it instead as an untransferable personal tie to the original physical person. RIPE NCC’s proposed "solution" is that we must open a completely new LIR (paying duplicate membership fees) and transfer the resources, but opening a new LIR is not only financially punitive but technically disastrous, as some of the resources were acquired recently via policy transfers, so they are subject to RIPE NCC’s 24 months transfer block. We are physically unable to move our resources to a new LIR until 2027. Because RIPE NCC refuses to update our current LIR name and VAT ID, we are now trapped in a devastating operational deadlock: We currently have urgent AS Number requests pending for our clients. The RIPE NCC invoice cannot be paid because the header is incorrect (the paradox: all the company data, including name and address, is updated, except the VAT number) RIPE NCC Registration Services is explicitly asking us to sign the End User Assignment Agreements using the name of the defunct sole proprietorship ("Cinzia Tocci") instead of the actual legal operator (Lumanex S.r.l.). Under Italian law, signing a contract using a defunct or incorrect legal entity name constitutes a false declaration (falso in atto pubblico/privato). If we refuse to commit this illegality, RIPE NCC refuses to assign the ASNs. As of today, because of this administrative deadlock, we are unable to fulfill our contractual obligations. Our clients are now officially requesting full refunds due to the delays in ASN assignments. RIPE NCC's insistence on applying a strict "personal membership" interpretation to a B2B technical infrastructure contract is causing direct, severe financial and reputational damage to an SME. Questions for the Community and the Board: Does the RIPE NCC membership exist to protect the technical stability of the registry, or is it a "personal club" that ignores mandatory national succession laws when a business evolves? How can RIPE NCC demand that members keep their registry data accurate, while simultaneously forcing a member to sign End User Agreements under a legally inactive name? Is the 24 months transfer block policy unintentionally weaponized to prevent SMEs from executing legitimate corporate restructurings? We have already escalated this to the Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) regarding the abuse of a dominant position, as RIPE NCC is the sole provider of these essential resources and is using its monopoly to prevent a legitimate business from operating. We urge the Executive Board to intervene, align internal procedures with substantive corporate laws, and provide an immediate operational workaround to prevent further financial damage to our company and our clients. Thank you for your time and any insights you may have. Sincerely, Luca Marini CEO, Lumanex S.r.l.

1 0

Charging Scheme Model Consultation: Phase 2 - comments
by AlbHost SH.P.K 10 Feb '26

10 Feb '26

Dear colleagues, I would like to explicitly support Michal’s position, in particular regarding the proposed discounts for educational institutions, and add an important practical aspect to this discussion. Many universities and similar institutions received extremely large IPv4 allocations in the past—often /16 or even multiple /16 blocks. In a significant number of cases, only a very small fraction of these resources (sometimes just one to three /24s) is actually used for their own operational needs today. At the same time, it is publicly observable that IPv4 address space originating from such legacy allocations is being sold or transferred on the open market via platforms such as *ipv4.global*, at fully commercial prices (currently on the order of ~30 EUR per IPv4 address). This is not speculation; it is an established and RIPE-compliant transfer market. In this context, granting fee reductions to organisations that: - hold vast historical IPv4 resources, - use only a minimal portion of them operationally, and - monetise the remainder at market prices, is difficult to justify from a fairness perspective. If educational institutions are to benefit from discounted RIPE fees, this should at minimum be conditional upon the substantial return of unused IPv4 address space to the free pool. Without such a mechanism, the proposed model effectively rewards address hoarding while shifting the financial burden onto smaller commercial LIRs, start-ups, and non-profit-adjacent organisations that must both pay full RIPE fees and acquire IPv4 addresses at full market cost. Absent meaningful IPv4 reclamation, fee discounts for organisations already in possession of disproportionately large legacy allocations appear inequitable and inconsistent with the stated principles of efficient and fair resource distribution. Kind regards, Mentor L. -- *Sinqerisht / Sincerely,* AlbHost [image: Logo] <https://www.albahost.net/> AlbHost SH.P.K. Besim Beka p.n. 50000 Gjakovë, Kosovë. NIPT/VAT ID: 811442657 T: +383900501502 E: info(a)albahost.net W*: *wWw.AlbaHost.Net <http://www.albahost.net/> [image: Facebook icon] <https://www.facebook.com/albanianhosting> [image: Twitter icon] <https://twitter.com/albahost> [image: Instagram icon] <https://www.instagram.com/albahost_vpn/> [image: Banner] Përmbajtja e këtij emaili është konfidenciale dhe ka për qëllim marrësin e specifikuar vetëm në mesazh. Ndalohet rreptësisht shpërndarja e ndonjë pjese të këtij mesazhi me ndonjë palë të tretë, pa pëlqimin me shkrim të dërguesit. Nëse e keni marrë këtë mesazh gabimisht, ju lutemi përgjigjuni këtij mesazhi dhe ndiqni me fshirjen e tij, në mënyrë që të sigurohemi që një gabim i tillë të mos ndodhë në të ardhmen. The content of this email is confidential and intended for the recipient specified in message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this message with any third party, without a written consent of the sender. If you received this message by mistake, please reply to this message and follow with its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake does not occur in the future.

9 13

Re: [ncc-announce] [News] Phase 2 of the Charging Scheme Model Consultation
by Fabien SCHENKELS 09 Feb '26

09 Feb '26

Dear all, I would like to share an additional perspective as a small individual LIR, a RIPE NCC member since 2016, operated and funded as a natural person, with a single LIR and a deliberately limited set of resources (one IPv4 prefix, two ASNs and one IPv6 prefix). I am neither a commercial ISP, nor a multi-LIR operator, nor involved in the IPv4 transfer market. For this type of profile, moving towards a member-based charging model can clearly make sense and could potentially reduce the annual burden. From that perspective, the general direction appears positive. That said, I would like to highlight an aspect that is often less visible. For a small individual member with modest and stable resource needs, maintaining an LIR represents a very significant cumulative cost over time. In my own case, this amounts to close to EUR 20,000 over roughly ten years, with no realistic option for a gradual exit or value recovery once resource needs no longer evolve. In this context, the introduction of multiple separate charges (waiting list, allocations, transfers, additional ASNs, etc.) risks re-introducing complexity and unpredictability, whereas many small members primarily value long-term stability. I also share the concerns raised by others regarding PI pricing and certain categorical discounts, which could have disproportionate effects or create unintended incentives. In summary, as a small technical and individual LIR, I am supportive of an evolution of the charging model if it genuinely reduces the burden for smaller members, while preserving simplicity, predictability and neutrality. Kind regards, Fabien Schenkels > Le 2 févr. 2026 à 12:24, Simon-Jan Haytink <simonjh(a)ripe.net> a écrit : > > Dear RIPE NCC members, > > Thank you for your feedback on Phase 1 of the charging scheme model. > > During the six week consultation period, members shared feedback via the members-discuss mailing list and we also heard from members directly. Thank you to everyone who took part and helped inform the next stage of this work. We are now analysing the feedback to identify where the models can be refined. > > *Phase 2: Separate Charges* > > We are now launching Phase 2 of the consultation, which focuses on separate charges. In this phase, we are asking for feedback on two groups of additional charges: > > Group 1: Charges based on task force recommendations > Group 2: Possible other charges, discounts and incentives > > You can find charges and detailed explanations of each charge at: > https://www.ripe.net/s/charging-scheme-model-consultation-phase-2/ > > Important: Please note that this is the consultation phase, and we are looking for your opinion on which charges make sense and would be acceptable for members. No charges or figures are set in stone - we need your input before we make a final draft charging scheme that we can bring to the Executive Board for its consideration in March. In parallel, we are carrying out impact analyses to determine what changes would need to be made to our systems in order to accommodate new types of charges, and whether they would be possible to implement for 2027 or need to be phased in over multiple years. We plan to publish the impact analysis when proposing the draft charging scheme for members to vote on in April. > > Phase 2 will run until the week of 16 February 2026. Your input is essential for shaping the Charging Scheme proposal which will be presented to the membership for a vote at the May 2026 General Meeting. > > Please share your comments, questions, and suggestions on the Members Discuss mailing list. > > *Next Steps: Phase 3* > > Following Phase 2, we will use feedback from both phases to revise the proposal before publishing a combined draft covering the annual membership fee and separate charges. > > We are also developing an online calculator to accompany Phase 3, using the final draft model figures and the additional charges proposed during Phase 2. > > We expect to publish both a complete charging scheme draft, an impact analysis and the calculator at the beginning of April 2026. > > Kind regards, > > Simon-Jan Haytink > Chief Financial Officer > RIPE NCC > > ----- > To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/ncc-announce.ripe.net/ > As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. > More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/

1 0

Re: [ncc-announce] [News] Phase 2 of the Charging Scheme Model Consultation
by Clement Cavadore 06 Feb '26

06 Feb '26

Dear Simon, all... Excuse me, but... *whaaaat am I reading ?!?!* Are you trying to shock your membership with some crazy options, in order to better have an acceptance on your category-based models ? Where has the fairness spirit gone ? Here are my comments: On group 1: Regarding the new member signup fees: I honestly don't care wether it's 1000 or 1500€, but it should be the same, IMHO, be it an additionnal member or not. IPv4 waiting list signup fees: Errr... why ? If you pay a membership signup fee, it should be enough. IPv4 allocation fee: Same comment. Then if you really think about billing stuffs as a waiting list and allocation fee, then, just bill all those fees as a sign-up fee, just don't play with words... I am not opposed to merger and acquisition fee, as it's additionnal paperwork for NCC. Transfer fee: on the two ends ? what's the deal ? Maybe in incoming, as it's paperwork based on the buyer's needs. Legacy registry update fee: Why not, as they do not have any contractual relationship. I think that ARIN does not allow updates on out of contract relationships, do they ? PI/ASN fees should not change IMHO. On groupe 2: PI fee at 1k€: ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND ?! So, having lets say two PI and an ASN (ex: non-commercial IXP, for example) would lead to ~2k€ fee? this is a nonsence.... Alternative registry fee update: 1.5k€ ? Well, legacy would just stay legacy, and the DB would remain outdated... Discount for educationnal or lower income: Well, fairness is totally gone. Please, reconsider your options. Nothing is acceptable there. You cannot continue that way. I have seen way better suggestions (for example ALexis Hanicotte's suggestion on 20th january), that your phase2 suggestions. Maybe you should reconsider your 40M budget aswell. You cannot just continue to raise your member's fee (while protecting big players). If you just think it might be at risk with higher members, maybe we should introduce a policy restraining inter-rir transfers for big inetnums (incoming or outgoing, lets still be fair). Kind regards, Clément Cavadore On Mon, 2026-02-02 at 12:24 +0100, Simon-Jan Haytink wrote: > > Dear RIPE NCC members, > > Thank you for your feedback on Phase 1 of the charging scheme model. > > During the six week consultation period, members shared feedback via > the members-discuss mailing list and we also heard from members > directly. Thank you to everyone who took part and helped inform the > next stage of this work. We are now analysing the feedback to > identify where the models can be refined. > > *Phase 2: Separate Charges* > > We are now launching Phase 2 of the consultation, which focuses on > separate charges. In this phase, we are asking for feedback on two > groups of additional charges: > > Group 1: Charges based on task force recommendations > Group 2: Possible other charges, discounts and incentives > > You can find charges and detailed explanations of each charge at: > https://www.ripe.net/s/charging-scheme-model-consultation-phase-2/ > > Important: Please note that this is the consultation phase, and we > are looking for your opinion on which charges make sense and would be > acceptable for members. No charges or figures are set in stone - we > need your input before we make a final draft charging scheme that we > can bring to the Executive Board for its consideration in March. In > parallel, we are carrying out impact analyses to determine what > changes would need to be made to our systems in order to accommodate > new types of charges, and whether they would be possible to implement > for 2027 or need to be phased in over multiple years. We plan to > publish the impact analysis when proposing the draft charging scheme > for members to vote on in April. > > Phase 2 will run until the week of 16 February 2026. Your input is > essential for shaping the Charging Scheme proposal which will be > presented to the membership for a vote at the May 2026 General > Meeting. > > Please share your comments, questions, and suggestions on the > Members Discuss mailing list. > > *Next Steps: Phase 3* > > Following Phase 2, we will use feedback from both phases to revise > the proposal before publishing a combined draft covering the annual > membership fee and separate charges. > > We are also developing an online calculator to accompany Phase 3, > using the final draft model figures and the additional charges > proposed during Phase 2. > > We expect to publish both a complete charging scheme draft, an > impact analysis and the calculator at the beginning of April 2026. > > Kind regards, > > Simon-Jan Haytink > Chief Financial Officer > RIPE NCC > > ----- > To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription > options, please visit: > https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/ncc-announce.ripe.net/ > As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account > with the email matching your subscription before you can change your > settings. > More details at: > https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/

9 12

Charging Scheme Model Consultation: Phase 2 - comments
by Michal Krajčírovič 02 Feb '26

02 Feb '26

Dear colleagues, I would like to open a discussion in connection with the email delivered today (Charging Scheme Model Consultation: Phase 2). To be honest at the outset: I usually try to ignore matters around RIPE, pay the annual fee, and not pay much attention to it, as the whole thing strikes me as absurd. This time, however, I feel compelled to respond. I make no secret of my opinion that the current RIR model is, in 2026, obsolete. IPv4 address space has been exhausted (which is, incidentally, the fault of the RIRs themselves, who in the past often allocated IP addresses inefficiently while collecting millions for their operations), IPv6 is (according to everyone) “infinite,” and ASNs are, and most likely always will be, sufficient in number. I therefore respectfully ask whether we truly need an organization with an annual budget of EUR 40 million to serve approximately 20,000 active LIRs. *** Regarding the new scheme itself, I have several objections and uncertainties. New Member Sign-up Fee – RIPE signs identical contracts with all members, which it undoubtedly generates based on the provided information. Concluding the contract involves verifying the entity, signing the agreement, and activating the account. What on earth costs an incredible EUR 1,000 here? I assume RIPE is a non-profit organization, so this is not meant as “super business.” In my view, the trend should be the exact opposite: that “anyone” can set up their own LIR, obtain genuinely their own IPv6 addresses, under conditions that are closer to cost-based. Who on earth would want—on top of a large annual fee—to also pay EUR 1,000? Additional LIR Account Fee – this apparently assumes that there are entities that have or want multiple LIRs. Those I know solved this by setting up another company (which, incidentally, costs significantly less to establish than EUR 500). Perhaps RIPE has different data, but I believe these accounts were created solely to gain access to IPv4 while it was still available. That no longer interests anyone today. IPv4 Waiting List Sign-up Fee – sorry, but is this meant seriously? Yes, I certainly welcome the “separation” of the sign-up fee (which RIPE already has as one of the highest among all RIRs) and IPv4. Given that the plan mentions no transitional provisions, I assume that those already on the waiting list will remain there, meaning that those who pay will simply join the queue behind them. All this in a situation where we all know that the chance of actually receiving IPv4 addresses asymptotically approaches zero (or they might receive them in several years). In reality, this is a bet on speculation, because if they need the addresses, they must buy them elsewhere anyway—or is someone supposed to wait ~3 years with a project? I consider the Merger and Acquisition Fee to be unlawful. Let’s be frank about why RIPE has it: there are people who have 20 LIRs across 20 companies (through which they acquired IPv4 in the past before it ran out—congratulations), they pay 20× the annual fee, and there is concern that they might merge those companies into one. RIPE, however, ignores the basic legal principles of mergers, whose core is universal succession of the dissolving companies to the successor entity. This is the same type of succession as, for example, inheritance, where a son inherits his father’s house. It is not a “sale” or a “transfer”—the new entity steps into the relationships of the original one as if it had never ceased to exist. A procedure whereby, after such a “transfer,” resources cannot be transferred for several years, or where a fee is charged for a change in records (when that transfer occurred by operation of law under the legislation of any EU Member State—and I assume the same applies outside the EU), is contrary to the law. Moreover, as a consequence of a merger (where, for example, an entity that currently holds resources ceases to exist), no other situation can legally arise than that everything passes to the successor entity. There cannot be a “non-transfer” because someone failed to pay a fee. That simply cannot happen legally. *** In conclusion, I disagree with the discount for educational institutions. RIPE members also include various organizations close to, for example, non-profits, start-up entrepreneurs, etc., who must pay the full fees. Educational institutions are generously funded by the state, have many employees, often enormous budgets, and the fees discussed here are, compared to small companies with just a few people, entirely negligible for them. *** Unfortunately (or fortunately), I will not change RIPE (or the RIR system as a whole), nor the overall policy of how these organizations operate. I do hope, however, that my thoughts will contribute to reflection among other members. Michal Krajcirovic

1 0

Re: My thoughts about the proposed Charging Scheme Models A and B (2027–2031)
by Akayo 20 Jan '26

20 Jan '26

Hi Ben! Of course I do agree that "whale customers" are not a good idea as well since this would put the independency of the RIPE NCC on risk. However, even if we would use a way more balanced category based model, we are still miles away from such a risk because I was not speaking about millions or even hundreds of thousands of fees for the largest LIRs. But it simply doesn't make much sense if the largest LIRs pay a few thousand EUR per year while even small LIRs pay a few thousand EUR per year as well. --Kayo

3 2

My thoughts about the proposed Charging Scheme Models A and B (2027–2031)
by Akayo 19 Jan '26

19 Jan '26

Dear colleagues, though I'm a few weeks too late I want to wish you a Happy New Year! As far as I understand there are currently two proposed models for the RIPE NCC charging scheme for the period 2027–2031. Model A is category based where Model B is formula based. Here are my thoughts: 1. I do not support Model B for the simple reason that I think a formula based model is too complicated and therefore intransparent. Members should be able to immediately see (on paper, not being required to use a calculator) how many fees they are required to pay. 2. I support keeping the flat fee model (only) in case the fees are not increased. If the flat fee is increased all few years due to higher costs, I do not support it any more because it will be a financial burden for smaller LIRs. For instance, I think it would be a imposition for smaller LIRs to pay €3,000 per year one day. The hosting business is not getting easier—it's getting harder. 3. If a category based scheme is used, I think many categories are better than less categories. The current Model A has 21 categories (counting the €500 category in case the LIR has no resources at all) which is good. However, I think Model A is extremely unfair: 4. First, from what I can see, the largest single allocation is IPv4 /10 and there is not a single IPv4 /8 or even /9 allocation. So it is doubtful that even the largest LIRs will fall into the uppermost categories. That means there are categories which from the beginning on will never be relevant. 5. Also there is a big gap between the smallest and the largest LIRs. That means that the vast majority of fees continue to be paid by the smallest, small and medium-sized LIRs whereas the large and largest LIRs still contribute only a small amount (in relative terms). For instance, I own about an IPv4 /19 equivalent (= 32 x /24s). With this new model, my fees are increased from €1,800 to €3,080 which is quite much. If I would have an IPv4 /13 equivalent I would not be a sole trader but own a large company. I would not have 32 x /24s but 2,048 x /24s which is 64 times as much—but with this new model I would only pay €6,488. And if I would have an IPv4 /10, which is equivalent to 16,384 (sixteen thousand) IPv4 /24s I would only pay €8,503 though I would have 512 times as much space. This is not fair. And there is no simple middle course. If the stated goal is to make the scheme more fair then the larger and largest LIRs unfortunately need to pay way more because they are the only group which is not fee sensitive. It makes (almost) no difference for them whereas it does make a huge difference for us. Thank you for your time. --Kayo

3 3

Re: Minor issues in Sponsoring LIR Agreement
by Maria Stafyla 15 Jan '26

15 Jan '26

Hi Antonis, all Thank you for your email. We will review the template agreement in the coming period and make improvements where necessary. Kind regards, Maria Stafyla Specialist Legal Counsel RIPE NCC ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Antonis Chariton < <https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/members-discuss-unmoderated@ripe.net…> daknob(a)daknob.net> To: members-discuss(a)ripe.net Cc: Bcc: Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2026 20:36:20 +0100 Subject: Minor issues in Sponsoring LIR Agreement Hello everyone and happy new year! I was reading the Sponsoring LIR Agreement over at https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-management/number-resourc… and I wanted to point out two minor issues: 1) Typo in Article 1 Definitions (Independent Internet Number Resources): “IPv6)” should be “IPv6” 2) Correction in Article 1 Definitions (Reverse DNS Delegation): "and ipv6.arpa (IPv6).” - the correct zone is ip6.arpa I think we should fix them, but I’m sending this here in case anyone considers these important enough to amend their contracts :) Antonis <https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/members-discuss-unmoderated@ripe.net…>

1 0

No Resource Transfers Allowed in January?
by Patterson, Richard (Senior IP Architect) 14 Jan '26

14 Jan '26

Hi Members, We've hit a kafkaesque bug with the RIPE NCC's policies, and I was wondering if anyone else has run into it? We've had a resource transfer request blocked until the 2026 membership fees are all paid up, the 2026 membership fees for which the invoices have not yet been generated or sent out yet......... This requirement is not specified in the Transfer Policy, but it is mentioned in the 2026 Billing Procedure. Do we think this requirement—effectively restricting transfers during the month of January—is sane and I just need to be more patient, or does it require a policy update or maybe just for a bit of common sense to be applied when requests are processed? -Rich Information in this email including any attachments may be privileged, confidential and is intended exclusively for the addressee. The views expressed may not be official policy, but the personal views of the originator. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete it from your system. You should not reproduce, distribute, store, retransmit, use or disclose its contents to anyone. Please note we reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communication through our internal and external networks. SKY and the SKY marks are trademarks of Sky Limited and Sky International AG and are used under licence. Sky UK Limited (Registration No. 2906991), Sky-In-Home Service Limited (Registration No. 2067075), Sky Subscribers Services Limited (Registration No. 2340150) and Sky CP Limited (Registration No. 9513259) are direct or indirect subsidiaries of Sky Limited (Registration No. 2247735). All of the companies mentioned in this paragraph are incorporated in England and Wales and share the same registered office at Grant Way, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7 5QD

4 5

Minor issues in Sponsoring LIR Agreement
by Antonis Chariton 05 Jan '26

05 Jan '26

Hello everyone and happy new year! I was reading the Sponsoring LIR Agreement over at https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-management/number-resourc… and I wanted to point out two minor issues: 1) Typo in Article 1 Definitions (Independent Internet Number Resources): “IPv6)” should be “IPv6” 2) Correction in Article 1 Definitions (Reverse DNS Delegation): "and ipv6.arpa (IPv6).” - the correct zone is ip6.arpa I think we should fix them, but I’m sending this here in case anyone considers these important enough to amend their contracts :) Antonis

1 0

Consultation on Future RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Models
by thiele＠holomua.de 21 Dec '25

21 Dec '25

Hi to everyone, I have looked at both models. If I have understood the models correctly, it is striking that small and medium-sized LIRs suffer a significant increase in annual fees in both models. Looking at the cost contribution per IP address, it quickly becomes clear that older LIRs with /4 and larger networks in particular are making disproportionately low contributions, even though they have allocated significantly more resources. This should definitely be addressed. Why is the cost contribution per IP not kept linear? Kind regards Peter -- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast-Antivirussoftware auf Viren geprüft. www.avast.com

13 16

Re: Consultation on Future RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Models
by Denys Fedoryshchenko 16 Dec '25

16 Dec '25

Dear RIPE NCC, After reviewing Phase 1 of the Charging Scheme Consultation, two issues stand out. First, the use of complex Excel spreadsheets as “interactive calculators” is frankly disappointing. In 2025, this approach reduces transparency, makes independent verification harder, and discourages meaningful analysis. I did in 30 minutes a simple web-based comparison that shows the same calculations more clearly and allows direct comparison with other RIR fee models (https://better-ripe.github.io/calculator2025/ ) [1] Second, the results raise a serious equity concern. Model B appears to consistently benefit very large resource holders while increasing the relative burden on small members. Compared with other RIRs, RIPE’s proposal looks less balanced and less fair, despite equity being stated as a core principle. I would like to understand how equity is being measured here, and why RIPE NCC seems comfortable with outcomes that so clearly favor large holders. This feedback is meant constructively, but the direction is worrying. On Mon, 2025-12-15 at 15:14 +0100, Simon-Jan Haytink wrote: > Dear RIPE NCC members, > We have opened Phase 1 of the Charging Scheme Consultation and invite > your feedback on two proposed models for the annual fee, which > represents the significant majority of the RIPE NCC’s income. > *What we are consulting on in Phase 1* The RIPE NCC’s income from > members consists of two parts - together > they make up the Membership Fee: > 1. Annual Fee - the main part of our income > > 2. Additional Fees - currently these are ASN fees, independent > assignment fees and other one-off charges > In Phase 1, our focus is only on the annual fee, because this is the > foundation of the Charging Scheme and the key element for our long- > term financial stability. > We are asking for your input on two possible annual fee models: > - Model A – Category-based model > - Model B – Formula-based model > For each model, we have published an explanation and an interactive > calculator so you can see how your annual fee would be calculated and > explore different scenarios based on your IPv4 and IPv6 holdings. > You can find the consultation details and the calculators at: > https://www.ripe.net/s/cs-model-consultation-phase-1/ > *What feedback we would like to hear* > At this stage, we are interested in how the models work in practice, > not in fixing the final revenue amount. > The figures you see are illustrative and not final. > We would particularly value your views on questions such as: > - Are there too many categories in Model A, or too few? > - Are the category boundaries appropriate > - Is a formula-based approach (Model B) preferable to a category- > based one? > > - Does the current formula setup make sense, or are there better > options? > > - Do the models adequately reflect the principles defined by the > Charging Scheme Task Force, especially the principle of equity? > > - Are there any issues you can see that we’ve overlooked? > Both models are still drafts. Your feedback now is essential before > we further develop the models. > Please share your input on the Members Discuss mailing list by the > end of January 2026. > We will of course follow discussions and we will address queries and > comments in early January after the holiday season. > *Next steps in the consultation* This consultation is part of a > three-phase process: > - Phase 1 (now): Consult on two annual fee models (A and B), with > calculators – published Dec 2025 > - Phase 2: Consult on separate fees (e.g. ASN and independent > resource fees) – planned for Jan/Feb 2026 > > - Phase 3: Publish a combined Charging Scheme proposal (Annual Fee + > separate fees) that incorporates member feedback from Phases 1 and 2 > – planned for April 2026 > The final Charging Scheme proposal will be presented for a vote at > the RIPE NCC General Meeting in May 2026. > I strongly encourage you to review the two models, use the > calculators, and share your perspective. Your participation is vital > in helping us develop a Charging Scheme that is stable, transparent > and equitable. > Kind regards, > Simon-Jan Haytink > Chief Financial Officer > RIPE NCC > > > ----- > To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription > options, please visit: > https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/ncc-announce.ripe.net/ > As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account > with the email matching your subscription before you can change your > settings. > More details at: > https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/ [1] ) https://github.com/better-ripe/calculator2025

2 1

RIPE NCC Quarterly Planning Q1 2026
by Boris Duval 16 Dec '25

16 Dec '25

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

1 0

Future RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Proposals
by office＠mrejitor.com 15 Dec '25

15 Dec '25

Dear community, I looked at both Category-based and Formula-based models and found a destructive issue with both. The root issue The scheme is too logarithmic. The average fee per IP ranges 5744 times! * The issue leads to the following consequences. Consequence one - market competition Members with fewer addresses should pay a significant share of their income to RIPE. There are many services in the â¬10 or less category in Bulgaria, Romania, and other countries. Small /24 operators should spend at least 4.47% of their income on RIPE fees alone. A prominent /8 owner will spend 0.00001% of that income. The ratio of 5,743 is significant. Consequence two - delaying the move to IPv6 Given the significant historical IPv4 address space, larger companies have fewer reasons to switch to IPv6. If we agree to further multiply this advantage, there will be fewer and fewer economic reasons to switch to IPv6. Consequence three - possible reduction in the number of LIRs With ratios of up to 5,743 times the fees per IP, one can expect the consolidation of LIR accounts to continue. Renting small blocks will be preferable to acquiring them. We already suffer from the declining number of LIR accounts. A decision that leads to future consolidation may require additional rebalancing in the coming years. Possible solutions * Better-balanced fees, with wider boundaries in both directions. A difference of no more than 256 times in per-ip fees. * A fee reduction for big entities if they return address space to RIPE. This reduction will actually pay off by reducing IPv4 queue wait time and, therefore, increasing the number of new members. Best Regards, Alexander 5744 is calculated by dividing the minimum fee per IP for /8 by the cost for /24. It could be up to 11,487 in case the address space is close to /7 IPv4 CIDR Max fee/ IP Discount from /24 /24 to /23 3.41016 0.00% /23 to /22 2.47656 27.38% /22 to /21 1.64746 51.69% /21 to /20 1.03906 69.53% /20 to /19 0.63306 81.44% /19 to /18 0.37598 88.97% /18 to /17 0.21918 93.57% /17 to /16 0.12585 96.31% /16 to /15 0.07143 97.91% /15 to /14 0.04013 98.82% /14 to /13 0.02237 99.34% /13 to /12 0.01237 99.64% /12 to /11 0.00681 99.80% /11 to /10 0.00372 99.89% /10 to /9 0.00203 99.94% /9 to /8 0.00110 99.97% /8 to /7 0.00059 99.98%

1 0

Re: Systematic RIPE DB abuse
by Lu Heng 12 Dec '25

12 Dec '25

You are mixing two fundamentally different things: *1. Community-platform rules (like mailing lists)* *2. Number-resource administration (the registry function)* A registry absolutely may moderate its mailing list or remove someone from a community forum. That is *not* the issue. That is not resource governance. That is not number administration. The problem arises when you conflate the mailing list with the registry function and assume the same “ban power” applies to number resources. It does not. A registry’s authority over number resources is *administrative*, not discretionary: • It has no sovereign power. • It cannot impose penalties outside the law. • It cannot “ban” someone from holding number resources because it dislikes their actions. • It cannot create new enforcement powers through internal rules. Mailing-list rules are internal community guidelines. Number-resource allocation is part of global critical infrastructure. These are not equivalent domains. The fact that a registry can enforce behavior on a mailing list does *not* grant it the authority to punish a member by altering or revoking their number resources. The two functions exist on different legal, operational, and governance layers. If you do not separate these layers, you end up with exactly the instability we see today: registries treating essential resource administration as if it were a social-media moderation problem. A registry is allowed to moderate conversations. A registry is *not* allowed to weaponize the address book. That is the distinction you must not blur. On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 at 12:33, Peering <peering(a)all-for-one.com> wrote: > This is not about punishing or violating laws but violating the rules of > usage of the registry. While doing so, it should be normal to get banned > from that registry and the usage of the abused resources like the Mailing > list. So far fully fits in your position, as the rules of usage are given > by the registry it’s also the only given authority that can enforce them. > > > > *Von:* Lu Heng <h.lu(a)anytimechinese.com> > *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 10. Dezember 2025 21:49 > *An:* Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele(a)blacknight.com> > *Cc:* Sergey Myasoedov via members-discuss <members-discuss(a)ripe.net> > *Betreff:* [members-discuss] Re: Systematic RIPE DB abuse > > > > Michele, > > > > Let me clarify, because this is not a question of “no rules.” > > > > My position is straightforward: > > > > A registry is a registry. > > Its mandate is to maintain accurate records—nothing more. > > You do not use an address book as an instrument of punishment. > > > > When a registry begins using essential administrative functions to reward > or punish individuals, the system becomes unpredictable and open to abuse. > This is, in fact, a major reason the RIR environment has struggled with > instability and governance issues: registries have, at times, stepped > outside their neutral role and attempted to use resource administration as > leverage. > > > > Rules absolutely must exist, and compliance is essential. > > But those rules are defined and enforced by sovereign law—courts, > regulators, and proper authorities—not by a voluntary address book. A > registry cannot impose its own rules above nations, nor can it act as > police, prosecutor, and judge. > > > > Punishment, when warranted, must come through established legal channels. > A registry that assumes enforcement powers beyond its mandate ultimately > undermines its own legitimacy and the trust of the global community. > > > > That is the core of my position. > > > > Regards, > > Lu > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2025 at 16:19 Michele Neylon - Blacknight < > michele(a)blacknight.com> wrote: > > Lu > > > > Sorry but I cannot agree with your position on this. > > > > By your logic RIPE NCC would have zero right to take action against a > member who was in breach of the policies, rules etc., > > > > Trust in the system is only possible when the system is stable and > predictable, which you seem to agree with, however if there are no rules > then any system will be abused by somebody at some point. > > > > Regards > > > > Michele > > > > -- > > Mr Michele Neylon > > Blacknight Solutions > > Hosting, Colocation & Domains > > *https://www.blacknight.com/ <https://www.blacknight.com/>* > > *https://blacknight.blog/ <https://blacknight.blog/>* > > Intl. *+353 (0) 59 9183072 <+353599183072>* > > Personal blog: *https://michele.blog/ <https://michele.blog/>* > > Some thoughts: *https://ceo.hosting/ <https://ceo.hosting/>* > > ------------------------------- > > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business > Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 > > > > I have sent this email at a time that is convenient for me. I do not > expect you to respond to it outside of your usual working hours. > > *From: *Lu Heng <h.lu(a)anytimechinese.com> > *Date: *Wednesday, 10 December 2025 at 13:15 > *To: *Brett Sheffield <ripe(a)gladserv.com> > *Cc: *Sergey Myasoedov via members-discuss <members-discuss(a)ripe.net> > *Subject: *[members-discuss] Re: Systematic RIPE DB abuse > > *[EXTERNAL EMAIL]* Please use caution when opening attachments from > unrecognised sources. > > Hi > > > > I agree entirely NCC should not do anything. A registry’s role is > administrative, not enforcement. Asking a bookkeeping-type institution to > police behavior is simply outside its mandate and purpose. > > > > There are countless legitimate ways to address concerns or resolve > disputes. But withholding a fundamental registry service—such as assigning > an address—because someone “did or did not do X” is irrational and > unprecedented. It is the equivalent of a government refusing to give a home > an address instead of contacting law enforcement or using proper legal > channels. No responsible system operates that way, and no credible > governance framework treats essential registry functions as a tool for > punishment or leverage. > > > > A registry should remain neutral, predictable, and strictly procedural. > Using it as an enforcement mechanism undermines trust in the entire system. > > > > > > -- > Kind regards. > Lu > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2025 at 14:38 Brett Sheffield <ripe(a)gladserv.com> wrote: > > On 2025-12-08 12:57, Sergey Myasoedov via members-discuss wrote: > > Dear RIPE NCC members, > > > > I’d like to raise the topic of introducing and applying administrative > anti-spam measures against RIPE NCC members who deliberately violate > Article 4 of the RIPE Database Terms and Conditions. > > > > RIPE NCC requires members to publish up-to-date contact email addresses > in the RIPE DB. However, these publicly listed addresses are actively > harvested and used for spam by IPv4 brokers and address traders, while RIPE > NCC does not take any measures to protect members from this type of abuse. > > > > This issue has been around since the IPv4 market appeared, and although > it’s well known, at some point the RIPE NCC staff chose not to act against > members who don’t follow the RIPE Database T&C. > > > > My proposal is to freeze transfer operations for members who are > repeatedly abusing the RIPE Database. > > > > I’d be glad to hear your thoughts and discuss this further. > > Compared to other sources, our RIPE contact address gets a tiny amount of > spam, > and all of it from IPv4 brokers. > > I've now received more emails in this single thread in the past 24 hours > than I > have spam to our RIPE contact address in the past 5 years. No action from > RIPE > is required here. > > Tighten your spam controls if this is a problem for you, and lets move on. > > Cheers, > > > Brett > -- > Brett Sheffield (he/him) > Gladserv > To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with > your > RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: > https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details. > > Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' > subscription. > > Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your > subscription > can be found at: > https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/ > > -- -- Kind regards. Lu

6 9

Systematic RIPE DB abuse
by Sergey Myasoedov 11 Dec '25

11 Dec '25

Dear RIPE NCC members, I’d like to raise the topic of introducing and applying administrative anti-spam measures against RIPE NCC members who deliberately violate Article 4 of the RIPE Database Terms and Conditions. RIPE NCC requires members to publish up-to-date contact email addresses in the RIPE DB. However, these publicly listed addresses are actively harvested and used for spam by IPv4 brokers and address traders, while RIPE NCC does not take any measures to protect members from this type of abuse. This issue has been around since the IPv4 market appeared, and although it’s well known, at some point the RIPE NCC staff chose not to act against members who don’t follow the RIPE Database T&C. My proposal is to freeze transfer operations for members who are repeatedly abusing the RIPE Database. I’d be glad to hear your thoughts and discuss this further. -- Best regards, Sergey Myasoedov > Begin forwarded message: > > From: "HostM" <info(a)hostmaster.lt> > Subject: Quick question about IPv4 > Date: December 8, 2025 at 04:54:23 EST > To: <for-spammers(a)net-art.cz> > > Hello, > my apologies if this message has arrived at an inconvenient time. > > I wanted to check whether you might be interested in acquiring an IPv4 /24 sub-net registered with RIPE. > I also have IPv6 resources and an ASN available, which can be included (for free) if you are interested in the IPv4 block. > > The ipv4 sub-net is currently unused and fully clean. > > The transfer can be completed securely via an escrow service. > > If this could be of interest, please feel free to reply to this email, and we can discuss the next steps in more detail. > > Regards, > Zydrunas

17 25

Analysis on Participation in October 2025 GM
by Ilke Ilhan 24 Nov '25

24 Nov '25

Hi all, Following the GM on 22 October, we analysed participation and shared some stats in this RIPE Labs article. This time, we also tried to distinguish the dedicated and casual voters in the last three years. https://labs.ripe.net/author/ilke-ilhan/gm-october-2025-a-look-at-dedicated… Let us know what else you'd like to see covered in these post-GM pieces. Cheers, Ilke

1 0