- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

Regarding RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Two Options to Vote On
by Alexandru Doszlop 18 Apr '19

18 Apr '19

24 36

Re: [members-discuss] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Two Options to Vote On
by Peter Koch 18 Apr '19

18 Apr '19

Dear Board, {re-sent due to mailing list issues} On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 05:08:11PM +0200, Gwen van Berne wrote: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2019/supporting-d… while I do not have an issue with the current scheme "A", I would like to better understand the proposed scheme "B" and its overall impact. Quoting from the "Option B" document For the volume-based fee charges, we used the existing registration fee (50 EUR for Independent number resource assignments) as our starting point to arrive at a higher proportion of volume-based income. For the final volume-based fee calculations, we also looked at the 2020 budget for RIPE Registry-related activities (e.g. registry maintenance, resource certification) and we divided this number by the total number of registration blocks held by the member base to arrive at the cost per registration. In turn, each member is charged based on the total number of blocks the respective member holds multiplied by the cost per registration. The fixed annual LIR account fee will be EUR 1,150 as a consequence of the higher variable income stream related to registrations. Is non-consecutive address space allocated in a single 'registration transaction' counted as a single "registration block"? Does the above calculation assume that all "registrations" incur equal cost? Is scheme "B" supposed to be revenue neutral and how would or could this be maintained over time? While every LIR can do the calculations for themselves, how does the overall increase/decline picture look like, e.g., what is the maximum fee that, as of $today, an LIR would have to pay? Regards, Peter

1 0

Regarding RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Two Options to Vote On
by REG ID: pl.skonet 18 Apr '19

18 Apr '19

Dear RIPE, Who asked about "volume" (quotes intentional) charging? First of all, please submit a plan to spend the huge amount of extra money you will get from option B. Today, you give the members a surplus from the annual budget, because you are not able to spend everything that you collect. I am definitely against option B. Please keep charging scheme as is. -- Tomasz Śląski pl.skonet

7 6

Charging Scheme 2020, calarification on resources issued on the same date
by Hostserver NOC 18 Apr '19

18 Apr '19

With the existing charging scheme, multiple PI resources that were issued on the same day share the same fee. With Option B, will that stay the same or will each PI resource be charged separately? Best Regards, Peter Hessler Hostserver GmbH

1 0

Regarding RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Two Options to Vote On
by Alessandro Bondesan 18 Apr '19

18 Apr '19

Hello all On the charging scheme B it’s stated “50 € per registration” I don’t understand if “registration” means “Database entry” or “Assignment made by RIPE” someone can explain that? Many thanks ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Gwen van Berne <gvanberne(a)ripe.net> Date: Apr 17, 2019 18:08 Subject: [ncc-announce] [GM] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Two Options to Vote On To: ncc-announce(a)ripe.net Cc: Dear colleagues, Members will vote on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 at the General Meeting from 22-24 May. In response to requests from members, the Executive Board is proposing two charging scheme options that the members can choose from at the GM. An overview of the two options is also available that explains the two models in more detail. The overview and the two charging schemes are available at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2019/supporting-d… In short, the options that members will choose between are: Option A: The RIPE NCC will maintain the existing charging scheme, according to which members pay an annual fee of EUR 1,400 plus an extra EUR 50 per independent number resource assignment. Option B: The RIPE NCC will switch to a new volume-based, per registration charging scheme. This would involve lowering the annual fee to EUR 1,150 whilst broadening the applicability of the separate EUR 50 charge to all number registrations held by the member. See the full list of registrations that would be charged in the document. The existing sign-up fee of EUR 2,000 will apply to both options. We encourage members to discuss the options on the Member Discuss mailing list at <members-discuss(a)ripe.net>. The Executive Board and the RIPE NCC Management will follow discussions closely ahead of the GM. If you have not yet registered for the GM, we strongly encourage you to do so and make sure you have your say on which of two distinct charging scheme options should be adopted in May. Full participation and voting options are available for all members. You can register now via the LIR Portal at: https://www.ripe.net/s/gm-registration-may-2019 All details on the GM, including the draft agenda, are available from: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2019/ Kind regards, Gwen van Berne Chief Financial Officer RIPE NCC

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-services-wg] Update of RIPE NCC Procedural Document
by Sergey Myasoedov 04 Apr '19

04 Apr '19

Dear Maria, Thank you for the announcement. I'm moving the discussion to members-discuss. > Other amendments were carried out to align the wording of specific sections with the wording used in the rest of the document, the RIPE NCC Standard Service Agreement (Sections A.1.2.2.g and B.1.d), and other RIPE NCC procedural documents (Section A.1.1). Similarly, changes were made to reflect changes in the RIPE Database (both operational and structural) and in RIPE Policy requirements (Sections A.1.2.1.1.c and B.1.c). I would not call this 'wording changes': $ diff ripe697 ripe716 7c7 < The Member repeatedly provides falsified data or information, or purposefully and/or repeatedly provides incorrect data or information (for example, falsified registration documents or IDs, incorrect/inaccurate contact details, etc.). --- > The Member provides falsified or misleading data or information (for example, falsified registration documents or IDs), or repeatedly provides incorrect data or information (for example, incorrect/inaccurate contact details). 11c11 < The Member submits repeatedly fraudulent requests for Internet number resources (for example, providing incorrect purpose/need or falsified information about the network, etc.). --- > The Member submits fraudulent requests for Internet number resources (for example, providing incorrect purpose/need or falsified information about the network, etc.). So the word 'repeatedly' disappear and in case of _any_ only document mistake, deliberately or not made by the member, the RIPE NCC can call this 'misleading data' or 'fraudulent request' and terminate the membership? Thank you. -- Kind regards, Sergey Myasoedov > On 1 Apr 2019, at 10:56, Maria Stafyla <mstafyla(a)ripe.net> wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > The RIPE NCC Procedural document 'Closure of Members, Deregistration of Internet Resources and Legacy Resources' has recently been reviewed and updated. The following is an overview of the amendments made. > > Section A.1.1 was amended to include situations where both the Member and the RIPE NCC agree to terminate the SSA before the usual three month period has passed. Other changes were made to avoid duplication of information. > > Section B.2 was updated to specify certain conditions under which a three month timeframe for deregistration of either Member or End User resources would be unreasonable. > > The wording in Section B.2.1 was amended to clarify that during the deregistration process the Member is not allowed to make new announcements using the resources to be deregistered, and that the RIPE NCC will update the maintainer on all the Member's resource objects - not just on the inetnum object. > > Section B.2.2 was amended to bring about alignment of the procedures for the deregistration of End User and Member resources and to clarify that if an End User does not have a sponsoring LIR when the deregistration procedure is initiated, they must first establish a contractual relationship with one before they can object to that procedure. > > Other amendments were carried out to align the wording of specific sections with the wording used in the rest of the document, the RIPE NCC Standard Service Agreement (Sections A.1.2.2.g and B.1.d), and other RIPE NCC procedural documents (Section A.1.1). Similarly, changes were made to reflect changes in the RIPE Database (both operational and structural) and in RIPE Policy requirements (Sections A.1.2.1.1.c and B.1.c). > > Please see here the relevant link: > https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-716/ > > Kind regards, > > Maria Stafyla > Legal Counsel > RIPE NCC

8 9

RIPE NCC LIR Ticketsystem
by Sebastian Wiesinger 03 Apr '19

03 Apr '19

Hello, I'm currently communicating with the RIPE NCC and I'm learning that I really and passionately dislike the new ticket system. There is no way to see a coherent and complete history of my ticket. The LIR web portal has no way to see the ticket history, you can only upload documents to it. You cannot comment on the ticket (which would be useless anyway as you see no context). Also apparently sending documents as attachment by mail is not possible anymore. So I'm forced to use email to update the ticket while I'm unable to see any status or history for my ticket. On the other hand I'm forced to use the website to upload documents to the ticket and I can't even see which documents are already uploaded. Please, this is a really bad user experience. Is this going to be improved? Regards Sebastian

10 11

RIPE ATLAS probe and yearly membership dues
by Hank Nussbacher 05 Mar '19

05 Mar '19

ASN coverage for RIPE ATLAS probes is just 5.6% (based on: https://atlas.ripe.net/results/maps/network-coverage/) That really doesn't give a complete global view for stats. Rather than return money to LIRs every year in their bill, why not state that any LIR running an active probe within their ASN (open to definition) will get a 50Euro credit on their bill? That alone would increase ASN footprint coverage quickly within RIPE. Regards, Hank

2 1

is the RIPE NCC GDPR compliant ?
by Elvis Daniel Velea 24 Feb '19

24 Feb '19

Hi everyone, this e-mail is addressed to the RIPE NCC, but because they have continuously ignored the issues raised at the RIPE Meeting in Amsterdam, I am going to formally ask them to fix these things which, I believe, are not GDPR compliant. 1. Ticketing system - when someone wants to open a ticket with the RIPE NCC, the only way to do that is by sending an e-mail. It would be stupid to ask users to send e-mail without attachments (in order to open the ticket) and then go to the LIR Portal and upload documents to that ticket but it seems the RIPE NCC is asking exactly that from the members. - when someone sends an e-mail to the RIPE NCC and includes documents (RIPE NCC often requests company registration documents and - sometimes - copies of passports/IDs) the links to those documents hosted on zendesk are returned to the sender and (sometimes) all the LIR contacts. If that e-mail is forwarded to anyone, it includes the zendesk links and therefore anyone that receives the RIPE NCC e-mail or a forward of that e-mail will receive links to company registration documents and IDs of people. I doubt this is GDPR compliant and I would like a response from the RIPE NCC on why they have not fixed this issue even if it was reported 4 months ago. Several ways to fix this: - e-mails sent by zendesk should not include any link - allow users to create tickets and communicate to the RIPE NCC via the LIR Portal and stop e-mail communication with members 2. RIPE DB The RIPE NCC Customer Services Department forcefully (*) creates person objects in the RIPE Database _MAINTAINED BY THE MAINTAINER OF THE LIR!!!_ for the people that sign a contract with the RIPE NCC. It also forces companies that use role objects associated with their resources to actually have a person object referenced in the role object (so no circular reference or a reference to an other role object). Why is the RIPE NCC using the LIR's maintainer to create users without even requesting the LIR's acceptance? What else is the RIPE NCC creating with the LIR's maintainer? I was under the impression that creating and publishing thousands of person objects in the RIPE Database may not be GDPR compliant. Actually, there was a discussion in Amsterdam about this and the general understanding is that companies that do this will be contacted by the RIPE NCC to stop doing it and clean up their data. Well, who will listen to an organization that does exactly what they should not be doing? Why would you need to use a person object in the RIPE DB if a role object is an option? Oh, to make things worse, every time someone registers an additional LIR, the RIPE NCC keeps creating duplicate objects instead of re-using the ones already created *by them*. Dear RIPE NCC, when will you update your procedures to be GDPR compliant? (*) We have created the following objects in the RIPE Database for <LIR>'s public profile: [...] ORGANISATION: https://apps.db.ripe.net/db-web-ui/#/lookup?source=ripe&key=<ORG>&type=organisation MNTNER: https://apps.db.ripe.net/db-web-ui/#/lookup?source=ripe&key=<MNT>&type=mntner ROLE: https://apps.db.ripe.net/db-web-ui/#/lookup?source=ripe&key=<ROLE>&type=role *ADMIN-C: https://apps.db.ripe.net/db-web-ui/#/lookup?source=ripe&key=<PERSON>&type=person** **TECH-C: https://apps.db.ripe.net/db-web-ui/#/lookup?source=ripe&key=<PERSON>&type=person* Kind regards, Elvis -- Elvis Daniel Velea V4Escrow LLC Chief Executive Officer E-mail: elvis(a)v4escrow.net Mobile: +1 (702) 970 0921

8 10

RIPE legal: Please stop this madness!
by Markus Stalder 20 Feb '19

20 Feb '19

Hi list! My company has been a RIPE LIR for 17 years now. This week was the first time ever that I became, was and still am really, really pissed at RIPE. There's some madness going on in RIPEs legal department. It appears they recently hired some retard who now wants to prove he/she is a smartass. Harsh words, but I have no other explanation for what's going on right now! Here's the story: Sunday, 10th February, 17:08 CET: I sent away the online application for an additional LIR account. Automatic E-Mail confirmation received. Monday, 11th February, 15:07 CET: I didn't receive a human reply yet, and since the business day was nearing its end, I mailed them about the status, and asked whether I could come by their Amsterdam office the next day to sign the required documents - in order to speed up the whole process. Monday, 11th February, 15:57 CET: Reply from RIPE. Let me just copy and paste: "I regret to inform you that we do not offer the possibility to sign your contracts in our office and regrettably there is no option to speed up the application procedure." - Ok, no biggie. But then: Quote start. "We can see that this is an additional LIR account for Lightup Network Solutions GmbH & Co. KG. We are currently reviewing applications with a legal entity type 'GmbH & Co. KG' together with our legal department and they have stated the following: "GmbH & Co. KG" is a sub-form of a "KG" (partnership). It normally consists of a general partner and one or more limited partners, which can be legal or natural persons. According to "Due Diligence for the Quality of the RIPE NCC Registration Data" the signing party of an agreement can either be a legal or a natural person. A "KG" is not considered a legal person and cant be the signing party in our agreements. The agreement can be signed though by one of the legal or natural persons that are partners (general or limited). We therefore cannot register Lightup Network Solutions GmbH & Co. KG. As you already have an LIR account with us, we will have to update your existing account, de.lightupnet, before we can register this second account for Lightup Network Solutions GmbH & Co. KG. I created a new ticket for your company update and my colleagues will contact you shortly for the update." Quote end. That didn't sound so good. I've had a company with the legal form GmbH & Co. KG (it's a German company) for about 15 years now and my initial gut feeling was "That's just plain bullsh*t!". Tuesday, 12th February, 12:30: I receive another E-Mail. New ticket, as they promised. Quote start. "It has come to our attention, that the legal name of your LIR account has been registered incorrectly. It was advised by our Legal Department that the legal form of your company as "GmbH & Co. KG" is a form of a general partnership that does not have a legal personality. If there is a document proving opposite, please send it to us. According to our procedure, we can only sign an agreement with a legal person that has a legal personality or a natural person. Therefore, we will have to correct your legal name to <Markus Stalder trading as "Lightup Network Solutions GmbH & Co. KG">, instead of <Lightup Network Solutions GmbH & Co. KG>." Quote end. They also asked that I upload a photo/scan of my passport, which I did. I just thought: Ok, let them have their way. If they want to change my LIRs description, who really cares. All I want is to create a 2nd LIR and speed this whole thing up. But, since they want to be SO LEGALLY CORRECT, I replied and mentioned the following. Let me copy and paste. Quote start. "I just uploaded my passport. However, following your logic, you need to change all of the following German legal forms in your database to "Individual-name trading as ...": - OHG - KG - GmbH & Co. OHG - GmbH & Co. KG I understand that you would have to do that with a GbR, as a GbR cannot get registered in the commercial register of companies and you need to specify the names of the individuals. But I think with the above 4 legal forms you are making as mistake here. Although it is correct that a GmbH & Co. KG does not have a legal personality that differs from its general partners (Persoenlich haftende Gesellschafterin) or limited partners (Kommanditist), a GmbH & Co. KG is still a legal entity as its able to sue in front of court, or get sued in front of court. A GmbH & Co. KG can also purchase rights and enter into liabilities, can purchase property and other in rem rights related to estates. (Source: <https://www.frankfurt-main.ihk.de/existenzgruendung/rechtsfragen/idem/kg/>) That being said, since Lightup Network Solutions GmbH & Co. KG was founded, I have never ever signed a contract where the contractual partner was "Markus Stalder trading as Lightup Network Solutions GmbH & Co. KG" but the contractual partner was always Lightup Network Solutions GmbH & Co. KG. That includes application forms towards government entities as well as contracts with larger corporations. Actually, my gut feeling based on my own experience with my GmbH & Co. KG in the last decades tells me that you are making a mistake here. And, if you want to be really accurate: You must be aware that the Kommanditist (limited partner) is not allowed to represent the company. That is something only the Komplementaerin (general partner) can do. The general partner of Lightup Network Solutions GmbH & Co. KG is AirAccess GmbH. I'm attaching both company extracts for your convenience. So, correct would be: AirAccess GmbH trading as Lightup Network Solutions GmbH & Co. KG" Quote end. Wednesday, 13th February 2019, 18:02: Reply from RIPE. Quote start: "Many thanks for the clarification and the provided documents. Please be informed that our Due Diligence for the Quality of the RIPE NCC Registration Data <https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-700> has been implemented in 2018. As the application process for our members was not so strict before, it was possible to register an LIR account under the partnership name. Currently, we are working on correcting these details in the Database. At this moment we are reviewing German applications with a legal entity type 'GmbH & Co. KG' together with our legal department. Thus the information you provided is very helpful. On the review the documents you submitted, we indeed can see that "AirAccess GmbH" is a general partner with a special right to represent the company. The names of both LIR accounts (de.lightupnet, de.lightupnet1) will be corrected tomorrow. It will be confirmed to you once the accounts are updated." Quote end. ... another day passes ... Thursday, 14th February 2019, 16:11: Now for the E-Mail from RIPE that blew my mind, in a negative sense. Quote start: "Many thanks for your patience. We have reviewed your case internally and agreed that there is no need to sign a new agreement for LIR account <de.lightupnet>, as it was signed by the director of the company. It has also come to our attention that, the company AirAccess GmbH (reg. No HRB 56386) already has LIR account <de.airaccess>. Therefore LIR <de.airaccess> should be linked as an additional account to <de.lightupnet>, and <de.lightupnet1>. Please be informed that the following will be applied to all additional LIR accounts: - The /22 IPv4 allocation you will receive is subject to the RIPE NCC Transfer Policy and can therefore only be transferred 24 months after the allocation date. - Members with multiple LIR accounts are entitled to just one vote at RIPE NCC General Meetings. The oldest LIR account will receive the vote. - If you wish to transfer internet resources between your LIR accounts, you need to pay the full annual service fee for all LIR accounts. - If you wish to close LIR account, you need to pay the full annual service fee for all LIR accounts. At this moment could you please inform us what name you prefer for LIR accounts <de.lightupnet>, <de.lightupnet1>: "AirAccess GmbH" or "AirAccess GmbH trading us Lightup Network Solutions GmbH & Co. KG"? Once it is clarified, we will proceed with updating the legal details of your accounts and process the application for <de.lightupnet1>." Quote end. Spontaneous thought: HOLY F*CK, ARE THEY SERIOUS ?! ?! ?! They want to change the name of my company - Lightup Network Solutions GmbH & Co. KG - to a completely different company: AirAccess GmbH !!! Totally unrelated to each other, different business, different company, different everything! THEY MUST BE NUTS! Here my reply: Quote start. "Hi <name of RIPE NCC support person>, thanks for your mail. Ok, now you are really taking it over the top. 1) You want to link AirAccess GmbH as an additional account to de.lightupnet. And you want to do this for a company which is a legal entity by itself. I do not allow you to do this. AirAccess GmbH is a legal entity by itself and I do not want that you change anything about its current LIR status, name or anything else. 2) You are offering that I can choose the name for de.lightupnet and de.lightupnet1 to be "AirAccess GmbH", a company which is an entity by itself and is merely the Komplementaerin for Lightup Network Solutions GmbH & GmbH Co. KG. I'm shocked by that idea. That is just completely wrong. Of course I do NOT want de.lightupnet and de.lightupnet1 to be named "AirAccess GmbH" because it would be an factual error. And I don't want RIPE to make wrong statements about our company/companies towards the public. It would be like offering to present nl.ripe as KPN. Or Nike as Adidas. As it appears right now your legal department is doing a mistake when it comes to understanding how GmbH + Co. KGs work. Could you also please let me know the E-Mail address or telephone number where I can file a complaint about this whole procedure? Thank you." Quote end. This is where it stands right now. It's Friday, 15th February. The work week is over. I'm sitting here, waiting for RIPE since Monday to send me the LIR agreement for the 2nd LIR, so that I can sign it, pay it, and be done with it. My rhetorical questions are: 1) Are they fucking serious ... I can't remember the last time I was this angry at anyone. 2) It's RIPE. A large, established organisation that's been around forever. WHY THE F*CK does it take them always 1 day to process something, to reply to something? They have TONS of employees, they have TONS of LIRs that pay them TONS of money, why is everything moving so slowly with them ?! ?! ?! It's 2019, not 1995 FOR F*CKS SAKE !!! Get your act together and adapt to the times, modernize yourself and BE FASTER. UARRRGHHHL. 3) Why in heavens name do they EXACTLY have to start with this whole f*cked-up process when I ACTUALLY need something from them (a 2nd LIR account)? Why in this very moment? Yeah, because my company popped up on their screen because I applied for a 2nd LIR account, makes sense. But, could they not simply process the damn LIR application at the same time to speed this whole thing up, and later change this sh*t. No, of course, it would be not efficient for them to do that, but it's NOT MY FAULT they didn't ask to update this data/fix this company sh*t earlier. But now THEY MAKE IT MY PROBLEM. Because I'm losing precious time. F*CK! 4) If you look at the LIR list for Germany here - <https://www.ripe.net/membership/indices/DE.html> - and search for "GmbH & Co. KG" in the document, you will see many companies that are still "unchanged": Company name GmbH & Co. KG, but you will also see some that were already "updated" according to RIPE logic: "Firstname Lastname trading as Company GmbH & Co. KG" - the "funny" thing is that this is just wrong as I explained earlier. They have to re-do all these changes. By looking at this list it appears I'm the first where they offer to change it to "Another-company-name GmbH trading as Company GmbH & Co. KG" JUST BECAUSE I told them that with GmbH & Co. KGs the Kommanditist is not allowed to represent the company. So, being the first, and looking at that list for comparison tells me they have no idea what they are doing! Have a good day everyone and down with unnecessary, over-the-top bureaucracy! It's 2019 FOR F*CKS SAKE!!! Regards Markus Mit freundlichen Grüßen Markus Stalder ms(a)lightupnet.de Lightup Network Solutions GmbH & Co. KG http://www.lightupnet.de Fon +49 (0)69 962 4456 0 (Zentrale) Fon +49 (0)69 962 4456 11 (Durchwahl) Fax +49 (0)69 962 4456 20 __________________________________________________ Please direct all support issues directly to support(a)lightupnet.de. This will guarantee fastest processing possible. Bitte richten Sie alle Support-Anfragen direkt an support(a)lightupnet.de. Nur so ist die schnellst- mögliche Bearbeitung gewährleistet. __________________________________________________

8 13

2019 Invoices for Russian Members
by Gwen van Berne 20 Feb '19

20 Feb '19

Dear members, Tomorrow we will be emailing our Russian members to let them know that they can expect to receive their invoices by early March. This delay is due to some minor adjustments we had to make to the tailored invoices we provide to our Russian members. As our billing processes are automated, these changes will take time to implement properly. Please email <billing(a)ripe.net> if you have any questions. Kind regards, Gwen van Berne Chief Financial Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Billing scheme
by Serhii Khomenko 20 Feb '19

20 Feb '19

Dear RIPC NCC, I have received a notification that billing scheme would be changed from quarterly to annually. But it will be impossible for me to pay such big amount of money in one time. I ask you not to change the payment scheme. As I'm a private entrepreneur, it will be impossible to pay such amount in one payment. Hope for your understanding. -- Kind regards, Serhii Khomenko

28 43

New Charging Scheme
by TrustHost 19 Feb '19

19 Feb '19

11 17

Re: [members-discuss] [EXTERNAL] Re: New Charging Scheme
by CloudScape 19 Feb '19

19 Feb '19

We have also had issues with RIPE refusing to accept information and official UK documents (that we had to pay to obtain), then demanding documents that simply do not exist in the UK. I'm not sure if RIPE needs to understand different countries have dfferent rules/regulations and legal documents or if the rules need to be changed to allow them to accept "equivalent" legal documents. Either way, the current situation, is very unsatisfactory and needs to be addressed. Regards Robert Harrison CloudScape Connect Ltd At 14:52:00 19/02/2019, you wrote: > From: Patterson, Richard (Sky Network Services (SNS)) > Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 12:44 PM [snip] > > It felt like the IPv4-conservative approach was being applied to IPv6, and > that kind of defeats the purpose IMO. I have experienced this as well. For technical reasons (not convenience), I needed another /29 (or rather 6 /32's). This turned out to take too long and too much of my time, so I gave up and opened another LIR simply for the /29 IPv6. Of course that meant I had to buy one less /22 IPv4 on the free market, so the tight IPv6 policies directly caused faster depletion of IPv4. Though I don't know whether this happens often enough to be significant, it's still ass-backwards. -- Regards, Terrence Koeman, PhD/MTh/BPsy Darkness Reigns (Holding) B.V. Please quote relevant replies. _______________________________________________ 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/info%40cloudscapecon…

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] [EXTERNAL] Re: New Charging Scheme
by Jørgen Hovland 19 Feb '19

19 Feb '19

6 7

Re: [members-discuss] RIPE legal: Please stop this madness!
by Terrence Koeman 18 Feb '19

18 Feb '19

If you don't need the /22, then why are you registering an additional LIR? You can get ipv6 for your existing LIR... BTW, legally RIPE's position seems correct. The German partnership seems very much the same as a Dutch partnership. A LIR needs to be in the name of a legal person, and a partnership is not a legal person distinct from the partners. The liability would pass through the partnership when being sued and is just a convenience when suing that's identical to all partners being named as plaintiffs. So, if liability is severable and not joint, I'd suggest the proper way to name the entity is as "[and¦,] [and ] trading as ". If liability is joint and not severable (ie each partner or at least the main partner is always 100% liable for the partnership), then RIPE's suggestion to roll the LIRs for the partnership into the LIR of the main partner is correct, as there is no legal difference between the partnership (as non-legal person) and the main partner (ie the main partner is the only one that may sign and is 100% liable for the partnership, so legally there's no distinction at all between a contract signed as the partnership or the legal person that is the main partner). That there is another partner in the partnership is legally irrelevant in that case. I would guess that liability for partnerships is joint in Germany as it is in The Netherlands and RIPE is correct. It may make you angry, but RIPE didn't make the laws! -- Regards, Terrence Koeman, PhD/MTh/BPsy Darkness Reigns (Holding) B.V. Please quote relevant replies. Spelling errors courtesy of my 'smart'phone. ________________________________ From: Markus Stalder <ms(a)lightupnet.de> Sent: Monday, 18 February 2019 11:21 To: members-discuss(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] RIPE legal: Please stop this madness! > --On 18.02.2019 09:24 +0000 Brandon Butterworth <brandon(a)rd.bbc.co.uk> > wrote: > > > My thought too. What are they playing at giving you an additional /22 > > which are supposed to be for new companies only. > > > > If I were you I'd shut up and do as they ask to collect my bonus /22, > > Useless reply because you missed the point completely. > > You should not tar everyone with the same brush, buddy. > > They can keep the /22, we don't need it. > > > > Mit freundlichen Grüßen > > Markus Stalder > ms(a)lightupnet.de > > Lightup Network Solutions GmbH & Co. KG > http://www.lightupnet.de > > Fon +49 (0)69 962 4456 0 (Zentrale) > Fon +49 (0)69 962 4456 11 (Durchwahl) > Fax +49 (0)69 962 4456 20 > __________________________________________________ > > Please direct all support issues directly to > support(a)lightupnet.de. This will guarantee fastest > processing possible. > > Bitte richten Sie alle Support-Anfragen direkt an > support(a)lightupnet.de. Nur so ist die schnellst- > mögliche Bearbeitung gewährleistet. > __________________________________________________ > > _______________________________________________ > 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-…

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] Billing scheme
by Terrence Koeman 28 Jan '19

28 Jan '19

Why would it be a "vast amount" of LIRs that have to quit? Why not a few? Also, apparently my crystal ball is bigger, because I see option: 3) -Members that can pay yearly will do so. -New members will know in advance they have to pay yearly and will do so. -Members will know not to open a new LIR if they can't pay the yearly fee. -RIPE will give the relatively few members that can't immediately pay yearly some flexibility in a transition period of 1 to 2 years on a case-by-case basis. During this time, these members should be able to save and plan for their yearly payment. That's more than reasonable. After this transitional period all members pay yearly, all complexity is gone (annual fee, paid annually: simple) and *more importantly*: so is the confusion about quarterly payments on an annual fee (especially when a member has multiple LIRs). We have seen this confusion repeatedly. Perhaps it's a cultural difference, but a nontrivial amount of people just don’t seem to get the fact that the membership fee is an ANNUAL fee and it remains an ANNUAL fee even when one is allowed to pay it in multiple terms. Eliminating that confusion is a good reason to me all on its own. -- Regards, Terrence Koeman, PhD/MTh/BPsy Darkness Reigns (Holding) B.V. Please quote relevant replies. > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net> On Behalf Of > Dominic Schallert > Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2019 4:06 PM > To: members-discuss(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Billing scheme > > I’m afraid that with this change, the whole billing process will even get > more complex and frustrating due to the large amount of smaller LIRs with > limited budget. Looking into the crystal ball, two possible things could > happen: 1) a vast amount of smaller LIRs and multi-LIRs will have to quit > because they simply can’t afford to pay all at once 2) as previously > announced, special payment agreements will be established for LIRs with > cash limitations (which means not much will change, except increased > billing complexity). Considering this, I haven’t seen any good reason for > this change yet. > > > > Am 08.01.2019 um 13:57 schrieb Isp-Broadcast <qendrim.kryeziu@isp- > broadcast.net>: > > > > friend, > > > > how much is the invoice for this year whether it is possible for > delivery, for 1 year and if you have the most paid offer for many years > with receiving a free year > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > >> On 8 Jan 2019, at 12:22, Terrence Koeman <terrence(a)darkness-reigns.com> > wrote: > >> > >> With all the confusion around billing I've seen on this list, I > understand RIPE discontinuing their service of allowing quarterly > payments. > >> > >> You can get a loan to bridge the first year and save up for subsequent > years, essentially replacing RIPE's free service by a commercial one with > an interest for the first year and by saving up yourself for the following > years. > >> > >> The extra costs of this change are only the interest for such a > business loan (which depends on the inflation of the currency your > business uses, but for EUR currently around 3-6% afaik). Even if it were > 10% interest on the €1k4 fee it'd be €140 spread out over a year > (=€12/month), that should not be a burden even for a very small business. > >> > >> -- > >> Regards, > >> Terrence Koeman, PhD/MTh/BPsy > >> Darkness Reigns (Holding) B.V. > >> > >> Please quote relevant replies. > >> > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net> On Behalf Of > >>> Marketing KTECHNOLOGY > >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2019 9:23 AM > >>> To: Serhii Khomenko <khomenko.serhii.m(a)gmail.com> > >>> Cc: members-discuss(a)ripe.net > >>> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Billing scheme > >>> > >>> Hi, the same problem here. > >>> > >>> I understand the problem for managing so many invoices but it became > hard > >>> for little busunesses. > >>> > >>> Il giorno mar 8 gen 2019, 07:44 Serhii Khomenko > >>> <khomenko.serhii.m(a)gmail.com <mailto:khomenko.serhii.m@gmail.com> > ha > >>> scritto: > >>> > >>> > >>> Dear RIPC NCC, > >>> I have received a notification that billing scheme would be changed > >>> from > >>> quarterly to annually. But it will be impossible for me to pay such > >>> big > >>> amount of money in one time. I ask you not to change the payment > >>> scheme. > >>> As I'm a private entrepreneur, it will be impossible to pay such > >>> amount > >>> in one payment. > >>> > >>> Hope for your understanding. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Kind regards, > >>> Serhii Khomenko > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> members-discuss mailing list > >>> members-discuss(a)ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> > >>> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members- > >>> discuss/marketing%40ktechnology.it > >>> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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/qendrim.kryeziu%40isp-broadcast.net > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/ds%40schallert.com

3 3

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Billing Changes: Transition Arrangements Available
by TrustHost 28 Jan '19

28 Jan '19

3 2

LIR’s billing issues with RIPE NCC, need support
by Juri 28 Jan '19

28 Jan '19

Dear RIPE NCC Members i.e. LIR! RIPE77 meeting is over but some questions still active and I want to bring them up for discussion. This is long-read, but please read it, it’s important. I work at ISP company and work a lot of with RIPE NCC as well as for LIR management and registrations. I want RIPE NCC become better for all LIRs and try to participate. For long time I face with RIPE NCC strange billing issues, and I feel not comfortable with them. I run ISP company and I understand how to manage customers and how usually billing for services of the IT company should work. I will try to split different issues in different emails. First I want to say that I tried to find an answer for my question from Finance department of the RIPE NCC, I spent a time for that and I found that it was not correct place for that. I was forwarded to RIPE NCC Board for such discussion. I wrote my experience at RIPE77 Meeting to the Board and got feedback that the ideas and facts I explained to them should be discussed in Members-Discuss list because they are not described in Policies. So that’s my try to do that. Let me show you several simple billing issues. They will be related to companies who pays much more than other companies to RIPE NCC. These are Multi LIR companies. Yes, everybody knows that company may have several LIR accounts at RIPE NCC if company pays membership and setup fees. This is quite normal and a lot of companies use this ability. Let’s start. What kind of issues do we have. Let me explain most important of them. 1) If a company want to do anything (transfer a part or merge with your existing company) with one of your LIRs RIPE NCC will ask you to pay till the end of the year for all LIRs. This is not fear and not correct because RIPE NCC really doesn’t give a LIR service for that companies. 2) Let’s say you just opened in December new one LIR for your company (and paid fees for the last 4th part of the year + setup fees) and want to do something with other LIR resources on account of the same company. RIPE NCC will ask to pay full year for LIR that were opened just in current year. What we have? You just get service for last part of the year but you should pay for membership for LIR for the time that it was not existed. This is insane for IT company to overcharge members for the past time. 3) If one company merge another one - they get still limitations for keeping several LIRs for several years. Such things should not happen. It was not so sometime before but now that happens. What I see? RIPE NCC overcharge LIRs. Why? It was not so some amount of time ago. RIPE NCC didn’t care about that, but they changed it without any discussion with members. Now I want to answer for Important question for those members who wish to start telling me about something else.... I will give you an answer here. All RIPE NCC members have the limit for changes/transfers and etc as 2 years (24 month) of hold time. If this time should be changed - it’s a way to Policy development process. Everybody believe that expenses for having extra LIR should be for 2 years (24 month), let’s say this is what we have and this delay is written in RIPE NCC documents. If we want to discuss this time - it's other one discussion. In real life this 2 years means 3 years (and usually *N). LIRs have to pay extra membership fees for (3-4 years)*N of LIRs, but not for 2 years as it should be. I find this unfair for LIRs. I want all LIRs have clear billing and pay for services/membership that we have really consumed. This is normal and correct to have clear and good billing. What do I suggest? I suggest RIPE NCC do correct accounting for each LIR for the time this LIR instance exists. If LIR has annual billing - then RIPE NCC should use it. If LIR selected quarterly billing - RIPE NCC show use. But RIPE NCC should not overcharge LIRs for the time they didn't give any services for LIR instance. Please support me and reply to this email. Or write your opinion. I believe RIPE NCC should work better for LIRs. Your voice is important. Juri ------------ NTX DataCenter/Hosting +7 (499) 346-76-29

20 23

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Billing Changes: Transition Arrangements Available
by Aleksey Bulgakov 22 Jan '19

22 Jan '19

Hi. The redistribution in 2018 was EUR 359.23. You received EUR 179.64, due to your member's fees were for half year in 2017. -------------- Regards, Alexey вт, 22 янв. 2019 г. в 17:02, Dominic Schallert <ds(a)schallert.com>: > > So this means a surplus redistribution of EUR 567.51,- per LIR in 2019? really? seems a lot to me. In 2018 it had been only around EUR 179.64 per LIR. > > Mit besten Grüßen > Kind Regards > > Dominic Schallert, BA > > > schallert.com e.U. | Hauptstraße 35b, 6800 Feldkirch, Austria > > FN: 440372g | UID: ATU66209211 | Gerichtsstand: Feldkirch > > Tel.: +43 680 146 1947 | Fax: +43 134 242 642 616 > > www.schallert.com | office(a)schallert.com > > > > > Am 22.01.2019 um 14:03 schrieb Gwen van Berne <ripencc-management(a)ripe.net>: > > Recognising that some of our members may need help to make this transition, we are able to offer a credit arrangement for those with a genuine need. Members should also note that with the redistribution of the surplus from 2018, the annual contribution for 2019 of EUR 1,400 will be compensated by the excess paid contribution of 2018, which will reduce the 2019 payment obligation for a single LIR to EUR 832.49. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/aleksbulgakov%40gmai… -- ---------- Best regards, Alexey Bulgakov Tel.: +7 (926)690-87-29

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Billing Changes: Transition Arrangements Available
by Dominic Schallert 22 Jan '19

22 Jan '19

So this means a surplus redistribution of EUR 567.51,- per LIR in 2019? really? seems a lot to me. In 2018 it had been only around EUR 179.64 per LIR. Mit besten Grüßen Kind Regards Dominic Schallert, BA schallert.com e.U. | Hauptstraße 35b, 6800 Feldkirch, Austria FN: 440372g | UID: ATU66209211 | Gerichtsstand: Feldkirch Tel.: +43 680 146 1947 | Fax: +43 134 242 642 616 www.schallert.com <http://www.schallert.com/> | office(a)schallert.com <mailto:office@schallert.com> > Am 22.01.2019 um 14:03 schrieb Gwen van Berne <ripencc-management(a)ripe.net>: > > Recognising that some of our members may need help to make this transition, we are able to offer a credit arrangement for those with a genuine need. Members should also note that with the redistribution of the surplus from 2018, the annual contribution for 2019 of EUR 1,400 will be compensated by the excess paid contribution of 2018, which will reduce the 2019 payment obligation for a single LIR to EUR 832.49.

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] [EXTERNAL] Re: New Charging Scheme
by Jørgen Hovland 22 Jan '19

22 Jan '19

1 0

Redistribution of Excess Member Contribution
by FreeData 21 Jan '19

21 Jan '19

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme
by ivaylo 18 Jan '19

18 Jan '19

Hello, Jonas Thank you for the numbers ! In my previous mail told, that these are examples only and pointed exact to this so now it is clear if the charging scheme is on net basis: 26000000 (targeting budget) / 3108576 = 8.37 EUROs for /24 per year ! Even if we put targeting budget x 2 it is very resonable fee for one /24 net. Also permanent LIR to LIR resources transfers must be disabled. Then what we will have: (again example numbers) registration fee: 2000 EURO Anual membership fee: 350 EURO (receive one /24 for free) For every next /24 dedicated + 10 EURO All LIR to LIR permanent transfers - disabled (If you need resources ask RIPE, if you dont need return to RIPE) Off course bigger operators that need large resources will pay more than now, but it is absolutely normal, they have larger bussiness with a lot more revenue, It is not fair to put on same basis small telecom with 2k-3k clients and operator with 20m - 30m clients. Ivaylo Josifov Varteh LTD Varna Bulgaria On Thu, 17 Jan 2019, Jonas Frey wrote: > Hello, > > sorry but that type of billing is totally nonsense. You obvisously > never calculated this with real data. Let me do it for you: > > According to > ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/stats/delegated-ripencc-extended-latest > RIPE currently assigned 817101048 IP addresses for real-use (excluding > reserved and free etc.). > That equals to roughly 3191800 /24's. There are currently 20806 LIR's ( > https://labs.ripe.net/statistics/number-of-lirs) if each one is > getting a /22 free, that means we have to deduct 83224 /24's from above > figure. That makes it 3108576 /24's which should be billed (according > to you). > 3108576*350 = 1.088.001.600,00 Euros. Yes, thats 1 billion euros. > RIPE's budget for 2018 was (projected) to be 26 million euros: > https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-693 > > As you can see this is utterly nonsense. As you might know, any surplus > the RIPE NCC generates (at the end of the fiscal year) will be re- > distributed to the members as RIPE is a association and not a company > in regular terms. > > Or are you trying to actually get paid from RIPE for using little count > of IPv4 addresses? > > Anything that is money related will *not* help to get IPv4 back or > solve this with the current form of membership and RIPE. There are > plenty of other ways (some of which have been proposed here) that are a > much better idea (migrating to IPv6 being the ultimate one). > > -J > > > > Am Mittwoch, den 16.01.2019, 17:22 +0200 schrieb ivaylo: >> Hello, >> >> I 100% agree with you ! >> >> As many resources one LIR consumes as bigger membership fee should >> be. >> >> Even to better optimize resources usage, the fee can be calculated on >> /24 >> basis. >> >> example: >> /17 = 128 x /24 >> fee = (128-4)*350 = 43 400 euro/year fee >> >> >> >> P.S. in your example should be: (32-1)*1400 = 39 200 euro. >> >> Ivaylo Josifov >> Varteh LTD >> Varna Bulgaria >> >> On Wed, 16 Jan 2019, TrustHost wrote: >> >>> >>> Hi. >>> >>> I think it would be great if the payment depends on the quantity >>> the >>> resources for one account. It would help to return unused IPv4 in >>> free pool >>> for new business. The companies, who really use big networks won't >>> notice >>> such changes. But who received the resources before 2012 and has >>> unused /19 >>> and maybe more will think if they really need such big blocks. >>> >>> For example we can implement the next charging scheme. >>> If one account has more than /20 (not equivalent 4x/22 or the >>> blocks were >>> allocated before 2012) the next /22 ownership will cost some price >>> (e.g. >>> 1400 euro). >>> >>> For example: >>> There is /17 IPv4 block for one LIR account. >>> /17 = 32x/22. >>> The total price for this account is (32-4)*1400 = 39 200 euro. >>> >>> I think the members must have equal rights, regardless of the year >>> of the >>> membership started. >>> >>> ------------------ >>> Kind regards, >>> Boris Loginov >>> >>> TrustHost LLC >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/r >> ipe%40probe-networks.de

11 20

Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme
by ripe-lr＠cidr.eu 17 Jan '19

17 Jan '19

3 2