- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

[ncc-announce] [GM] 2024/2025 Budget and IPv4 problems
by sdy＠a-n-t.ru 16 May '24

16 May '24

Hi, All. I would like again to point in: budget growth in the face of rising inflation will be inevitable! We don't need now to solve the budget rise problem. We need now to solve the problem of executing the main RIPE and NCC functions. Initially, the community was created and we joined as its members to organize an open and stable inter-network interaction. But in the end, we got a structure that requires more and more funds for its maintenance, but cannot in any way solve the systemic problem of lack of IPv4 and AS32 resources. For some reason, any attempts to start a discussion about the need to change the approach to the economic model or (and) the regulatory part are faced with inaction, primarily by EB NNC. I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but apparently those 7% of the 84% LIR holders historically (I emphasize HISTORICALLY) have a strong influence on the EB NCC and the RIPE agenda. I have already written more than once that in my opinion, the way out of the situation with growing costs and missing resources should be solved by introducing a flat scale of payment for scarce resources. The most optimal scenario in my opinion is the following: 1. The annual payment must consist of 2 parts: - The FIXED part - The VARIABLE part is directly dependent on the number of allocated SCARCE resources (now IPv4 and AS32) The amount of payments in this way should not affect the number of his votes. 2. In the first year, we have to plan payments and budget so that: - The FIXED part was about 1/4-1/2 of the planned budget - The VARIABLE part covered the rest of the planned budget with a surplus of at least 20%. 3. We must increase the payment for the PERMANENT part annually until at least 15% of the resources become available for distribution. At the same time, the community should allocate the funds received in excess of the planned budget for the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 or other new protocols. This can be the preparation of educational programs, the translation of articles into local languages, the completion and popularization of improvements to the IP stack or of training programs, the development of software to simplify migration and other initiatives. --- Dmitry Serbulov ----------------------------- С уважением Сербулов Дмитрий ООО "Альфа Нет Телеком" +7(498)785-8-000 раб. +7(495)940-92-11 доп. +7(925)518-10-69 сот.

1 0

Why there is low engagement? "Meet the Executive Board Candidates" feedback
by Denys Fedoryshchenko 16 May '24

16 May '24

I have now answer, why people dont attent online event about activity plan and etc etc. Answer is simple - this events are not organized well. I'm quite convinced now it is not fault of members and their lack of interest, but lot of inefficiency in communication and organization from RIPE NCC side that deter people from interacting with RIPE, which need to be fixed ASAP. This is also answer why there is low engagement in community. So, as we all know today was a day for "Open house" for the meeting executive candidates: https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/open-house/meet-the-may-2024-execu… 1) "Open house" term by definition means (*https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/open%20house): ``` An open house is a loosely organized social event — a party that's open to anyone who wants to come, at any time. You might have an open house to welcome your new next door neighbors. As opposed to a formal party that starts at a certain time and has a specific guest list, an open house is a casual celebration. You can also use this term for the event a realtor arranges at a home that's for sale, a day when it's open for touring to prospective buyers. Before it became the name of a kind of party, open house was used as a noun phrase meaning "hospitality for all visitors." ``` While on page it is written "For RIPE NCC Members only". This is NOT open house. Please take a look to definition, as it is confusing people. When i arrange my schedule, i assume people who arrange event familiar with terms they use. 2) As any person who have job, i have busy schedule, so in advance i read there is no limits on registration time/date on page. At morning of 15 May at 07:00 i was sure i can allocate 1:30 of my time and shift away work duties and clients meetings. At 07:10(approx) i finished confusing form where it was asking personal details (while RIPE have SSO). As there is no statement with whom this details will be shared(if they are shown in details of attendee, i'm ok to share my name only), or if they are used for verification, i put as company "Confidential". At 07:13 i received automated confirmation email, registration number 53. There was no further communication. As result i didn't receive any link to join event. Questions: 1)If this is RIPE NCC members only event, why there is no _automated_ verification of membership? If there is manual verification, why there is no statement about time limits and why my registration was not processed in time? 2)Why do we need registration at all? Click join, authenticate with SSO, and you are in. If you are not member, you are not in. Why do we need to fill forms and babysit email? Conclusion. IMO, there is few issues need to be addressed: 1)Registration process FAILED to deliver link to join event. This is totally unacceptable. I was able to join, just thanks one of my friends who shared link with me. 2)Event arranged by RIPE NCC was not open house. It was not possible to join event, as there was no link to join event. Either change term, or make event open. 3)Registration process verified manually. This is waste of human resources and obsolete way. No wonder RIPE NCC keep hiring. 4)Registration process is stated as member-only, but there is no automated verification of membership. I think partially reason is that there is mix up of requirements from past on-site events and current online-only events. Question is, why this is not fixed yet, since at COVID times such events was "online-only"? Separately i would like to ask, why person who review registration didn't provide me link in reasonable timeframe? Is that difficult to verify 5 short lines in 1.5+ hours? P.S. Hopefully recording of event will be released in timely manner.

2 1

New Q&A Page on the Charging Scheme 2025
by Fergal Cunningham 15 May '24

15 May '24

Dear all, We created a questions and answers page for the Charging Scheme 2025 discussions. We see several points raised a number of times, so we hope it will be useful to have the answers from the RIPE NCC collated in a single place: https://www.ripe.net/charging-scheme-2025-q-and-a If you think anything is missing, please contact me and we can update the page. And of course we'll continue to respond on the list when needed. And speaking of Q&As, the Executive Board Candidates Open House took place today. The candidates answered questions from members, including about the charging scheme discussions. We'll publish the recording of the session later this week. Candidates are also answering questions on the eb-candidates mailing list, so if you want to continue to discuss issues with your potential representatives on the board, you can subscribe at: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/eb-candidates Best regards, Fergal

1 0

GM topic
by Max Tulyev 10 May '24

10 May '24

Hello! I as the member would like to add a topic for vote on GM. What is the procedure to do that?

39 75

Re: [members-discuss] RIPE NCC forum, Community Projects Fund suggestions
by Gergana Petrova 08 May '24

08 May '24

Hi Denys, Thank you for your email and your message in the forum about the Community Projects Fund. I've now posted a reply. To you and others reading this, please continue the discussion: https://forum.ripe.net/t/ripe-ncc-community-projects-fund-suggestions/941 Best regards, Gergana -- Gergana Petrova Community Development Manager RIPE NCC > From: Denys Fedoryshchenko<nuclearcat(a)nuclearcat.com> > Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2024 at 20:04 > Subject: [members-discuss] RIPE NCC forum, Community Projects Fund suggestions > To:members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss(a)ripe.net> > > > As mailing list have now high engagement, i would like to hijack this > opportunity to share one more platform for discussion RIPE NCC > provides: Forum, athttps://forum.ripe.net > > I think current situation we reached is also result of low engagement > of RIPE NCC and members, and this should be two-way road. I think we > should also engage more with RIPE NCC projects, provide voluntary help, > and also feedback and suggestions. > > For example after attenting today 2023 RIPE NCC Community Projects Fund > open house event i learned about quite interesting needs of academic > community, which inspire me to contact educational institutions in my > country and offer help with their projects. But also i would like to > evaluate my suggestion to RIPE NCC by other members, and i think forum > is good place for that. > > Link to discussion: > https://forum.ripe.net/t/ripe-ncc-community-projects-fund-suggestions/941/1 > > My post (if some people don't like forums): > ``` > After attending 2023 RIPE NCC Community Projects Fund open house event > at 26 April 2024, i would like to propose several suggestions to > improve such events and RIPE NCC Community Projects Funding in general. > > 1. Openhouse could pre-publish presentation slides and videos. This > approach is more convenient than the current process. At present, we > have to allocate 1:30 hours for our meeting, but with pre-published > videos, we could view them, take notes, prepare data, and formulate > questions ahead of time. The complexity of the topics often prevents > attendees from asking questions during the live sessions. Having access > to materials in advance would facilitate more engaging and productive > discussions during the open house. Another advantage includes fewer > technical issues with Zoom, such as audio muting problems, and reduced > stress for presenters, who could prerecord and edit their > presentations. It would also be beneficial if these presentations were > transcribed, enabling us to search for specific topics and aiding those > with disabilities. > > 2. I am surprised that the live openhouse is the only platform for > discussion. I have suggested that we need a mailing list or forum. The > contact information for presenters is often insufficient; I would > prefer public discussions where I can see other people’s questions and > responses. This open format might also provide corrections if I > misunderstand something. > > 3. Projects posted on the Call for Participation (CFP) should at > least include a project website and contact information. > > 4. It would be preferable to publish projects on the CFP in advance > of approval to facilitate discussion. This allows attendees to prepare > questions and conduct research before projects are approved. For > example, concerning the topic of submarine cables, I have significant > doubts about the adequacy of using just traceroute for measurements. > Such projects need more comprehensive data inputs. For instance, many > ISPs might use a combination of old and new links for traffic > engineering, which traceroute may not adequately detect. Discussions > with project authors could reveal more intriguing aspects than what is > presented in their slides. Additionally, discussions might provide > insights on how projects could be adjusted to be more beneficial for > the community, as suggested by RIPE members, and members opinions can > be taken in consideration by Working Group during the project > evaluation. > > 5. Why are project reports (six-month, one-year) mentioned in > presentations but not published on the RIPE website? We need more > transparency to understand what has been accomplished and the outcomes > of these projects. (APNIC does that) > > 6. RIPE publishes very limited information about its projects. For > example, try finding the repository for “fpdns2: DNS Fingerprinting > Tool” based on the description provided. This lack of information > hinders our ability to follow up on project developments. > > There is more to suggest, but i prefer to get familiar with the > processes and community first. I hope these suggestions will be taken > into consideration and improve the RIPE NCC Community Projects Fund > open house events. > ``` > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/kwhite%4…

1 0

Fwd: Executive Board Meeting to Discuss Charging Scheme Input from Members
by AlbaHost SH.P.K 08 May '24

08 May '24

Dear Patrick, the right time would be, when RIPE NCC fill out their budget enought, which unfortunately this is not going to happen ever thouh. The exact meaning was by allowing multiLIR membership, just to collect as much money as possible, since there is no other justification! Cheers, Mentor L. -- *Sinqerisht / Sincerely,* AlbaHost [image: Logo] <https://www.albahost.net/> Albanian Hosting SH.P.K. Besim Beka p.n. 50000 Gjakovë, Kosovë. NIPT/VAT ID: 811442657 T: +386900501502 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.

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Executive Board Meeting to Discuss Charging Scheme Input from Members
by Kai Siering 08 May '24

08 May '24

Dear Ondřej, thank you for the update. As expected, the path forward the Board decided to take receives some critism. Although, if enough members don't agree with e. g. Articles 15.4, 15.5 and 15.6 anymore, I suppose the membership can move forward to amend or remove them, right? What are the timeframes here? I'm still offended by the repeated statement of "this is not the right time". It wasn't the right time in Spring 2023 to discuss the Budget, and the result was the vote for an unmodified Charging Scheme. There was no choice given to the membership to discuss and reduce the Budget in Autumn 2023, presuambly "not the right time" due to the five year plan in place. And now, in Spring 2024, we hear "this is not the right time" to make changes to neither the charging scheme nor the Budget. And, another slap in the face, the Board does not intend to reduce the Budget until before 2027, if ever: "the charging scheme options we put forward will do that for 2025 and 2026". As things did change fundamentally in the world we, the members, live in, I question it to be good governance to ignore these facts and stick to the five year plan unperturbed. If "[w]e listen to your feedback" would hold any water, the Board would have reacted appropriately after Spring 2023 and opened the discussion about the Budget back then — but instead the Board already made their mind and the Spring discussion of 2025 will see another (huge) increase in membership cost, as has been made clear now. As for legal advice, well, technically the proposal does not "propose a Charging Scheme" but the contrary: no new charging scheme for the time being. But let's look at the Articles in question: Am 19.04.24 um 15:08 schrieb Fergal Cunningham: > > Certain agenda items may only be proposed by the Executive Board. The Articles of Association indicate the following items: > > > - The adoption of the Charging Scheme with respect to the coming financial year (Art. 15.4.b) > > - The adoption of amendments to the Standard Service Agreement (Art. 15.5.c) > > - The approval of new arbiters and/or dismissal of current arbiters and/or adoption of amendments to the arbitration procedure (Art 15.5.d) > In the published English version of the 2024 AoA, 15.4 starts as follows: "The following subjects shall be placed on the agenda for the Annual Meeting or on the agenda for another General Meeting to be held in the same calendar year" — this is a "these things we have to discuss and decide upon _at least_ once a year". But it does not forbid to e. g. vote on a Charging Scheme (15.4 b) more than once per calender year either. 15.4 b reads "the adoption of the Charging Scheme with respect to the coming financial year upon proposal of the Executive Board", 15.4 e "other proposals and/or discussion points put forward by the Executive Board or (a groupof) Members of the Association (pursuant toarticle15.6) and announced in the convocation for the Meeting". There is no exclusivity in 15.4 b that _only_ the Executive Board may suggest a Charging Scheme, but there's an obligation to the Board to suggest one at least once a year. Nor does 15.4 e prevent contradicting proposals to what the Executive Board proposes, especially not on bullet point topics mentioned earlier. Thus, prohibiting voting on the proposal "Keep current billing scheme for the next year", which has passed 15.6 requirements, has no legal grounds AFAICS. There's simply no wording to even suggest that. I don't expect the legally binding Dutch version to contain that either. Is it good governance to subject the General Meeting's decision finding to be questioned in Court? Cui bono? -kai Am 07.05.24 um 15:54 schrieb Ondřej Filip: > Dear members, > > On 6 May, 2024, the Executive Board held a meeting to discuss the input we received from members regarding the Board proposal for the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025. We will publish the minutes as soon as possible, but I want to first give you a summary of the discussions and the outcomes from the meeting. > > Since we started engaging with the membership on the charging scheme this year, we have received over 400 emails on the topic. For the first time, we also have a member proposal for a GM agenda topic that has received the required number of expressions of support to be added to the GM agenda. Therefore, we felt it was important for the Board to have this extra meeting, review the various points that were brought forward, and consider the next steps in this process. There were many important points to discuss at this meeting, and although the outcome might not please everyone, the Board was fully aligned on how it should move forward. > > First, we considered again what we had decided upon at the Board meeting in March. The Board consciously did not put forward a proposal to keep the charging scheme as it is because we don’t believe that it would be good governance to make a proposal that leaves us with a large deficit, and good governance is what is expected from us by the members who elect us. > > Furthermore, some of the suggestions from members would change the funding model in a way that would put the organisation at risk, and while the Board represents the membegood governancers, it also has legal and fiduciary responsibilities towards the organisation. It is clear that one of the main responsibilities of the Board is to propose a charging scheme that will properly fund the association, and the charging scheme options we put forward will do that for 2025 and 2026. So we will put forward the three options as proposed on 24 April 2024 for members to vote on at the GM[1]. > > There were many proposals to provide that funding in alternative ways. However, we believe that this is not the right time to make fundamental changes to the charging model. We are about to embark on a full review of the organisation and its structures, and that will take some time. For us to implement that review and any resulting actions, we need stable funding. All three of the proposed options offer us this. We also note that the redistribution mechanism allows us to return any surplus made to the membership in the following year should members vote to do so. The Board and the Managing Director will also continue to work to improve efficiency and identify areas for cost savings. > > We did consider moving this vote to later in the year, but this would negatively impact our planning for 2025, and it would also distract from the very important discussions we need to have with members during the Activity Plan and Budget process this Autumn. During that discussion, we do expect that the members who are convinced that the RIPE NCC needs to reduce its budget will tell us which services need to be reduced or cut in order to accommodate such a reduction. > > At our meeting, the Board also discussed the structural review that will take place. This will begin at the RIPE 88 Meeting in two weeks with a BoF on how to build a stable future for the RIPE NCC. We expect that there will be a productive discussion on many issues that need to be resolved so that the RIPE NCC can move forward stably and with a funding model that has the support of its membership. We will keep the membership updated on the outcomes of those discussions and how the members can contribute to the work that will surely emerge from them. > > Regarding the membership proposal[2], we acknowledge that the threshold was met to add the GM agenda topic “Keep current billing scheme for the next year”. We will add this as a topic to the agenda as required by the Articles of Association. However, this will not be added as a proposed resolution for members to vote on. Articles 15.4, 15.5 and 15.6 of the RIPE NCC Articles of Association do not allow members to propose a Charging Scheme, as reaffirmed by the external law firm that gives us expert advice on Dutch corporate law. > > This legal framework ensures that a Charging Scheme may only be proposed by those who were elected to serve on the Executive Board, who have better insight into the financials and the operations of the organisation, and who have a duty of care for the well-being of the organisation and are liable in case of mismanagement. Parties without such insight, responsibility and liability may not put forward charging schemes for voting that - although appealing for individual members - may be inappropriate for the sustainability of the organisation. > > To summarise, the Board recognises the member sentiment and we are committed to addressing it for the long term. However, we must do what we believe is best for the stability of the organisation and its membership, even if it is not an easy or popular thing to do. This is what is required of us when we legally commit to be Board members, and we will faithfully execute on our commitments in this regard. > > We listen to your feedback and ideas, and on behalf of the Board I thank you for engaging in these important discussions and look forward to seeing them continue as we work towards a sustainable outcome for the RIPE NCC. > > The RIPE NCC Executive Board > > Ondřej Filip, Chair > Raymond Jetten, Treasurer > Piotr Strzyżewski, Secretary > Maria Häll, Member > Remco van Mook, Member > Job Snijders, Member > Harald A. Summa, Member > > [1] https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2024/documentation… > > [2] https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/member-proposals/ > -- Kai Siering Senior System Engineer mail.de GmbH Münsterstraße 3 D-33330 Gütersloh Tel.: +49 (0) 5241 / 74 34 986 Fax: +49 (0) 5241 / 74 34 987 E-Mail:k.siering@team.mail.de Web:https://mail.de/ Geschäftsführender Gesellschafter: Fabian Bock Sitz der Gesellschaft Nordhastedt Handelsregister Pinneberg HRB 8007 PI Steuernummer 18 293 20020

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Executive Board Meeting to Discuss Charging Scheme Input from Members
by ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED 08 May '24

08 May '24

My draft calculator for proportional fee proposal. https://ripe-charging-scheme-proportional1.roskomnadzor.io/ My small calculator: - get actual information from RIPE delegated data and RIPE alloclist - allow to enter orgID and receive list of network for calculation - allow to manually enter any amount of prefixes - allow to configure RIPE year budget - show detailed information about calculation process - no external dependency or network request - all calculation only in browser - simple as possible Feedbacks are welcome! Have fun. On 07.05.2024 13:54, Ondřej Filip wrote: > Dear members, > > On 6 May, 2024, the Executive Board held a meeting to discuss the input > we received from members regarding the Board proposal for the RIPE NCC > Charging Scheme 2025. We will publish the minutes as soon as possible, > but I want to first give you a summary of the discussions and the > outcomes from the meeting. > > Since we started engaging with the membership on the charging scheme > this year, we have received over 400 emails on the topic. For the first > time, we also have a member proposal for a GM agenda topic that has > received the required number of expressions of support to be added to > the GM agenda. Therefore, we felt it was important for the Board to have > this extra meeting, review the various points that were brought forward, > and consider the next steps in this process. There were many important > points to discuss at this meeting, and although the outcome might not > please everyone, the Board was fully aligned on how it should move forward. > > First, we considered again what we had decided upon at the Board meeting > in March. The Board consciously did not put forward a proposal to keep > the charging scheme as it is because we don’t believe that it would be > good governance to make a proposal that leaves us with a large deficit, > and good governance is what is expected from us by the members who elect > us. > > Furthermore, some of the suggestions from members would change the > funding model in a way that would put the organisation at risk, and > while the Board represents the members, it also has legal and fiduciary > responsibilities towards the organisation. It is clear that one of the > main responsibilities of the Board is to propose a charging scheme that > will properly fund the association, and the charging scheme options we > put forward will do that for 2025 and 2026. So we will put forward the > three options as proposed on 24 April 2024 for members to vote on at the > GM[1]. > > There were many proposals to provide that funding in alternative ways. > However, we believe that this is not the right time to make fundamental > changes to the charging model. We are about to embark on a full review > of the organisation and its structures, and that will take some time. > For us to implement that review and any resulting actions, we need > stable funding. All three of the proposed options offer us this. We also > note that the redistribution mechanism allows us to return any surplus > made to the membership in the following year should members vote to do > so. The Board and the Managing Director will also continue to work to > improve efficiency and identify areas for cost savings. > > We did consider moving this vote to later in the year, but this would > negatively impact our planning for 2025, and it would also distract from > the very important discussions we need to have with members during the > Activity Plan and Budget process this Autumn. During that discussion, we > do expect that the members who are convinced that the RIPE NCC needs to > reduce its budget will tell us which services need to be reduced or cut > in order to accommodate such a reduction. > > At our meeting, the Board also discussed the structural review that will > take place. This will begin at the RIPE 88 Meeting in two weeks with a > BoF on how to build a stable future for the RIPE NCC. We expect that > there will be a productive discussion on many issues that need to be > resolved so that the RIPE NCC can move forward stably and with a funding > model that has the support of its membership. We will keep the > membership updated on the outcomes of those discussions and how the > members can contribute to the work that will surely emerge from them. > > Regarding the membership proposal[2], we acknowledge that the threshold > was met to add the GM agenda topic “Keep current billing scheme for the > next year”. We will add this as a topic to the agenda as required by the > Articles of Association. However, this will not be added as a proposed > resolution for members to vote on. Articles 15.4, 15.5 and 15.6 of the > RIPE NCC Articles of Association do not allow members to propose a > Charging Scheme, as reaffirmed by the external law firm that gives us > expert advice on Dutch corporate law. > > This legal framework ensures that a Charging Scheme may only be proposed > by those who were elected to serve on the Executive Board, who have > better insight into the financials and the operations of the > organisation, and who have a duty of care for the well-being of the > organisation and are liable in case of mismanagement. Parties without > such insight, responsibility and liability may not put forward charging > schemes for voting that - although appealing for individual members - > may be inappropriate for the sustainability of the organisation. > > To summarise, the Board recognises the member sentiment and we are > committed to addressing it for the long term. However, we must do what > we believe is best for the stability of the organisation and its > membership, even if it is not an easy or popular thing to do. This is > what is required of us when we legally commit to be Board members, and > we will faithfully execute on our commitments in this regard. > > We listen to your feedback and ideas, and on behalf of the Board I thank > you for engaging in these important discussions and look forward to > seeing them continue as we work towards a sustainable outcome for the > RIPE NCC. > > The RIPE NCC Executive Board > > Ondřej Filip, Chair > Raymond Jetten, Treasurer > Piotr Strzyżewski, Secretary > Maria Häll, Member > Remco van Mook, Member > Job Snijders, Member > Harald A. Summa, Member > > [1] > https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2024/documentation… > > > [2] https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/member-proposals/ >

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Executive Board Meeting to Discuss Charging Scheme Input from Members
by Patrick Velder 07 May '24

07 May '24

Ondrej, when do you believe, the right time will be? On 07.05.24 15:54, Ondřej Filip wrote: > Dear members, > > On 6 May, 2024, the Executive Board held a meeting to discuss the > input we received from members regarding the Board proposal for the > RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025. We will publish the minutes as soon as > possible, but I want to first give you a summary of the discussions > and the outcomes from the meeting. > > Since we started engaging with the membership on the charging scheme > this year, we have received over 400 emails on the topic. For the > first time, we also have a member proposal for a GM agenda topic that > has received the required number of expressions of support to be added > to the GM agenda. Therefore, we felt it was important for the Board to > have this extra meeting, review the various points that were brought > forward, and consider the next steps in this process. There were many > important points to discuss at this meeting, and although the outcome > might not please everyone, the Board was fully aligned on how it > should move forward. > > First, we considered again what we had decided upon at the Board > meeting in March. The Board consciously did not put forward a proposal > to keep the charging scheme as it is because we don’t believe that it > would be good governance to make a proposal that leaves us with a > large deficit, and good governance is what is expected from us by the > members who elect us. > > Furthermore, some of the suggestions from members would change the > funding model in a way that would put the organisation at risk, and > while the Board represents the members, it also has legal and > fiduciary responsibilities towards the organisation. It is clear that > one of the main responsibilities of the Board is to propose a charging > scheme that will properly fund the association, and the charging > scheme options we put forward will do that for 2025 and 2026. So we > will put forward the three options as proposed on 24 April 2024 for > members to vote on at the GM[1]. > > There were many proposals to provide that funding in alternative ways. > However, we believe that this is not the right time to make > fundamental changes to the charging model. We are about to embark on a > full review of the organisation and its structures, and that will take > some time. For us to implement that review and any resulting actions, > we need stable funding. All three of the proposed options offer us > this. We also note that the redistribution mechanism allows us to > return any surplus made to the membership in the following year should > members vote to do so. The Board and the Managing Director will also > continue to work to improve efficiency and identify areas for cost > savings. > > We did consider moving this vote to later in the year, but this would > negatively impact our planning for 2025, and it would also distract > from the very important discussions we need to have with members > during the Activity Plan and Budget process this Autumn. During that > discussion, we do expect that the members who are convinced that the > RIPE NCC needs to reduce its budget will tell us which services need > to be reduced or cut in order to accommodate such a reduction. > > At our meeting, the Board also discussed the structural review that > will take place. This will begin at the RIPE 88 Meeting in two weeks > with a BoF on how to build a stable future for the RIPE NCC. We expect > that there will be a productive discussion on many issues that need to > be resolved so that the RIPE NCC can move forward stably and with a > funding model that has the support of its membership. We will keep the > membership updated on the outcomes of those discussions and how the > members can contribute to the work that will surely emerge from them. > > Regarding the membership proposal[2], we acknowledge that the > threshold was met to add the GM agenda topic “Keep current billing > scheme for the next year”. We will add this as a topic to the agenda > as required by the Articles of Association. However, this will not be > added as a proposed resolution for members to vote on. Articles 15.4, > 15.5 and 15.6 of the RIPE NCC Articles of Association do not allow > members to propose a Charging Scheme, as reaffirmed by the external > law firm that gives us expert advice on Dutch corporate law. > > This legal framework ensures that a Charging Scheme may only be > proposed by those who were elected to serve on the Executive Board, > who have better insight into the financials and the operations of the > organisation, and who have a duty of care for the well-being of the > organisation and are liable in case of mismanagement. Parties without > such insight, responsibility and liability may not put forward > charging schemes for voting that - although appealing for individual > members - may be inappropriate for the sustainability of the > organisation. > > To summarise, the Board recognises the member sentiment and we are > committed to addressing it for the long term. However, we must do what > we believe is best for the stability of the organisation and its > membership, even if it is not an easy or popular thing to do. This is > what is required of us when we legally commit to be Board members, and > we will faithfully execute on our commitments in this regard. > > We listen to your feedback and ideas, and on behalf of the Board I > thank you for engaging in these important discussions and look forward > to seeing them continue as we work towards a sustainable outcome for > the RIPE NCC. > > The RIPE NCC Executive Board > > Ondřej Filip, Chair > Raymond Jetten, Treasurer > Piotr Strzyżewski, Secretary > Maria Häll, Member > Remco van Mook, Member > Job Snijders, Member > Harald A. Summa, Member > > [1] > https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2024/documentation… > > [2] https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/member-proposals/ >

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Executive Board Meeting to Discuss Charging Scheme Input from Members
by Claudius Zingerli 07 May '24

07 May '24

Dear readers, TL'DR: Below mail from the Executive Board reads to me as: We don't care about what our members say and coerce them into accepting one of the three proposed expensive solutions. I am surprised by how an elected Executive Board on one hand fails to convince the voters that their proposals are good and valid and on the other hand completely ignores the many proposals from the voters. In the past GMs the budget topic came up multiple times and members mostly agreed that expenses are too high and have to be cut. Instead we now get a proposal for an even higher budget and no option to decline it. On the last GM, the three pretty similar category-based models were declined not because they were category-based, but because the cost for most (many?) members would have gone up. Reading the mailing-list, I can assume there is a significant portion of members that would prefer to have the fees correlated to resource-consumption (mostly per #IPv4-addresses). Such models can be implemented neutral to RIPEs budget and in case that everyone migrates to IPv6, fee per IPv4 address/IPv6 prefix can be adapted accordingly. I am disappointed by the path the Executive Board is following. Stop presenting excuses ("not enough time", "not the right time", "not be added as a proposed resolution for members to vote on", "external law firm"), but LISTEN to what the members say and act accordingly! If you're sure that you're on a good path, add the proposed ideas and solutions to the agenda and let members vote on them. Currently, the May 2024 GM agenda is still called "Draft Agenda", so adding them should be just fine. Regards, Claudius -- Kantonsschule Zug/AS34288 Claudius Zingerli, Dr. sc. ETH Zürich Technischer Leiter Informatik, NOC Luessiweg 24 6300 Zug Switzerland On 07.05.24 15:54, Ondřej Filip wrote: > Dear members, > > On 6 May, 2024, the Executive Board held a meeting to discuss the input we received from members regarding the Board proposal for the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025. We will publish the minutes as soon as possible, but I want to first give you a summary of the discussions and the outcomes from the meeting. > > Since we started engaging with the membership on the charging scheme this year, we have received over 400 emails on the topic. For the first time, we also have a member proposal for a GM agenda topic that has received the required number of expressions of support to be added to the GM agenda. Therefore, we felt it was important for the Board to have this extra meeting, review the various points that were brought forward, and consider the next steps in this process. There were many important points to discuss at this meeting, and although the outcome might not please everyone, the Board was fully aligned on how it should move forward. > > First, we considered again what we had decided upon at the Board meeting in March. The Board consciously did not put forward a proposal to keep the charging scheme as it is because we don’t believe that it would be good governance to make a proposal that leaves us with a large deficit, and good governance is what is expected from us by the members who elect us. > > Furthermore, some of the suggestions from members would change the funding model in a way that would put the organisation at risk, and while the Board represents the members, it also has legal and fiduciary responsibilities towards the organisation. It is clear that one of the main responsibilities of the Board is to propose a charging scheme that will properly fund the association, and the charging scheme options we put forward will do that for 2025 and 2026. So we will put forward the three options as proposed on 24 April 2024 for members to vote on at the GM[1]. > > There were many proposals to provide that funding in alternative ways. However, we believe that this is not the right time to make fundamental changes to the charging model. We are about to embark on a full review of the organisation and its structures, and that will take some time. For us to implement that review and any resulting actions, we need stable funding. All three of the proposed options offer us this. We also note that the redistribution mechanism allows us to return any surplus made to the membership in the following year should members vote to do so. The Board and the Managing Director will also continue to work to improve efficiency and identify areas for cost savings. > > We did consider moving this vote to later in the year, but this would negatively impact our planning for 2025, and it would also distract from the very important discussions we need to have with members during the Activity Plan and Budget process this Autumn. During that discussion, we do expect that the members who are convinced that the RIPE NCC needs to reduce its budget will tell us which services need to be reduced or cut in order to accommodate such a reduction. > > At our meeting, the Board also discussed the structural review that will take place. This will begin at the RIPE 88 Meeting in two weeks with a BoF on how to build a stable future for the RIPE NCC. We expect that there will be a productive discussion on many issues that need to be resolved so that the RIPE NCC can move forward stably and with a funding model that has the support of its membership. We will keep the membership updated on the outcomes of those discussions and how the members can contribute to the work that will surely emerge from them. > > Regarding the membership proposal[2], we acknowledge that the threshold was met to add the GM agenda topic “Keep current billing scheme for the next year”. We will add this as a topic to the agenda as required by the Articles of Association. However, this will not be added as a proposed resolution for members to vote on. Articles 15.4, 15.5 and 15.6 of the RIPE NCC Articles of Association do not allow members to propose a Charging Scheme, as reaffirmed by the external law firm that gives us expert advice on Dutch corporate law. > > This legal framework ensures that a Charging Scheme may only be proposed by those who were elected to serve on the Executive Board, who have better insight into the financials and the operations of the organisation, and who have a duty of care for the well-being of the organisation and are liable in case of mismanagement. Parties without such insight, responsibility and liability may not put forward charging schemes for voting that - although appealing for individual members - may be inappropriate for the sustainability of the organisation. > > To summarise, the Board recognises the member sentiment and we are committed to addressing it for the long term. However, we must do what we believe is best for the stability of the organisation and its membership, even if it is not an easy or popular thing to do. This is what is required of us when we legally commit to be Board members, and we will faithfully execute on our commitments in this regard. > > We listen to your feedback and ideas, and on behalf of the Board I thank you for engaging in these important discussions and look forward to seeing them continue as we work towards a sustainable outcome for the RIPE NCC. > > The RIPE NCC Executive Board > > Ondřej Filip, Chair > Raymond Jetten, Treasurer > Piotr Strzyżewski, Secretary > Maria Häll, Member > Remco van Mook, Member > Job Snijders, Member > Harald A. Summa, Member > > [1] https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2024/documentation… > > [2] https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/member-proposals/ >

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Executive Board Meeting to Discuss Charging Scheme Input from Members
by Wieger Bontekoe 07 May '24

07 May '24

What a special turn of events. First you give the members (after confirmation from your side) the opportunity to come to a vote to add this to the agenda, then you withdraw the matter and say that "oops, it wasn't allowed after all"? > We will add this as a topic to the agenda as required by the Articles > of Association. However, this will not be added as a proposed > resolution for members to vote on. Articles 15.4, 15.5 and 15.6 of the > RIPE NCC Articles of Association do not allow members to propose a > Charging Scheme, as reaffirmed by the external law firm that gives us > expert advice on Dutch corporate law. Can you quote the part where this is stated, I have just read through the articles and cannot come to the same conclusion. Nowhere is a subject excluded in Article 15.6 to which it relates; > On the application In Writing of a group of Members who are jointly > entitled to cast at least two percent (2%) of the total number of > possible votes, other subjects will be added to the agenda. Such an > application, accompanied by the verbatim text of the resolutions > proposed by the said Members, shall have to be sent to the Executive > Board at least two weeks before the Meeting. As you can read here, there are no specific restrictions as you now claim. The fact that Articles 15.4 and 15.5 state that the board will make a proposal does not rule this out either, if you are referring to the word 'other' here, then this is really far too vague and not exclusionary. If this is supposed to mean that subjects from Articles 15.4 and 15.5 are to be excluded, then this should have been immediately clear when the question came up (apparently this was also unclear to the board and had to find a way out through the lawyers), and it should have been explicitly stated that the subjects in the intended/above paragraphs are excluded. Given the amount of votes, it would send out a very bad signal if the Board would decide proceed in this way. Wieger Bontekoe Principal Site Reliability Engineer On 5/7/24 3:54 PM, Ondřej Filip wrote: > We will add this as a topic to the agenda as required by the Articles > of Association. However, this will not be added as a proposed > resolution for members to vote on. Articles 15.4, 15.5 and 15.6 of the > RIPE NCC Articles of Association do not allow members to propose a > Charging Scheme, as reaffirmed by the external law firm that gives us > expert advice on Dutch corporate law.

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Executive Board Meeting to Discuss Charging Scheme Input from Members
by ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED 07 May '24

07 May '24

Ondřej Filip, please reveal information about how EB members vote for that? Who vote for Accept this resolution and who vote for Reject this resolution. Thanks. On 07.05.2024 13:54, Ondřej Filip wrote: > Dear members, > > On 6 May, 2024, the Executive Board held a meeting to discuss the input > we received from members regarding the Board proposal for the RIPE NCC > Charging Scheme 2025. We will publish the minutes as soon as possible, > but I want to first give you a summary of the discussions and the > outcomes from the meeting. > > Since we started engaging with the membership on the charging scheme > this year, we have received over 400 emails on the topic. For the first > time, we also have a member proposal for a GM agenda topic that has > received the required number of expressions of support to be added to > the GM agenda. Therefore, we felt it was important for the Board to have > this extra meeting, review the various points that were brought forward, > and consider the next steps in this process. There were many important > points to discuss at this meeting, and although the outcome might not > please everyone, the Board was fully aligned on how it should move forward. > > First, we considered again what we had decided upon at the Board meeting > in March. The Board consciously did not put forward a proposal to keep > the charging scheme as it is because we don’t believe that it would be > good governance to make a proposal that leaves us with a large deficit, > and good governance is what is expected from us by the members who elect > us. > > Furthermore, some of the suggestions from members would change the > funding model in a way that would put the organisation at risk, and > while the Board represents the members, it also has legal and fiduciary > responsibilities towards the organisation. It is clear that one of the > main responsibilities of the Board is to propose a charging scheme that > will properly fund the association, and the charging scheme options we > put forward will do that for 2025 and 2026. So we will put forward the > three options as proposed on 24 April 2024 for members to vote on at the > GM[1]. > > There were many proposals to provide that funding in alternative ways. > However, we believe that this is not the right time to make fundamental > changes to the charging model. We are about to embark on a full review > of the organisation and its structures, and that will take some time. > For us to implement that review and any resulting actions, we need > stable funding. All three of the proposed options offer us this. We also > note that the redistribution mechanism allows us to return any surplus > made to the membership in the following year should members vote to do > so. The Board and the Managing Director will also continue to work to > improve efficiency and identify areas for cost savings. > > We did consider moving this vote to later in the year, but this would > negatively impact our planning for 2025, and it would also distract from > the very important discussions we need to have with members during the > Activity Plan and Budget process this Autumn. During that discussion, we > do expect that the members who are convinced that the RIPE NCC needs to > reduce its budget will tell us which services need to be reduced or cut > in order to accommodate such a reduction. > > At our meeting, the Board also discussed the structural review that will > take place. This will begin at the RIPE 88 Meeting in two weeks with a > BoF on how to build a stable future for the RIPE NCC. We expect that > there will be a productive discussion on many issues that need to be > resolved so that the RIPE NCC can move forward stably and with a funding > model that has the support of its membership. We will keep the > membership updated on the outcomes of those discussions and how the > members can contribute to the work that will surely emerge from them. > > Regarding the membership proposal[2], we acknowledge that the threshold > was met to add the GM agenda topic “Keep current billing scheme for the > next year”. We will add this as a topic to the agenda as required by the > Articles of Association. However, this will not be added as a proposed > resolution for members to vote on. Articles 15.4, 15.5 and 15.6 of the > RIPE NCC Articles of Association do not allow members to propose a > Charging Scheme, as reaffirmed by the external law firm that gives us > expert advice on Dutch corporate law. > > This legal framework ensures that a Charging Scheme may only be proposed > by those who were elected to serve on the Executive Board, who have > better insight into the financials and the operations of the > organisation, and who have a duty of care for the well-being of the > organisation and are liable in case of mismanagement. Parties without > such insight, responsibility and liability may not put forward charging > schemes for voting that - although appealing for individual members - > may be inappropriate for the sustainability of the organisation. > > To summarise, the Board recognises the member sentiment and we are > committed to addressing it for the long term. However, we must do what > we believe is best for the stability of the organisation and its > membership, even if it is not an easy or popular thing to do. This is > what is required of us when we legally commit to be Board members, and > we will faithfully execute on our commitments in this regard. > > We listen to your feedback and ideas, and on behalf of the Board I thank > you for engaging in these important discussions and look forward to > seeing them continue as we work towards a sustainable outcome for the > RIPE NCC. > > The RIPE NCC Executive Board > > Ondřej Filip, Chair > Raymond Jetten, Treasurer > Piotr Strzyżewski, Secretary > Maria Häll, Member > Remco van Mook, Member > Job Snijders, Member > Harald A. Summa, Member > > [1] > https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2024/documentation… > > > [2] https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/member-proposals/ >

1 0

End user (natural person) ID check: sensitive documents stored to "idenfy.com" ?
by Clement Cavadore 02 May '24

02 May '24

Dear all, I, as LIR, have received requests from RIPE NCC, as they are running a project to verify all the resource holders registered with them, to check the ID of some of our end users (natural persons). We have been provided links to a third party organization which (I think) runs ID check on behalf of RIPE NCC. The URL for those check is ivs.idenfy.com/<something>. The fact is that: - We do not have any information regarding how those sensitive documents are processed (and stored ?) - the URL is hosted bedhind an AWS URL, and this is not really an acceptable solution for RGPD. Could we please have more infos on this ? Thanks in advance Clément Cavadore

5 4

Board Meeting on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme
by Ondřej Filip 01 May '24

01 May '24

Dear all, We have continued to listen to the arguments you have put forward and we see the large number of support messages the proposed member agenda topic has received. We have scheduled a Board meeting for early next week to discuss the best way forward. We are also looking at the legal analysis and hope to arrive at a solution that is both compliant with our governance and which recognises the feedback we have received on this list. We will update the members on the outcome of that Board meeting as soon as possible. Kind regards, Ondřej Filip Chair, RIPE NCC Executive Board

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Final RIPE NCC Charging Schemes for Members to Vote On
by Sebastien Brossier 27 Apr '24

27 Apr '24

Dear board, On 24/04/2024 15:39, Ondřej Filip wrote: > The Board does not want to make fundamental changes to our charging > model while we are starting work to revamp our entire governance and > funding structures. To make dramatic changes now, while we are likely to > make big changes in the coming year or two, does not seem worthwhile or > appropriate at this time, and it might make the job of properly > reviewing our structures much more difficult. It seems a little bit pointless to discuss models now without knowing anything about the structural changes you are planning, if they are going to have such a big impact. Can you please tell us more about this revamp, maybe at the GM ? Best regards Sebastien Brossier

1 0

RIPE NCC forum, Community Projects Fund suggestions
by Denys Fedoryshchenko 26 Apr '24

26 Apr '24

As mailing list have now high engagement, i would like to hijack this opportunity to share one more platform for discussion RIPE NCC provides: Forum, at https://forum.ripe.net I think current situation we reached is also result of low engagement of RIPE NCC and members, and this should be two-way road. I think we should also engage more with RIPE NCC projects, provide voluntary help, and also feedback and suggestions. For example after attenting today 2023 RIPE NCC Community Projects Fund open house event i learned about quite interesting needs of academic community, which inspire me to contact educational institutions in my country and offer help with their projects. But also i would like to evaluate my suggestion to RIPE NCC by other members, and i think forum is good place for that. Link to discussion: https://forum.ripe.net/t/ripe-ncc-community-projects-fund-suggestions/941/1 My post (if some people don't like forums): ``` After attending 2023 RIPE NCC Community Projects Fund open house event at 26 April 2024, i would like to propose several suggestions to improve such events and RIPE NCC Community Projects Funding in general. 1. Openhouse could pre-publish presentation slides and videos. This approach is more convenient than the current process. At present, we have to allocate 1:30 hours for our meeting, but with pre-published videos, we could view them, take notes, prepare data, and formulate questions ahead of time. The complexity of the topics often prevents attendees from asking questions during the live sessions. Having access to materials in advance would facilitate more engaging and productive discussions during the open house. Another advantage includes fewer technical issues with Zoom, such as audio muting problems, and reduced stress for presenters, who could prerecord and edit their presentations. It would also be beneficial if these presentations were transcribed, enabling us to search for specific topics and aiding those with disabilities. 2. I am surprised that the live openhouse is the only platform for discussion. I have suggested that we need a mailing list or forum. The contact information for presenters is often insufficient; I would prefer public discussions where I can see other people’s questions and responses. This open format might also provide corrections if I misunderstand something. 3. Projects posted on the Call for Participation (CFP) should at least include a project website and contact information. 4. It would be preferable to publish projects on the CFP in advance of approval to facilitate discussion. This allows attendees to prepare questions and conduct research before projects are approved. For example, concerning the topic of submarine cables, I have significant doubts about the adequacy of using just traceroute for measurements. Such projects need more comprehensive data inputs. For instance, many ISPs might use a combination of old and new links for traffic engineering, which traceroute may not adequately detect. Discussions with project authors could reveal more intriguing aspects than what is presented in their slides. Additionally, discussions might provide insights on how projects could be adjusted to be more beneficial for the community, as suggested by RIPE members, and members opinions can be taken in consideration by Working Group during the project evaluation. 5. Why are project reports (six-month, one-year) mentioned in presentations but not published on the RIPE website? We need more transparency to understand what has been accomplished and the outcomes of these projects. (APNIC does that) 6. RIPE publishes very limited information about its projects. For example, try finding the repository for “fpdns2: DNS Fingerprinting Tool” based on the description provided. This lack of information hinders our ability to follow up on project developments. There is more to suggest, but i prefer to get familiar with the processes and community first. I hope these suggestions will be taken into consideration and improve the RIPE NCC Community Projects Fund open house events. ```

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Final RIPE NCC Charging Schemes for Members to Vote On
by Clement Cavadore 25 Apr '24

25 Apr '24

Dear exec board, On Wed, 2024-04-24 at 15:39 +0200, Ondřej Filip wrote: > We have now published the final RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 options > that will be voted on by members at the General Meeting on 22-24 May. > These can be viewed at: > https://www.ripe.net/gm/meetings/may-2024/supporting-documents > > The outcome is that we propose three charging schemes for the > membership to choose from: > (...) > We understand that this will frustrate those who have argued > vigorously for change this year. However, the Board has a > responsibility to look after the long-term health of the organisation > and we believe strongly that this is the way to do it. We encourage > members to continue discussions on the mailing list, and also to > contribute to the wider discussions on the long-term future of the > RIPE NCC. We will also present on this topic at the General Meeting, > where we expect to hear more input from members on the longer-term > measures we need to take. Indeed, there is frustration. As (the multiple) members (I represent), I feel that there we were not listened. RIPE NCC has a financial reserve, which is meant, if I understand correctly, to be here "just in case". That's exactly the case now: No change on charging scheme would lead to loss regarding the activity plan & budget, which could be compensated by this reserve. And, next year, we could find a better solution than those pseudo-choices. Last year, what was rejected was not the "category model", but the specific models which were proposed (imho, there wasnt enough higher categories for big resources holders). And actually, now, we do not have the choice: your proposals will force us to renegociate all our agreements with end users (if B or C are selected), which is quite unacceptable commercially. > In the meantime, we have tried to provide meaningful options for you > to consider, and now we pass the responsibility to you, the > membership.We ask that you take on this responsibility by registering > to vote and participating in the General Meeting. > > Register to Vote: > https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active I'll be attending. But this is not what I thought about "membership". I'm disappointed. -- Clément Cavadore

1 0

Member Proposals for RIPE NCC General Meeting Agenda
by Fergal Cunningham 24 Apr '24

24 Apr '24

Dear all, We have provided a system that allows members to propose agenda topics and associated resolutions for the upcoming GM, in accordance with the Articles of Association. The relevant part of the Articles of Association are available at: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-818/#article-15-general-meeting… It's important to note the following to ensure a valid agenda topic can be added: The proposed topic must receive 396 endorsements (2% of 19,788, the total number of potential membership votes) from RIPE NCC members by 23:59 UTC on 8 May 2024 if it is to be added to the agenda. Members can add their proposals by completing the form at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/member-proposals/ Members must be signed in with their RIPE NCC Access account if they wish to either make or support a proposal. Members who wish to support the proposal can simply click the Support button associated with the relevant proposal. They can also choose to remove their support at a later time if they so wish. The proposal must have a title that can be added to the agenda. The proposal should indicate who will present on the topic. If there is a resolution associated with the proposal, it should be placed at the bottom of the text in format: Resolution: "Text of resolution" so that members will be clear on what they will vote on. Certain agenda items may only be proposed by the Executive Board. The Articles of Association indicate the following items: - The adoption of the Charging Scheme with respect to the coming financial year (Art. 15.4.b) - The adoption of amendments to the Standard Service Agreement (Art. 15.5.c) - The approval of new arbiters and/or dismissal of current arbiters and/or adoption of amendments to the arbitration procedure (Art 15.5.d) Resolutions must be compliant with Dutch law. An agenda topic proposed by members in line with the above cannot be amended after submission. Best regards, Fergal Cunningham Head of Membership Engagement RIPE NCC

2 1

Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)
by Sebastien Brossier 24 Apr '24

24 Apr '24

Hello all, I propose to add the following model to the charging scheme 2025 voting options. *1 - Introduction:* This charging scheme is heavily inspired by APNIC. If you are not familiar with this, you can see an example here: https://www.apnic.net/get-ip/apnic-membership/how-much-does-it-cost/member-… The main idea is that each LIR pays according to its resources, but not linearly. You don't pay twice as much because you have twice as much resources. The resulting fees are similar to what the other RIRs are charging, with infinite granularity (no categories). It can be easily tweaked to reach any desired budget, and will remain viable when IPv4 has disappeared. I have made IPv6 less punitive compared to APNIC, because RIPE has larger initial allocations. Independent resources fees, sign-up fee, lack of ASN fee, remain as before in this proposal. I believe it is better to have a separate debate on these subjects at a later time. The goal of this charging scheme is to lower the cost for members with a very low amount of resources, in order to attract newcomers and retain existing members. This way the RIPE NCC membership will remain numerous and diverse. *2 - Charging scheme:* (Warning: math incoming !) IPv4_count = number of IPv4 addresses allocated (excluding independent assignments and legacy) IPv6_count = number of IPv6 /56 subnets allocated (excluding independent assignments) Base_Fee = 638 EUR Bit_Factor = 1.31 Minimum_Fee = 500 EUR Offset_IPv4 = 8 Offset_IPv6 = 24 IPv4_Fee = Base_Fee * Bit_Factor^(log2(IPv4_count) - Offset_IPv4) IPv6_Fee = Base_Fee * Bit_Factor^(log2(IPv6_count) - Offset_IPv6) Fee = max(IPv4_Fee, IPv6_Fee, Minimum_Fee) + 50 EUR per independent resource (excluding ASN) My simulation, based on public data (2024-03-28), results in an average fee of 1900 EUR per LIR (+ 50 EUR per independent resource), so it should provide the same budget as the other options. If RIPE NCC find different results with their simulation, they can adjust Base_Fee. *3 - Examples:* 50 EUR per independent resource should be added to all these fees. No allocations: 500 EUR IPv4 /24 and/or IPv6 /32: 638 EUR IPv4 /23 and/or IPv6 /31: 835 EUR IPv4 /22 and/or IPv6 /30: 1094 EUR IPv4 /21 and/or IPv6 /29: 1434 EUR IPv4 /20 and/or IPv6 /28: 1878 EUR IPv4 /19 and/or IPv6 /27: 2461 EUR IPv4 /18 and/or IPv6 /26: 3224 EUR IPv4 /17 and/or IPv6 /25: 4223 EUR IPv4 /16 and/or IPv6 /24: 5533 EUR IPv4 /15 and/or IPv6 /23: 7248 EUR IPv4 /14 and/or IPv6 /22: 9495 EUR IPv4 /13 and/or IPv6 /21: 12439 EUR IPv4 /12 and/or IPv6 /20: 16295 EUR IPv4 /11 and/or IPv6 /19: 21347 EUR IPv4 /10 and/or IPv6 /18: 27965 EUR IPv4 /9 and/or IPv6 /17: 36634 EUR IPv4 /8 and/or IPv6 /16: 47991 EUR Largest LIR is just below 60 kEUR. There are no categories, so your fee can be somewhere between these numbers. If you think the fees are too high, I invite you to read the fee schedule of the other RIRs. Thank you if you've read this far. Best regards, Sebastien Brossier

34 81

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
by Cynthia Revström 22 Apr '24

22 Apr '24

Hi, I would just like to say that unlike most others who have commented so far I'm pretty happy with these proposals for the most part. The RIPE NCC has barely increased its fees at all for about a decade despite a fair amount of inflation during that time. I support only offering charging schemes that are sustainable and won't require digging deep into the reserves. That's not what the reserves are for. Something to also remember is that the numbers of members has stayed pretty consistent, it's the number of LIR accounts that has reduced. I would suspect that a lot of costs for the NCC will be the similar regardless of if a member has one LIR account or five. -Cynthia On Wed, 10 Apr 2024, 12:49 Simon-Jan Haytink, <simonjh(a)ripe.net> wrote: > Dear RIPE NCC members, > > We can now share three draft charging scheme models for 2025 that the > Executive Board approved with the following resolution at its meeting on 25 > March 2024: > > The RIPE NCC Executive Board approves the submission of the RIPE NCC > Charging Scheme 2025 options to the upcoming RIPE NCC General Meeting for > members to vote on. > > > > - Option A - Charging Scheme as is with 22.58% price increase for the > annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,900) and a 0% price increase for > Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 50) > > - Option B - Charging Scheme as is with 20.97% price increase for the > annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,875) and a 50% price increase > for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 75) > > - Option C - Charging Scheme as is with 16.13% price increase for the > annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,800), a 50% price increase for > Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 75) and a new AS > Numbers fee of EUR 50 per assignment > > *Resources falling under this charge are IPv4 and IPv6 PI assignments; > Anycast assignments; IPv4 and IPv6 IXP assignments; and Legacy IPv4 > resource registrations through a sponsoring LIR. > > The full draft charging scheme models are available from the GM > Documentation page: > > https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2024/documentation… > > Although the proposed models are relatively simple, we provide a > calculator where you can see exactly what you would pay under each of the > proposed models: > > https://www.ripe.net/documents/3757/CS2025_Member_Calculator.xlsx > > The main considerations for the Executive Board in proposing these three > models are: > > 1. The consolidation of LIR accounts, which means the burden to generate > sufficient income must be met by fewer accounts > > 2. Increased costs due to inflation that were previously catered for by > the large number of LIR accounts > > 3. Following the discussions last year and again this year, there appears > to be no clear consensus among members on how a category-based model would > work and the Board does not wish to put another category model forward at > the upcoming GM that will be rejected by the members. Rather, the Board > will propose a simple model that guarantees adequate funding for 2025 and > 2026 - under this proposal, we expect there would be no need for a fee > increase for 2026. The Board will work with the RIPE NCC on a more in-depth > consultation with the members aimed at arriving at a sustainable solution > for 2027 and beyond, possibly involving a new charging scheme task force. > > All three proposed models are designed to arrive at the same income of EUR > 41.1 million for the RIPE NCC in 2025. This will cover all current services > and activities, a 5% staff cost increase, a 2% inflation increase on all > non-staff costs, and EUR 1 million for additional work relating to registry > complexity and security projects aimed at ensuring the resilience of the > Registry and the RIPE NCC more broadly. Any such additional work would be > discussed with the membership during Activity Plan and Budget consultations > and then need to be approved by the Board. This will also allow some leeway > should more LIR accounts close than we expect. > > It’s important to note that the RIPE NCC aims for an income budget that > will provide a surplus, and this means that should we meet our budgetary > targets, a surplus can be returned to members in 2026 should they so wish. > > While the RIPE NCC continues to carry out cost-cutting efforts across the > organisation, drastically reducing the budget at this time is not advisable > due to the work that needs to be carried out, especially in relation to > maintaining high-quality registry services and securing the registry and > RIPE NCC systems. Cutting services or activities is not something the Board > is planning to do, and such actions would take time and need full > consultation with the membership. An overview of the activities and > services that the membership fee covers is provided below this email. > > I also urge you to see the presentation we delivered at the charging > scheme open house in March so that the full context of the situation and > the financial landscape we face is clear to you. The slides are available > at: > > > https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/open-house/ripe-ncc-charging-schem… > > Finally, I want to thank all those who have contributed to the > consultation so far on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025. The models we > present here are draft and in two weeks we will announce the final proposal > that members will vote on at the GM on 22-24 May. Please discuss the draft > proposal on the members-discuss(a)ripe.net list - any input received by 19 > April can be incorporated if possible into the final models we propose. And > make sure to register for the GM so that you can vote on the charging > scheme that will apply for you and all members next year: > > https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active > > Simon-Jan Haytink > > Chief Financial Officer > > RIPE NCC > > Services and Activities Covered by the Member Fee > > - A trusted, efficient, accurate and resilient registry that guarantees > uniqueness of resources held by members > > - Neutral information services uninfluenced by commercial or government > interests that allow both the RIPE NCC and the community to carry out > useful research into the Internet > > - Engagement activities, including RIPE and regional meetings, that build > an active membership and community and that contribute to the overall good > of the Internet > > - A voice and influence for the membership in key decision-making fora, > including with governments and regulators > > - Protection of the Joint Internet Number Registry as developed by the > Internet community > > - Learning and development activities that help to address skills > shortages and contribute to an educated membership > > - Support for the Policy Development Process (PDP) > > - An authoritative registry of routing information provided by RPKI and > the RIPE Database > > - K-root and DNS services > > - A dedicated staff with considerable expertise contributing to all of the > above > -- > Click here to unsubscribe or change your email settings: > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/ncc-announce >

5 6

Response from Board on Charging Scheme Comments
by Ondřej Filip 22 Apr '24

22 Apr '24

Dear members, We are continuing to follow the discussions closely. For some of the points raised, I want to share our reasoning for not proposing a category model this year. Last year, after extensive community consultation, we proposed a model with 10 categories based on resource holdership. If this proposal had been accepted, 67.69% of members would have paid less - EUR 1,350 or less. Only 34.9% voted for this model. Based on this feedback from the members, and given there are so many different opinions and proposals on how to charge in different ways, we did not want to propose another category-based model at this time. But we do not rule it out for the future. We have proposed a BoF at RIPE 88 to discuss how to build a stable future for the RIPE NCC, including a sustainable charging model. We also do not want to cut services that support the RIPE NCC’s current five-year strategy. We have committed to this strategy until 2026, and we think it is important that we see it out. We have already cut costs by EUR 2.7 million in 2023 compared to the budget and EUR 1.8 million in our 2024 budget compared to the 2023 budget. We are committed to ensuring that the RIPE NCC remains focused on reducing costs wherever possible. However, we do need to cater to the increased costs that the RIPE NCC faces due to inflation. In addition to the increasing costs, we still have significant uncertainty on our income from Ultra-High-Risk-Countries. For the 2024 income, we expect an amount of 1.1 million EUR to be uncollectible due to restrictions from our banks. Looking at 2023, this part amounts to 1.2 million. This underlines the complexity of our service region and the reality we have to deal with. We would also like to repeat that the proposed models guarantee adequate funding for 2025 and 2026. Under this proposal, we expect there would be no need for a fee increase for 2026. We do want to work with the membership after this GM to discuss how best to reach consensus on a model that members feel is fair and sustainable for the future. We do however believe this is part of a broader discussion in building a stable future for the RIPE NCC and would like to encourage you to read the RIPE Labs Article by Executive Board Member Remco van Mook and engage in the upcoming discussion: https://labs.ripe.net/author/remco-van-mook/building-a-stable-future-for-th… Kind regards, Ondřej Filip Chair, RIPE NCC Executive Board

4 3

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
by Sebastien Brossier 21 Apr '24

21 Apr '24

Hello, Please add one or more options with really different models, like a category model and/or the APNIC model. Options A, B and C are just 3 very similar variants of the same model. An illusion of choice. I understand that the category model was rejected last year, but the fee increase and the ASN fee were rejected too. All viable options should be included. Let the membership decide what works best for them. With kind regards, Sebastien Brossier

2 1

RIPE NCC Financial Perspective on Charging Scheme Model
by Simon-Jan Haytink 20 Apr '24

20 Apr '24

Dear members, I want to give you an insight into the financial perspective of the RIPE NCC in trying to come up with a charging scheme model for next year. To start, I would like to say that we need to ensure stability and sufficient funding in the short-term so we can fulfill our commitments. Meanwhile, we also need to work on longer-term solutions that can ensure a sustainable funding model for the organisation and its members. What constitutes a good charging model from the RIPE NCC’s perspective? The model should generate sufficient income so we can fulfill our obligation in a stable and predictable manner. We cannot become too reliant financially on a limited number of members for a significant part of our income. This would risk a significant shortfall in income to execute our operations if these members leave. One benefit of our current “one LIR account-one fee” model is that it reinforces simplicity and predictability. But it also has its downsides, including no differentiation in contribution between members with more or fewer resource registrations, which is often seen as unfair. We also need to ensure we can adapt for future developments. At some point in the future, it is likely that IPv6 will become the dominant protocol, so a charging scheme will need to be adaptable so we can adapt to changing circumstances. We also need to ensure a low-risk profile. For any model, we need to understand what risk the model brings, from the known risks to the unknown risks. And the community and the RIPE NCC must be willing to accept this risk. And as the RIPE NCC, we cannot take on a role that is not part of our mandate. The charging scheme is the mechanism by which we collect the funding to carry out the work we have committed to. Policies relating to the allocation of IP resources are formulated by the RIPE community in the Address Policy Working Group. Is the RIPE NCC opposed to differentiation in contribution among members? As seen by the category model proposed for the 2024 Charging Scheme vote, we as the RIPE NCC are not opposed to differentiation between members. We have heard and understood the feedback from a part of the membership, that the specific set-up of the proposed model was the reason for voting this down last year. This does highlight that this set-up is not a trivial one and will need good scrutiny by the RIPE NCC and more specifically its members. But I do want to stress that any model will be beneficial for some and less so for others. A strict pay-per-IP model, i.e. charging per IP without categories, is something we as the RIPE NCC do have serious concerns about, and this has been discussed with the Executive Board. A system like this would increase the dependency for a significant part of our income on a very limited number of members. I want to make it very clear that the consolidation that I have mentioned multiple times specifically refers to the consolidation of multiple LIRs. We do not see any trend or concern for consolidation of individual members as this number has remained stable at 20,000 since 2020. We did see this consolidation of multiple LIR accounts coming and we did take action. One of the benefits of the category model we proposed last year would have been that charging would have been on a per-member basis and members would have been charged based on total resources in defined categories rather than per LIR account (removing the multiple LIR consolidation risk). In theory, we should have increased our fees based on inflation every year since 2016. But that would have been in years that we redistributed 5 to 10 million EUR per year, so asking the membership to approve a price increase would most likely have been rejected (and rightfully so). What is the intended strategy for the Charging Scheme in the long and short term? We fully agree that our charging scheme needs a good review or revamp to ensure we are ready for the future. And our Board member Remco has opened discussion on the broader topic of building a stable future for the RIPE NCC, and having a sustainable charging model will surely be part of that. I recommend you all to read his article: https://labs.ripe.net/author/remco-van-mook/building-a-stable-future-for-th… <https://labs.ripe.net/author/remco-van-mook/building-a-stable-future-for-th…> In the short term, we need stability, which the proposed models provide. This will ensure we can operate continuously and protect the system we have. But we also need time because revamping a charging scheme that needs to facilitate 20,000 members who all have their own preferences, and which needs to facilitate the needs of the RIPE NCC (to ensure we can operate in a responsible and legally sound manner), will not be a trivial exercise. The stability provided with the short-term solution will allow the RIPE NCC in cooperation with its membership to develop a charging scheme that will ensure our sustainability in the future. We will need the input of our members to get consensus on a model that works, but in reality there will be members who object strongly to any model that is accepted while others will be very content. Unfortunately, this is the reality and part of the day-to-day life of an association with 20,000 members. Best regards, Simon-Jan Haytink Chief Financial Officer RIPE NCC

4 3

Charging scheme 2025 proposal (simple, bounded, conservative)
by James A. T. Rice - Jump Networks 19 Apr '24

19 Apr '24

Hi Folks, A very simple charging scheme proposal - Base fee per LIR: €950 Per /24 IPv4 fee, up to 1750 /24s: €20 each Per /24 IPv4 fee, above 1750 /24s: €0 each Independent resources charged as currently - €50 each. This * achieves simplicity (one knows how much each extra /24 of space costs, so can easily know their LIR fee - there's no logarithm component) * bounds the maximum fee at €35950, so even the largest RIPE member won't be paying any more than with any other RIR * should be generally favourable with the vast majority of members - 18,000 out of 20,500 members would be better off under this scheme * leads to the same income for the RIPE NCC as their existing proposed options It would be good to see it on the options presented to members this year. Thanks James Rice Jump Networks Ltd

2 1

New RIPE Labs Article - Building a stable future for the RIPE NCC
by Remco van Mook 19 Apr '24

19 Apr '24

Dear colleagues, I’d like to draw your attention to an article that was just published on RIPE Labs, about building a stable future for the RIPE NCC. As it touches on some very foundational aspects all across the various working groups and NCC membership, I thought it important to share, and I would very much like to ask everyone for their input and ideas. In order to not spread the discussion too much across the various mailing lists, I suggest that we use the general RIPE list (which I’ve put into the reply-to field of this email. I’m currently in the process of organising a BOF during RIPE 88 on this topic as well and am looking forward to a constructive discussion! Kind regards, Remco van Mook RIPE NCC Executive Board

3 3