- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

AGM resolution 3 vote result numbers
by Martin Millnert 31 May '23

31 May '23

Dear NCC, please at your convenience publish the vote results numbers of the third resolution of the AGM 2023. Thanks in advance! Best regards, -- Martin Millnert BrainMill AB

2 2

Response to Comments on the Charging Scheme Proposals
by Simon-Jan Haytink 30 May '23

30 May '23

Dear all, I’d like to answer the comments and questions that have been raised since the Board Treasurer announced the final proposed charging scheme options. See Raymond’s mail announcing the options at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ncc-announce/2023-April/001645.html Also see my colleague Fergal’s mail explaining the instant run-off voting method and how it will work with the charging scheme vote: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ncc-announce/2023-May/001647.html Purpose of the Charging Scheme and Budget The charging scheme is the mechanism the RIPE NCC uses to ensure it collects sufficient funds to carry out its promises to the members in future years. As a safeguard, any excess (or shortage) of funds is subject to a redistribution vote by the General Meeting. This redistribution has happened many times in the past. This ensures that the RIPE NCC operates on a cost-recovery basis, or in other words operates as a not-for-profit. The Charging Scheme does not define the cost budget of the RIPE NCC, but of course there is a relation between the two. The projected income does at the very least provide direction regarding discussion on the Activity Plan and Budget. The Activity Plan and Budget defines the planned activities and associated costs for a financial year. And for the longer term, we have developed a five-year strategy. Both of these documents are published for the members to provide input on, and they are then approved by the RIPE NCC Executive Board. The Draft Activity Plan and Budget is published on a yearly basis every autumn, specifically to consult with our membership. Additionally, this year there is the option to provide input and feedback via the RIPE NCC Survey 2023, which will launch next week. The Activity Plan and Budget is effectively the RIPE NCC’s promise to its members in terms of what it will do and how much it will spend in the coming year. The most recently approved Activity Plan and Budget (in this case 2023) forms the basis for projections of the required income for the following financial year, as this is the most recent approved “promise to our members”. All charging scheme projections are made with this promise in mind, to ensure sufficient income to continue that promise. If the Activity Plan and Budget 2024 requires us to cut or add activities or costs, then that is what we will do to fulfill our promise. That being said, efficient and effective use of membership funds is a priority and will remain a priority of the Executive Board and the management of the RIPE NCC. Why Change the Current Model? We need to ensure sufficient and sustainable income to continue our operations in a stable and predictable manner. The high market value of IPv4 resources combined with the possibility of multiple LIR accounts per member has created uncertainty and unpredictability for a significant part of our income. A member-based model rather than an LIR account model will help to reduce this uncertainty by removing the LIR account as the basis for the charging scheme. We are also addressing the stated unfairness in the current model. Although some members have expressed the desire for increased differentiation, we see the proposed change as a significant difference from the current one LIR-one fee model. It allows us to spread the funding burden differently because in the current model, all members with one LIR account pay the same fee (exception is the independent resources). Due to a significant inflow of New LIRs in 2019 and 2021, there is a considerable amount of members who hold more than one LIR account, and these members do pay additional LIR account fees. One of the major benefits of the category model is that it charges per member, and with that it reduces the uncertainty caused by multiple LIRs and the associated consolidation risk. We aim to achieve a clearer distinction between RIPE Policy and the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme by removing the LIR account as the basis of the charging scheme. And we want to ensure that the RIPE NCC together with its members is ready for any change the future might bring, by increasing the possibilities the charging scheme provides to adapt for this change. Of course, this can only happen with formal approval by the GM. The Category Model Under this model, the categories would apply as soon as a member holds IPv4 or IPv6 resources as defined in the charging scheme document. Limits as defined in the charging scheme document are the upper limits of the categories. The lower limit for Category 1 is one resource (one IPv4 address or one IPv6 address). The base category applies to all, including members with no IPv4 or IPv6 resources. We have been asked why there is not a per-IPv4 address model, with comments that the category model favours bigger members. In a way, it does, but less so than in the one-LIR account, one-fee model. We also need to stay true to the fact that we are a membership association, so while we can differentiate between members, this needs to stay within reason. Additionally, we need to ensure the independence of the RIPE NCC by not becoming too dependent on a small subset of our membership for a significant part of our income. Furthermore, protecting the one member-one vote principle could become significantly more difficult if the contribution differences become extreme. So we can facilitate differentiation between members in size of contribution, especially compared to the current model we have, but it is essential that this stays within reason. One clear benefit of the category model is that we can refine it over time, working towards a model that is acceptable for more members. On the pricing and category limits, they have been set with the latest Activity Plan and Budget in mind, to ensure at the very least that we can continue with our promise to members in 2024. If the Activity Plan and Budget 2024 requires the RIPE NCC to reduce or add activities or costs, we will act accordingly. Regarding the options presented for voting, our initial plan was to submit two charging schemes for a vote, to provide a clear choice to the members on a category-based model or the current model. Both of these models would provide income at the level of the 2023 budget if we apply a correction for expected inflation of 5%, resulting in a projected income of EUR 42 million. After feedback from members we wanted to ensure the GM could vote for “NO CHANGE” which is represented in Option D. Additionally to this “NO CHANGE” vote, I personally requested to add a vote to keep the income (before any correction for inflation) at the same level as in 2023, which is the reason Option C has been added. The 2nd or 3rd vote on charging for ASN assignments and/or transfers would (if approved) provide additional income over that provided by the charging scheme voted for by members. The Waiting List The current situation regarding the IPv4 waiting list and costs associated with a /24 IPv4 allocation is in our eyes an undesirable one. With the uncertainty of the waiting period (around 1.5 to 2 years) which can be shorter or longer, plus the two-year “non-transfer” policy, it means unpredictable costs for our members and income that is not transparent for the RIPE NCC. - Two-year waiting period = sign-up fee plus two years LIR service fee = 4,100 EUR - Two-year “non-transfer” policy = two years LIR service fee = 3,100 EUR - Indicative price 7,200 EUR To address this, we propose a one-time join-the-waiting list fee, and a to-be-determined /24 IPv4 allocation fee. This would replace costs that apply to members based on being on the waiting list for a long time without receiving resources, as members would be charged the waiting list fee upon placement on the waiting list, and the allocation fee only just before resources are allocated (with the opportunity to reject the resources). This is, in our opinion, a fairer way to charge for these resources. To define this charge and work out any possible issues with RIPE Policy, we are postponing this vote to allow for consultation with the membership because this to-be-determined fee will have an effect on who applies for the resources. We also need to consider fees already paid by LIR accounts, and whether a discount would be in order for fees already paid in relation to specific IPv4 allocations. And for this, time is needed to consult with membership. Additionally, this fee will also result in additional income for the RIPE NCC, which will be subject to a redistribution vote, assuming this provides excess funds. See the original announcement on the waiting list freeze: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ncc-announce/2023-April/001643.html Finally, there are probably more questions and comments than I have answered here. But we are preparing for the General Meeting (GM) next week where there will be several presentations from our side on the charging and budgeting of the RIPE NCC. Our Managing Director will present at both the NCC Services Working Group on the past and future of the RIPE NCC, and he will present a more detailed presentation on budget developments in the GM. I will also present on the Charging Scheme options as well as give an update on our current financial situation. I hope you will register to join and follow these presentations, and you will have the opportunity to further ask questions and discuss the various options to vote on. https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2023 Kind regards, Simon-Jan Haytink Chief Financial Officer RIPE NCC

6 9

Not enough t-shirt in ripe 86
by Lu Heng 30 May '23

30 May '23

Hi A simple suggestion, can we make t-shirt available to pick up at registration instead of set time frame on tuesday? then no need to have t-shirt pick up card, also everyone can get one. I am collecting all the t-shirt from all ripe meetings and it is rather pity to miss one due to business meeting. I asked staff later and they say all t-shirt is gone -- -- Kind regards. Lu

1 0

RIPE NCC Charging Scheme - revolutionary approach
by J Pawlus 25 May '23

25 May '23

Hello, I know that it is not for this GM meeting but let us consider different approach to the charging scheme. IPv4 is dead and any charging scheme based on IPv4 will only extends its agony. The new model should be based on IPv6 with highest price being paid by LIR without IPv6 implemented to some extent. The criteria could be: - allocation of IPv6 space from RIPE - announcement of IPv6 prefix - DNS and revDNS implemented - assignement of IPv6 addresses to some End Users - accessibility of LIR Web Page via IPv6 This approach will clearly increase the speed of IPv6 popularity. Technically, it has been (or is being) done by RIPE to check maturity of a LIR with IPv6. This will also have an impact on LIR End Users if they are told that they could pay more if they did not move to IPv6. At the the end some thoughts on current category Model - the ratio of an price increase/decrease for highest and lowest category is certainly not a small step or evolutionary change for LIRs in high categories - All IPv4 allocations has been done with RIPE approval in accordance to relevant polices at that time. - Most IPv4 allocations has been done in times when such thing as NAT did not exist. Best regards, Jerzy Pawlus P.S. Any statements contained in this email are personal to the author

4 3

Re: [members-discuss] [news] RIPE NCC Certified Professionals is Back Online
by Jochen Bern 25 May '23

25 May '23

On 25.05.23 16:45, Andreas Grabmüller | QuarIT GmbH wrote: > I’ve got a question about this (as I honestly don’t know). Do people > care about “secure”? [...] is RIPE a school that offers some state > approved certificates or something? If not, why do we need tests at > all and especially some testing methology that can be so privacy > invasive? > > I think it benefits us all to offer learning opportunities to everyone > (not just members) [...] While I need to do a RIPE SSO login to take a *course*, the RIPE Academy apparently doesn't care much who (else) might be sitting in front of the monitor etc., so the *learning* part is rather free of security concerns. The proctoring comes into play when you're taking an *exam*, and I suppose that some employer looking at the certifications, selecting job applicants based on them, deciding about pay raises according to them, etc. is enough of a possibility as to *not* simply throw the process to a low-security approach. Of course, "securing" exams again addresses several, somewhat disparate definitions of "security". As an example, you want to ascertain both that the examinee / certified-professional-to-be is who he claims he is, and that he does not have a committee of experts sitting in the next room in front of a second monitor and holding quickly-scribbled cheat sheets up to some window. The former is currently done by having the examinee wave a gvt. ID in front of the camera, and the proctor trying to tell real video footage from a deepfake with a manipulated ID pasted in - and *could* instead be done by actual *online* mechanisms, like the eID functions in my German ID card. The latter form of cheating, on the other hand, would be rather difficult to detect in any way *other* than by keeping a close eye on the video throughout the exam. (I actually asked whether use of EU's eIDAS or somesuch is in the plans, and was told that RIPE's focus is on offering equal opportunities across its *entire* service area, so no.) Kind regards, -- Jochen Bern Systemingenieur Binect GmbH

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] Voting for RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
by Skyline Telecom 25 May '23

25 May '23

The voting procedure is “instant run-off” which clearly benefits what RIPE wants – Charging scheme A. The other 3 options will cancel themselves out, none of them having any chance to gain close to 50% and with the redistribution, the most voted option has a clear advantage from the start. RIPE has on their website a nice video that shows exactly how it’s done and how basically Charging scheme A will win – because they intentionally made it this way so that the other three options are basically lost in the votes - https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2023/how-to-vote The only way I see in which Charging scheme A will NOT pass, is by choosing option 4 on it when voting by as many people as possible. Silviu From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> On Behalf Of Q Misell via members-discuss Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 15:05 To: J Pawlus <Jerzy.Pawlus(a)cyf-kr.edu.pl<mailto:Jerzy.Pawlus@cyf-kr.edu.pl>> Cc: members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Voting for RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 Hi, It is my understanding that the voting will take the form of STV (Single Transferable Vote), which will not cause your mentioned problem. Thanks, Q [https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a/AGNmyxbpJnlf2vclhNhOy6wcU6-VdyRT0K8tmun…] Q Director +44 33 33 408690 [https://as207960.net/assets/img/logo2.png]<https://e.as207960.net/w4bdyj/TkxwHvOq>[https://images.credly.com/images/9f87f9ae-1875-4009-a8e6-ffe4aefea52d/image…] ________________________________ Any statements contained in this email are personal to the author and are not necessarily the statements of the company unless specifically stated. AS207960 Cyfyngedig, having a registered office at 13 Pen-y-lan Terrace, Caerdydd, Cymru, CF23 9EU, trading as Glauca Digital, is a company registered in Wales under № 12417574<https://e.as207960.net/w4bdyj/SFhtfOwI>, LEI 875500FXNCJPAPF3PD10. ICO register №: ZA782876<https://e.as207960.net/w4bdyj/u7mtgS8G>. UK VAT №: GB378323867. EU VAT №: EU372013983. Turkish VAT №: 0861333524. South Korean VAT №: 522-80-03080. Glauca Digital and the Glauca logo are registered trademarks in the UK, under № UK00003718474 and № UK00003718468, respectively. On Tue, 23 May 2023 at 13:06, J Pawlus <Jerzy.Pawlus(a)cyf-kr.edu.pl<mailto:Jerzy.Pawlus@cyf-kr.edu.pl>> wrote: Hello, Voting for RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 seems unfair. The voting should be two stage. In the first stage there should be two options: Stage 1: Option 1: “The General Meeting adopts the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 based on category model (Option A) Option 2: “The General Meeting adopts the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 based on non-category model (Option B,C,D) Stage 2: This stage should be taken into account if Option 2 wins. Option B: “The General Meeting adopts the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 Model B.” Option C: “The General Meeting adopts the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 Model C.” Option D: “The General Meeting adopts the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 Model D.” Otherwise all LIR interested in not winning option A should choose to vote for one of the options B,C or D (for example B) Best regards, Jerzy Pawlus ACK Cyfronet AGH _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss<https://e.as207960.net/w4bdyj/LFHjLbyK>

10 14

Voting for RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
by J Pawlus 23 May '23

23 May '23

Hello, Voting for RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 seems unfair. The voting should be two stage. In the first stage there should be two options: Stage 1: Option 1: “The General Meeting adopts the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 based on category model (Option A) Option 2: “The General Meeting adopts the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 based on non-category model (Option B,C,D) Stage 2: This stage should be taken into account if Option 2 wins. Option B: “The General Meeting adopts the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 Model B.” Option C: “The General Meeting adopts the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 Model C.” Option D: “The General Meeting adopts the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 Model D.” Otherwise all LIR interested in not winning option A should choose to vote for one of the options B,C or D (for example B) Best regards, Jerzy Pawlus ACK Cyfronet AGH

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] [GM] Requirements and Expectations for Board Members and Candidates
by Erik Bais 17 May '23

17 May '23

Dear Ondrej, Thank you for this email on ncc-announce and from what I've read in the minutes of the EB, this has become quite a controversial topic within the EB already.. This shows in the minutes where it states : ( https://www.ripe.net/about-us/executive-board/minutes/2023/minutes-165th-ex… <https://www.ripe.net/about-us/executive-board/minutes/2023/minutes-165th-ex…> point 7.3 ) > 7.3 EB candidates assessment > During EB#163, the Board asked the Managing Director to investigate mechanisms for the assessment of Executive Board candidates before an election. > Remco van Mook left the meeting room during the discussion of this item. He requested that it be noted in the minutes that it was inappropriate for the Board to discuss this topic. I can only guess on the actual reason for Remco to leave the room as this was brought to the table .. Could you express why the board decided to continue to discus the topic with an incomplete board, where putting this on the agenda was clearly upsetting one of the board members ? Was this because of the actual content of the proposal brought to the table by the MD (as he was tasked by preparing the topic as requested ) The topic by itself was requested by the EB, so it shouldn't have been such a controversial topic that an EB member should feel that it couldn't be discussed as is.. and needed to step out. I don't remember reading other EB meeting minutes where an EB member felt the need to step outside ... Was the proposal overreach by the MD, where the feedback / emotions after the investigation, which led to this topic, ( see https://www.ripe.net/about-us/executive-board/minutes/2022/minutes-163rd-ex… <https://www.ripe.net/about-us/executive-board/minutes/2022/minutes-163rd-ex…> point 13 and 14 ) weight to heavy on the actual deliverable that was put forward to the EB. And if so, why did the EB not corrected the MD on the work or handling, before discussing it further ? From what I see in the email that you send today, the proposal is looking to exclude WG Chairs (active members of the RIPE community) to not run for the EB... While these are some of the most active members of the community. Another suggestion from what I see is to limit the amount of people from the same country.. We've had Falk & CK (German) in the Board, Job, Remco & Raymond ( Dutch ), although Raymond has been living in Finland for years. Or are we talking about where they are residing .. in that case Salam (former EB member and running candidate) is residing in The Netherlands, so is Job & Remco ... Personally I would find it discriminating, if a good candidate would be disqualified, just by its country of origin, because someone in the EB happens to be already from the same country. (by birth or where he/she resides. ) Also removing the pool of WG Chairs is something I would be strongly against ... A lot of current / former board members have been WG Chairs .. They have the faith of the community, they know the community and that is why they get elected for the EB position ... By putting this apparently controversial topic in the EB now forward to the community, my question is, is the EB managing this topic sufficiently and the MD on the work on it .. before requesting a community about an (in my few) flawed proposal ? Regards, Erik Bais On 12/05/2023, 10:44, "ncc-announce on behalf of Ondřej Filip" <ncc-announce-bounces(a)ripe.net <mailto:ncc-announce-bounces@ripe.net> <mailto:ncc-announce-bounces@ripe.net <mailto:ncc-announce-bounces@ripe.net>> on behalf of exec-board-announce(a)ripe.net <mailto:exec-board-announce@ripe.net> <mailto:exec-board-announce@ripe.net <mailto:exec-board-announce@ripe.net>>> wrote: Dear all, This week, you will have seen an invitation to join the Executive Board at an Open House on Requirements and Expectations of Board Members and Candidates. I want to provide some context on why we are having this meeting and how your input can help the Board. There are several reasons why we feel that now is the right time to discuss the expectations that the RIPE NCC membership has of its Executive Board members, not least the fact that we are responsible for the good governance of the RIPE NCC. And while the members will always elect the Board, we want to look closely at the formal requirements for Board members to make sure those elected will be able to carry out the role effectively and play their part in the good governance of the RIPE NCC. We recently strengthened the processes around board candidacy by making amendments to the Articles of Association, which were approved by the membership. But we have seen recently in other RIR regions that there have been concerns raised about candidates for executive boards. This has made us pay extra attention to our own processes around board candidacy and membership. The responsibilities of the Board are also much greater now than they were five, ten or 20 years ago. The Board has oversight of an organisation that manages important and valuable resources for 20,000 members. It must deal with highly complex issues such as the impact of war and sanctions on the membership and the Internet, as well as ensure that service delivery is provided effectively and fairly across an incredibly diverse service region. Financial oversight is a big part of our governance, as demonstrated by the recent discussions about the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme. And we are also effectively responsible for the well-being of all the excellent staff who work hard to meet your needs. To add to this, an independent investigation was carried out into allegations of bullying and harassment of a RIPE NCC staff member by a Board member. The investigation found no evidence of a breach of the RIPE NCC Code of Conduct and the Board will respect the findings of that investigation. But this did force us to look at our current structures and ask ourselves how we could handle such a situation should something similar arise again, and whether having new requirements or restrictions in place would help. At our Board meeting in March, we discussed these issues and focused on whether there should be any new requirements, restrictions or expectations for those who sit on the Executive Board. The discussion covered many areas, including whether there should be restrictions on having more than one Board member from the same organisation or country, and whether it’s appropriate for Board members to sit on the boards of other Internet organisations. This discussion is noted in the minutes from our recent board meeting: https://www.ripe.net/about-us/executive-board/minutes/2023/minutes-165th-ex… <https://www.ripe.net/about-us/executive-board/minutes/2023/minutes-165th-ex…> <https://www.ripe.net/about-us/executive-board/minutes/2023/minutes-165th-ex…> <https://www.ripe.net/about-us/executive-board/minutes/2023/minutes-165th-ex…> Although we had a good discussion on these issues, we did feel it would be better to consult directly with the membership about these topics. Following this discussion, the Board could then propose changes to the Articles of Association affecting the make-up of the Board. Such changes would have to be voted on by the membership. At this stage, what we are looking for is your input and your ideas to help make sure that the Board of the RIPE NCC is set up to effectively represent your interests. So I ask you to please register for the Open House where we will present slides with topics for discussion and then open the floor for members’ input. https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/open-house/ripe-ncc-open-house-re… <https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/open-house/ripe-ncc-open-house-re…> <https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/open-house/ripe-ncc-open-house-re…> <https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/open-house/ripe-ncc-open-house-re…> Best regards, Ondřej Filip RIPE NCC Executive Board Chair RIPE NCC Executive Board - Functions and Expectations: https://www.ripe.net/about-us/executive-board/ripe-ncc-executive-board-func… <https://www.ripe.net/about-us/executive-board/ripe-ncc-executive-board-func…> <https://www.ripe.net/about-us/executive-board/ripe-ncc-executive-board-func…> <https://www.ripe.net/about-us/executive-board/ripe-ncc-executive-board-func…> Executive Board Liability: https://www.ripe.net/about-us/executive-board/executive-board-liability <https://www.ripe.net/about-us/executive-board/executive-board-liability> <https://www.ripe.net/about-us/executive-board/executive-board-liability> <https://www.ripe.net/about-us/executive-board/executive-board-liability>> Current Call for Executive Board Candidates: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2023/announcement… <https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2023/announcement…> <https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2023/announcement…> <https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2023/announcement…>

5 4

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Member Update: April 2023
by Naira Kuroyan 12 May '23

12 May '23

Dear RIPE NCC Team, Herewith we would like to refer to the draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024, document "Vote 3: Transfer Fee EUR 500 per Request". According to the draft, "The transfer fee is non-refundable in the event that the transfer is rejected.". We suppose that this fee is not reasonable in case of rejecting the transfer. At the same time we suggest to describe in document the cases when the transfer can/will be rejected. Also it is not clear from the document that this fee is a one-time payment. Hope the above commens will be considered and adjustment will be made in final version presenting to vote during the GM May 2023. Thanks! Regards, NAIRA KUROYAN GLOBAL NETWORK CONNECTIVITY MANAGER +374 91 20 05 75 NKuroyan(a)telecomarmenia.am www.telecomarmenia.am -----Original Message----- From: ncc-announce [mailto:ncc-announce-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Boris Duval Sent: Monday, May 1, 2023 3:11 PM To: ncc-announce(a)ripe.net Subject: [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Member Update: April 2023 Dear RIPE NCC members, In this month’s update, you’ll find everything you need ahead of RIPE 86, taking place from 22-26 May in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and our RIPE NCC General Meeting from 24-26 May. Take a look at the supporting documents for the General Meeting, and remember to register. Register for RIPE 86 at: https://ripe86.ripe.net/attend/register/ Register for the RIPE NCC General Meeting at: https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active General Meeting Supporting Documents: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2023/documentatio… Read on to see everything the RIPE NCC and the RIPE community have been doing this month: 1. Registry -- LIR Stats -- SAV: Why Is Source Address Validation Still A Problem? 2. Information and Services -- Decommissioning the RIPE Networking App and RIPE Mailing List Forum -- RIPE Labs -- Hot on the RIPE NCC Forum 3. Community and Engagement -- RIPE NCC Days Sofia -- Community Projects Fund Call for Applications -- RIPE Policy Proposals -- RIPE IPv6 Policy Discussion Update -- Consensus on Principles for Remuneration of the RIPE Chairs -- Consensus on RIPE Code of Conduct Process and Team Appointment Documents -- RIPE NCC Community Development Plans for 2023 -- Call for Topics for RIPE 86 Community Plenary -- IGF 2023 Call for Proposals -- The RIPE Chair Team Reports: April 2023 -- Training Courses and Webinars in May 4. Organisational Update -- Publication of final support documents for the General Meeting -- Executive Board Resolution to Temporarily Suspend IPv4 Waiting List Applications -- Call for Nominations to the RIPE NCC Executive Board -- Changes to Management Structure -- Report Published on Law Enforcement Agencies Requests 2022 -- RIPE NCC Executive Board Meeting Minutes Published -- Vacancies 1. Registry -- LIR Stats Number of LIRs: 23,427 (+10) Number of members: 20,280 (+26) LIRs with IPv6: 16,756 (+0) IPv4 addresses transferred in March: 1,100,288 (+31,232) -- SAV: Why Is Source Address Validation Still A Problem? RIPE NCC researcher Qasim Lone examines source address validation and considers ways to incentivize network operators to implement it in this RIPE Labs article: https://labs.ripe.net/author/qasim-lone/sav-why-is-source-address-validatio… 2. Information and Services -- Decommissioning the RIPE Networking App and RIPE Mailing List Forum By the end of April, we will decommission the RIPE Networking App and also the RIPE Mailing List Forum as our research shows they are not widely used. You can read more details on the reasons for decommissioning these services at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ripe-list/2023-April/002822.html -- RIPE Labs In March, RIPE Labs featured articles from community members on topics including the resilience of the Internet in Ukraine, an update on current and developing Internet governance regulations and policies, the role of human relationships in Internet geopolitics, the ways people use TXT and more: https://labs.ripe.net/ -- Hot on the RIPE NCC Forum Over the past month, people have been submitting topics and joining discussions on the new RIPE NCC Forum about the impact of ChatGPT, RIPE Atlas J-root instances, telecom market trends in South East Europe and more. If you haven’t signed up yet, do it today and come join the chat: https://forum.ripe.net/ 3. Community and Engagement -- RIPE NCC Days Sofia Register for the RIPE NCC Days that will be held in Sofia, Bulgaria from 27-28 June 2023. The call for presentations is open for this meeting until 7 May 2023. See the meeting page to register, submit presentations and find sponsorship opportunities: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/regional-meetings/ripe-ncc-days-s… -- Community Projects Fund Call for Applications The call for applications is open for the RIPE NCC Community Projects Fund. Through the Fund, the RIPE NCC supports projects that work toward the good of the Internet. If you’re working on a project that supports the operations and resilience of the Internet, send in your application for funding by 31 May 2023 at 23:59 UTC: https://www.ripe.net/publications/news/announcements/community-projects-fun… -- RIPE Policy Proposals -- Policy Proposal 2023-01 Discussion Phase Extended until 29 May 2023 The Discussion Phase for version 2.0 of RIPE Policy proposal 2023-01, “Reducing IXP IPv4 assignment default size to a /26,” has been extended, as there was some support for the concept but no feedback yet. Please send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 29 May: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/policy-announce/2023-April/000586.h… -- Policy Proposal 2023-02 Review Phase Open until 2 May The Review Phase for RIPE Policy Proposal 2023-02, “Minimum Size for IPv4 Temporary Assignments,” started on 4 April. Please send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 2 May: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/policy-announce/2023-April/000585.h… -- RIPE IPv6 Policy Discussion Update The RIPE Address Policy Working Group held interim sessions to discuss IPv6 policy goals on 20 February and 11 April. The group discussed topics related to PI assignments and drafted desirable policy outcomes: https://labs.ripe.net/author/leo_vegoda/more-next-steps-in-ipv6-policy-work/ -- Consensus on Principles for Remuneration of the RIPE Chairs Last Call has ended for the document "Principles for Remuneration of the RIPE Chairs," and consensus has been declared. It will be published as a RIPE Document: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ripe-list/2023-April/002826.html -- Consensus on RIPE Code of Conduct Process and Team Appointment Documents Last call has also ended for the RIPE Code of Conduct Process document and RIPE Code of Conduct Team Appointment document. Both have now been published as RIPE Documents: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-792 https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-793 -- RIPE NCC Community Development Plans for 2023 The RIPE NCC’s Gergana Petrova has published a RIPE Labs article summarising our Community Development department’s engagement plans for 2023. Take a look and let us know if you have any feedback: https://labs.ripe.net/author/gergana_petrova/community-development-plans-fo… -- Call for Topics for RIPE 86 Community Plenary The RIPE 86 Community Plenary will take place on Thursday, 25 May at 16:00 (UTC+2), 14:00 (UTC). Please reach out to RIPE Chair Mirjam Kühne about any topics you would like to discuss during this session. Read about the purpose of the RIPE Community Plenary and find the minutes of previous sessions at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/ripe-community-plenary -- IGF 2023 Call for Proposals The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2023 will be held this year in Kyoto, Japan from 8-12 October. The call is open for session proposals, with a deadline of 19 May at 23:59 UTC. You can find the proposal forms and further information at: https://www.intgovforum.org/en/content/igf%C2%A02023-call-for-session-propo… -- The RIPE Chair Team Reports: April 2023 The RIPE Chair Team’s March report is out, featuring updates on RIPE community activities such as preparations for RIPE 86, the Cooperation Working Group’s efforts in response to the EU Consultation on Digital Infrastructure, an update on RIPE documents, upcoming industry events and more: https://labs.ripe.net/author/mirjam_kuhne/the-ripe-chair-team-reports-april… -- Training Courses and Webinars in May Our courses for the month of May are open for RIPE NCC members to register. We will have a webinar on IPv6 Addressing Plans. We will also hold in-person training courses on Basic IPv6 in Manama and Bishkek, on Advanced IPv6 in Bologna, and on BGP Operations and Security in Manama: https://learning.ripe.net/w/upcoming/ Interested in a topic that you can't find on our upcoming courses page? Let us know what material you would like to see covered in future webinars: https://forms.gle/rhyExMhb7BTCCXyU8 4. Organisational Update -- Publication of final support documents for the General Meeting All supporting documents for the RIPE NCC General Meeting (GM) May 2023 are now available at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2023/documentatio… The documents include: - RIPE NCC Annual Report 2022 - RIPE NCC Financial Report 2022 - Four options for the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024, along with two votes on separate ASN and transfer fees (we have also included an updated calculator that allows members to see how the various models would affect them) - RIPE NCC Standard Service Agreement - Proposed Amendment We ask members to read these documents and provide feedback on the Members Discuss mailing list or during the GM itself. The draft agenda with resolutions to be voted on is also available at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2023/agenda-ripe-… -- Executive Board Resolution to Temporarily Suspend IPv4 Waiting List Applications At its meeting on 21 April 2023, the RIPE NCC Executive Board resolved to suspend the ability of RIPE NCC members to submit new applications to the IPv4 waiting list until further notice. This does not affect any existing requests that have already been submitted to the waiting list. You can read more about the decision at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ncc-announce/2023-April/001643.html -- Call for Nominations to the RIPE NCC Executive Board You have until Wednesday, 3 May 2023 at 23:59 UTC+2 to nominate a candidate for the RIPE NCC Executive Board. The election for the three vacant seats will take place at the RIPE NCC General Meeting (GM) on 24-26 May 2023. More information is available at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2023/executive-bo… -- Changes to Management Structure Former Chief Information Officer Kaveh Ranjbar has left the RIPE NCC, and we thank him for his 15 years with us. Felipe Victolla Silveira has been appointed to the role of Chief Technology Officer and will serve as acting Chief Registry Officer until a replacement is in place. We invite interested candidates from the RIPE community to apply for this position: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ncc-announce/2023-April/001637.html -- Report Published on Law Enforcement Agencies Requests 2022 The RIPE NCC has published its report detailing the requests we received from Law Enforcement Agencies in 2022: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-794 -- RIPE NCC Executive Board Meeting Minutes Published -- 165th RIPE NCC Executive Board Meeting The minutes for the 165th RIPE NCC Executive Board Meeting are now available. You can read a summary of the main items and access the minutes at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ncc-announce/2023-April/001640.html -- 166th RIPE NCC Executive Board Meeting The minutes for the 166th RIPE NCC Executive Board Meeting are also available. You can read a summary of the main items and access the minutes at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ncc-announce/2023-April/001642.html -- Vacancies We currently have a number of vacancies at the RIPE NCC. If you would like to join us in working at the heart of the Internet, have a look at our openings: https://www.ripe.net/about-us/staff/careers-at-the-ripe-ncc Thank you for reading to the end. We'll be back next month with more news! Best regards, Boris Duval Communications Officer RIPE NCC

2 2

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024
by Andrea Borghi 08 May '23

08 May '23

On Wednesday 03 May 2023 18:56:37 Brian Turnbow via members-discuss wrote: > > What makes the pay per category model "A" as proposed impossible for me > to vote for is it penalizes all long standing lirs. When I started working > with Ripe you signed up completed the forms and a /19 was allocated, more > if you could demonstrate need but /19 was default. You then requested an > AS. Run out came along and you could get a last /22 together with your v6 > allocation. So that adds up to a /19, /22, AS and /32(or /29) > That should be the bare minimum for small as it is what any long standing > lir has with Ripe, yet they would now find themselves in category 6 at the > high end of the scale. It does not mean they have more revenues than a lir > started in say 2018 with much less IP resources, just that they started > first. Note that I am not talking about the company I work for, we have > more resources than those stated above, but I know several companies that > fit into the category. I second that. The RIPE partecipation for my company, resource wise, is the default allocation that was given to me at the time of registration and the subsequent allocation exactly as described above. The work I, as a company, generate for RIPE is minimal but the model A substantially increase the annual fee. I think I, as the others in the same ballpark, should be treated as SMALL (= we had only the default allocations, no more than that), and there must be a lower category only for who is registered but has no v4 allocation (= is in wait list). THe model A proposed by RIPE instead is elevating the yesterday's SMALL to a much higher category in a manner non compatible with the SMALL partecipants business models. the 2022 fee for me was about 1% of my gross income. elevating that is profundly unjust when the fee for the large enterprises is a 0.00_1% of their gross income. (feel free to add zeros in the place of the '_'). Best Regards, Andrea Borghi --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Andrea Borghi - W KEY srl - http://www.wkey.it Tel. +39 0648919230 e +39 0648919231 Fax. +39 064871550 - Mobile: +39 3477135822 sede legale: Via Alfredo Catalani 30 - 00199 Roma - P.IVA e CF 08426171008 Best Regards, Andrea Borghi --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Andrea Borghi - W KEY srl - http://www.wkey.it Tel. +39 0648919230 e +39 0648919231 Fax. +39 064871550 - Mobile: +39 3477135822 sede legale: Via Alfredo Catalani 30 - 00199 Roma - P.IVA e CF 08426171008

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024
by Maximilian Wilhelm 05 May '23

05 May '23

Dear Simon-Jan, * thanks for the update on the charging schema and the updated calculator! These models still introduce charges for ASNs, the questions on the "why?" has been raised multiple times and I haven't seen any explanation for that. Did I miss it? I think a transfer fee makes sense as tranfers create a lot of (paper)work for the RIPE NCC. What puzzles me is that with a /29 IPv6 allocation one ends up in category 3 (instead of cat 2 with /32). Given I was pushed to take a /29 allocation - instead of the /32 I requested - by the RIPE NCC, and only accepted the "upsell" to stop the back and forth with 24h delay and it didn't make a big difference at the time, this feels wrong now. If this were to becomer reality I would expect quite some LIRs opening tickets with the RIPE NCC to return their "extranous" IPv6 space (above /32), which I would expect to create some toil on the RIPE NCC. With this version I think option A would be the least bad option, but also hard to accept. Best, Max Anno domini 2023 Simon-Jan Haytink scripsit: > Dear RIPE NCC members, > > I want to thank all those who contributed to the consultation so far on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 and the model we should use for the coming years. > > We can now share three draft models that we developed based on input from the members on the Members Discuss mailing list and in the Charging Scheme Open House, as well as from the discussions at the recent Executive Board Meeting. > > The result is that we are proposing three draft charging scheme models: one category-based and two that are based on the previous "one LIR account, one fee" model. We hope to receive feedback on these models by 19 April so the Executive Board can propose the final versions on 26 April. The members will then vote on those three models at the upcoming General Meeting on 24-26 May. > > The three models all aim to fulfil a budget that is roughly the same as 2023 plus general cost increases including inflation, so EUR 42-45 million. By doing this, we can ensure that we can meet the potential budgetary requirements for 2024 while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contributions should we receive excess funds. The Activity Plan and Budget will be discussed with members this coming Autumn. > > The three models are available to review at: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/ch… > > We also provide an updated calculator where members can see for themselves how much they might pay under the draft models: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/ne… > > To summarise the main features of the three models: > > Model A - Category Model > > This model has ten categories to provide greater granularity. It also charges separately for independent and legacy resources in exactly the same way as in previous years. Additionally, a separate 50 EUR ASN assignment fee has been added. Both separately charged resources do not contribute to the category scores. This means there is no double charging and no specific charging for transfers or administrative work carried out by the RIPE NCC. There is a New /24 IPv4 administration fee to ensure there is a financial consequence to joining the IPv4 Waiting List. The fee would be payable upon receipt of the /24, and members joining the waiting list who do not have an eligible LIR account, would pay the new LIR sign-up fee to open a new LIR account and join the waiting list. > > With this model, approximately 68% of members would pay less than the current annual fee, with the remaining 32% paying more. > > The discussion with members helped us to see that a category-based model would receive significant support from members if the version was simplified. Should members see the need to charge for other elements, then that can be incorporated into the category model in the coming years. Any such additional charges could potentially then reduce the fees per category. > > Model B - Price increase and ASN fee > > This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there is a price increase of EUR 150 and a 50 EUR ASN fee to ensure we can meet our budgetary requirements while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contribution should we receive excess funds. > > Model C - Transfer fee and ASN fee > > This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there is a charge of EUR 1,000 per transfer to be paid by the receiving party and a 50 EUR ASN fee to ensure we can meet our budgetary requirements while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contribution should we receive excess funds. > > Further information on the charging scheme models is provided at: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/ch… > > The RIPE NCC Executive Board believes that a category-based model is the best option to help address uncertainty that might be caused by consolidation with multiple LIRs and to provide greater flexibility and fairness in how we charge members in the coming years. > > On 26 April, the final versions of the charging schemes that members will vote on will be published for the members to consider and discuss. If you have comments on the draft charging schemes, we therefore ask you to comment on the members-discuss mailing list by 19 April so we have time to incorporate any feedback if necessary. > > Importantly, we ask all members to register for the RIPE NCC General Meeting where the final decision will be in your hands. Register to participate and vote at: > https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active > > Simon-Jan Haytink > Chief Financial Officer > RIPE NCC > -- Friends are relatives you make for yourself.

21 34

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
by George Porter 05 May '23

05 May '23

Simon, having read a multitude of e mails on this subject, there are a number of questions that as far as I can see have not been answered by the RIPE Management. It is clearly difficult as members to vote on the various options, one of which should be NO Change, without a full budget picture. On your opening statement you suggested that unless you review the charging scheme then your income would be significantly reduced. My assumption is that you have planned for this so: A. If there is NO CHANGE what do you expect your income to be. B. What reductions would you make to cut expenditure to this budget. i.e what goes and what stays. C. Can you take from your reserves to cover in the short term. What income would be derived from the 2 models shown and is this income significantly more than last year. Rather than members assuming and guessing at these figures it would be good to understand RIPE's actual calculated figures. We as members have probably closed our eyes and just allowed RIPE to undertake various spending, I think now the RIPE Management team really have to justify why and what they are spending this money on and how it benefits the members. Regards George Porter Integrated Network Services Ltd 01928 238390 07956592260 george.porter(a)in-services.co.uk Note. This email is confidential, may be legally privileged, and is for the intended recipient only. Access, disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance on any of it by anyone else is prohibited and may be a criminal offence. Please delete if obtained in error and email confirmation to the sender -----Original Message----- From: ncc-announce <ncc-announce-bounces(a)ripe.net> On Behalf Of Simon Jan Haytink Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 9:35 AM To: ncc-announce(a)ripe.net Subject: [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 [You don't often get email from simon(a)ripe.net. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Dear RIPE NCC members, We would like to re-open the consultation we began with the membership in 2021 on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme model, and we would like to carry out that consultation well in advance of the RIPE NCC General Meeting (GM) May 2023. In 2021, we presented on this topic at the GM, and we also surveyed our members and held an open house to get direct input on the charging scheme model that members would like to see implemented by the RIPE NCC. The outcome at that stage of the consultation was that there were strong cases made for both the current one-LIR, one-fee model and for a category-based model that would charge based on the number of resources held by a member. A strong case was also made to charge for all resources allocated or assigned by the RIPE NCC, including ASNs, and to charge a fee for transfers. The Executive Board decided to suspend the consultation in light of the war in Ukraine, but we are eager to decide on a way forward on this matter together with the membership. One of the main reasons that we would like to advance the discussion on the charging model is that we expect many members with multiple LIR accounts who received resources in 2021 to merge these accounts in the coming year. This means that the income the RIPE NCC receives will be reduced by a significant amount and we will need to ensure that our charging model allows us to collect the revenue required to maintain our operations. We believe that a category-based model would be best suited to cover this consolidation risk. Continuing with the existing model would mean that an increase in fees for all members would be required. Our ultimate goal is to arrive at a charging scheme model that will be sustainable for many years to come, meeting the needs of the RIPE NCC’s members. To help with discussion and to provide something tangible for members to assess, we are putting forward two draft models for members to review. These models can be summarised as: Model 1: A “one-LIR, one-fee” model based on the current RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2023 that also charges for independent resources, ASNs, transfers and changes in business structure such as Mergers & Acquisitions. Model 2: A category-based model that charges per member (not per LIR account) and is based on resources registered and that also charges for independent resources, ASNs, transfers and changes in business structure such as Mergers & Acquisitions. In order to allow members to form an opinion based on their own situation, we are providing an Excel sheet that will allow you to calculate the fees you would pay under each of the draft models. It is important to be aware that at this stage, the numbers assigned for each item are indicative and would be reviewed in light of the discussion with members. We plan to review these figures following consultation with the members, and giving input on those figures would greatly help to arrive at a good model. You can download the Excel sheet from: https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/me… We also plan to hold another Open House meeting on the Charging Scheme in March to further discuss the charging scheme models. The Executive Board will then take the input and decide on one or more charging schemes for the membership to vote on at the GM to be held on 24 May 2023. The outcome of that vote will determine the charging scheme model to be used in the coming years. I ask that you provide your input on this important consultation on the Membership Discussion mailing list (members-discuss(a)ripe.net) by 26 April. Input provided up to this date will be considered by the Board when formulating the charging schemes to be proposed for the GM. Input after this date is of course also welcome although it might not be reflected in the schemes put forward to the membership at the GM. The consultation will also be recorded and available from: https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations I look forward to your input. Kind regards, Simon Jan Haytink Finance Director RIPE NCC Summary 7 March: Start consultation with membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme model 21 March: Open House to discuss charging scheme with membership 24 March: Executive Board meeting to discuss input received so far 12 April: Publication of Draft RIPE NCC Charging Schemes 2024 26 April: Publication of Final RIPE NCC Charging Schemes to be voted on by members 24 May: RIPE NCC General Meeting May 2023 References Open House and Survey Results https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/open-house/ripe-ncc-open-house-ch… Presentation at General Meeting https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2021/documentatio…

3 2

Some thought on how to lower membership fees follow bottom up principle
by Lu Heng 04 May '23

04 May '23

Dear Colleagues: Some thought on fees for RIR’s in general, and how it could also apply to RIPE. I personally started in RIPE when I was in my early 20s when I was studying in the Netherlands, nearly a decade ago. While I never feel the pain to pay any RIR fees, as it is relative low proportion to the business built on it, I do know for lots of smaller members it is difficult to pay in one go, especially when you are coming from relative low-income countries. We need to be supporting these businesses, so they are given the same chance to grow and develop. RIRs at its core, is just a registration database with few hundreds megabytes of data, it’s not expensive or technically complicated to manage. Most of RIR’s expense are coming from its outreach activities and additional service it’s provided to the public. So how about members of RIR decide what service are important and what activity are essential at individual level of members? For example, for RIPE, we can divided the fees into (numbers are just example): Core service: (RPKI, registration service)(200euro/year) Additional service: RIPE stats(100euro/year) RIPE atlas(100euro/year) Etc Outreach activities: RIPE conference(150euro/year) Additional conference: ICANN related(100euro/year) Other RIR related(100euro/year) And we let each member voluntarily choose to pay what service they believe is good for the community. For the service that does not get enough funding, either those member of staff who were hired for the service should ask for donations to support those services or those service should be dropped as community doesn’t find value in them and does not want to pay for it. And we should also incorporate per capita income into the equation, for example, Central Asia member should pay 40% less than member in norway for example justified by per capita income for each of the service. So, only the core service would be compulsory to be paid, and therefore the minimum membership fee for a developing country small ISP can be as long as few hundreds euro per year. This will give those members a fighting chance to build their businesses without paying for services they don’t need and can’t afford -- -- Kind regards. Lu

2 1

Charging Scheme, Budget Questions
by Phillip Baker 03 May '23

03 May '23

Hello, Long time LIR, first time (I think?) list caller... I confess, mea culpa, I was not on members-discuss at the time to see the earlier conversation and despite my best efforts to read the archive I have not yet seen some of the answers from RIPE on list that I would have hoped to see. Perhaps some of this was addressed, but not documented on-list from, the open house I saw that took place. I have to say that this seems to me to be a deeply cynical way to get the revenue increase that RIPE wants (i.e. equal to a +10% increase of the current cost model). By presenting this "pay per size" proposal (which by my reading of RIPEs figures benefits nearly 70% of the vote and so seems a certainty if those members vote, as I expect, in their short term interest) as *only* being available with the option of increasing their revenue despite apparently fairly significant reserves, this seems likely to guarantee RIPE the same budget increase it clearly feels it needs as a 10% increase to the one-lir-one-fee model would (but which is, of course, much harder to get past a vote). In some ways, perhaps, this is good in that it has made several LIRs I have flagged this proposal to now sit up and take notice, in much the same way as some of the same people eventually did over at Nominet, that something at least appears like it might have gone wrong. This "final" option A charging model would see us paying more than we ever have, even after adjusting our 03-04 (also, then, 'pay per size') invoices for inflation (and our fees of course actually went down in 04/05). In the last 2 decades generally, we have made minimal demands of RIPE other than expecting them to maintain the database/RPKI. We nevertheless understand the utility and value of many "extra curricular" activities, but like others have questions about the amounts now apparently involved, the amount of staff required, and are a little dismayed at the options being presented at this point making a funding increase (not to mention a nearly 3x rise for us personally) a "fait accompli", as if the tapering in revenue from LIR memberships over the coming year was somehow unpredictable in November 2022 or previous years, when the budgets were set. I accept that we are now late to the discussion/shaping party as these are "final" charging schemes, but I would still like some specific answers from RIPE (some of these questions have been asked before, but not answered anywhere that I can see); I appreciate there are a lot of them so I have tried to order and group questions by topic, starting with the charging scheme and then turning more generally to RIPE itself; 1. Why were there no "pay per size, shrink RIPE budget in real terms" options presented? Would just charging more for transfers (which I imagine some of the most 'expensive' activity RIPE undertakes per action in terms of verification, sanctions checks, etc) and keeping the current model be sufficient? I did not see this modelled, but I might have missed it. 2. Why are the categories (still) so coarse? A member with /19 + /24 pays as much as a member with 2 x /19, does this seem "fair"? I understand from someone I was discussing this with that apparently "per IP" had to be ruled out for "tax reasons", but I actually saw no evidence on list of this, so this is only hearsay. Even if a linear scaling (i.e. per /24) model could not be used because of some tax implication - is the suggestion that the Dutch tax system really would only allow categories scaled in powers of two? RIPE certainly has plenty of computers - why was it not possible to make, say, 'categories' larger than the smallest sizes increase by say, /21s or /22s to reduce the steps between them? Why could RIPE not just *tell* members exactly what their projected costs will be for the new A model without having to fill out a spreadsheet (a very evidently error prone process particularly when several revisions of the spreadsheet have existed since the beginning of this conversation) 3. Why does it cap out where it does (and at €10,000)? Does it seem "fair" that i.e. DTAG pays the same as much smaller firms that nevertheless fall into Cat 10? 4. Has RIPE included in their model the likelihood of firms being suitably financially motivated to close multiple medium sized LIRs to make a single large LIR to take advantage of the cap? 5. What happens to all of our costs under Model A in year 2 after all the projected LIRs close and budget has increased by 12% again? How much more % will our ~3x increase need to go up by then? 6. Why did RIPE seem to make (and apparently plan on continuing to make) increasing non-registry budget commitments on the back of extra revenue from what were very obviously always going to be short-term LIR memberships? It seems from other messages on this list that RIPE already plans, conceptually, on a 5-12% budget increase in November... it seems we just voting to enable that now, without knowing what that money would be spent on? 7. If the outcome was that the membership somehow still voted against increasing the overall RIPE revenue this year, *what* areas would be cut? Has this truly not been assessed/forecast already? Are there really no RIPE / NCC functions, consultants, PR, outreach, etc that could be scaled back as the rest of industry has had to in the face of increasing costs to focus on more core RIR priorities? (accepting that this line of questioning opens a can of worms about what those priorities should be as everyone will have different priorities, but we could always have a collective weighting vote over which activities should be prioritised) What evidence is there of RIPE (NCC) working to ensure it's costs are in fact reasonable? 8. As someone who is old, but evidently not old enough, why are budget decisions decoupled by 6 months from discussions about how the funds to meet that projected budget should be collected? Is this to allow for inaccurate forecasting to be discovered during the 1H of the budget year to avoid a large shortfall at the end? If so is this not a remnant of times past before RIPE was a €40m a year entity that should be quite competent at forecasting? Is it still necessary? Certainly, today it has the effect of focusing member attention at the "wrong end of the telescope"; many are discussing only about how much each member should pay and what category they should fall into (short term view), rather than on how much money it is that RIPE is (and ought to be) spending (long term view). When budget time rolls around, people are less engaged because the change has no immediate financial impact upon them. In the meantime, people are told "now is not the time to talk budgets, please just give us more money". Does this approach seem in the interest of members generally? -- Regards, Phillip Baker Netcalibre - Managed Internet Solutions, Remote Hands & Network Engineering Services Netcalibre Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales #5172812 at 41, E4 6NA - VAT Reg GB842975002 -----Original Message----- From: ncc-announce <ncc-announce-bounces(a)ripe.net> On Behalf Of Raymond Jetten Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 4:31 PM To: ncc-announce(a)ripe.net Subject: [ncc-announce] [GM] Final RIPE NCC Charging Schemes for Members to Vote On Dear all, We have now published the final RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 options that will be voted on by members at the General Meeting on 24 May, together with an updated calculator that allows you to see how the different options would affect you. This can be viewed at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2023/documentatio… I would like to thank all members who contributed to the consultation on this important topic. A wide range of opinions were shared on many aspects of the RIPE NCC’s charging. Although not every suggestion could be accommodated, we did our best to produce voting options that took your feedback into consideration. The outcome is that we propose four charging schemes for the membership to choose from, with three votes in total. The projected 2024 income for each option is included for comparison. - Vote 1: Model A: Category-based model, (projected income: EUR 42M) Model B: Continuation of the “one LIR, one fee” model with a 10% LIR fee price increase (projected income: EUR 42M) Model C: Continuation of the “one LIR, one fee” model with a 5% LIR fee price increase (projected income: EUR 40M) Model D: Continuation of the “one LIR, one fee” model that is exactly the same as the 2023 model (projected income: EUR 38M) - Vote 2: Additional charge for ASN assignments (Yes/No) (projected income: EUR 1.8M) - Vote 3: Additional charge for transfer requests (Yes/No) (projected income: EUR 1.2M) We decided to separate the votes for ASN assignments and transfer requests because we think members should have a clear choice on the charging models themselves. There can then be a separate discussion on whether these other charges are appropriate. Note that the income from either/both of these charges would be in addition to income from Models A, B, C or D. The Board believes that the category-based model (Model A) will put the RIPE NCC in the best position to manage change in the future. It addresses the perceived unfairness of the current model, based on an objective measure of members’ resource holdings. It spreads the burden more fairly if future price increases are required, and it allows us to reduce the uncertainty caused by multiple LIRs and the associated loss of income due to the consolidation of LIR accounts. Comments on the IPv6 category limits have also been taken into account and corrected in the model; the lowest category is now a /29 rather than a /31 as it was in the previous version. Model A introduces a new fee to join the IPv4 Waiting List of EUR 1,000, and a yet-to-be-determined fee before the allocation can be made. In effect, these fees replace the current practice and fees involved with creating multiple LIRs to request additional allocations. More details are in the charging scheme document. We note that we saw many requests for a pure usage-based model. However, such a model would greatly distort the RIPE NCC’s income dynamics and may present new risks. Making the RIPE NCC reliant on a small number of members for a large part of its income could undermine its stability and independence, and it is reasonable to think these larger companies would want a greater say in the organisation’s governance as a result of their increased contribution. This is why the Board would prefer to see all fees stay within a reasonable bandwidth. The models B, C and D, which are based on the existing “one LIR, one fee” approach, are included not only to provide an alternative to Model A, but also to allow members to determine the level of the fees should they reject a category-based model. The Board’s advice to members is therefore to vote preferentially for Models A, B, C and D in that order, and to vote “yes” for votes 2 and 3 on additional charges for ASNs and transfers. Models A and B will provide for a cost-neutral budget compared to 2023 when inflation is taken into account. Approval of the separate charges for ASNs/transfers, together with approval for Models A or B, could see the RIPE NCC receive income in excess of its 2024 cost budget, which is set during the activity planning process every Autumn. However, this does not mean the RIPE NCC’s budget will automatically increase. The budget is set by the Board following consultation with the membership, and members also retain the ability to redistribute any future surplus in the following year. **** Projected Financial Impact of Different Models: Vote 1: Model A: Allows for a budget that is neutral compared to 2023 (taking inflation into account) Model B: Allows for a budget that is neutral compared to 2023 (taking inflation into account) / 10% increase on the per-LIR fee Model C: Reduction in budget (after inflation) / 5% increase in per-LIR fee Model D: Significant reduction in budget even before inflation is taken into account / per-LIR fee is unchanged – note that any resulting shortfall may have to be covered by the RIPE NCC’s reserves Vote 2/3: When combined with Model A or B this could allow for budget to further develop services. Otherwise, it could provide for a neutral budget (compared to 2023) if combined with Models C or D. *** The RIPE NCC Managing Director, Hans Petter Holen, will also present on high level budget development at the General Meeting, to continue the discussion members have started regarding the RIPE NCC’s budget. The Board has paid close attention to this conversation, and we hope it continues as we work to develop the Activity Plan and Budget for 2024. I would like to remind members that it is during this yearly activity planning phase that feedback on the RIPE NCC’s budget and activities is sought and that the present discussion is about how we fund the RIPE NCC’s operations from 2024 onward. I would also like to bring your attention to a Board resolution that freezes the IPv4 Waiting List, until a full analysis is carried out on how this might be best accommodated within a category-based charging scheme model and a discussion can be had with the RIPE community on this issue: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ncc-announce/2023-April/001643.html Finally, I strongly urge you to exercise your voting rights at the upcoming General Meeting. We have charged the members in the same way for ten years, and we are now proposing changes that will have a financial impact for you. 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 Kind regards, Raymond Jetten RIPE NCC Executive Board Treasurer

4 4

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme
by Misak Khachatryan 03 May '23

03 May '23

Kinda strange that people suggest RIPE to ask money for free services which they think will reduce membership fees. But these services, if they are needed by anyone, or let's say by most, will become just another indirect membership fee. Or if too few of the members will pay for them, we just lose all these "nice to have services" due to lack of funding. Best regards, Misak Khachatryan, Network Administration and Monitoring Department Manager, GNC- ALFA CJSC 1 Khaghaghutyan str., Abovyan, 2201 Armenia Tel: +374 60 46 99 70 (9670), Mob.: +374 55 19 98 40 URL: www.rtarmenia.am<http://www.rtarmenia.am> On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 6:59 PM Kaj Niemi <kajtzu(a)basen.net<mailto:kajtzu@basen.net>> wrote: FWIW, the latest EB minutes can be found here [1] and pertain to what options for voting on the charging model will be presented at the GM in May. Everyone might want to take a look at it. [1] https://www.ripe.net/about-us/executive-board/minutes/2023/minutes-166th-ex… Kaj From: Kaj Niemi Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 12:47 To: Randy Bush <randy(a)psg.com<mailto:randy@psg.com>>; Paul Newton <paul.newton(a)f4rn.org.uk<mailto:paul.newton@f4rn.org.uk>> Cc: Sander Steffann <sander(a)steffann.nl<mailto:sander@steffann.nl>>; Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net<mailto:gert@space.net>>; <members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> <members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> Subject: RE: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Hi, It would probably be better to not single out a specific service to get rid of just like that but instead objectively look at the services NCC provides and should provide as part of the service commitment to its membership. To figure out whether they really are something a RIR should do as part of its basic services for LIRs or services that are value-add. Some of these services can be categorized as being in the interest of the public, like the K-root. On the other hand, I don't think anything prohibits charging for other services, if NCC truly wanted. Some of the charging models want to introduce transfer fees, for example, and I do believe people pay for RIPE meetings, too. Thinking creatively about some of the things mentioned: * Training and certs * This is a topic where there could actually be a possibility of upselling * many companies have training budgets * many allow employees to choose how to spend rather freely (subject to line manager approval, etc.) * NCC has 14 FTEs doing developing and doing training, spending around 2 million annually on development of said services * One would assume that there would at least be some kind of payback or plan on how to recoup the costs over time * Looking at 2022 financials, at most certifications were a 98k euro business in 2022 but since NCC sold voucher bundles lets assume generously that 50k of revenue was attributable to 2022 and the other half is classed as future revenue. * Conclusion: depending on viewpoint the costs are either 20x or 40x current revenue * Why should the membership pay for this year in, year out? * Suggestion: produce a realistic plan that demonstrates track to, at least, break even for training and certifications that includes spent past costs for X years * Network visibility * According to NCC there are about 10k atlas probes, there is RIS, etc. and people seem to find the data produced genuinely useful * If the data is useful, it should be possible to quantify its value * if there is value it should be possible to charge for it * Suggestion: produce a plan that demonstrates roadmap to breakeven of spent opex for the last X years As a side benefit one would have also diversify revenue away from being 98% to 90% or so membership fees but at least it would be a start. Now, if the answers are “we cannot charge for it, people will hate us for being greedy”, “nobody would ever pay for this”, “how can we convince someone to buy when we have given it for free in the past” - I think the issue is again that either people do not truly understand the value of the service or by itself is not valuable enough to anyone. The world is full of obscure sources of data for almost any industry charging for their produced/collected data, why should the networking industry be any different? I do not believe it is. In any case, why should the membership pay for such things? Alternatively, one could have “LIR services” package and a “the megacombo supersized LIR services and extra” package. Those who want something beyond the basics can elect to pay for the extra. Of course, for an organization that would sell SaaS and data, the data should be valuable enough that people pay for it year after year. And the services must then be relevant enough that people elect also to pay for them year after year, one cannot simply invent internal projects to keep busy while the money comes in. If one looks at the annual guides, much of the time seems to be spent on internal projects to improve something. The ugly truth, however, is that both potentially monetizable services will not be able to cover any larger deficits fees from decreasing membership numbers for quite some years even if they were run with a criterion to at least break even on direct costs. Given enough support a membership desiring to pay less, it would leave as the alternative to reduce expenditure in various ways. What normal companies do when times are tough is first to get rid of consultants. In this case it would reduce costs per member by 255 euro annually or on an annual budgetary level by 12.75%. I’m reasonably sure the almost 200 people working full time can handle things. Similarly, does everyone need to be in Amsterdam and does NCC need to market rates? EU is a large market and there are always alternatives to nearshore within EU. Does NCC really need to have an office in Dubai? Just to name a few. Lastly, perhaps all of these are great things that should be paid by the membership? Perhaps the real issue at hand is that the 22+ folks in Community Building and Member Engagement, spending 6 million euro inside the External Engagement and Community unit with 42 FTEs spending about 10 million euro annually - 1/4th of the whole budget - is not able to explain the wonderful benefits to us, so instead some of us send emails on members-discuss list and are seemingly unhappy with the direction things are going? Yeah, dunno, always a possibility. Kaj -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> On Behalf Of Randy Bush Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 04:53 To: Paul Newton <paul.newton(a)f4rn.org.uk<mailto:paul.newton@f4rn.org.uk>> Cc: Sander Steffann <sander(a)steffann.nl<mailto:sander@steffann.nl>>; Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net<mailto:gert@space.net>>; <members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> <members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme > It's beginning to look like rearranging deck chairs on the > Titanic. Spot the odd one out (if I've gathered the data correctly) > AFRINIC. $6m > LACNIC. $10m > APNIC. $22.5m > ARIN. $24m > RIPE NCC. €42 = $46m now list the services provided to operators by each. you wanna get rid of ris, atlas, many dns services, new engineer education, ...? to compare you will have to fold caida's budget into arin's. oh, and route views's too. this discussion sometimes reminds me of the US house of representatives debt ceiling discussion. let's cut everything that does not benefit my state, or fossil fuels. i am a ripe member because of the real services, open community, etc. ya gets what ya pay for. tanstaafl. randy _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.rip…<https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss> Unsubscribe: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.rip…<https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/kajtzu%40basen.net>

3 2

RIPE Executive Board Seat Discussion
by Daniel Pearson 02 May '23

02 May '23

Howdy all, I have not seen any discussion on this topic so I would like to bring it up to all members. Many of us are obviously very concerned about the direction that RIPE is heading with its charging scheme and their failure to acknowledge that you cannot discuss a charging scheme change without addressing the budget. I would like to propose that we as RIPE members, discuss and identify 3 candidates whom we can nominate and elect to the executive board that will address things from the perspective of its users and help keep this organization in check. I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts on this, as well as if anyone has any interest in taking up such a challenge. All the best. Daniel Pearson~

6 11

[ncc-announce] [GM] Final RIPE NCC Charging Schemes for Members to Vote On
by Brandon Butterworth 01 May '23

01 May '23

This vote looks rigged (hopefully unintentionally) Vote 1: Model A: Category-based model, (projected income: EUR 42M) Model B: Continuation of the one LIR, one fee model with a 10% LIR fee price increase (projected income: EUR 42M) Model C: Continuation of the one LIR, one fee model with a 5% LIR fee price increase (projected income: EUR 40M) Model D: Continuation of the one LIR, one fee model that is exactly the same as the 2023 model (projected income: EUR 38M) Three of the choices divide the vote for the current model while the one alternative model is category based with unfavourable lower category pricing, there is no per IP model choice. The categories are break even vs the current model at around category 3 to 4 while category 3 and below are 67.78% of membership. Thus it appears this is set up to ensure model A wins - the non A vote is split 3 ways making it quite unlikely to get close to model A votes where the categories favour the bulk of members who joined in the run out IP grab race. Per IP the lower categories are paying a lot more, it just happens that is currently lower than the existing model. This may not continue in the future. When a lot of these LIRs close, as RIPE are expecting in requesting this model change, then those remaining in the lower categories will shoulder an even larger portion of the costs. Be careful what you vote for, you could end up paying a lot more later. This vote also ensures RIPE will get a 10% rise in income, these is no model that is likely to get sufficient votes to avoid that. Now I don't mind that 10% increase as an RPI thing but that could have been done by just adding RPI this year and not greatly distorting the cost model fairness to achieve it. Model A is turkeys voting for xmas. A more reasonable vote is A vs D with a separate vote on allowing a 5 or 10% increase on D should it be chosen as that gives those who think the budget has grown too large on the back of the IP runout race a way to experess that. brandon

3 2

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Final RIPE NCC Charging Schemes for Members to Vote On
by Daniel Suchy 28 Apr '23

28 Apr '23

Hi all, The Board claims fairness of model A, but in reality it still significantly favors large LIRs (incumbents) over small ones - it unfair at all. It's just hiding that behind a lower absolute amount for small LIRs. But the curve does not flatten out too much, if we look on price per IP (see model-comparison.png attached). A and will bring only new problems in long-term perspective. Only the absolute payment for small LIRs will decrease. Model A really reminds me of trying to buy a vote instead of a fairer model at all (68% members are in category from 1 to 3 and their memberships will be cheaper), but basic principles of the original flat model have been preserved. The smaller you are, the more you pay per asset. The question is - why The Board protects (extra-)large LIRs, mostly telco-incumbents holding blocks like /14-/12 at the expense of the smaller LIRs, when we're talking about fairness? I don't see any attempt at a fairer approach here. Instead, they just scare us with highly improbable scenarios. On the contrary, that incumbents have money to buy smaller LIRs (ISPs) - and that counts members in categories from 4 to 7. Those incumbents will hold more and more addresses, the price for their address will keep just falling for them, as there's nothing above proposed Category 10. Yes, the market is continuously consolidating. But model A doesn't care about that, just brings new problems to the market (small enterprises; which are mostly somewhere beteeen category 4 and 7). And on the contrary, it helps the big players on the market. And let's in light of the concerns indicated by the Board try other view, if I detach discussion from IP assets and price fairness: 68% members mentioned above in category 1-3 will bring here only around 30% of the budget income. From this perspective, current flat model is much fairer. That's another point of view - this will also lead to consolidation in membership base especially in categories 4+. They just have to pay more, but in fact, their ability to influence anything is quite small and unequal from the point of view of the money they bring into the organization. Especially at the border of the categories, an effort to optimize the expenses can be assumed. RIPE incomes will fall as a result and this will be the primary consequence of category based model, which again is most problematic beteeen categories 4 and 7 - which makes 43% of income in category-based model. Sub-RIR organisations will simply start to share their costs. From the point of view of ip addresses, the advantage is increasing in higher categories - you have to pay less per IP. And it will not be difficult to maintain contractual or statutory relations within such SubRIRs - they already exists somewhat, but now it will be even more attractive from a financial point of view. From both points of view, the Board simply failed in it's primary role. Short-term populism trumps long-term vision after IPv4 depletion. They praise something that will cause problems in the future, even from a financial point of view. Medium LIRs were thrown overboard. So let's watch the dance on the upper deck of the sinking ship. I'll be really surprised if option A doesn't win. But I'm very afraid of the consequences. It's a good choice from my point of view. Soon we'll discuss even more about how to finance still growing beast. And even for the small ones (in category 1-3), costs will increase significantly as a result. Because the money from the middle LIRs ones will simply start to disappear as a result of formal mergers. The middle class is the real victim here. - Daniel On 4/26/23 17:31, Raymond Jetten wrote: > The Board believes that the category-based model (Model A) will put the RIPE NCC in the best position to manage change in the future. It addresses the perceived unfairness of the current model, based on an objective measure of members’ resource holdings. It spreads the burden more fairly if future price increases are required, and it allows us to reduce the uncertainty caused by multiple LIRs and the associated loss of income due to the consolidation of LIR accounts. Comments on the IPv6 category limits have also been taken into account and corrected in the model; the lowest category is now a /29 rather than a /31 as it was in the previous version. Model A introduces a new fee to join the IPv4 Waiting List of EUR 1,000, and a yet-to-be-determined fee before the allocation can be made. In effect, these fees replace the current practice and fees involved with creating multiple LIRs to request additional allocations. More details are in the charging scheme document. > > We note that we saw many requests for a pure usage-based model. However, such a model would greatly distort the RIPE NCC’s income dynamics and may present new risks. Making the RIPE NCC reliant on a small number of members for a large part of its income could undermine its stability and independence, and it is reasonable to think these larger companies would want a greater say in the organisation’s governance as a result of their increased contribution. This is why the Board would prefer to see all fees stay within a reasonable bandwidth.

1 0

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

28 Apr '23

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

1 0

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

27 Apr '23

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

18 26

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

27 Apr '23

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

1 0

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

26 Apr '23

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

5 4

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

26 Apr '23

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

1 0

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

21 Apr '23

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

4 5

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

21 Apr '23

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

1 0