- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Voting on the RIPE NCC 2019 Financial Surplus
by Nick Hilliard 15 Oct '19

15 Oct '19

CK, can you advise on the tax situation regarding the capital reserve? Previously the board stated that the agreement reached with the NL tax authorities specified an upper limit in how large the capital reserve could be without attracting corporation tax. Is this a floating limit relating to the annual revenue of the organisation, or was/is it a static limit? I.e. do either Options A or B have tax implications that we as members should know about? Nick > Christian Kaufmann <mailto:exec-board@ripe.net> > 10 October 2019 at 13:15 > Dear members, > > For the upcoming RIPE NCC General Meeting (GM), the Executive Board is > proposing three options for the RIPE NCC 2019 financial surplus. > > The Board feels strongly that this is an appropriate moment to > strengthen the RIPE NCC's capital position to make sure that it can > continue its work with a solid financial basis in the coming years. > > Therefore, the Board suggests that the membership vote for the option to > add 50% of the financial surplus to the RIPE NCC Clearing House reserves > and redistribute 50% to the membership in 2020. This option is a good > compromise between adding more capital for improved stability and a > predictable redistribution process where we return the financial surplus > to our members. > > Although there are three possible outcomes (the two usual choices and > the 50% choice), there are two voting options. This avoids the > possibility of all options being rejected and no decision being made on > the surplus. > > Option A (to add 100% to the reserves) is approved if it receives over > 50% of Yes votes. Votes for Option B (to add 50% to the reserves) are > only considered if Option A does not pass. If both options receive less > than 50% of Yes votes, then the entire surplus will be redistributed to > the membership in 2020. > > You can find more information in the supporting document: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/october-2019/redistri… > > And we encourage all members to register to vote at the upcoming GM: > https://www.ripe.net/s/gm-registration-october-2019 > > Regards, > > Christian Kaufmann > RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman >

2 1

Broker trade history
by Payam Poursaied 01 Jul '19

01 Jul '19

I wonder to know if there is any public statistic from brokers who were involved in RIPE NCC region transfers. Any comments is appreciated Best Regards Payam

2 1

New (silent) reverse dns checks
by Jonas Frey 10 Jun '19

10 Jun '19

Hi all, we just found out that RIPE seems to have silently integrated new checks for reverse delegation of zones. Its no longer possible to add or even change a zone if the nameservers used by them are open recursors. The update will fail. Yes - open recursors are (sometimes) bad. But there are legitimate reasons to run them (freedom of speech, filtered resources etc). Once properly configured (i.e. querys rate limited) they wont pose a threat. I wasnt able to find any information on when this was implemented or if this was even voted for (please someone supply me with links if possible). I dont know of any NIC/registrar that will deny the creation/update of a domain name if the nameservers are recursors. I know that some will warn but none will refuse it. Please fix me if there are some which will indeed deny. Of course i have created a ticket about this but it all went like "fix the dns or we wont delegate". So basically this is about 2 things: silently changing checks (if it was indeed silent) and if those checks are really usefull or should rather be dropped/changed to warnings. Regards, Jonas

9 18

Re: [members-discuss] New (silent) reverse dns checks
by Rudolf E. Steiner 08 Jun '19

08 Jun '19

Måns Nilsson wrote: > Mentioning djb and DNS operations is a bait, but I'm stupid and I'll bite. [...] All your arguments are understandable. But it's not up to RIPE to make one or another ideology technically compulsory. -- nemox.net Rudolf E. Steiner r.steiner(a)nemox.net http://nemox.net/pdat/res/

1 0

Transfer agreement
by Aleksey Bulgakov 24 May '19

24 May '19

Hi all. I think it would be great if the scan copy of the Transfer Agreement would be abolished and published as a checkbox when you create the request for transfer. What do you think? --- Regards, Alex.

11 15

Re: [members-discuss] Transfer agreement
by Francesco Cristofori 23 May '19

23 May '19

Fully agree with Bruno. Not having trading platforms on RIPE environment is net neutrality. [cid:image001.png@01D51194.972C6A00] Francesco Cristofori Solution Design & PM Manager T +39 059 7470500 @francesco.cristofori@adcgroup.com<mailto:francesco.cristofori@adcgroup.com> AD Consulting S.p.A. Via Natalia Ginzburg, 40 41123 Modena www.adcgroupspa.com<http://www.adcgroupspa.com/> From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net> On Behalf Of bruno.carvalho Sent: giovedì 23 maggio 2019 18:16 To: Oleg Zinkov <o.zinkov(a)kyivlink.com>; members-discuss(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Transfer agreement RIPE is a non-profit organisation. The purpose of selling/trading or acting has an escrow is not possible and not doable. Enviado a partir do meu smartphone Samsung Galaxy. -------- Mensagem original -------- De : Oleg Zinkov <o.zinkov(a)kyivlink.com<mailto:o.zinkov@kyivlink.com>> Data: 23/05/19 18:02 (GMT+01:00) Para: members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Assunto: Re: [members-discuss] Transfer agreement This is interesting. I support the sale/purchase of IP blocks on the RIPE platform. 23.05.2019 18:48, RedCluster пишет: Maybe digitally signed contracts? I'd personally prefer RIPE to act as a market and escrow intermediary between buyers and sellers. It would be much healthier to have all the blocks listed for sale and being able to buy risk-free directly on the RIPE platform. On 5/23/2019 6:38 PM, Oleg Zinkov wrote: Definitely. Only signed contracts. 23.05.2019 18:19, Michele Neylon - Blacknight пишет: Legally binding documents need to be “signed”. A checkbox will not suffice and it shouldn’t. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/o.zinkov%40kyivlink.… -- ---------------------- www.kyivlink.com<http://www.kyivlink.com> (044)332-96-55 Zinkov Oleg _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/admin%40redcluster.o… _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/info%40kyivlink.com -- ---------------------- www.kyivlink.com<http://www.kyivlink.com> (044)332-96-55 Zinkov Oleg

1 0

Conexions: Modify port - no option
by Dominik Nowacki 13 May '19

13 May '19

Hi, Hope you’re well. I don’t seem to have an option to modify any ports on connexions for some reason. Can you please have a look? [cid:19FE5E11-70A0-494D-A012-5D8017D59CFE] The links to the forms I’d normally use are no longer working, I get 404. Please advise. Kind Regards, Dominik

1 1

RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Board Reasoning
by Christian Kaufmann 03 May '19

03 May '19

Dear members, First of all, I'd like to thank you for the feedback we received from everyone so far, and special thanks to the people who gave some more context and explanation. Trying to arrive at a charging scheme that will please everyone is not an easy task. The reason the board proposes two charging schemes is because some members requested a real alternative and difference to the existing "one LIR account-one fee" version we have right now and that is more volume based. This came up previously in the charging scheme task force discussions but also from individual members via emails or through personal contact. Nigel and I promised at the last two GMs that we would present a new one before the May GM this year. So what was the board's thinking in proposing these two models? Firstly, many people like the existing model and the board believes that it covers the spirit of what some members want by maintaining the financial stability of the NCC while keeping fairness and equality in mind. The board also does not want a price per IP model because this would have tax implications (the RIPE NCC does not sell IP addresses and the charging scheme should reflect this) and we feel it is not in keeping with the idea of a membership association. We have also found in the past that having more than two options does not work well from a voting perspective. This would add considerable complexity to the voting in which resolutions must be approved by more than 50% of voters to be adopted. The second charging scheme option is one that the board believes offers a real alternative while staying away from the price per IP aspect. The board's thinking in making the Option B proposal is that every registry entry consumes resources such as customer support time, database memory, registration time, etc. regardless of the size of the allocation. A /24 and a /12 are not so different in this regard so we see this as fair in terms of the work required by the RIPE NCC to maintain the registry. The reason we suggest to charge IPv4 and IPv6 in the same way follows the same logic - there is no tax designed to move people to IPv6. We did not want to have a political, policy-driven charging scheme because the board believes this is the work of community rather than for the board or membership to decide on. I understand that the "volume-based" description could be seen as misleading and I apologise for the misunderstanding here. The proposed model is based on registrations and not per IP as we do not want to indicate that IP is a sellable product but rather the RIPE NCC should charge members for the registry services it provides. The new charging scheme was also not proposed so that the RIPE NCC could make more money - it takes the current budget and calculates backwards to achieve the amount required to run the RIPE NCC. It is just a different model to share the current cost among members. Despite concerns that were raised on this list, the board took the request of some members to propose a new model very seriously and we spent quite some time to discuss and model the current scenario by trying to be as fair as possible and sticking with the principles of a membership organisation. Again, we are very thankful for your input and the feedback on the two models. We will continue to monitor discussions and we will of course present on the Charging Scheme 2020 at the upcoming GM. We encourage you to register your vote so you can have the final say on the two proposals. Best regards, Christian Kaufmann RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman

26 37

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

18 Apr '19

24 36

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

18 Apr '19

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

1 0