- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [ncc-announce] [GM] Proposed Change to RIPE NCC Articles of Association - Board Structure
by Kaj Niemi 24 Sep '26

24 Sep '26

Hi, Interesting post. Calling this a technical clarification understates slightly the governance change. Making the Managing Director an executive director places the person being supervised within the legal board responsible for that supervision. This is really not a good thing even if the spin is that it's a nothingburger and business as usual. RIPE NCC is not a conventional company seeking faster commercial decision-making.... I think. It is a member-funded, community-accountable organization entrusted with critical Internet-number-resource services. Its governance should therefore prioritize independence, transparency, and clear lines of accountability over administrative convenience. I don't think the issue is whether the MD has the authority to run daily operations. The person already does. The issue is whether the member-elected board can independently challenge management, assess performance, set remuneration, plan succession, investigate failures and, if necessary, dismiss the MD. Those functions are inherently more difficult when the MD is a fellow board member rather than clearly accountable to a separate supervisory body. Recusal rules can help with formal votes, but they do not remove the wider problem. A MD who is a board member still participates in board dynamics, receives the same information, influences discussion and may affect what is brought to the board and how it is framed. Other directors may be less willing to raise concerns openly, especially in a relatively small board. If the aim is to align legal responsibility with operational control, the cleaner solution is a genuine separation: management is responsible for execution, while a separately elected supervisory board oversees it. That preserves accountability without mixing the executive and supervisory roles. In a member-funded organization, the board must be able to hold the Managing Director to account independently and without avoidable conflicts. Neither does there seem to be safeties in place, in the AoA, for the MD to not be designated/chosen as (at least) COB. There must be. Combining the executive and chair roles ("CEO Duality") would be a much more serious governance problem than merely making the MD an executive director. The executive runs RIPE NCC; the COB leads the board that must supervise that executive. Giving both roles to one person means that the person being held accountable can also shape the agenda, information flow, and discussion through which accountability is exercised. Again, formal recusals on individual votes do not prevent that structural conflict. In a member-funded organization, the COB should be an independent, member-elected non-executive director, able to organize genuine scrutiny of management and to lead discussions on performance, pay, succession and, where necessary, removal. Given that legal and governance experts were consulted, I would have expected the implications of combining executive and supervisory roles to have been addressed more explicitly. Kaj ________________________________ From: Fergal Cunningham <fergalc(a)ripe.net> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2026 16:03 To: ncc-announce(a)ripe.net <ncc-announce(a)ripe.net> Subject: [ncc-announce] [GM] Proposed Change to RIPE NCC Articles of Association - Board Structure Dear RIPE NCC members, At the upcoming General Meeting, we are proposing a change to the RIPE NCC Articles of Association (AoA) to bring our formal governance structure in line with the way the organisation already works in practice. Under the proposal, the current RIPE NCC Executive Board will become the RIPE NCC Board. The seven Board members elected by the membership will continue to serve as non-executive Board members, while the RIPE NCC CEO will become an executive member of the same Board. This is primarily a matter of making our legal structure accurately reflect the roles that the Board and the CEO already perform, without changing the fundamental balance of governance at the RIPE NCC. Our Chief Legal Officer, Athina Fragkouli, has published a RIPE Labs article that explains what these changes are and why we are proposing them. https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flabs.ripe…<https://labs.ripe.net/author/athina/moving-to-a-new-board-structure/> Supporting documentation will be published on 30 September. Members will vote on the proposed changes to the AoA at the upcoming RIPE NCC General Meeting on 28-30 October. Details on how to participate in the GM and register your vote are available at: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.…<https://www.ripe.net/s/gm/oct-2026/> If you have questions or comments on the proposed changes, please comment on the article or discuss with fellow members on the Members Discuss mailing list: <members-discuss(a)ripe.net>. Kind regards, Fergal Cunningham Head of Membership Engagement RIPE NCC ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailman.r…<https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/ncc-announce.ripe.net/> As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.…<https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/>

4 5

RIPE NCC Quarterly Planning Q4 2026
by Boris Duval 17 Sep '26

17 Sep '26

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

1 0

Analysis on May 2026 GM
by Ilke Ilhan 22 Jun '26

22 Jun '26

Hi all, We just published a new article on the May 2026 GM. As well as analysing participation, we also reflect on the outcome of the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme vote. You can find it on RIPE Labs: https://labs.ripe.net/author/ilke-ilhan/gm-may-2026-why-did-people-vote-the… Cheers, Ilke

10 13

RIPE NCC Quarterly Planning Q3 2026
by Boris Duval 11 Jun '26

11 Jun '26

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

1 0

Re: RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Proposals - result announced.
by Joachim Tingvold 08 Jun '26

08 Jun '26

On 2 Jun 2026, at 10:20, Chano Klinck Andersen wrote: > It’s interesting how often the assumption is made that IPv4 > addresses will be returned if they cost more to hold on to. Well, I don’t see how such a change would make it worse than what we see today? For a lot of organizations, the ~€2-3k they have to pay for their multiple /16’s or whatever that they don’t really need, is a rounding error in a lot of budgets (and “a couple of /16’s is being generous — some have WAY more that they barely use). But for a small ISP with a /24 or whatever, the ~€2-3k+++ is starting to actually matter in their total budget (I know because I’m one of them). > The way I see it, they will not be returned. Instead, they will be > sold/leased to the highest bidder. Higher fees to RIPE NCC will make > IPv4 addresses more valuable as an asset, which in turn would raise > the market price. That assumption only applies to those who are already leasing out excess address space they own… and they might also re-consider if their fee to RIPE would increase significantly. That would be the same logic as landlords in some countries that are selling their rental properties due to increased loan interest (aka its not profitable anymore). I don’t know if you still don’t have to pay for legacy address space, but that used to be the case. That’s literally zero incentive to do anything but “sit on it” (unless you speculate to sell it off, as many also have done). And those organizations that do register, can get away with the equivalent of PA-as-PI address space via sponsoring LIR (AFAIK) with essentially zero cost as well (compared to the current price of being a LIR). Ironically, for those ISPs that have “a lot of resources”, the “per resource”-model for sponsoring LIR would be more fair than the current flat-fee (i.e. they would have to pay more than they currently do via the flat-fee). I also know of individuals with /16 as PI via sponsored LIR. They pay like €150 or whatever, and use it for “shits & giggles” (sure they use *some* part of it for labbing or whatever, but still). Individuals/organizations that have these amounts of resources that are not strictly needed would for sure either a) sell, or b) return to the pool, if they had to pay “accordingly” based on their resource size. > Instead of trying to reclaim IPv4 addresses (which I don’t believe > is going to happen in any meaningful capacity), what about trying to > figure out how we can complete the transition to IPv6, making IPv4 > addresses irrelevant and ending this yearly recurring discussion once > and for all? Even if we do at some point, the dual-stack scenario is still going to be there for many decades still. Sure, we’re at a better place than just a few years back, but it’s going to take time. A long time. > The only reason, as I see it, why some members want the tiered or fee > per IPv4 address model is because they can’t get the IPv4 addresses > they need. If we had all just transitioned to IPv6 a long time ago, > when the problem became apparent and before the last /8 was used up, > no one would be complaining about the charging scheme the way they are > today. I simply want it because it’s fair to pay more for more things. If you want 100 cars, you have to pay for 100 cars. As a consultant I have worked for more organizations than I can count that has way more IPv4-resources than they would ever need. And they just sit on it because it doesn’t cost them anything. Some of them are universities that historically had a flat, one-VRF network, zero firewall, and “fully open for everyone due to being research oriented” with public IPs on every device. That was fine historically, and I don’t blame them. However, most of these have now transitioned to fully segregated networks with firewall and NAT-boxes due to the increased need for cyber security. As part of that change, many of them started to use RFC1918 address space. The old argument that “we use our public addresses because then we don’t need to have expensive NAT boxes” are no longer valid. But do they do anything about the excess IPv4 address space they have? No, they just keep it because it’s essentially zero-cost for them, even if they literally don’t use it anymore (or maybe they use a couple of /24’s of their multiple /16’s as NAT pool). Should they return it to adhere to RIPE policies? Of course. But there’s no way to reliably check if they actually use it or not. Which is part of the problem. > Prior to IPv4 run-out, we rarely ever discussed the fees, but since > running out, we have the same discussion, with the same arguments, and > the same result (no change at all) every year. I don’t technically care about the lack of IPv4 address space, and the need to return it. Its just a nice way to solve several problems; * Make sure that you pay for the service you get according to the size/value (ASN/IPv4/IPv6-resources) * Give good monetary incentive to return unneeded resources to RIPE (or sell it, both solves the problem that they don’t have to pay for it anymore) * Reduce the cost for smaller LIRs and increase it for the bigger LIRs (pay more for more things) > Furthermore, RIPE NCC is a membership association. In many > associations, members pay the same fee even if they make different > levels of use of the shared facilities or services. I have rarely seen > associations require members to pay based on their wealth or exact > usage of shared resources. I’ve seen differentiated prices for kids > vs. adults, but that’s about it. If we only received equal service (whois, etc), then I would agree with your argument. But that membership also gives you access to a resource that has a real-life monetary value, and the more you have of it, the more valuable is it. There is no way around that fact, no matter what you argue. > The discussion on RIPE NCC providing more than just barebones registry > services, the way I see it, is really a question of “for the good of > the internet community as a whole” vs. “for the good of my bottom > line”. I agree (hence why I said I like the idea of a lot of these extra services). But they still benefit a big international ISP more than a small regional one. And the big international ISP usually has a lot more money, so having to pay 10x or even 100x the current LIR fee would in most cases be unproblematic (in some cases just a rounding error on their budget). I’m not saying “pay more for more resources” will be without problems. But I think it will be a LOT better than the current price model. -- Joachim

6 7

Re: RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Proposals Announced
by Akayo 01 Jun '26

01 Jun '26

Dear colleagues! Just a few thoughts. I have - 7 x IPv4 /22 PA - 1 x IPv4 /24 PA - 4 ASNs which is equivalent to 29 x IPv4 /24. Therefore I am not a very small LIR, but between small and medium sized. As very small LIR I would consider a LIR with less than a IPv4 /22 equivalent. With Option B, the Category Model, I will pay €2,567. With Option A, the One LIR Account-One Fee Model, I will pay €2,044. Before redistribution: In 2022 I paid €1,400. In 2023 I paid €1,550. In 2025 I paid €2,000. In three years, the fees raised by 43% (2022-2025). If option B is selected, the fees raised totally by 83% in five years (2022-2027). Even if option A is selected, we have a total change of 46% in five years (2022-2027). While it is my opinion, that a very small LIR should pay less than me, the main concern here is that the costs of the RIPE NCC are just too high: How much shall I pay after the 2027-2031 period? Will I pay €5,000 then in 2032? Will very small LIRs then also pay €1,700 or so, so that the change (which first looked good for them) was useless, especially since it is likely that they received resources in the meantime? The RIPE NCC may still forget that this may cause many LIRs to sell their resources to large companies. Thanks for your time. --Kayo

36 46

Re: RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Proposals - result announced.
by Akayo 26 May '26

26 May '26

Dear Stephen, to be honest, I don't understand the question. The majority—again as in April 2023—decided to keep the simple flat fee based model. Now the mandate for RIPE NCC is clear: Lower the costs. The RIPE NCC is great, but in order to preserve that, costs need to be lowered drastically. Really. Further discussions or polls about the charging scheme models are not helpful. --Kayo ---------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Carter (Fujitsu) via members-discuss <members-discuss(a)ripe.net> Sent: Friday, 22. May 2026 – 13:15 CEST +0200 To: members-discuss(a)ripe.net CC: Subject: [members-discuss] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Proposals - result announced. It's appearing that the charging model is staying as is - But the question must be asked, as it was mentioned in the meeting that 75% of members would be better off, so as an interim measure could the charging be a 50/50 split, it could even be over more year’s thirds ? quarters ? So, a member pays half of the flat fee and half of the category fee – as I could see some members having a large increase in their fees if 75% are better off – and that ‘jump’ may not be budgeted for. Stephen Unless otherwise stated, this email has been sent from Fujitsu Services Limited (registered in England No 96056); Fujitsu EMEA PLC (registered in England No 2216100) both with registered offices at: Lovelace Road, Bracknell, Berkshire RG12 8SN; PFU (EMEA) Limited, (registered in England No 1578652) registered offices at: Belmont, Belmont Road, Uxbridge, England, UB8 1HE and Fujitsu Research of Europe Ltd (registered in England No. 4153469) 4th Floor, Building 3, Hyde Park Hayes, 11 Millington Road, Hayes, UB3 4AZ. This email is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a duty of confidence and may be privileged. Fujitsu does not guarantee that this email has not been intercepted and amended or that it is virus-free.

3 2

Recording of Meet the RIPE NCC Executive Board Candidates Open House Now Available
by Fergal Cunningham 19 May '26

19 May '26

Dear all, The recording of this week’s Meet the RIPE NCC Executive Board Candidates Open House is now available to watch: https://www.ripe.net/meetings/open-house/meet-the-executive-board-candidate… All five candidates (Maria Häll, Raymond Jetten, Danko Jevtović, Lars-Johan Liman and Harald A. Summa) answered questions on a range of topics of interest to the membership. If you’d like to follow up with the candidates on any of the topics raised, or ask them different questions, you should feel free to do so on this list. Finally, please remember to register for next week’s General Meeting (GM) so that you can cast your vote for your preferred candidates, as well as the resolutions that members vote on including the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2027. You can do this very quickly and easily via the LIR Portal: https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active All the information you need to participate fully in the GM is available from: https://www.ripe.net/membership/gm/meetings/may-2026/ Kind regards, Fergal Cunningham Head of Membership Engagement RIPE NCC

1 1

Meet the Executive Board Candidates Open House Today
by Fergal Cunningham 13 May '26

13 May '26

Dear all, At 11:00 UTC today (13:00 CEST), we'll have the Meet the Executive Board Candidates Open House, where members have the chance to ask questions of the five candidates for next week's Executive Board election. There's still time to register if you'd like to participate: https://www.ripe.net/meetings/open-house/meet-the-executive-board-candidate… I will also mail the list when the recording is available. All information on the election is available from our GM webpages: https://www.ripe.net/membership/gm/meetings/may-2026/executive-board-electi… Best regards, Fergal Cunningham Head of Membership Engagement RIPE NCC

1 0

RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Proposals Announced
by Fergal Cunningham 06 May '26

06 May '26

Dear all, This morning our Executive Board Chair announced the charging scheme voting options for members to vote on at the upcoming General Meeting: https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/ncc-announce@ripe.net/thread/IZFVMQN… All the information, and a calculator you can use to predict your potential fees for 2027, is available from: https://www.ripe.net/s/gm/may-2026-documents/ We are of course interested to hear what members think about the proposal. And, very importantly, registration for the GM and to vote on your preferred option can be done quickly and easily through the LIR Portal: https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active Kind regards, Fergal Cunningham Head of Membership Engagement RIPE NCC

28 37