- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

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 20 Apr '23

20 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