- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
by Sebastian Graf 09 Mar '23

09 Mar '23

Hello! *) In general: It appears to me, that a large portion of membership fees goes towards expenses that are not part of the core task(s)/mission. ...So instead of a "we want/need more" - there should be an evaluation/review of what spendings the ripencc can reduce - and how to optimise for the "core mission". *) Membership fee model: If our aim is create a fair membership model, then we should take a couple of factores into consideration such as services used. Lets consider a basic LIR that just mostly uses the DB (plus LIR Portal) to manage its resources. ...Why is there a need for them to also finance "events" ouside of the yearly conference? - Any "Training Programs" or "Community Building Events",... - Should be billed to those attending. A small LIR with will send a lot fewer Humans to Trainings/Events compared to a bigger (in terms of Humans, not resources) LIR. Similarly, a LIR holding or sponsoring more resources should contribute more twoards the total budget when it comes to operating expenses. In a fair model, this would be a linear cost for resources alloacted to the LIR directly (ie: per /24 for ipv4 or per /29 for ipv6). Then there are the "Staff Intensive" Things - Such as: Resource Sponsoring/Transfer Tickets. Those have an initial "workload" for the staff evalutating the request. However i do not really see any big "followup" cost. So may i propose a "verification/evlauation fee" (ie 50 or 80 or 100) fee for those. With a "lowered" yearly fee for resource sponsorings in order to compensate for the extra work that they make during a LIR audit (ie 15 or 25 per resource per year). *) Numbers we are missing: Can the NCC Staff plese provide the numbers for how how many LIR's are a total aggreated allocation of (ipv4): - only a /24 - a /23 - a /22 - ....... - a /16 This should help us get a clearer picture what the billing/fees could look like. Kind Regards Sebastian Graf On 3/7/23 10:35, Simon Jan Haytink wrote: > 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… >

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
by Hank Nussbacher 09 Mar '23

09 Mar '23

On 07/03/2023 11:35, Simon Jan Haytink wrote: > 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… Have to admit, very cleverly done. Present model 1 which is the current model and then present model 2 which everyone will hate due to its increased membership costs. So when discussion arises it will be model 1 vs model 2 and everyone will select model 1 which is what RIPE wants to begin with. :-) I'd like to suggest model 3. Same as model 1 but membership fee is 1800€ and all the rest is the same. Regards, Hank

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
by Cynthia Revström 09 Mar '23

09 Mar '23

Hi Simon, In the current form there is no way that I can support Model 2 but I also have significant problems with Model 1 and don't want to support it either. I like the idea but the categories have to be a lot more sensible or alternatively don't use categories at all and purely do it based on the amount of IP space. I have listed my main issues with Model 1 and Model 2 below. Model 1: 1) Having a transfer fee of €1k is ludicrous in my opinion. I think this fee should be removed along with the M&A fee, but I can accept it if they are both €50. 2) Having a sign up fee and a separate new membership fee doesn't make any sense to me, there should just be one setup fee. Model 2: 1) The largest category is too small. It doesn't make sense that an org with a /16 would get charged the same amount as one of the giant ISPs with over a /8 worth of IPv4 space. 2) With regards to the category prices, it doesn't make sense that the largest ISPs would just pay as much as 8 members who received a /22 or 16 members who received a /24. 3) With regards to PI/ASN, they should be left outside of any category calculations and just have the €50 fixed fee. 4) Same as issue 1 with model 1, the transfer fee is ludicrous. While not one of my main objections, I would also prefer to only see the charge for ASNs applied to 16-bit ASNs to discourage use of 16-bit ASNs when there is no real need for them. I feel like this would be helpful because I have seen quite a few questionable new 16-bit ASN assignments while realistically we are not running out of 32-bit ASNs anytime soon. -Cynthia On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 10:43 AM Simon Jan Haytink <simon(a)ripe.net> wrote: > 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… > >

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
by Michele Neylon - Blacknight 09 Mar '23

09 Mar '23

All First off I’d like to thank the RIPE NCC staff for preparing the spreadsheet to clearly show the impact of the proposed pricing. It’s very helpful to be able to plug in our resources etc., and see how they impact our costs. Model 1 is definitely more attractive for most members I’d suspect. I would wonder about some of the charges like “transfers” – seeing those broken out more clearly would be helpful. For my own company Model 1 is definitely the model we’d want – model 2 would cost us significantly more. Model 2 sounds good in theory, but the reality is that it heavily penalises members with larger IP assignments. Just because a company has a lot of IP addresses does not mean that they are “richer”. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://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 I have sent this email at a time that is convenient for me. I do not expect you to respond to it outside of your usual working hours.

1 0

[GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
by Paul Lewis 09 Mar '23

09 Mar '23

Hi, Regarding the two proposed charging models for 2024, I honestly think that the pricing is a bit on the steep side. Model 1 certainly seems to have a sharp increase. The 50 EUR 'per ASN' charge I imagine might be a problem for LIR members with many ASNs. I feel that it would be better to have this charge apply to 16-bit ASNs which are in limited supply. This could be seen as a surcharge or penalty for holding onto legacy hardware and/or supporting providers that do so. As for 32-bit ASNs, they could still be charged something but I think they should be charged quite a bit less. There's no description in the spreadsheet about the categories in model 2 (e.g. the thresholds), short of taking a look at the formulas used. It would be nice if there's further clarity around this. As it stands, for me personally model 2 is considerably cheaper than model 1. However, if model 2 was chosen then it may need some further changes for larger LIR members based on more feedback. -- Regards, Paul Lewis.

3 2

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
by Marcus Stoegbauer 08 Mar '23

08 Mar '23

Hi, On 7 Mar 2023, at 10:35, Simon Jan Haytink wrote: > 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. It is not immediately clear to me if the count for independent resources and ASNs also include resources from other parties which are sponsored by the member (i.e.: are those only resources directly assigned to the member?) Could you clarify how this is meant in your current planning please? Thanks, Marcus

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
by Patrick Velder 08 Mar '23

08 Mar '23

Hi, just my 2 cents: 1. @RIPE NCC, you want to be a company, but *you are not a company*. You are a non profit organisation which should behave in the interest of its members. 2. Before increasing prices again (since the last invoice was already doubled), you should check out other options to reduce your expenses, like any other organisation has to do on the free market. Do you really need an office direct at the Amsterdam Centraal station? Or would another (not so fancy) location be cheaper? Do you really need to sponsor tons of projects? Or should you focuss more on your core things? With this massive price increasements, you bring many small members into financial trouble. 3. Model 1 is unfair in my opinion 4. Model 2 is my preference, but it is unfair too. As some other people mentioned, the price is good for 1x v4, 1x v6, 1x ASN, or n*/8 and a ton of ASNs. While categories are increasing VERY fast with only a small amount of resources, large companies have a cost cap and "a few more networks" have no impact on the price. 5. Also I strongly disagree with counting PI and ASN assignments towards the category. This leads to very big or very small LIRs being able to offer better prices to their customers than medium LIRs. Also these resources are already paid with the 50€/y fee. Please also keep in mind that LIRs save you a lot of effort with all the document checking, communication with customers etc etc. Also, a lot of LIRs would just terminate all End User Agreements to reach a lower category. I'm not sure if this is what you want. Best regards Patrick

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCCCharging Scheme 2024
by Jørgen Hovland ☁️ 08 Mar '23

08 Mar '23

1 0

[ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
by Asta S. 08 Mar '23

08 Mar '23

Hello, I think it is beneficial for RIPE to change the model because 2022 showed that in the long term, the current model doesn't have a future. Reserves will be exhausted or the fees per LIR account will have to be increased significantly.Also, it would be interesting to hear how this new charging scheme model would affect the current IPv4 waiting list. Now the members have to pay sign-up fees and yearly fees without receiving resources. How these members (that are still waiting in a list) will be charged after implementing this new model? And how new members applying for resources would be charged? | |

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
by Josh Jameson 07 Mar '23

07 Mar '23

Dear Members, ServeByte Limited is in favor of the new proposed pricing model 2, to abolish the current membership fee model. We find that it is a much fairer pricing model for small service providers. All of our costs have increased over the past few years, but clawing higher fees from small LIR members is unsustainable. It discourages direct RIPE membership and instead encourages people to merge their resources, under a single LIR for little to no extra cost. We have even considered this. Thank you for your time. Yours Faithfully, Josh Jameson Technical Director ServeByte Limited

1 0