- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [members-discuss] budget 2012
by poty＠iiat.ru 11 Oct '11

11 Oct '11

Yes, it is voted for, but what was the words preceding the vote? In the slides there were many "proves" that the current scheme is a catastrophe (which was a complete lie, because the current scheme didn't use the right factors in the presentation intentionally - after the presentation we discussed the matter and many RIPE NCC members agreed that) and if we didn't vote for new scheme the world would die completely. :) I know also that there was big lobby in the GM. As soon as there was voting - nothing could be done against it, but many people know - the intention of the decision was bad! Regards, Vladislav Potapov > -----Original Message----- > From: Gert Doering [mailto:gert@space.net] > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 6:38 PM > To: Potapov Vladislav > Cc: gert(a)space.net; bangert(a)parknet.dk; members-discuss(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] budget 2012 > > Hi, > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 06:32:00PM +0400, poty(a)iiat.ru wrote: > > It IS true. Several people can prove that. The answer of the RIPE NCC > > was - it is already late to change something. The presentation was > > forged - and personally you knew that. > > I was there, and the change of the charging scheme was discussed for > *three* consecutive meetings, and it was voted for, and received the > majority of votes. > > The change to per-piece billing for PI and AS is came with the adoption > of 2007-01 and had nothing to do whatsoever with increasing the budget > (which it didn't, the LIR categories and fees were adjusted to make > this neutral in regards to the overall budget). > > Of course there are people that do not like any change that will > directly affect their business model (getting lots of PI for free and > selling for > money) - and this is why the change was announced well in advance, and > voted for(!). > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? > > SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner- > Culemann > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.

3 2

Re: [members-discuss] budget 2012
by poty＠iiat.ru 11 Oct '11

11 Oct '11

Dear Richard, You can look at the presentation by himself. It IS a fact of lie! The "current scheme" was not adopted for rising expenses while the other schemes - was. If you CAN read right - I'm not accusing Gert in the decision (it was not his decision anyway)- just in wrong position in the presenting of the possibilities. Regards, Vladislav Potapov > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Hartmann [mailto:richih.mailinglist@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 6:54 PM > To: Potapov Vladislav > Cc: gert(a)space.net; bangert(a)parknet.dk; members-discuss(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] budget 2012 > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 16:32, <poty(a)iiat.ru> wrote: > > > It IS true. Several people can prove that. The answer of the RIPE NCC > > was - it is already late to change something. The presentation was > > forged - and personally you knew that. > > While Gert did a good job of dismantling your factual points, I would > like to add a more personal/netiquette note. > > If you feel that you absolutely _have_ to accuse someone not only of > lying but of deliberate manipulation, please have some specific, > verifiable facts at the ready to back up your claim. In this specific > case, I highly doubt you have any. > > 2007-01 has been discussed at length prior to its voting. Coming late > to the game is not an excuse to pretend your voice was ignored on > purpose. > > > Richard ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] budget 2012
by poty＠iiat.ru 11 Oct '11

11 Oct '11

It IS true. Several people can prove that. The answer of the RIPE NCC was - it is already late to change something. The presentation was forged - and personally you knew that. > -----Original Message----- > From: Gert Doering [mailto:gert@space.net] > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 6:29 PM > To: Potapov Vladislav > Cc: bangert(a)parknet.dk; members-discuss(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] budget 2012 > > Hi, > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 06:24:22PM +0400, poty(a)iiat.ru wrote: > > I was at the GM where the fee for independent resources was > introduced. > > Nobody answered plain questions asked by me about why the charging > > scheme should be changed > > Not true. > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? > > SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner- > Culemann > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.

3 2

Re: [members-discuss] budget 2012
by poty＠iiat.ru 11 Oct '11

11 Oct '11

See inline: > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss- > bounces(a)ripe.net] On Behalf Of Thilo Bangert > it's great to see people caring about issues at RIPE. IMHO it's not so great > that some seem to derail the discussion on the membership fees. > > RIPE is growing and therefore they need more money. do the math - and listen > to what other people on this list say: while the budget is increasing the > individual membership fee is not (as much), since there're many more > members to shoulder the burden. Let's see what does it means for my company as small member in 2011: The budget should be increased by 100% * (19317-17891)/17891 ~ 8%. My membership fee should be increased (like 27% of other former small members according the charging scheme) from 1800 (+150 for my ASN+(ASN+PI)for a client) to 3000 (+150 for the same things). 100%*(3150-1950)/1950 ~61.5%. Can you prove your words about "the individual membership fee is not (as much) [increased]"? > also the increased budget is necessary to fund the > actions decided upon by the community. Maybe it's better to vote which actions should stay next year than just fiddling about immortal RIPE activity "decided by the community"? > > How many of those objecting the current budget have been involved in shaping > these actions? Given that the only suggestions seem to be cutting meetings and > trainings i get at strong impression that there has not been any involvement > at all... Wrong assumption (at least according to me). I don't like to have the conversations become personal. But could you explain - why the priceless RIPE staff can live only in 5* hotels while they are out of RIPE NCC office (for meetings, trainings, business)? Or why for a group of 12 people the training courses is planned in the 5* room facility? Nobody asked for full stop of meetings and trainings, just increasing the expenses seems chic at some time. And if you really read all messages here you should know, that there are many suggestions, not only optimizing trainings and meetings. I was at the GM where the fee for independent resources was introduced. Nobody answered plain questions asked by me about why the charging scheme should be changed (all had agreed that we could live with old one and have enough budget), why ASN selling is not "per resource" scheme (really the main argument of RIPE NCC against "flat fee" now) and so on. Empty meaning words as answers - the words we see here in the discussion again. > run-out-fairly requires extra work - but its most definitively the small LIRs > that profit from it and that is a good thing. Several people asked for EXACT COUNTINGS. As soon as you suggested doing math - give us problem situation! > the increased service level with the much improved database tools etc. The same as above - what is exact expenses and what for the increasing expenses will go? What are going to be "new level of service" in numbers? > are much welcome investments well worth their money. By whom? > and no - this is no blank check for RIPE either. i still felt well > represented as "the quiet majority" by the RIPE EB. You are going to feel trouble when at the next GM (maybe not the exactly next, but nearest) the quiet majority will be unable to outcount the active dissenting. I'm going to be at the incoming GM and will ask very uneasy questions. Regards, Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.

3 2

Re: [members-discuss] budget 2012
by Artem Buglak 11 Oct '11

11 Oct '11

11.10.2011 17:02 пользователь "James Blessing" <jblessing(a)llnw.com> написал: > > On 11/10/2011 13:51, Artem Buglak wrote: > >I haven't had a chance to catch routing registry training in > > Russia for last 3 years (on my memory neither Moscow nor St.Petersburg > > hosted those courses since 2008), not to mention how difficult it may be > > to attend any training courses for LIRs in far eastern parts of Russia. > > Good thing there is one later this year then... > > https://lirportal.ripe.net/training/courses > > J Hmph... I've checked before sending =) no RR training for Moscow - just LIR and IPv6 for LIR > > > -- > James Blessing > +44 7989 039 476 > Strategic Relations Manager, EMEA > Limelight Networks > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.

1 0

JUNOS and 128.0.0.0 martian (JFYI)
by Timur Maryin 11 Oct '11

11 Oct '11

Hello! Recently RIPE NCC started to allocate addresses from 128/8 to end users, example: https://apps.db.ripe.net/whois/lookup/ripe/inetnum/128.0.0.0-128.0.7.255.ht… JunOS software (upto and including 11.1 version) blocks those addresses by default as martians: > show route martians inet.0: 0.0.0.0/0 exact -- allowed 0.0.0.0/8 orlonger -- disallowed 127.0.0.0/8 orlonger -- disallowed 128.0.0.0/16 orlonger -- disallowed In fact there will be no connectivity for newly allocates addresses and Juniper routers all around the world unless people change default behavior or juniper changes default settings for martians. We've opened JTAC case about it. P.S. In order to fix it you should implement set routing-options martians 128.0.0.0/16 orlonger allow on your juniper routers. ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.

2 1

Charging Scheme 2011, additional information
by Axel Pawlik 07 Oct '11

07 Oct '11

Dear all, Thank you all for your valuable feedback and your patience. Please find below some more information and clarification on some of the issues being raised on this mailing list. - Charging scheme The proposed charging scheme for 2012 was drafted after discussion with the membership, as Nigel said earlier. We avoided making any radical changes to the charging scheme as the current tax ruling is favourable. The tax ruling will have to be reviewed if any major change is made. Changing the charging scheme in the way that many of you are suggesting (sliding scale or fees per allocation) will almost certainly lead to the RIPE NCC incurring a corporate tax liability of 25.5% on any surplus and, in the worst case, on the organisation's reserves. - Using IPv4 as an indicator of involvement in Internet operations As we were thinking about fairness in the Charging Scheme, it was clear that a simple scheme in which each member pays the same amount would not be meeting the fairness target, as members of large corporate size are likely to benefit from RIPE NCC services more than the small local ISP - the more and deeply a member is involved in the operations of the Internet, the more it is likely to benefit from our services. In looking for a yardstick to measure "Involvement in the oparations of the Internet", we proposed that IPv4 serve as the basis because it is a known factor. This is fully independent of the impending IPv4 runout, or its technical relevance. See also my mail from August at: http://www.ripe.net/maillists/ncc-archives/members-discuss/2011/msg00174.ht… - The RIPE NCC budget There have been many opinions expressed about the RIPE NCC's budget and I'd like to add some facts and reasoning to the discussion: The RIPE NCC's budget has varied over the years, decreasing after 2002 for a couple of years and then increasing again since then. The receent increase is due to a continually strong membership growth, an increase in outreach activities across our service region and defending the bottom-up, industry self regulation in response to newly interested stakeholders. Looking at the last 10 years, the average cost per member decreased by more than 7 % from 2001. Measuring against 2005, it has increased again by just over 3 %. - Webinars vs face-to-face training Face to face trainings are extremely valuable for us; we need to engage with you to gather important feedback and to disseminate information. Trainings are also very popular with members, as has been indicated in our membership surveys. Online training also has been offered on our E-learning centre for several years: http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/training/e-learning - Meeting costs There is no large financial benefit from holding meetings in the same city. Spreading meetings across the region is important as some of the community are unable to travel easily and value the occasional closer RIPE meeting. - Budget and personnel costs A large part of the RIPE NCC's budget has always been personnel costs - there's no change there. Even thought we are a not-for-profit organisation, we still need to compete with commercial organisations to ensure that we have competent and experienced staff. We can only do this by offering comparable salary and benefit packages. Over the last couple of years, we've implemented some organisational changes in order to streamline our activities and have focused on attracting high calibre staff to serve our members and the community and to promote and defend our interests in regional and global arenas. - RIR activities The RIPE NCC has its roots in the technical coordination and operation of the Internet. The task of Internet number resource distribution was added later. In addition, we perform many more activities for the RIPE community and for the general well-being of the Internet, including operating the K-root server, operation and maintenance of the RIPE Database and performing Internet measurements. All our activities are outlined in the RIPE NCC Activity Plan: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-506 We strive to gather input and feedback from our members and the RIPE community by regularly surveying the membership and various stakeholder groups. We also use feedback gathered from face-to-face contact during training courses and meetings and your opinions and suggestions are reflected in the activity plan. It is a challenge to strike a balance between continuity of operations and reacting to what our numerous stakeholder groups expect of us and from us - but we are continually listening to what you need. I'm sure you understand that we cannot implement every idea that you bring forward; however I do believe that both RIPE NCC staff as well as the Executive Board have worked particularly hard this year to gather your opinions and ideas, to examine the risks, and to bring forward a Charging Scheme that combines known elements with a set of changes aiming to marry fairness to simplicity. We all look forward very much to see many of you personally at the Vienna RIPE meeting, and also are very excited to see that the ability to use electronic voting on all resolutions in the General Meeting has minimised the threshold for participation. kind regards, Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC

1 1

Fwd: Re: budget 2012
by Hank Nussbacher 06 Oct '11

06 Oct '11

> >At 12:19 05/10/2011 -0300, SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling wrote: >>One big point is that the personnel expenses will growing up by 6,3% >>!?!?! I don't guess that each one will get more money at this amount. >>But why we need that high increase - more personnel maybe - but why ?? >>The work at RIPE will be the same as before without needing more >>personnel because LIR can be waiting without problem like one day longer >>for some requests too - isn't it ? >> >>General Operating Expenses +10,8% ??? It is a joke not ? > >Ask yourself, why no one from RIPE has over the past week added to the >discussion here with the reasons and justifications for why they need to >increase their budget. > >-Hank > > >>Best regards, >> Alexander Schoberl >> SPEEDNIC S.R.L. Also note that the 9% increased budget is not up for voting. The only thing up for voting is the charging scheme. The 19MEuro budget is fait accompli. -Hank

5 5

Yet Another Proposal for the Charging Scheme 2012
by Sven Wiese 06 Oct '11

06 Oct '11

Hiya @everyone, I hope I didn't miss any of the last 108 E-Mails came through the mailing list these days. The current issues are concerning the charging scheme and the budget. Regarding the charging scheme, as I understood the RIPE NCC was interested in a "per IP" billing base, but this can't be done easily without risk due to tax issues. I hope no one proposed it yet and I didn't see it, so I don't bother people with my email now having a already existing proposal ;) In my opinion, the most fair solution for everyone would be if the RIPE removes the category based charging scheme and makes one member fee for everyone. Something like 500 EUR. Then there are no tax issues anymore, because RIPE takes a membership fee, so it has members. Additionally to this 500 EUR "base fee", every resource will be billed additionally, like currently with the IPv4-PI. I think that would solve all problems and we get our fair "per IP (resource)" billing. Something like: ASN = 50 EUR IPv4-PI /24 = 50 EUR IPv4-PI /23 = 100 EUR IPv4-PI /22 = 200 EUR IPv4-PI /21 = 400 EUR IPv4-PI /20 = 800 EUR [...] IPv4 alloc /22 = 50 EUR IPv4 alloc /21 = 100 EUR IPv4 alloc /20 = 200 EUR IPv4 alloc /19 = 400 EUR IPv4 alloc /18 = 800 EUR IPv4 alloc /17 = 1.600 EUR [...] IPv6 alloc /32 = 100 EUR [...] So, a LIR with a /17 IPv4 alloc, a /32 IPv6 alloc, a ASN and a /24 PI for his customer will pay 2.200 EUR. 500 EUR membership base fee + 1.600 EUR /17 alloc + 50 EUR ASN + 50 EUR /24 IPv4-PI. I just wrote some numbers down, without actually calculating a real price per allocation. The real prices have to be calculated based on the budget. But in my opinion this is the most fair way to bill its members. So everyone gets billed for the resources the he/she uses. Our own category wouldn't actually change with the proposal from RIPE, but still I'm concerned regarding our community. Cheers, Sven -- Sven Wiese CEO I.C.S. "Trabia-Network" S.R.L. [t] +373 (22) 844-844 [e] s.wiese(a)trabia.net <mailto:s.wiese@trabia.net> [i] www.trabia.net <http://www.trabia.net> Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not in the addresses indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such a case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail.

3 3

Re: [members-discuss] Yet Another Proposal for the Charging Scheme 2012
by Sven Wiese 06 Oct '11

06 Oct '11

On 06.10.2011 12:34 , Michiel Klaver wrote: > So, you first suggest a basic member fee to avoid billing per IP, but > then you move to a scheme where you actually suggest fees per block of > IP addresses. Tell me, how is this not billing per ip? It still looks > like RIPE will be 'selling' amounts of IP addresses, grouped in > blocks. And selling 'products' has to be taxed. As Nigel wrote, the issues is that the RIPE NCC need to have *Members* to keep its status within the tax authorities. It's the *exact* same model as we have already with IPv4-PI. You pay your category fee and additional per each IPv4-PI resource. With my proposal we would have all the same category and also get billed for each PA resource. Cheers, Sven -- Sven Wiese CEO I.C.S. "Trabia-Network" S.R.L. [t] +373 (22) 844-844 [e] s.wiese(a)trabia.net <mailto:s.wiese@trabia.net> [i] www.trabia.net <http://www.trabia.net> Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not in the addresses indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such a case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail.

1 0