- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

Response from Board on Charging Scheme Comments
by Ondřej Filip 22 Apr '24

22 Apr '24

Dear members, We are continuing to follow the discussions closely. For some of the points raised, I want to share our reasoning for not proposing a category model this year. Last year, after extensive community consultation, we proposed a model with 10 categories based on resource holdership. If this proposal had been accepted, 67.69% of members would have paid less - EUR 1,350 or less. Only 34.9% voted for this model. Based on this feedback from the members, and given there are so many different opinions and proposals on how to charge in different ways, we did not want to propose another category-based model at this time. But we do not rule it out for the future. We have proposed a BoF at RIPE 88 to discuss how to build a stable future for the RIPE NCC, including a sustainable charging model. We also do not want to cut services that support the RIPE NCC’s current five-year strategy. We have committed to this strategy until 2026, and we think it is important that we see it out. We have already cut costs by EUR 2.7 million in 2023 compared to the budget and EUR 1.8 million in our 2024 budget compared to the 2023 budget. We are committed to ensuring that the RIPE NCC remains focused on reducing costs wherever possible. However, we do need to cater to the increased costs that the RIPE NCC faces due to inflation. In addition to the increasing costs, we still have significant uncertainty on our income from Ultra-High-Risk-Countries. For the 2024 income, we expect an amount of 1.1 million EUR to be uncollectible due to restrictions from our banks. Looking at 2023, this part amounts to 1.2 million. This underlines the complexity of our service region and the reality we have to deal with. We would also like to repeat that the proposed models guarantee adequate funding for 2025 and 2026. Under this proposal, we expect there would be no need for a fee increase for 2026. We do want to work with the membership after this GM to discuss how best to reach consensus on a model that members feel is fair and sustainable for the future. We do however believe this is part of a broader discussion in building a stable future for the RIPE NCC and would like to encourage you to read the RIPE Labs Article by Executive Board Member Remco van Mook and engage in the upcoming discussion: https://labs.ripe.net/author/remco-van-mook/building-a-stable-future-for-th… Kind regards, Ondřej Filip Chair, RIPE NCC Executive Board

4 3

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
by Sebastien Brossier 21 Apr '24

21 Apr '24

Hello, Please add one or more options with really different models, like a category model and/or the APNIC model. Options A, B and C are just 3 very similar variants of the same model. An illusion of choice. I understand that the category model was rejected last year, but the fee increase and the ASN fee were rejected too. All viable options should be included. Let the membership decide what works best for them. With kind regards, Sebastien Brossier

2 1

RIPE NCC Financial Perspective on Charging Scheme Model
by Simon-Jan Haytink 20 Apr '24

20 Apr '24

Dear members, I want to give you an insight into the financial perspective of the RIPE NCC in trying to come up with a charging scheme model for next year. To start, I would like to say that we need to ensure stability and sufficient funding in the short-term so we can fulfill our commitments. Meanwhile, we also need to work on longer-term solutions that can ensure a sustainable funding model for the organisation and its members. What constitutes a good charging model from the RIPE NCC’s perspective? The model should generate sufficient income so we can fulfill our obligation in a stable and predictable manner. We cannot become too reliant financially on a limited number of members for a significant part of our income. This would risk a significant shortfall in income to execute our operations if these members leave. One benefit of our current “one LIR account-one fee” model is that it reinforces simplicity and predictability. But it also has its downsides, including no differentiation in contribution between members with more or fewer resource registrations, which is often seen as unfair. We also need to ensure we can adapt for future developments. At some point in the future, it is likely that IPv6 will become the dominant protocol, so a charging scheme will need to be adaptable so we can adapt to changing circumstances. We also need to ensure a low-risk profile. For any model, we need to understand what risk the model brings, from the known risks to the unknown risks. And the community and the RIPE NCC must be willing to accept this risk. And as the RIPE NCC, we cannot take on a role that is not part of our mandate. The charging scheme is the mechanism by which we collect the funding to carry out the work we have committed to. Policies relating to the allocation of IP resources are formulated by the RIPE community in the Address Policy Working Group. Is the RIPE NCC opposed to differentiation in contribution among members? As seen by the category model proposed for the 2024 Charging Scheme vote, we as the RIPE NCC are not opposed to differentiation between members. We have heard and understood the feedback from a part of the membership, that the specific set-up of the proposed model was the reason for voting this down last year. This does highlight that this set-up is not a trivial one and will need good scrutiny by the RIPE NCC and more specifically its members. But I do want to stress that any model will be beneficial for some and less so for others. A strict pay-per-IP model, i.e. charging per IP without categories, is something we as the RIPE NCC do have serious concerns about, and this has been discussed with the Executive Board. A system like this would increase the dependency for a significant part of our income on a very limited number of members. I want to make it very clear that the consolidation that I have mentioned multiple times specifically refers to the consolidation of multiple LIRs. We do not see any trend or concern for consolidation of individual members as this number has remained stable at 20,000 since 2020. We did see this consolidation of multiple LIR accounts coming and we did take action. One of the benefits of the category model we proposed last year would have been that charging would have been on a per-member basis and members would have been charged based on total resources in defined categories rather than per LIR account (removing the multiple LIR consolidation risk). In theory, we should have increased our fees based on inflation every year since 2016. But that would have been in years that we redistributed 5 to 10 million EUR per year, so asking the membership to approve a price increase would most likely have been rejected (and rightfully so). What is the intended strategy for the Charging Scheme in the long and short term? We fully agree that our charging scheme needs a good review or revamp to ensure we are ready for the future. And our Board member Remco has opened discussion on the broader topic of building a stable future for the RIPE NCC, and having a sustainable charging model will surely be part of that. I recommend you all to read his article: https://labs.ripe.net/author/remco-van-mook/building-a-stable-future-for-th… <https://labs.ripe.net/author/remco-van-mook/building-a-stable-future-for-th…> In the short term, we need stability, which the proposed models provide. This will ensure we can operate continuously and protect the system we have. But we also need time because revamping a charging scheme that needs to facilitate 20,000 members who all have their own preferences, and which needs to facilitate the needs of the RIPE NCC (to ensure we can operate in a responsible and legally sound manner), will not be a trivial exercise. The stability provided with the short-term solution will allow the RIPE NCC in cooperation with its membership to develop a charging scheme that will ensure our sustainability in the future. We will need the input of our members to get consensus on a model that works, but in reality there will be members who object strongly to any model that is accepted while others will be very content. Unfortunately, this is the reality and part of the day-to-day life of an association with 20,000 members. Best regards, Simon-Jan Haytink Chief Financial Officer RIPE NCC

4 3

Charging scheme 2025 proposal (simple, bounded, conservative)
by James A. T. Rice - Jump Networks 19 Apr '24

19 Apr '24

Hi Folks, A very simple charging scheme proposal - Base fee per LIR: €950 Per /24 IPv4 fee, up to 1750 /24s: €20 each Per /24 IPv4 fee, above 1750 /24s: €0 each Independent resources charged as currently - €50 each. This * achieves simplicity (one knows how much each extra /24 of space costs, so can easily know their LIR fee - there's no logarithm component) * bounds the maximum fee at €35950, so even the largest RIPE member won't be paying any more than with any other RIR * should be generally favourable with the vast majority of members - 18,000 out of 20,500 members would be better off under this scheme * leads to the same income for the RIPE NCC as their existing proposed options It would be good to see it on the options presented to members this year. Thanks James Rice Jump Networks Ltd

2 1

New RIPE Labs Article - Building a stable future for the RIPE NCC
by Remco van Mook 19 Apr '24

19 Apr '24

Dear colleagues, I’d like to draw your attention to an article that was just published on RIPE Labs, about building a stable future for the RIPE NCC. As it touches on some very foundational aspects all across the various working groups and NCC membership, I thought it important to share, and I would very much like to ask everyone for their input and ideas. In order to not spread the discussion too much across the various mailing lists, I suggest that we use the general RIPE list (which I’ve put into the reply-to field of this email. I’m currently in the process of organising a BOF during RIPE 88 on this topic as well and am looking forward to a constructive discussion! Kind regards, Remco van Mook RIPE NCC Executive Board

3 3

Re: [members-discuss] [ripe-list] New RIPE Labs Article - Building a stable future for the RIPE NCC
by Sergey Myasoedov 18 Apr '24

18 Apr '24

Hi, The topic is definitely for members-discuss, not for ripe-list, so I'll continue in m-d. > 1) RIPE need to make some reserve funds for compensate some looses due sanctions, banking troubles and etc... for example 5% of total budget. That's far away from the reality. As far as I remember, the target was about 100% of the budget, so the association could survive 1 to 2 years without any funding. The current status of the reserves is 80%+ of the budget. > 2) Change Charging Scheme from LIR based to Resource based and spare RIPE budget spending in equal parts. Big LIRs with large amount of resouces - will be pay more (in equal share), LIRs with small amount of resources - will be pay less (in equal share). Paying more than others usually means having more rights. Should the top payers benefit more from their membership? -- Best, Sergey

3 9

Re: [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)
by sdy＠a-n-t.ru 17 Apr '24

17 Apr '24

Yes! And it is why is need to reform budget of NCC too. It is need to divide it by 2 path to. So not in 2025, but in 2026 it will be good try to do. > If you look at the current pricing model from RIPE's angle, everyone is equal in terms of making the budget. In a sense this diversification is good as each member is 1/21570th of the whole. In the big picture it does not really matter if someone is slightly late or cannot pay or it turns out that they're a high risk and aren't invoiced. > > With models where some would be paying a larger (or very large) share of the budget, revenue assurance (collections) is much more important. > > Also, not everyone needs to be happy with the fee structure. It is enough that the majority is. ?? > > > > Kaj > ________________________________ > From: Evgeniy Brodskiy <Evgeniy.Brodskiy(a)kyivstar.net> > Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2024 14:56 > To: Kaj Niemi <kajtzu(a)basen.net> > Cc: Kurt Jaeger <members-discuss(a)nepustil.net>; members-discuss(a)ripe.net <members-discuss(a)ripe.net>; sdy(a)a-n-t.ru <sdy(a)a-n-t.ru> > Subject: RE: [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic) > > You don't often get email from evgeniy.brodskiy(a)kyivstar.net. Learn why this is important<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification> > > Confidential/Конфіденційно > > > Thank you. > > > > I agree with you, today there is practically no sense in shifting between RIRs. > > But if someone says you'll pay 10 times (or even bigger) what you pay today because the current fee is "simply unfair", inter RIRs transfer might be an option to think. > > In that case everything will be fair. Small LIR will stay in RIPE with fair, per single IP, share of spends and big LIRs will receive registry services from other RIRs. > > > > At least I don't see any other options to make everybody happy with fees. > > > > From: Kaj Niemi <kajtzu(a)basen.net> > Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2024 2:27 PM > To: sdy(a)a-n-t.ru; Evgeniy Brodskiy <Evgeniy.Brodskiy(a)kyivstar.net> Cc: Kurt Jaeger <members-discuss(a)nepustil.net>; members-discuss(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic) > > > > It is possible to transfer resources between the RIRs with a bunch of conditions attached and some caveats. For example: > > > > 1. both RIRs must approve the intended transfer, > > 1. there needs to be some kind of justification why it would need to > occur, > > 1. at least in LACNIC's case one would need to re-justify the incoming > assignment using their rules, > > 1. if addresses were considered legacy at RIPE, they would convert to > non-legacy when being registered with LACNIC, > > 1. you'd end up paying both sides of the transaction assuming you're > controlling two LIRs under separate RIRs. > > > > So, it doesn't really make sense to try to "RIR shop" on price. Transfers might make sense if you want to consolidate assets for M&A purposes somewhere than where they originated. > > > > Realistically, if someone were to return IPv4 addresses to a RIR, the returned addresses would in practice instantly be gone as there are waiting lists for these. > > > > > > > > Kaj > > > > ________________________________ > > From: members-discuss > <members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> on behalf of Evgeniy Brodskiy via members-discuss > <members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> > Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2024 13:28 > To: sdy(a)a-n-t.ru<mailto:sdy@a-n-t.ru> <sdy(a)a-n-t.ru<mailto:sdy@a-n-t.ru>> Cc: Kurt Jaeger > <members-discuss(a)nepustil.net<mailto:members-discuss@nepustil.net>>; members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> > <members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic) > > > > Confidential/Конфіденційно > > Maybe, but to be sure we all understand consequences for this "easy" solution to "complicated problem" I have two questions: > - do LIRs have ability to transfer IPv4 networks between RIRs (because > for the land example, transfer is not an option) ?? > - is this transfer more complicated and costly than have fair share of > RIPE spends ? > > > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss > <members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> On Behalf Of sdy(a)a-n-t.ru<mailto:sdy@a-n-t.ru> > Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2024 12:59 PM > To: Evgeniy Brodskiy > <Evgeniy.Brodskiy(a)kyivstar.net<mailto:Evgeniy.Brodskiy@kyivstar.net>> Cc: Kurt Jaeger > <members-discuss(a)nepustil.net<mailto:members-discuss@nepustil.net>>; members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic) > > Sorry, but my 5 cents... > > Not only "result in some IPv4 addresses being transferred back to RIPE". Lets do not forget, It will decrease payment for LIR who could not take more IPv4 an AS. > So, This will make the relationship between the NCC participants more honest too. > >> Confidential/Конфіденційно >> >> Hello Kurtis! >> >> I think there is one more circle. Some members simply want to increase the cost of ownership IPv4 address space. >> Perhaps, from their point of view, this will result in some IPv4 addresses being transferred back to RIPE. >> >> >> P.S. I believe it is not, a lot of reasons why. >> >> From: members-discuss >> <members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> On Behalf Of >> Kurtis Lindqvist >> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2024 11:56 AM >> To: Kaj Niemi <kajtzu(a)basen.net<mailto:kajtzu@basen.net>>; Kurt Jaeger <members-discuss(a)nepustil.net<mailto:members-discuss@nepustil.net>> Cc: members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> >> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal >> (logarithmic) >> >> You don't often get email from kurtis(a)linx.net<mailto:kurtis@linx.net>. Learn why this is >> important<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification> >> >> Hi Kaj! >> >> Isn’t this really at the heart of the problem. In a Venn diagram there are (at least) three circles here, the members with an opinion the mailinglist who want to crystalise the core services and keep RIPE NCC costs lower and see greater efficiency gains, there is the circle of members who respond to the membership survey and are happy and want to keep all services as they are and then there is a circle of the members who actually vote (and possibly manage the payments). I am not convinced there is a great overlap of these circles and so we end up in a situation with very little guidance. >> >> Best Regards, >> >> - kurtis - >> -- >> Kurt Erik Lindqvist, CEO >> T: +44 (0) 20 7645 3528 | >> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.l%2F&d…<http://www.l/> inx.net%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Cbd413097e1 0c441352a808dc5ec54984%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C63 8489448786280462%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV 2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=QEXMYddLt GMe%2B5YroI0pEgvAe3%2BTJBPajNC65st8t6o%3D&reserved=0<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Feur01.saf… > <https://eur01.saf/>> > elinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linx.net%2F&data=0 >> 5%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Cbd413097e10c441352a808dc5ec 54984%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638489448786299804% 7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik 1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=vtv4hBXwlC5CcMN8aZ1Dfg3aCU ErpIb1fOJhmWNmekk%3D&reserved=0> >> [b8dd7c7e-5b7a-4bb3-bf55-4265639a41be]<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Feur01.saf… > <https://eur01.safelinks.protect/>> > ion.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linx.net%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvge >> niy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Cbd413097e10c441352a808dc5ec54984%7Cf8f9b d573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638489448786313582%7CUnknown%7CT WFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI 6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=VTF2xqEsQquRE5dLjkUMPvI4UP8lVMjkC9k7dUY y2BM%3D&reserved=0> >> London Internet Exchange Ltd (LINX) >> C/O WeWork, 2 Minister Court, London, EC3R 7BB, United Kingdom >> Registered in England number 3137929 >> [09f5285b-9bf5-4663-a1d5-f335264499f8]<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Feur01.saf… > <https://eur01.safelinks.protect/>> > ion.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Flinx_network&data=05% >> 7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Cbd413097e10c441352a808dc5ec54 984%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638489448786324932%7C Unknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1h aWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=6iKup8bVtB4LtGLG0TxkuCHpewpX yef3oKar3140azA%3D&reserved=0>[0ab2af08-4510-4094-a068-c92129623c5c]<h ttps://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.l inkedin.com%2Fcompany%2Flinx&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivsta r.net%7Cbd413097e10c441352a808dc5ec54984%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a 30986%7C0%7C0%7C638489448786333281%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4 wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C% 7C&sdata=3DvsDweiQlhS0ZOkvrLzIcLlxahiESXocYqlrQrcssQ%3D&reserved=0>[34 761a22-8ab1-4259-b5a4-c45509cfc94a]<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Feur01.saf… > <https://eur01.safelinks.protection/>> > .outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FLondonInternetExcha >> nge%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Cbd413097e10c44 1352a808dc5ec54984%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638489 448786341755%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luM zIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=nrAUIZRXumi8m ycHPygzTeP15GicspQVnrotFfWm5WU%3D&reserved=0>[591060a6-addb-47a4-a833- 1c93e4b644f4]<http://http/ > <http://http/%0b>> > s%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fuser%2FLINXnetwork&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy. >> Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Cbd413097e10c441352a808dc5ec54984%7Cf8f9bd573 bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638489448786350626%7CUnknown%7CTWFpb GZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0 %3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xEsJW7jwlv9%2FPy9B8fWqM8wXWNGfmxxAqXzViM8rD TY%3D&reserved=0> >> >> From: members-discuss >> <members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe. > <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net%3cmailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.%0b>> net>> on behalf of Kaj Niemi >> <kajtzu(a)basen.net<mailto:kajtzu@basen.net<mailto:kajtzu@basen.net%3cmailto:kajtzu@basen.net>>> Date: Tuesday, 16 April 2024 at 19:49 >> To: Kurt Jaeger >> <members-discuss(a)nepustil.net<mailto:members-discuss@nepustil.net<mailto:members-discuss@nepustil.net%3cmailto:members-discuss@nepustil.net>>> Cc: >> members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net%3cmailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> <members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net%3cmailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>>> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal >> (logarithmic) >> Hi, >> >> >> Good points. >> >> On the topic of AFRINIC, I would slightly disagree. Membership numbers have been increasing from about 1200 in 2018-ish, when they restated revenue, at around 5.3M USD to the 6M-ish USD I mentioned in my previous email. I haven't actively been following the story there but assumed the legal troubles started FY2021-ish.. since revenue was restated, there was probably something else going on earlier. They spent about 140k on legal in 2022 although only non-audited numbers exist. I'm reading it as if the legal issues themselves did not affect revenue one way or another. >> >> As for RIPE, well, I'm advocating on spending less and crystallizing the value prop because right now it's all over the place. >> >> >> 1. LIRs [must] pay because they need the registry services >> 2. In exchange they get a ton of services that many do not use at all 3. All services and functions are necessary because [list with many >> reasons] >> 4. "We need to increase the fees because of 2 and 3" >> 5. Goto 1 >> >> That being said, the gym analogy someone replied with a few days ago is quite apt. Most people there, too, pay but do not use. >> >> >> >> Kaj >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Kurt Jaeger >> <members-discuss(a)nepustil.net<mailto:members-discuss@nepustil.net<mailto:members-discuss@nepustil.net%3cmailto:members-discuss@nepustil.net>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 8:06 PM >> To: Kaj Niemi >> <kajtzu(a)basen.net<mailto:kajtzu@basen.net<mailto:kajtzu@basen.net%3cmailto:kajtzu@basen.net>>> Cc: >> members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net%3cmailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> <members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net%3cmailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>>> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal >> (logarithmic) >> >> [You don't often get email from >> members-discuss(a)nepustil.net<mailto:members-discuss@nepustil.net<mailto:members-discuss@nepustil.net%3cmailto:members-discuss@nepustil.net>>. Learn why this is important at >> https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] >> >> Hi! >> >> Thanks for writing up those stats. >> >>> Let's do some napkin math and comps with the other RIRs. [...] >>> >>> RIPE, revenue 38M EUR (40M USD), members 20k = 2 k/member ARIN, revenue 25M USD, members 25k = 1 k/member APNIC, revenue 33M AUD (21M USD), members 10k = 2 k/member LACNIC, revenue 10M USD, members 12k = 0.8 k/member AFRINIC, revenue 6M USD, members 2k = 3 k/member >> [...] >> >>> Now, in my opinion, there are a few surprises. >>> ARIN, located in a very expensive country, is quite efficient per member. >> >> I think one has to analyse if ARIN and RIPE do the same when it comes to reach-out, research etc. I'm not sure that ARIN is as active as RIPE is. Also: The language barrier in the service area is much more difficult to traverse than in the ARIN service area. And the RIPE has to cope with a very difficult legal and political landscape compared to ARIN. >> >>> On the other hand, AFRINIC seems to be rather inefficient. >> >> I would not hold that against AFRINIC, given their legal and political landscape. >> >> -- >> MfG/Best regards, Kurt Jaeger Now what ? Dr.-Ing. Nepustil & Co. GmbH fon +49 7123 93006-0 >> pi(a)nepustil.net<mailto:pi@nepustil.net> >> Rathausstr. 3 mob +49 171 3101372 >> 72658 Bempflingen >> _______________________________________________ >> members-discuss mailing list >> members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> >> https://list/ >> s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvgen iy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Cbd413097e10c441352a808dc5ec54984%7Cf8f9bd 573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638489448786359237%7CUnknown%7CTW FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6 Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=c1Ct1rc%2FVEmU%2FQQW9uF0M1pxl%2Fb%2Fu6vt ySSlccitatw%3D&reserved=0 >> Unsubscribe: >> https://list/ >> s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fsdy%2540a-n-t.ru&da ta=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Cbd413097e10c441352a808d c5ec54984%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638489448786371 577%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTi I6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=N6K4cM8VFSdKljxWbyRHok brVc3o%2FuTxvapypwsGJ48%3D&reserved=0 >> > > > ----------------------------- > С уважением Сербулов Дмитрий > ООО "Альфа Нет Телеком" > +7(498)785-8-000 раб. > +7(495)940-92-11 доп. > +7(925)518-10-69 сот. > > > _______________________________________________ > members-discuss mailing list > members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.rip…<https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss> Unsubscribe: > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.rip…<https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/registry%40kyivstar.…> _______________________________________________ > members-discuss mailing list > members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.rip…<https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss> Unsubscribe: > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.rip…<https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/kajtzu%40basen.net> > ----------------------------- С уважением Сербулов Дмитрий ООО "Альфа Нет Телеком" +7(498)785-8-000 раб. +7(495)940-92-11 доп. +7(925)518-10-69 сот. ----------------------------- С уважением Сербулов Дмитрий ООО "Альфа Нет Телеком" +7(498)785-8-000 раб. +7(495)940-92-11 доп. +7(925)518-10-69 сот.

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
by Daniel Pearson 17 Apr '24

17 Apr '24

Hello, Why do we not have an option that refuses any rate increases, and forces RIPE to reduce it's budget? Option D - No change to rates, RIPE reduces budget according to fewer number of LIR! The Board MUST make tough decisions. If RIPE is serving fewer LIR then the board must adjust RIPE to be a proper size. Daniel~ On 4/10/24 4:18 AM, Simon-Jan Haytink wrote: > > Dear RIPE NCC members, > > > We can now share three draft charging scheme models for 2025 that the > Executive Board approved with the following resolution at its meeting > on 25 March 2024: > > > The RIPE NCC Executive Board approves the submission of the RIPE NCC > Charging Scheme 2025 options to the upcoming RIPE NCC General Meeting > for members to vote on. > > - Option A - Charging Scheme as is with 22.58% price increase for > the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,900) and a 0% price > increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 50) > > - Option B - Charging Scheme as is with 20.97% price increase for > the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,875) and a 50% price > increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 75) > > - Option C - Charging Scheme as is with 16.13% price increase for > the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,800), a 50% price > increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR > 75) and a new AS Numbers fee of EUR 50 per assignment > > > *Resources falling under this charge are IPv4 and IPv6 PI assignments; > Anycast assignments; IPv4 and IPv6 IXP assignments; and Legacy IPv4 > resource registrations through a sponsoring LIR. > > > The full draft charging scheme models are available from the GM > Documentation > page:https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2024/document… > <https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2024/documentation…> > > > Although the proposed models are relatively simple, we provide a > calculator where you can see exactly what you would pay under each of > the proposed models: > > https://www.ripe.net/documents/3757/CS2025_Member_Calculator.xlsx > <https://www.ripe.net/documents/3757/CS2025_Member_Calculator.xlsx> > > > The main considerations for the Executive Board in proposing these > three models are: > > 1. The consolidation of LIR accounts, which means the burden to > generate sufficient income must be met by fewer accounts > > 2. Increased costs due to inflation that were previously catered for > by the large number of LIR accounts > > 3. Following the discussions last year and again this year, there > appears to be no clear consensus among members on how a category-based > model would work and the Board does not wish to put another category > model forward at the upcoming GM that will be rejected by the members. > Rather, the Board will propose a simple model that guarantees adequate > funding for 2025 and 2026 - under this proposal, we expect there would > be no need for a fee increase for 2026. The Board will work with the > RIPE NCC on a more in-depth consultation with the members aimed at > arriving at a sustainable solution for 2027 and beyond, possibly > involving a new charging scheme task force. > > > All three proposed models are designed to arrive at the same income of > EUR 41.1 million for the RIPE NCC in 2025. This will cover all current > services and activities, a 5% staff cost increase, a 2% inflation > increase on all non-staff costs, and EUR 1 million for additional work > relating to registry complexity and security projects aimed at > ensuring the resilience of the Registry and the RIPE NCC more broadly. > Any such additional work would be discussed with the membership during > Activity Plan and Budget consultations and then need to be approved by > the Board. This will also allow some leeway should more LIR accounts > close than we expect. > > > It’s important to note that the RIPE NCC aims for an income budget > that will provide a surplus, and this means that should we meet our > budgetary targets, a surplus can be returned to members in 2026 should > they so wish. > > > While the RIPE NCC continues to carry out cost-cutting efforts across > the organisation, drastically reducing the budget at this time is not > advisable due to the work that needs to be carried out, especially in > relation to maintaining high-quality registry services and securing > the registry and RIPE NCC systems. Cutting services or activities is > not something the Board is planning to do, and such actions would take > time and need full consultation with the membership. An overview of > the activities and services that the membership fee covers is provided > below this email. > > > I also urge you to see the presentation we delivered at the charging > scheme open house in March so that the full context of the situation > and the financial landscape we face is clear to you. The slides are > available at: > > https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/open-house/ripe-ncc-charging-schem… > <https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/open-house/ripe-ncc-charging-schem…> > > > Finally, I want to thank all those who have contributed to the > consultation so far on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025. The models > we present here are draft and in two weeks we will announce the final > proposal that members will vote on at the GM on 22-24 May. Please > discuss the draft proposal on the members-discuss(a)ripe.net > <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>list - any input received by 19 April > can be incorporated if possible into the final models we propose. And > make sure to register for the GM so that you can vote on the charging > scheme that will apply for you and all members next year: > > https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active > <https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active> > > > Simon-Jan Haytink > > Chief Financial Officer > > RIPE NCC > > > Services and Activities Covered by the Member Fee > > > - A trusted, efficient, accurate and resilient registry that > guarantees uniqueness of resources held by members > > - Neutral information services uninfluenced by commercial or > government interests that allow both the RIPE NCC and the community to > carry out useful research into the Internet > > - Engagement activities, including RIPE and regional meetings, that > build an active membership and community and that contribute to the > overall good of the Internet > > - A voice and influence for the membership in key decision-making > fora, including with governments and regulators > > - Protection of the Joint Internet Number Registry as developed by the > Internet community > > - Learning and development activities that help to address skills > shortages and contribute to an educated membership > > - Support for the Policy Development Process (PDP) > > - An authoritative registry of routing information provided by RPKI > and the RIPE Database > > - K-root and DNS services > > - A dedicated staff with considerable expertise contributing to all of > the above > >

32 73

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
by sdy＠a-n-t.ru 15 Apr '24

15 Apr '24

If you pay more tax have you more rights? > On 15/04/2024 09:22, Michel Lanners wrote: >> Because RIPE is a MEMBERSHIP organisation. It’s not a commercial company selling something. >> >> If I’m asked to pay more I also want more voting rights. Consequence: the few big ones will dominate and steer RIPE in the direction THEY want. I don’t think that’s in the interest of those who yell at the unfair membership rate. >> >> RIPE is fair because every member has the same right and the same one vote. > > No, you're not getting more voting rights by paying more. > It is common practice in membership orgs to charge members according to their category or size, and it's still 1 member = 1 vote. > > > Sebastien Brossier > > _______________________________________________ > 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/sdy%40a-n-t.ru > ----------------------------- С уважением Сербулов Дмитрий ООО "Альфа Нет Телеком" +7(498)785-8-000 раб. +7(495)940-92-11 доп. +7(925)518-10-69 сот.

2 1

Response from Board on Charging Scheme Comments
by Ondrej Filip 13 Apr '24

13 Apr '24

Dear members, Thank you very much for your comments on the proposed Charging Scheme options. I am sorry I am not able to answer all your messages individually. It is not in my capability to do so. However, I want to assure you we read all your comments and take them seriously. In this message I will, of course, not address those comments that express a support for the board's proposal. First of all, the board is carefully listening to the members. We opened several channels to collect your feedback. We had the RIPE NCC Survey followed by the Open House discussion, and both indicated that members want the RIPE NCC to continue with the current projects helping our primary mission, which is to support technical coordination in our region. I understand that some of you have different opinions but we need to also consider the wishes and opinions of the wider membership. So we are preparing the Activity Plan and Budget in this regard. The discussion on this topic will be held in the Autumn. But whatever is the output of this discussion, the Charging Scheme should cover the expected company costs. Please note that a vast majority of our costs are related to salaries. That is something that we cannot get rid off quickly even if we decide to stop some of the projects. The RIPE NCC has to and will respect the local labour law in the Netherlands and other respective countries. We (the board and staff) will be very happy to discuss the usefulness of all activities, but again the survey very strongly indicated that the majority of the members does not want any radical change in this regard and is satisfied with the current NCC activities. The board and the management of the company take very seriously members' concerns related to the company costs. We made a lot of effort to cut many of them last year and again this year. However, it is necessary to note that cost saving cannot go on indefinitely. We strongly believe that the quality of our services cannot be affected and that we should continue to provide world class services to our members and community. On top of it, please keep in mind the rapidly changing environment we operate in. The high inflation in the previous years is one of the drivers of the costs. We employ highly skilled people and I guess that is something most of you recognize. But those people deserve corresponding salaries. Another aspect is related to security and privacy. As you know we have made a lot of improvements in this area. And yet with NIS2, there will be more of it. Last but not least, the changing geo-political situation brings many additional burdens that we need to deal with. By that I mean sanctions and other things related to the biggest war in our service region during the RIPE NCC’s existence. Saying all that, again I don't want to reconcile to the fact that costs are rising. The board with the management will continue to find opportunities for cost saving. Also please keep in mind that the fees are upper limits of what the NCC needs to operate. If we create a surplus (which is what we believe in) it can be redistributed by the standard mechanisms we use. We do not want to needlessly accumulate money, but we have to be sure the fees can allow the NCC to operate in this rapidly changing environment. It wouldn't be responsible to propose fees that would not allow the NCC to cover its costs. On the comments asking that the RIPE NCC budget be linked to the number of LIR accounts, it is true that the number of LIR accounts is reducing. But the number of members is actually very stable and using the membership number as a guide provides more stability than looking at LIR numbers. And the costs for the RIPE NCC are not necessarily linked to the number of accounts anyway. Also, as I noted above, IPv4 scarcity and the outbreak of war has added a lot of complexity to the work of the RIPE NCC just as the number of LIR accounts has started to reduce. For example, work to secure the registry or defend the registry system needs to happen regardless of how many LIR accounts there are. Let me also address the point of the fee structure and alternative suggestions raised by several of you. I understand and sympathise with the idea that the current fee structure means that the majority of the budget is covered by small members while larger and richer companies pay a minor part. This concept was approved a long time ago and the board unsuccessfully tried to propose changes. We are very open to discuss this topic again and again, but so far there is no solid model on the table. But we hear you and we will continue this discussion with you. Again, thank you for your comments and reactions. I am looking forward to meeting you for the GM in the beautiful town of Krakow or online. On behalf of the Executive Board Ondrej

10 12