- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
by Hank Nussbacher 22 Mar '23

22 Mar '23

On 07/03/2023 11:35, Simon Jan Haytink wrote: > 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… 1. The Excel calculator has a different pricing model for model #2 as compared to: https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/me… The numbers between both should match. 2. The Excel calculator mentions "Independent Internet number resource assignments" yet the LIR Portal for every everyone lists resources as either "My Resources" or "Sponsored Resources", or "Allocated PA" or "Legacy", etc. Can the calculator be adjusted so people can know exactly how each resource is priced in the new model? Regards, Hank

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
by Kaj Niemi 18 Mar '23

18 Mar '23

Hi, Thanks, the email and the excel made for some quite interesting reading. There are a few other reasonable options which were not listed on the slide deck from 2021 nor in your email. An obvious option would be to reduce budgeted RIPE NCC expenditure to the level of forecasted revenue. This is what most normal companies, without assured funding, must do. Another option would be to charge LIRs for the services they use. With this I do not mean IP addresses and ASNs that were mentioned in your model but for everything. Someone who is using only basic LIR services (IP/ASN assignments, reverse name services) would not have to pay for "value-added services" (VAS). With VAS I mean RIPE NCC's varied extracurricular activities such as outreach, education programs and software development that have expanded considerably over the years and have undoubtedly been of some value to some of its members. Still, many of the same roles/functions are also conducted by membership organizations, NOGs, and independent software developers. Imposition of the costs of such programs on members, who either don't benefit from or do not use them, equates the charging model functioning mostly as an ATM to finance the ambitions and initiatives of the RIPE NCC leadership and a small group of active advocates. Some of us would be happy with a Big Mac meal rather than the expensive all you can eat seafood buffet 😉 Kaj -----Original Message----- From: ncc-announce <ncc-announce-bounces(a)ripe.net> On Behalf Of Simon Jan Haytink Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 11:35 To: ncc-announce(a)ripe.net Subject: [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 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://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.… 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://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.… 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://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.… Presentation at General Meeting https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.…

28 44

RIPE NCC Budget Discussions
by Hans Petter Holen 17 Mar '23

17 Mar '23

Dear all, We have seen many comments on the RIPE NCC's budget, expenses and staffing. We take all those comments on board and they will be valuable when we start work on our Activity Plan and Budget 2024 later this year. However, for this consultation, we are working to come up with a charging scheme model that will work for the foreseeable future regardless of whether the budget is higher, lower or the same as the current one. I understand that there is a connection to our charging model, but the two consultation processes aim at different things. This one is about how we charge in a way that is acceptable to the membership. The later one is about what activities we carry out, as well as how much we pay for them and how we resource them. I note that currently over 50% of our costs (budget and actuals) are staff-related costs. Having said that, we have seen some comments that might create misconceptions about our staff levels and our overall budget. For instance, our Community Projects Fund allocates 250,000 euro across all Good of the Internet projects rather than 250,000 euro for each project. Also, there have been comments that fewer LIRs should have meant less work for the RIPE NCC. However, this has not proven to be the case for many reasons. We still need to ensure there is an accurate registry, and there has been a dramatic increase in the amount of transfers since IPv4 run-out that need proper due diligence from our side. Similarly, the effects of sanctions compliance on the RIPE NCC has been significant for our work on the registry side but also on the legal, financial and political fronts. We also need to put resources into ensuring a resilient and secure RPKI Trust Anchor. We have seen the need to greatly increase our security and compliance efforts to protect our infrastructure and your resources. Members across our service region have very different needs in terms of capacity building and training. We provide measurements on the Internet that we are uniquely placed to provide and we see much demand for those insights. And of course the effect of instability in the service region (war and dealing with ultra high-risk countries, for example) has caused uncertainty around being able to collect part of the membership fees and that has in turn increased our workload. There are many other examples of how our workload has increased in recent years, and I encourage you to look at our Activity Plans over the past few years to see more details on this. Best regards, Hans Petter Holen Managing Director RIPE NCC

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
by J Pawlus 17 Mar '23

17 Mar '23

Hello, There is no basis for any LIR membership fee to be based on the IPv4 allocated address space and there are several reasons for this: - RIPE has never charged LIRs for IP addresses - It is true that at the beginning RIPE membership fee was based on categories, as far as I remember: SMALL, MEDIUM, LARGE and EXTRA LARGE, but it was because of work required to serve IPv4 resources. At that time IPv4 allocation and assignement policies had to be developed, every allocation of IPv4 address space to a LIR had to be checked and done by RIPE. What is more, if the IPv4 assignement made by a LIR to its End User exceeded the LIR Window size such assignement had to be checked and approved by the RIPE staff. RevDNS for allocated resources had to be made. This work is long gone. - The amount of work required to serve leftover IPv4 space cannot be compared to what it was required before - As far as I know RIPE does not pay IANA for IPv4 space allocated to Europe Region and any attempt of RIPE to require such payment from LIRs should be considered major abuse of RIPE mandate as a RIR. In conclusion, RIPE has always charged its members for Services not an address space. If a reverse model is to be developed it has to be with IANA cooperation. But in my opinion it could lead to splitting Internet to many privately administered parts. Kind regards, Jerzy Pawlus ACK Cyfronet AGH

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
by Sander Steffann 16 Mar '23

16 Mar '23

Hi Simon Jan, > 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. I feel this model double-charges for PI and ASN. LIRs with many of those resources both pay €50 per resource, and also run the risk of being pushed up into a higher category. I strongly feel that PI and ASN should be excluded from the category score calculation. On a side note, I also feel that the RIPE NCC’s budget is getting a bit out of control. RIPE NCC is primarily an Internet Registry, and I would like to see focus concentrating on Registration Services, and less on anything else. I understand that the RIPE NCC is in a useful position to do nice research projects, represent the internet community etc. But looking at the budget it looks like the rest of the organisation is growing much faster than the registry function. I therefore also object to the €450 price increase in model 1. Cheers, Sander

11 13

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
by Matej 14 Mar '23

14 Mar '23

Hello all, I 100% agree with Elvis! Best regards, Matej Serc Sent via BlackBerry Hub+ Inbox for Android <http://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.blackberry.hub> From: elvis(a)v4escrow.net Sent: 14. marec 2023 19:30 To: sander(a)steffann.nl Cc: simon(a)ripe.net; members-discuss(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 Hi, the RIPE NCC budget has increased yearly for the past 10+ years. A non-for-profit registry that could operate with less than €20mil ten years ago needs more than twice the amount of money ten years later. Something has gone wrong if the organization spends twice as much money to offer similar services (sometimes of a poorer quality) to its members. Most of the members NEED to pay a membership fee to the RIPE NCC because they can not get the registration services anywhere else. The non-for-proffit organization called the RIPE NCC is a monopoly that now spends €40m a year. So, today members are forced by the NCC to choose from a bad charging scheme and an even worse one. They will pay more yearly regardless of whether they need more or less services from the NCC. I really believe a better accountability on what the NCC is planning to spend €40mil/year is needed before we vote on new charging schemes or price increases. FYI, I looked at the budget the NCC had over the past 10+ years, collected the number of FTEs and the CAPEX: 2012, ripe-544: 129 FTEs, 19,16 mEUR 2013, ripe-558: 135 FTEs, 18,5 mEUR 2014, ripe-598: 136 FTEs, 20,8 mEUR 2015, ripe-630: 136.1 FTEs, 20,66 mEUR 2016, ripe-662: 141 FTEs, 22,32 mEUR 2017, ripe-671: 148.5 FTEs, 25,11 mEUR 2018, ripe-693: 155.2 FTEs, 26,89 mEUR 2019, ripe-711: 165.1 FTEs, 31,60 mEUR 2020, ripe-735: 165.1 FTEs, 34,44 mEUR 2021, ripe-750: 170 FTEs, 33,56 mEUR 2022, ripe-773: 186 FTEs, 35,60 mEUR 2023, ripe-786: 190.6 FTEs, 40,00 mEUR Something happened in 2016-2017 that caused the NCC to increase the amount of money they need, dramatically. And since then, as no one seemed to make enough noise, the NCC and the Board kept increasing the budget until we got to this amount… €40mil. So, the budget doubled in 2023 when compared to 2015, I wonder why... At every RIPE Meeting there’s at least one person asking the NCC to find a way to spend less, and then the NCC and the Board ignore all that ‘noise’. Why a registry of IP addresses and AS Numbers needs to spend 40 million EUR per year is beyond my comprehension. Why the NCC needs 200 FTEs in 2023 when they were doing just fine (or even better) doing a similar job in 2013 with just 135 is also unknown. I’d suggest to the MD, the CFO and the Board to go back to the drawing board and figure out why the budget keeps going up. The services offered (those that 99% of the membership care for) are less and less (no one can get IPv4 anymore, they ask for an IPv6 allocation and an ASN and never come back to bother the NCC again… the price paid for membership should go down and not up. I understand and agree that staff’s salaries should be increased because of the galloping inflation. What I do not understand is why the budget increased from €20m to €40m in less than 10 years… there must have been other reasons too. I reject both charging scheme proposals. my 2 cents, Elvis On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 02:02 Sander Steffann <sander(a)steffann.nl <mailto:sander@steffann.nl> > wrote: Hi, > On a side note, I also feel that the RIPE NCC’s budget is getting a bit out of control. RIPE NCC is primarily an Internet Registry, and I would like to see focus concentrating on Registration Services, and less on anything else. I understand that the RIPE NCC is in a useful position to do nice research projects, represent the internet community etc. But looking at the budget it looks like the rest of the organisation is growing much faster than the registry function. I therefore also object to the €450 price increase in model 1. I had a chat with Hans Petter the other day, and he informed me that a significant part of the budget increase is caused by increasing staff salaries. Considering the recent inflation and economic circumstances I fully approve that. So if the fee increase is used to improve working conditions for RIPE NCC Staff, which are an important part of our community, I am perfectly fine with that! Cheers, Sander _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss(a)ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/elvis%40v4escrow.net -- This message was sent from a mobile device. Some typos may be possible.

1 0

RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 Consultation
by paul.newton＠f4rn.org.uk 14 Mar '23

14 Mar '23

Dear RIPE, Thank you for the opportunity to input to the consultation. We would be strongly in favour of model 2 for the following reasons: We are a small, non-profit-making provider of fibre broadband to a rural community. We fill an essential gap, as communities like ours tend to get left behind in the rollout of FTTH by the major suppliers. We have only a small core team, so are not able to take advantage of the ancillary benefits that RIPE offers, such as training schemes and conferences. The cost of model 1 would represent about 3% of our turnover, which is a significant element in our cost scheme, and a barrier to attracting new subscribers. I hope you will give this due consideration: model 2. Kind regards, Dr Paul Newton F4RN

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
by Maria Merkel 13 Mar '23

13 Mar '23

Hi all, While I am responding to the parent message, I will also address some points raised in other replies. Our LIR primarily provides services to other group companies, but we also provide LIR services to some business and personal customers. My biggest concern is that if ASN assignments not only have their own fixed fee but also determine the membership fee tier, the cost of providing an ASN will become difficult to predict. This may be fine for internal and business customers as these can be charged a higher fee to compensate for this (perhaps by just assuming the worst case), but this may be more difficult for personal customers and we might be forced to discontinue this service for them entirely. If there is already a recurring per-ASN charge I do not see why the number of ASNs should also influence the membership fee tier. It is also unclear to me whether "Independent Internet number resource assignments" includes ASNs? I assume not as PI and ASN Category Scores are listed separately in Model 2, but it would be helpful if this could be clarified. I also do not understand why there is a separate sign-up fee and a "New membership Fee". Why are these not combined into a single sign-up fee? There is also some concern regarding the transfer fee. When something like a /22 is sold, a 1,000 € transfer fee obviously doesn't have too much of an impact, but this would be very different with a /24. It's unclear to me whether the transfer fee also applies to transfers of ASNs but if it does that also seems problematic for cases where ASNs are transferred free of charge between affiliated companies (and might actually encourage more ASNs being requested than are required). While I understand some of the concerns from others regarding the RIPE NCC's activities not being solely related to registry functions, I believe that this is justified and ultimately benefits its members. Maybe there should be a separate (cheaper) option to become an LIR without becoming a full member? — Maria Merkel [https://cdn.staclar.com/logos/novecore/newlogo.png] This email was sent from Staclar, Inc. Any statements contained in this email are personal to the author and are not necessarily the statements of the company unless specifically stated. Novecore and Staclar are collective trading names of Novecore Ltd., registered in England and Wales under company number 11748197, Novecore Licensing Ltd., registered in England and Wales under company number 11544982, Staclar Carrier Ltd., registered in England and Wales under company number 12219686, Staclar Financial Services Ltd., registered in England and Wales under company number 13843292 (registered offices 54 Portland Place, London, UK, W1B 1DY); Novecore Professional Services Ltd., registered in England and Wales under company number 13965912 (registered office 13 Freeland Park, Wareham Road, Poole, UK, BH16 6FA); Novecore (Estonia) OÜ, registered in Estonia under registry code 16543205 (local contact Baltic Business Services OÜ, Narva mnt 5, 10117 Tallinn, Estonia); Novecore (USA) Inc., registered in Delaware under file number 6707907, Novecore Licensing (USA) LLC, registered in Delaware under file number 4030866, and Staclar, Inc., registered in Delaware under file number 7413401 (registered agents The Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange St, Wilmington DE 19801, USA). Novecore Licensing Ltd. is registered for VAT in the United Kingdom under VAT registration number 347 4545 80. Novecore (Estonia) OÜ is registered for VAT in the European Union under VAT registration number EE102518979. Staclar Financial Services Ltd. is an Annex 1 financial institution registered with and supervised by the Financial Conduct Authority under the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 (firm reference number 989521). Registration is not equivalent to authorisation and is not an endorsement to do business with a firm. Staclar Financial Services Ltd. is not an authorised person within the meaning of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and does not review, approve, or endorse financial promotions for securities issues it is involved in or provide any form of investment advice. [Sent from Front] On March 7, 2023 at 10:43 AM GMT+1 simon(a)ripe.net<mailto:simon@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<mailto:members-discuss@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…<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 Fabien SCHENKELS 13 Mar '23

13 Mar '23

Dear Members, We are exactly of the same opinion as "ServeByte" which says: « 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. » We also want Model 2. It is about the survival of thousands of LIRs and the neutrality and independence of the Internet. Small members must be supported. Thank you for making the right choices and that the little LIRs can continue to live. Kind regards, Fabien Schenkels > Le 7 mars 2023 à 10:35, Simon Jan Haytink <simon(a)ripe.net> a écrit : > > 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… >

3 2

[ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme
by Simon-Jan Haytink 13 Mar '23

13 Mar '23

Dear all, Thank you for the discussion so far - we've seen a lot of great input and it really helps us to figure out what the members want to see (or not see) in their charging model. We hope to see more in the coming weeks. I'd like to clarify a couple of things that might address some concerns. First, the figures included in the calculator are by no means final. We include figures for a range of items because we want you to consider them, and we make the figures high enough to be worth consideration. The numbers attached to each item would likely result in more income than required, and it is unlikely we would charge on all criteria. Second, there has been no discussion on the Budget with the Executive Board yet. As was pointed out, the Budget discussions will happen in the run-up to the November General Meeting, and the draft Activity Plan and Budget will be shared with you well in advance. And we would welcome a similar level of discussion on that document. For the purposes of the charging scheme model discussion and the income we would need to derive, we are aiming for something roughly similar to the current budget. However, this may be different once we start the planning process for 2024 with your involvement. I also note that the mechanism to redistribute excess fees paid by members remains in place. In summary, what we are mainly looking for is input on the models so we can bring a good proposal to the Executive Board based on the input from the members. Your feedback is already helping us to develop that proposal. Understanding which model members want and which items we should or should not charge for is our main concern at the moment. Then we can then come up with a more developed proposal for members to consider. We will also have an Open House on this topic on 21 March at 14:00 CET (UTC+1). At that session, I'll be happy to dive into further details on the models and hope to get further input from the members. We will announce this shortly on our Announce list but you can already register at: https://www.ripe.net/s/charging-scheme-2024-open-house We are also collating the feedback and preparing answers that will address some of the comments we've seen. Also, a member pointed out an error in the calculator - cell L50 was calculating total PI rather than ASN assignments as expected. This has been fixed and the updated calculator is now available to download from the consultation page: https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/ch… Best regards, Simon Jan Haytink Finance Director RIPE NCC

3 2