- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

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

09 Mar '23

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

3 2

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

08 Mar '23

Hi, On 7 Mar 2023, at 10:35, Simon Jan Haytink wrote: > Model 2: A category-based model that charges per member (not per LIR account) and is based on resources registered and that also charges for independent resources, ASNs, transfers and changes in business structure such as Mergers & Acquisitions. > > In order to allow members to form an opinion based on their own situation, we are providing an Excel sheet that will allow you to calculate the fees you would pay under each of the draft models. It is important to be aware that at this stage, the numbers assigned for each item are indicative and would be reviewed in light of the discussion with members. We plan to review these figures following consultation with the members, and giving input on those figures would greatly help to arrive at a good model. It is not immediately clear to me if the count for independent resources and ASNs also include resources from other parties which are sponsored by the member (i.e.: are those only resources directly assigned to the member?) Could you clarify how this is meant in your current planning please? Thanks, Marcus

1 0

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

08 Mar '23

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

1 0

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

08 Mar '23

1 0

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

08 Mar '23

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

2 1

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

07 Mar '23

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

1 0

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

07 Mar '23

Hello, can you provide analysis for "Model 2" describing number of LIRs in each category drafted in calculation? Can you demonstrate RIPE NCC income from membership fees based on that model you're presenting currently? I expect NCC has such numbers and shoult present them to members. - Daniel On 3/7/23 10:35, Simon Jan Haytink wrote: > Dear RIPE NCC members, > > We would like to re-open the consultation we began with the membership in 2021 on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme model, and we would like to carry out that consultation well in advance of the RIPE NCC General Meeting (GM) May 2023. > > In 2021, we presented on this topic at the GM, and we also surveyed our members and held an open house to get direct input on the charging scheme model that members would like to see implemented by the RIPE NCC. The outcome at that stage of the consultation was that there were strong cases made for both the current one-LIR, one-fee model and for a category-based model that would charge based on the number of resources held by a member. A strong case was also made to charge for all resources allocated or assigned by the RIPE NCC, including ASNs, and to charge a fee for transfers. > > The Executive Board decided to suspend the consultation in light of the war in Ukraine, but we are eager to decide on a way forward on this matter together with the membership. > > One of the main reasons that we would like to advance the discussion on the charging model is that we expect many members with multiple LIR accounts who received resources in 2021 to merge these accounts in the coming year. This means that the income the RIPE NCC receives will be reduced by a significant amount and we will need to ensure that our charging model allows us to collect the revenue required to maintain our operations. We believe that a category-based model would be best suited to cover this consolidation risk. Continuing with the existing model would mean that an increase in fees for all members would be required. Our ultimate goal is to arrive at a charging scheme model that will be sustainable for many years to come, meeting the needs of the RIPE NCC’s members. > > To help with discussion and to provide something tangible for members to assess, we are putting forward two draft models for members to review. These models can be summarised as: > > Model 1: A “one-LIR, one-fee” model based on the current RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2023 that also charges for independent resources, ASNs, transfers and changes in business structure such as Mergers & Acquisitions. > > Model 2: A category-based model that charges per member (not per LIR account) and is based on resources registered and that also charges for independent resources, ASNs, transfers and changes in business structure such as Mergers & Acquisitions. > > In order to allow members to form an opinion based on their own situation, we are providing an Excel sheet that will allow you to calculate the fees you would pay under each of the draft models. It is important to be aware that at this stage, the numbers assigned for each item are indicative and would be reviewed in light of the discussion with members. We plan to review these figures following consultation with the members, and giving input on those figures would greatly help to arrive at a good model. > > You can download the Excel sheet from: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/me… > > We also plan to hold another Open House meeting on the Charging Scheme in March to further discuss the charging scheme models. The Executive Board will then take the input and decide on one or more charging schemes for the membership to vote on at the GM to be held on 24 May 2023. The outcome of that vote will determine the charging scheme model to be used in the coming years. > > I ask that you provide your input on this important consultation on the Membership Discussion mailing list (members-discuss(a)ripe.net) by 26 April. Input provided up to this date will be considered by the Board when formulating the charging schemes to be proposed for the GM. Input after this date is of course also welcome although it might not be reflected in the schemes put forward to the membership at the GM. > > The consultation will also be recorded and available from: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations > > I look forward to your input. > > Kind regards, > > Simon Jan Haytink > Finance Director > RIPE NCC > > Summary > > 7 March: Start consultation with membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme model > 21 March: Open House to discuss charging scheme with membership > 24 March: Executive Board meeting to discuss input received so far > 12 April: Publication of Draft RIPE NCC Charging Schemes 2024 > 26 April: Publication of Final RIPE NCC Charging Schemes to be voted on by members > 24 May: RIPE NCC General Meeting May 2023 > > References > > Open House and Survey Results > https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/open-house/ripe-ncc-open-house-ch… > > Presentation at General Meeting > https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2021/documentatio… >

1 0

Board minutes regarding investigation
by Sander Steffann 24 Jan '23

24 Jan '23

Hi board, I am looking at the minutes of board meeting 163, and I have a few questions. The minutes state that "The investigation was tasked to identify whether there have been violations of the RIPE NCC Code of Conduct”. At the last AGM I asked if there was a Code of Conduct for board members, and as far as I remember there wasn’t any. So which Code of Conduct do you refer to here? If it is different from the RIPE Code of Conduct please provide either a link or the full text. Looking at the RIPE Code of Conduct, which applies to all of us in this community, it identifies some examples of positive behaviour, like accepting differing viewpoints and experiences, being considerate and showing empathy towards others, especially when disagreeing or raising issues, and giving/receiving feedback or suggestions in a positive way. It follows with "Behaviours that undermine our values are unacceptable and will not be tolerated." I have personally definitely seen behaviour contradicting the points mentioned above from the board member in question (and I have heard many others express the same) but apparently they ARE now being tolerated. Please explain this discrepancy between the Code of Conduct and the outcome of this investigation. The goals of the Code of conduct are to help everyone feel safe and included and to make everyone aware of expected behaviour. As far as I can see we have failed on both accounts here… Sincerely, Sander Steffann PS: just to make sure, who actually performed the investigation? I assume it was a completely independent party with no previous, current or future ties to the RIPE NCC, financial or otherwise. Please confirm.

7 7

Re: [members-discuss] Board minutes regarding investigation
by Terrence de Kat 20 Jan '23

20 Jan '23

Hi Sander, Yeah, maybe "neutral" isn't the best way to describe it. Let's say there's a spectrum that goes: positive > neutral > negative but tolerable > intolerable/unacceptable (undermines values) Where only the worst category would be actionable. For your "death by a thousand cuts principle", that could in certain cases be harassment that would be actionable (eg when repeatedly directed at the same person), and the CoC explicitly leaves room for this by specifying the list is non-exhaustive. However, this is well into subjective territory. Some people have a natural communication style that's abrasive (it's been said about me). Someone may experience this as negative communication, while others may describe it as direct and therefore actually positive (I myself prefer to interpret it like this if possible). Besides that, life in general isn't only positive, so to communicate effectively negative communication is a necessary tool in the toolbox. Negative doesn't equal bad. So, we shouldn't want negative communication chilled by subjecting it to process just because it's negative. Personally I'd err on the side of not interfering in communication unless it's clearly malicious as the examples in the CoC. Having said that, I don't actually know what communication by the board member you're referring to, so I don't mean to defend that specifically. Though, it seems the investigator came to the conclusion that it didn't rise to the intolerable/unacceptable level. But that doesn't mean it's positive in any way. -- Regards, Terrence de Kat, PhD/MTh/BPsy Darkness Reigns (Holding) B.V. Please quote relevant replies. From: Sander Steffann <sander(a)steffann.nl> Sent: Wednesday, 18 January 2023 15:38 To: Terrence de Kat Cc: <members-discuss(a)ripe.net>; Christian Kaufmann Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Board minutes regarding investigation > Hi Terrence, > > > So, there exists a (very wide) range of communication that doesn't align with the given "examples of positive behavior", nor with the given "examples [of behaviours that undermine our values]". Let's call this "neutral" communication. > > Hmmm. I see your point. I feel it’s a given that behaviour that is totally opposite to "positive behaviour" is automatically “bad behaviour”, so I wouldn’t call that “neutral”. > > My feeling is that there is a gap between “bad behaviour that warrants immediate consequences” and “bad behaviour that is just annoying by itself, but should warrant consequences if it becomes a pattern”. The death by a thousand cuts principle. The consequences for the victim are no less in the latter case, but it is much harder to determine which little cut was the one that crossed the line. > > How to protect victims from both behaviours, sadly I do know know :( > > Cheers, > Sander >

3 2

Re: [members-discuss] Board minutes regarding investigation
by Terrence de Kat 18 Jan '23

18 Jan '23

Hi Sander, While reading your email I noticed that you may be making an error in interpreting the CoC, or at least leaving it ambiguous as to what you mean. You reproduce the "examples of positive behaviour" and the following statement that "Behaviours that undermine our values are unacceptable and will not be tolerated". Next you refer to "the points mentioned above", which creates the impression that you believe communication that does not align with the given "examples of positive behavior" is also communication that "undermine[s] our values" and therefore breaches the CoC. I don't think that follows from the CoC as what follows the statement that "Behaviours that undermine our values are unacceptable and will not be tolerated" is "Below are some examples [of behaviours that undermine our values]". So, there exists a (very wide) range of communication that doesn't align with the given "examples of positive behavior", nor with the given "examples [of behaviours that undermine our values]". Let's call this "neutral" communication. This may explain the discrepancy you complain about. If I have interpreted your message incorrectly I apologize but suggest you clarify. -- Regards, Terrence de Kat, PhD/MTh/BPsy Darkness Reigns (Holding) B.V. Please quote relevant replies. From: Sander Steffann <sander(a)steffann.nl> Sent: Wednesday, 18 January 2023 14:08 To: members-discuss(a)ripe.net; exec-board(a)ripe.net Subject: [members-discuss] Board minutes regarding investigation > Hi board, > > I am looking at the minutes of board meeting 163, and I have a few questions. > > The minutes state that "The investigation was tasked to identify whether there have been violations of the RIPE NCC Code of Conduct”. At the last AGM I asked if there was a Code of Conduct for board members, and as far as I remember there wasn’t any. So which Code of Conduct do you refer to here? If it is different from the RIPE Code of Conduct please provide either a link or the full text. > > Looking at the RIPE Code of Conduct, which applies to all of us in this community, it identifies some examples of positive behaviour, like accepting differing viewpoints and experiences, being considerate and showing empathy towards others, especially when disagreeing or raising issues, and giving/receiving feedback or suggestions in a positive way. It follows with "Behaviours that undermine our values are unacceptable and will not be tolerated." > > I have personally definitely seen behaviour contradicting the points mentioned above from the board member in question (and I have heard many others express the same) but apparently they ARE now being tolerated. Please explain this discrepancy between the Code of Conduct and the outcome of this investigation. > > The goals of the Code of conduct are to help everyone feel safe and included and to make everyone aware of expected behaviour. As far as I can see we have failed on both accounts here… > > Sincerely, > Sander Steffann > > PS: just to make sure, who actually performed the investigation? I assume it was a completely independent party with no previous, current or future ties to the RIPE NCC, financial or otherwise. Please confirm. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/terrence%40darkness-…

2 1