- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024
by Robert Scheck 17 Apr '23

17 Apr '23

Hello Simon-Jan, On Wed, 12 Apr 2023, Simon-Jan Haytink wrote: > Model A - Category Model > > This model has ten categories to provide greater granularity. It also charges separately for independent and legacy resources in exactly the same way as in previous years. Additionally, a separate 50 EUR ASN assignment fee has been added. Both separately charged resources do not contribute to the category scores. This means there is no double charging and no specific charging for transfers or administrative work carried out by the RIPE NCC. There is a New /24 IPv4 administration fee to ensure there is a financial consequence to joining the IPv4 Waiting List. The fee would be payable upon receipt of the /24, and members joining the waiting list who do not have an eligible LIR account, would pay the new LIR sign-up fee to open a new LIR account and join the waiting list. > > With this model, approximately 68% of members would pay less than the current annual fee, with the remaining 32% paying more. > > The discussion with members helped us to see that a category-based model would receive significant support from members if the version was simplified. Should members see the need to charge for other elements, then that can be incorporated into the category model in the coming years. Any such additional charges could potentially then reduce the fees per category. thank you for the explanation and the analysis. However from my point of view, the RIPE NCC offers with this model an unfair incentive to members with IPv4 allocations (in total) of more than a /15 equivalent, because they are simply capped at 10k EUR per year. Deutsche Telekom, Orange, Societe Francaise Du Radiotelephone and Telecom Italia (if I did my research right, they should be the 4 largest members in the RIPE region) have each in total IPv4 allocations somewhere between /8 and /7 equivalent. And sorry, I might be totally wrong, but I think if a member needs these really large IPv4 allocations, the member should easily be able to pay much more than only 10k EUR per year. And a member still could charge its customers for their IPv4 usage (or make them simply moving to IPv6). But once it comes to IPv6, I think charging 350 EUR per year for a /29 is a very bad idea. In the past, RIPE NCC employees even encouraged RIPE members to extend their /32 up to a /29 ("because it's free", just informally and in non-written form e.g. during an Assisted Registry Check, but Maximilian Wilhelm mentioned on 2023-04-13 that it also happened in a documented way). Aside of this: Does the RIPE NCC currently see any lack of IPv6 address space to come up with this proposal? If a /29 leads to extra charging, I expect quite some members to return their IPv6 allocation (above /29), and especially in cases where it was advertised as "free benefit" in the past. Other than that: +1 to Gert Doering's e-mail from 2023-04-13. As longer I am looking to the IPv6 category scale, as more I am wondering why largest IPv6 allocations in the RIPE region to Deutsche Telekom, UK Ministry of Defence and Orange (each a /19) are just category 7 instead of 10. Honestly, I expect Deutsche Telekom and Orange made their homework before requesting an IPv6 allocation, thus I seriously wonder how realistic it is that the RIPE NCC allocates something even larger to another member in the next years (or maybe even ever?). So shouldn't the scale be adjusted to cover the largest members with the largest category? If my research was correct, the RIPE NCC in total has IPv6 allocations of /11 + /17 + /21 currently. A /11 allows up to 16 /15 allocations (this + 1 more IPv6 address is the minimum size for IPv6 category 10). I am not sure which huge future address needs by members the RIPE NCC is expecting. And seriously: If there is such a need in 5+ years, we anyway will discuss the next charging scheme, right? >From my point of view, both, the IPv4 and the IPv6 category scale should be aligned more to the current maximum of actual IP allocations of RIPE. This would, from my point of view, distribute the overall costs over the members somehow "per usage" (and be in-line with historical allocation requests). Do 32 bit ASNs cause costs to the RIPE NCC? Or is the RIPE NCC running out of them anytime soon? I understand that the situation for 16 bit ASNs is different, but I'm not sure what the benefit is to charge for 32 bit ASNs. > Model C - Transfer fee and ASN fee > > This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there is a charge of EUR 1,000 per transfer to be paid by the receiving party and a 50 EUR ASN fee to ensure we can meet our budgetary requirements while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contribution should we receive excess funds. While I consider a transfer fee of 1000 EUR to be somehow fair for larger IPv4 networks, it feels quite unfair to me for e.g. a IPv4 /24 or /23, or for a 32 bit ASN. Outside of the models, I am still worried about RIPE NCC having 172 FTEs, while other LIRs can operate with around the half (or even less). What is so unique/special with RIPE NCC that requires so many more FTEs? Is it the projects and activity outside of the RIR job (e.g. RIPE Atlas or RIPE NCC Certified Professionals)? While this question was raised in general earlier on this list already, I didn't notice a real answer so far. What I didn't see so far either is an overview/table for the FTEs similarly detailed like for the budget (page 27 of ripe-796 for FTEs is quite brief compared to page 43 of ripe-795 for budgets), thus "per activity". Did I overlook this? If not, could it be provided for the future, maybe for the RIPE 86 GM? It would be interesting to compare these details with the ones of the other RIRs. Kind regards Robert Scheck -- Robert Scheck Mail: robert.scheck(a)etes.de ETES GmbH Fon : +49 (7 11) 48 90 83 - 12 Talstraße 106 Fax : +49 (7 11) 48 90 83 - 50 D-70188 Stuttgart Web : http://www.etes.de/ Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart HRB 721182 Geschäftsführender Gesellschafter: Markus Espenhain Sitz der Gesellschaft: Stuttgart USt.-Id.Nr.: DE814767446

1 0

[ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024
by i7 NOC 14 Apr '23

14 Apr '23

Hello, It's great to see that member feedback has been taken into account when developing these models. However, I would like to reiterate my concerns regarding Model C and propose that it should be excluded from the final selection. In summary, Model C introduces transfer fees, which, as I mentioned earlier, bring potential challenges, such as unpredictability in the RIPE NCC's annual budget, payment difficulties for sanctioned countries, increased administrative burdens, complexities related to PI blocks and ASNs transfers, etc. These factors could negatively affect the RIPE NCC and its members. Considering the potential issues with Model C, I suggest that focusing on Models A and B would be a more reasonable approach. Both models provide sufficient options for the members and maintain their respective merits without the risks associated with Model C. By excluding Model C from the final proposals, the voting process will be more focused, enabling members to make a well-informed decision between the two remaining models. This strategy would prevent Model C from diluting the decision-making process and ensure the adoption of a more suitable and sustainable charging scheme. Furthermore, Model B represents a familiar charging scheme for the members, ensuring stability and continuity. In contrast, Model A offers an alternative, category-based system catering to the diverse needs of the membership base, promoting fairness and adaptability within the RIPE NCC community. Model C, on the other hand, only adds uncertainty by introducing transfer fees, which could negatively affect the RIPE NCC's financial stability. As this model doesn't provide any significant benefits over Models A and B, it would be more advantageous to concentrate on refining Models A and B, ensuring a well-balanced charging scheme for the RIPE NCC community. Regards, Victor > Dear RIPE NCC members, > > I want to thank all those who contributed to the consultation so far on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 and the model we should use for the coming years. > > We can now share three draft models that we developed based on input from the members on the Members Discuss mailing list and in the Charging Scheme Open House, as well as from the discussions at the recent Executive Board Meeting. > > The result is that we are proposing three draft charging scheme models: one category-based and two that are based on the previous "one LIR account, one fee" model. We hope to receive feedback on these models by 19 April so the Executive Board can propose the final versions on 26 April. The members will then vote on those three models at the upcoming General Meeting on 24-26 May. > > The three models all aim to fulfil a budget that is roughly the same as 2023 plus general cost increases including inflation, so EUR 42-45 million. By doing this, we can ensure that we can meet the potential budgetary requirements for 2024 while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contributions should we receive excess funds. The Activity Plan and Budget will be discussed with members this coming Autumn. > > The three models are available to review at: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/ch… > > We also provide an updated calculator where members can see for themselves how much they might pay under the draft models: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/ne… > > To summarise the main features of the three models: > > Model A - Category Model > > This model has ten categories to provide greater granularity. It also charges separately for independent and legacy resources in exactly the same way as in previous years. Additionally, a separate 50 EUR ASN assignment fee has been added. Both separately charged resources do not contribute to the category scores. This means there is no double charging and no specific charging for transfers or administrative work carried out by the RIPE NCC. There is a New /24 IPv4 administration fee to ensure there is a financial consequence to joining the IPv4 Waiting List. The fee would be payable upon receipt of the /24, and members joining the waiting list who do not have an eligible LIR account, would pay the new LIR sign-up fee to open a new LIR account and join the waiting list. > > With this model, approximately 68% of members would pay less than the current annual fee, with the remaining 32% paying more. > > The discussion with members helped us to see that a category-based model would receive significant support from members if the version was simplified. Should members see the need to charge for other elements, then that can be incorporated into the category model in the coming years. Any such additional charges could potentially then reduce the fees per category. > > Model B - Price increase and ASN fee > > This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there is a price increase of EUR 150 and a 50 EUR ASN fee to ensure we can meet our budgetary requirements while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contribution should we receive excess funds. > > Model C - Transfer fee and ASN fee > > This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there is a charge of EUR 1,000 per transfer to be paid by the receiving party and a 50 EUR ASN fee to ensure we can meet our budgetary requirements while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contribution should we receive excess funds. > > Further information on the charging scheme models is provided at: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/ch… > > The RIPE NCC Executive Board believes that a category-based model is the best option to help address uncertainty that might be caused by consolidation with multiple LIRs and to provide greater flexibility and fairness in how we charge members in the coming years. > > On 26 April, the final versions of the charging schemes that members will vote on will be published for the members to consider and discuss. If you have comments on the draft charging schemes, we therefore ask you to comment on the members-discuss mailing list by 19 April so we have time to incorporate any feedback if necessary. > > Importantly, we ask all members to register for the RIPE NCC General Meeting where the final decision will be in your hands. Register to participate and vote at: > https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active > > Simon-Jan Haytink > Chief Financial Officer > RIPE NCC >

3 2

Re: [members-discuss] Charging Scheme Models 2024
by Akayo 14 Apr '23

14 Apr '23

Dear colleagues! The €10,400.00 is the result of the calculator. You can try it out, I get this result for 7 x IPv4 /22, 7 x IPv6 /29 and 3 x ASNs. No transfers, no PI space. Here is a screenshot: https://imgur.com/vVnHTyG Anyway, this scheme is not fair due to the capping. It raises the costs for small and mid-sized companies dramatically while huge companies are not affected. I think there are only two ways. Either 1. all should pay the same or 2. all exactly as many IPv4 addresses and ASNs they hold (*). (*) IPv6 should not be punished. These category instead of real-usage based schemes make no sense for me. They are not fair as they stop on the half way.

3 2

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024
by Patrick Velder 14 Apr '23

14 Apr '23

Hi, thanks for publishing these (much) improved charging schemes. My inputs (to the model based one): * I agree on previous posts that a /29 IPv6 should be treated like /23-/24 IPv4. We have enough IPv6. * Depending on the category, some ASNs should be included for free. Reasons: o Imagine, holding a /24 would be cheaper (!) than holding an ASN. o Most LIRs need an ASN for their own use o A small amount of ALL resource types (IPv4, IPv6, ASN) should be included in the membership * I would be fine if just one ASN (for the LIRs own use) is included * Small categories increase far too quickly, compared to big categories. Now I'm looking forward to the many new ticketsystem accounts I'll receive as reply to this message! Best regards & happy weekend Patrick On 4/12/23 15:45, Simon-Jan Haytink wrote: > Dear RIPE NCC members, > > I want to thank all those who contributed to the consultation so far on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 and the model we should use for the coming years. > > We can now share three draft models that we developed based on input from the members on the Members Discuss mailing list and in the Charging Scheme Open House, as well as from the discussions at the recent Executive Board Meeting. > > The result is that we are proposing three draft charging scheme models: one category-based and two that are based on the previous "one LIR account, one fee" model. We hope to receive feedback on these models by 19 April so the Executive Board can propose the final versions on 26 April. The members will then vote on those three models at the upcoming General Meeting on 24-26 May. > > The three models all aim to fulfil a budget that is roughly the same as 2023 plus general cost increases including inflation, so EUR 42-45 million. By doing this, we can ensure that we can meet the potential budgetary requirements for 2024 while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contributions should we receive excess funds. The Activity Plan and Budget will be discussed with members this coming Autumn. > > The three models are available to review at: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/ch… > > We also provide an updated calculator where members can see for themselves how much they might pay under the draft models: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/ne… > > To summarise the main features of the three models: > > Model A - Category Model > > This model has ten categories to provide greater granularity. It also charges separately for independent and legacy resources in exactly the same way as in previous years. Additionally, a separate 50 EUR ASN assignment fee has been added. Both separately charged resources do not contribute to the category scores. This means there is no double charging and no specific charging for transfers or administrative work carried out by the RIPE NCC. There is a New /24 IPv4 administration fee to ensure there is a financial consequence to joining the IPv4 Waiting List. The fee would be payable upon receipt of the /24, and members joining the waiting list who do not have an eligible LIR account, would pay the new LIR sign-up fee to open a new LIR account and join the waiting list. > > With this model, approximately 68% of members would pay less than the current annual fee, with the remaining 32% paying more. > > The discussion with members helped us to see that a category-based model would receive significant support from members if the version was simplified. Should members see the need to charge for other elements, then that can be incorporated into the category model in the coming years. Any such additional charges could potentially then reduce the fees per category. > > Model B - Price increase and ASN fee > > This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there is a price increase of EUR 150 and a 50 EUR ASN fee to ensure we can meet our budgetary requirements while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contribution should we receive excess funds. > > Model C - Transfer fee and ASN fee > > This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there is a charge of EUR 1,000 per transfer to be paid by the receiving party and a 50 EUR ASN fee to ensure we can meet our budgetary requirements while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contribution should we receive excess funds. > > Further information on the charging scheme models is provided at: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/ch… > > The RIPE NCC Executive Board believes that a category-based model is the best option to help address uncertainty that might be caused by consolidation with multiple LIRs and to provide greater flexibility and fairness in how we charge members in the coming years. > > On 26 April, the final versions of the charging schemes that members will vote on will be published for the members to consider and discuss. If you have comments on the draft charging schemes, we therefore ask you to comment on the members-discuss mailing list by 19 April so we have time to incorporate any feedback if necessary. > > Importantly, we ask all members to register for the RIPE NCC General Meeting where the final decision will be in your hands. Register to participate and vote at: > https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active > > Simon-Jan Haytink > Chief Financial Officer > RIPE NCC >

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] Charging Scheme Models 2024
by Akayo 13 Apr '23

13 Apr '23

I also want to state that this brings me into a legally uncomfortable situation. I am only a small LIR and therefore I have an own responsibility. When I began many years ago, I also had many small customers. They have low prices for their IPv4 /24 subnets and I never increased these prices, also not due to the pandemic or the war. Why should I have - there was no factual reason to do so. I am not legally entitled to increase prices without customers consent. A contract where I have the right to change prices from month to month would be illegal. In case of missing consent I would be required to terminate the contract and look for a new customer - which is hard to find with increased prices due to competitors which benefit from the capping limit in option A. That will definitely lead to a high risk for a law suit including damages, even if I am contractually allowed to terminate the contract. I am allowed to request the customer for a slight price increase, but not for huge price increases. But if RIPE NCC hugely increases the prices, I may be required to also hugely increase my prices. That violates my independence and responsibility as a LIR, as I will never use my position to enforce higher prices against customers. This is absolutely wrong. I would now get punished for charging too less in the past. Therefore, I highly recommend to either charge the same for all members *or* according to a pure usage based scheme, not a category based scheme. The latter prevents that smaller or mid-sized companies pay the same as the largest LIRs RIPE NCC has and the most LIRs will benefit from it.

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024
by Michele Neylon - Blacknight 13 Apr '23

13 Apr '23

Simon-Jan The spreadsheet is very helpful and I appreciate that you’re making it available. I tried to follow some of the previous discussion of the earlier proposed schemes, but I have to admit that it was nigh on impossible to keep track of the emails. I do, however, get the distinct impression that a lot of vocal members aren’t overly impressed with the proposals. While I appreciate that the NCC needs to collect enough fees from members in order to pay staff and maintain the various services that it offers I do find it a little counterintuitive that the billing model, which will have a massive impact on the budget and work plan, is being voted on months before the work plan and budget is discussed. Put another way: you’re putting the cart before the horse Some of the frustration being voiced by members stems from the perceived growth of the organisation’s expenditure which is not clearly tied back to either core services or perceived value for members ie. You’re spending more and more, but we as members aren’t seeing much growth in benefits. Looking at the proposed charging schemes most recently presented the difference in cost is significant. I have no idea how much of an impact the various models could have on other members, but speaking on behalf of ourselves: * Model A would see us paying nearly 3 times what we currently pay * Model B would see us paying more than we currently do (similar to Kaj’s calculations) * Model C would see us paying about 50% more than we currently do As a company based in the RIPE region we have no choice but to pay the fees that RIPE imposes and the current set of options are not particularly palatable. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 I have sent this email at a time that is convenient for me. I do not expect you to respond to it outside of your usual working hours. From: ncc-announce <ncc-announce-bounces(a)ripe.net> on behalf of Simon-Jan Haytink <simonjh(a)ripe.net> Date: Wednesday, 12 April 2023 at 14:56 To: ncc-announce(a)ripe.net <ncc-announce(a)ripe.net> Subject: [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024 [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Please use caution when opening attachments from unrecognised sources. Dear RIPE NCC members, I want to thank all those who contributed to the consultation so far on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 and the model we should use for the coming years. We can now share three draft models that we developed based on input from the members on the Members Discuss mailing list and in the Charging Scheme Open House, as well as from the discussions at the recent Executive Board Meeting. The result is that we are proposing three draft charging scheme models: one category-based and two that are based on the previous "one LIR account, one fee" model. We hope to receive feedback on these models by 19 April so the Executive Board can propose the final versions on 26 April. The members will then vote on those three models at the upcoming General Meeting on 24-26 May. The three models all aim to fulfil a budget that is roughly the same as 2023 plus general cost increases including inflation, so EUR 42-45 million. By doing this, we can ensure that we can meet the potential budgetary requirements for 2024 while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contributions should we receive excess funds. The Activity Plan and Budget will be discussed with members this coming Autumn. The three models are available to review at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/ch… We also provide an updated calculator where members can see for themselves how much they might pay under the draft models: https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/ne… To summarise the main features of the three models: Model A - Category Model This model has ten categories to provide greater granularity. It also charges separately for independent and legacy resources in exactly the same way as in previous years. Additionally, a separate 50 EUR ASN assignment fee has been added. Both separately charged resources do not contribute to the category scores. This means there is no double charging and no specific charging for transfers or administrative work carried out by the RIPE NCC. There is a New /24 IPv4 administration fee to ensure there is a financial consequence to joining the IPv4 Waiting List. The fee would be payable upon receipt of the /24, and members joining the waiting list who do not have an eligible LIR account, would pay the new LIR sign-up fee to open a new LIR account and join the waiting list. With this model, approximately 68% of members would pay less than the current annual fee, with the remaining 32% paying more. The discussion with members helped us to see that a category-based model would receive significant support from members if the version was simplified. Should members see the need to charge for other elements, then that can be incorporated into the category model in the coming years. Any such additional charges could potentially then reduce the fees per category. Model B - Price increase and ASN fee This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there is a price increase of EUR 150 and a 50 EUR ASN fee to ensure we can meet our budgetary requirements while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contribution should we receive excess funds. Model C - Transfer fee and ASN fee This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there is a charge of EUR 1,000 per transfer to be paid by the receiving party and a 50 EUR ASN fee to ensure we can meet our budgetary requirements while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contribution should we receive excess funds. Further information on the charging scheme models is provided at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/ch… The RIPE NCC Executive Board believes that a category-based model is the best option to help address uncertainty that might be caused by consolidation with multiple LIRs and to provide greater flexibility and fairness in how we charge members in the coming years. On 26 April, the final versions of the charging schemes that members will vote on will be published for the members to consider and discuss. If you have comments on the draft charging schemes, we therefore ask you to comment on the members-discuss mailing list by 19 April so we have time to incorporate any feedback if necessary. Importantly, we ask all members to register for the RIPE NCC General Meeting where the final decision will be in your hands. Register to participate and vote at: https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active Simon-Jan Haytink Chief Financial Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024
by Ondrej Zajicek 13 Apr '23

13 Apr '23

On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 03:45:41PM +0200, Simon-Jan Haytink wrote: > Dear RIPE NCC members, > > I want to thank all those who contributed to the consultation so far on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 and the model we should use for the coming years. > > We can now share three draft models that we developed based on input > from the members on the Members Discuss mailing list and in the Charging > Scheme Open House, as well as from the discussions at the recent > Executive Board Meeting. Hello Thanks for these drafts and your work on it. I am much pleased with the result of the consultation process, and i personally consider this category model much better than the one proposed originally. -- Ondrej 'Santiago' Zajicek (email: santiago(a)crfreenet.org) "To err is human -- to blame it on a computer is even more so."

1 0

RIPE NCC Quarterly Planning Q2 2023
by Fergal Cunningham 30 Mar '23

30 Mar '23

Dear all, We have published our Q2 2023 plans for our development teams. These are available at: https://www.ripe.net/support/documentation/quarterly-planning Our quarterly planning includes the work we will be carrying out in the next few months in: - RPKI - Learning & Development - RIPE Database - Business Applications, including the LIR Portal, Registry Services and other applications - DNS and K-root - RIPE Atlas - RIPEstat - RIS - Information Technology - Information Security, Risk, and Compliance The goals of publishing our planning are to be transparent about the work we will be carrying out in the coming months, to get your input on those plans, and to foster a dialogue with our members and the community about what you would like to see the RIPE NCC work on going forward. If you have any input on our plans or want to let us know what you would like to see us work on, please let us know. Kind regards, Fergal Cunningham Head of Membership Engagement RIPE NCC

1 0

Opt-out from "How did we do ?" survey after a support request at RIPE NCC
by Clement Cavadore 30 Mar '23

30 Mar '23

Dear RIPE NCC, I would like to see you implement an opt out regarding the survey email after each NCC ticket closure. I think I am not the only one to be tired having to rate basically *ANY* customer service interaction I have to deal with: That kind of survey is, in my humble opinion, a poor way to give metrics to customer support's staff management, and even worse: You tend not to answer when the reply could be "it's fine, thanks", and to answer (and give bad feedback) when it was bad. Could you find any alternate methods (such as maybe an optionnal satisfaction survey prior each GM, for example) rather than this kind of survey ? Thanks ! -- Clément Cavadore

4 3

NRO letter to ICANN re AFRINIC
by Sander Steffann 29 Mar '23

29 Mar '23

Hi all, I was in vocal opposition to the previous letter the NRO sent that regarded AFRINIC, so I think it’s only fair to be vocal about my support for the "Proposal to Re-engage the AFRINIC Community” sent earlier this week. I appreciate the strong bottom-up approach in this letter. Many bad things have happened at AFRINIC and its Board, and the African community deserves better! Empowering them to get a healthy RIR that they can rely on has my full support. Cheers, Sander

1 0