- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

RIPE NCC forum, Community Projects Fund suggestions
by Denys Fedoryshchenko 26 Apr '24

26 Apr '24

As mailing list have now high engagement, i would like to hijack this opportunity to share one more platform for discussion RIPE NCC provides: Forum, at https://forum.ripe.net I think current situation we reached is also result of low engagement of RIPE NCC and members, and this should be two-way road. I think we should also engage more with RIPE NCC projects, provide voluntary help, and also feedback and suggestions. For example after attenting today 2023 RIPE NCC Community Projects Fund open house event i learned about quite interesting needs of academic community, which inspire me to contact educational institutions in my country and offer help with their projects. But also i would like to evaluate my suggestion to RIPE NCC by other members, and i think forum is good place for that. Link to discussion: https://forum.ripe.net/t/ripe-ncc-community-projects-fund-suggestions/941/1 My post (if some people don't like forums): ``` After attending 2023 RIPE NCC Community Projects Fund open house event at 26 April 2024, i would like to propose several suggestions to improve such events and RIPE NCC Community Projects Funding in general. 1. Openhouse could pre-publish presentation slides and videos. This approach is more convenient than the current process. At present, we have to allocate 1:30 hours for our meeting, but with pre-published videos, we could view them, take notes, prepare data, and formulate questions ahead of time. The complexity of the topics often prevents attendees from asking questions during the live sessions. Having access to materials in advance would facilitate more engaging and productive discussions during the open house. Another advantage includes fewer technical issues with Zoom, such as audio muting problems, and reduced stress for presenters, who could prerecord and edit their presentations. It would also be beneficial if these presentations were transcribed, enabling us to search for specific topics and aiding those with disabilities. 2. I am surprised that the live openhouse is the only platform for discussion. I have suggested that we need a mailing list or forum. The contact information for presenters is often insufficient; I would prefer public discussions where I can see other people’s questions and responses. This open format might also provide corrections if I misunderstand something. 3. Projects posted on the Call for Participation (CFP) should at least include a project website and contact information. 4. It would be preferable to publish projects on the CFP in advance of approval to facilitate discussion. This allows attendees to prepare questions and conduct research before projects are approved. For example, concerning the topic of submarine cables, I have significant doubts about the adequacy of using just traceroute for measurements. Such projects need more comprehensive data inputs. For instance, many ISPs might use a combination of old and new links for traffic engineering, which traceroute may not adequately detect. Discussions with project authors could reveal more intriguing aspects than what is presented in their slides. Additionally, discussions might provide insights on how projects could be adjusted to be more beneficial for the community, as suggested by RIPE members, and members opinions can be taken in consideration by Working Group during the project evaluation. 5. Why are project reports (six-month, one-year) mentioned in presentations but not published on the RIPE website? We need more transparency to understand what has been accomplished and the outcomes of these projects. (APNIC does that) 6. RIPE publishes very limited information about its projects. For example, try finding the repository for “fpdns2: DNS Fingerprinting Tool” based on the description provided. This lack of information hinders our ability to follow up on project developments. There is more to suggest, but i prefer to get familiar with the processes and community first. I hope these suggestions will be taken into consideration and improve the RIPE NCC Community Projects Fund open house events. ```

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Final RIPE NCC Charging Schemes for Members to Vote On
by Clement Cavadore 25 Apr '24

25 Apr '24

Dear exec board, On Wed, 2024-04-24 at 15:39 +0200, Ondřej Filip wrote: > We have now published the final RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 options > that will be voted on by members at the General Meeting on 22-24 May. > These can be viewed at: > https://www.ripe.net/gm/meetings/may-2024/supporting-documents > > The outcome is that we propose three charging schemes for the > membership to choose from: > (...) > We understand that this will frustrate those who have argued > vigorously for change this year. However, the Board has a > responsibility to look after the long-term health of the organisation > and we believe strongly that this is the way to do it. We encourage > members to continue discussions on the mailing list, and also to > contribute to the wider discussions on the long-term future of the > RIPE NCC. We will also present on this topic at the General Meeting, > where we expect to hear more input from members on the longer-term > measures we need to take. Indeed, there is frustration. As (the multiple) members (I represent), I feel that there we were not listened. RIPE NCC has a financial reserve, which is meant, if I understand correctly, to be here "just in case". That's exactly the case now: No change on charging scheme would lead to loss regarding the activity plan & budget, which could be compensated by this reserve. And, next year, we could find a better solution than those pseudo-choices. Last year, what was rejected was not the "category model", but the specific models which were proposed (imho, there wasnt enough higher categories for big resources holders). And actually, now, we do not have the choice: your proposals will force us to renegociate all our agreements with end users (if B or C are selected), which is quite unacceptable commercially. > In the meantime, we have tried to provide meaningful options for you > to consider, and now we pass the responsibility to you, the > membership.We ask that you take on this responsibility by registering > to vote and participating in the General Meeting. > > Register to Vote: > https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active I'll be attending. But this is not what I thought about "membership". I'm disappointed. -- Clément Cavadore

1 0

Member Proposals for RIPE NCC General Meeting Agenda
by Fergal Cunningham 24 Apr '24

24 Apr '24

Dear all, We have provided a system that allows members to propose agenda topics and associated resolutions for the upcoming GM, in accordance with the Articles of Association. The relevant part of the Articles of Association are available at: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-818/#article-15-general-meeting… It's important to note the following to ensure a valid agenda topic can be added: The proposed topic must receive 396 endorsements (2% of 19,788, the total number of potential membership votes) from RIPE NCC members by 23:59 UTC on 8 May 2024 if it is to be added to the agenda. Members can add their proposals by completing the form at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/member-proposals/ Members must be signed in with their RIPE NCC Access account if they wish to either make or support a proposal. Members who wish to support the proposal can simply click the Support button associated with the relevant proposal. They can also choose to remove their support at a later time if they so wish. The proposal must have a title that can be added to the agenda. The proposal should indicate who will present on the topic. If there is a resolution associated with the proposal, it should be placed at the bottom of the text in format: Resolution: "Text of resolution" so that members will be clear on what they will vote on. Certain agenda items may only be proposed by the Executive Board. The Articles of Association indicate the following items: - The adoption of the Charging Scheme with respect to the coming financial year (Art. 15.4.b) - The adoption of amendments to the Standard Service Agreement (Art. 15.5.c) - The approval of new arbiters and/or dismissal of current arbiters and/or adoption of amendments to the arbitration procedure (Art 15.5.d) Resolutions must be compliant with Dutch law. An agenda topic proposed by members in line with the above cannot be amended after submission. Best regards, Fergal Cunningham Head of Membership Engagement RIPE NCC

2 1

Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)
by Sebastien Brossier 24 Apr '24

24 Apr '24

Hello all, I propose to add the following model to the charging scheme 2025 voting options. *1 - Introduction:* This charging scheme is heavily inspired by APNIC. If you are not familiar with this, you can see an example here: https://www.apnic.net/get-ip/apnic-membership/how-much-does-it-cost/member-… The main idea is that each LIR pays according to its resources, but not linearly. You don't pay twice as much because you have twice as much resources. The resulting fees are similar to what the other RIRs are charging, with infinite granularity (no categories). It can be easily tweaked to reach any desired budget, and will remain viable when IPv4 has disappeared. I have made IPv6 less punitive compared to APNIC, because RIPE has larger initial allocations. Independent resources fees, sign-up fee, lack of ASN fee, remain as before in this proposal. I believe it is better to have a separate debate on these subjects at a later time. The goal of this charging scheme is to lower the cost for members with a very low amount of resources, in order to attract newcomers and retain existing members. This way the RIPE NCC membership will remain numerous and diverse. *2 - Charging scheme:* (Warning: math incoming !) IPv4_count = number of IPv4 addresses allocated (excluding independent assignments and legacy) IPv6_count = number of IPv6 /56 subnets allocated (excluding independent assignments) Base_Fee = 638 EUR Bit_Factor = 1.31 Minimum_Fee = 500 EUR Offset_IPv4 = 8 Offset_IPv6 = 24 IPv4_Fee = Base_Fee * Bit_Factor^(log2(IPv4_count) - Offset_IPv4) IPv6_Fee = Base_Fee * Bit_Factor^(log2(IPv6_count) - Offset_IPv6) Fee = max(IPv4_Fee, IPv6_Fee, Minimum_Fee) + 50 EUR per independent resource (excluding ASN) My simulation, based on public data (2024-03-28), results in an average fee of 1900 EUR per LIR (+ 50 EUR per independent resource), so it should provide the same budget as the other options. If RIPE NCC find different results with their simulation, they can adjust Base_Fee. *3 - Examples:* 50 EUR per independent resource should be added to all these fees. No allocations: 500 EUR IPv4 /24 and/or IPv6 /32: 638 EUR IPv4 /23 and/or IPv6 /31: 835 EUR IPv4 /22 and/or IPv6 /30: 1094 EUR IPv4 /21 and/or IPv6 /29: 1434 EUR IPv4 /20 and/or IPv6 /28: 1878 EUR IPv4 /19 and/or IPv6 /27: 2461 EUR IPv4 /18 and/or IPv6 /26: 3224 EUR IPv4 /17 and/or IPv6 /25: 4223 EUR IPv4 /16 and/or IPv6 /24: 5533 EUR IPv4 /15 and/or IPv6 /23: 7248 EUR IPv4 /14 and/or IPv6 /22: 9495 EUR IPv4 /13 and/or IPv6 /21: 12439 EUR IPv4 /12 and/or IPv6 /20: 16295 EUR IPv4 /11 and/or IPv6 /19: 21347 EUR IPv4 /10 and/or IPv6 /18: 27965 EUR IPv4 /9 and/or IPv6 /17: 36634 EUR IPv4 /8 and/or IPv6 /16: 47991 EUR Largest LIR is just below 60 kEUR. There are no categories, so your fee can be somewhere between these numbers. If you think the fees are too high, I invite you to read the fee schedule of the other RIRs. Thank you if you've read this far. Best regards, Sebastien Brossier

34 81

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
by Cynthia Revström 22 Apr '24

22 Apr '24

Hi, I would just like to say that unlike most others who have commented so far I'm pretty happy with these proposals for the most part. The RIPE NCC has barely increased its fees at all for about a decade despite a fair amount of inflation during that time. I support only offering charging schemes that are sustainable and won't require digging deep into the reserves. That's not what the reserves are for. Something to also remember is that the numbers of members has stayed pretty consistent, it's the number of LIR accounts that has reduced. I would suspect that a lot of costs for the NCC will be the similar regardless of if a member has one LIR account or five. -Cynthia On Wed, 10 Apr 2024, 12:49 Simon-Jan Haytink, <simonjh(a)ripe.net> 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/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 > > 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… > > 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 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 > > 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 > -- > Click here to unsubscribe or change your email settings: > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/ncc-announce >

5 6

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