- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

Conexions: Modify port - no option
by Dominik Nowacki 13 May '19

13 May '19

Hi, Hope you’re well. I don’t seem to have an option to modify any ports on connexions for some reason. Can you please have a look? [cid:19FE5E11-70A0-494D-A012-5D8017D59CFE] The links to the forms I’d normally use are no longer working, I get 404. Please advise. Kind Regards, Dominik

1 1

RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Board Reasoning
by Christian Kaufmann 03 May '19

03 May '19

Dear members, First of all, I'd like to thank you for the feedback we received from everyone so far, and special thanks to the people who gave some more context and explanation. Trying to arrive at a charging scheme that will please everyone is not an easy task. The reason the board proposes two charging schemes is because some members requested a real alternative and difference to the existing "one LIR account-one fee" version we have right now and that is more volume based. This came up previously in the charging scheme task force discussions but also from individual members via emails or through personal contact. Nigel and I promised at the last two GMs that we would present a new one before the May GM this year. So what was the board's thinking in proposing these two models? Firstly, many people like the existing model and the board believes that it covers the spirit of what some members want by maintaining the financial stability of the NCC while keeping fairness and equality in mind. The board also does not want a price per IP model because this would have tax implications (the RIPE NCC does not sell IP addresses and the charging scheme should reflect this) and we feel it is not in keeping with the idea of a membership association. We have also found in the past that having more than two options does not work well from a voting perspective. This would add considerable complexity to the voting in which resolutions must be approved by more than 50% of voters to be adopted. The second charging scheme option is one that the board believes offers a real alternative while staying away from the price per IP aspect. The board's thinking in making the Option B proposal is that every registry entry consumes resources such as customer support time, database memory, registration time, etc. regardless of the size of the allocation. A /24 and a /12 are not so different in this regard so we see this as fair in terms of the work required by the RIPE NCC to maintain the registry. The reason we suggest to charge IPv4 and IPv6 in the same way follows the same logic - there is no tax designed to move people to IPv6. We did not want to have a political, policy-driven charging scheme because the board believes this is the work of community rather than for the board or membership to decide on. I understand that the "volume-based" description could be seen as misleading and I apologise for the misunderstanding here. The proposed model is based on registrations and not per IP as we do not want to indicate that IP is a sellable product but rather the RIPE NCC should charge members for the registry services it provides. The new charging scheme was also not proposed so that the RIPE NCC could make more money - it takes the current budget and calculates backwards to achieve the amount required to run the RIPE NCC. It is just a different model to share the current cost among members. Despite concerns that were raised on this list, the board took the request of some members to propose a new model very seriously and we spent quite some time to discuss and model the current scenario by trying to be as fair as possible and sticking with the principles of a membership organisation. Again, we are very thankful for your input and the feedback on the two models. We will continue to monitor discussions and we will of course present on the Charging Scheme 2020 at the upcoming GM. We encourage you to register your vote so you can have the final say on the two proposals. Best regards, Christian Kaufmann RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman

26 37

Regarding RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Two Options to Vote On
by Alexandru Doszlop 18 Apr '19

18 Apr '19

24 36

Re: [members-discuss] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Two Options to Vote On
by Peter Koch 18 Apr '19

18 Apr '19

Dear Board, {re-sent due to mailing list issues} On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 05:08:11PM +0200, Gwen van Berne wrote: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2019/supporting-d… while I do not have an issue with the current scheme "A", I would like to better understand the proposed scheme "B" and its overall impact. Quoting from the "Option B" document For the volume-based fee charges, we used the existing registration fee (50 EUR for Independent number resource assignments) as our starting point to arrive at a higher proportion of volume-based income. For the final volume-based fee calculations, we also looked at the 2020 budget for RIPE Registry-related activities (e.g. registry maintenance, resource certification) and we divided this number by the total number of registration blocks held by the member base to arrive at the cost per registration. In turn, each member is charged based on the total number of blocks the respective member holds multiplied by the cost per registration. The fixed annual LIR account fee will be EUR 1,150 as a consequence of the higher variable income stream related to registrations. Is non-consecutive address space allocated in a single 'registration transaction' counted as a single "registration block"? Does the above calculation assume that all "registrations" incur equal cost? Is scheme "B" supposed to be revenue neutral and how would or could this be maintained over time? While every LIR can do the calculations for themselves, how does the overall increase/decline picture look like, e.g., what is the maximum fee that, as of $today, an LIR would have to pay? Regards, Peter

1 0

Regarding RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Two Options to Vote On
by REG ID: pl.skonet 18 Apr '19

18 Apr '19

Dear RIPE, Who asked about "volume" (quotes intentional) charging? First of all, please submit a plan to spend the huge amount of extra money you will get from option B. Today, you give the members a surplus from the annual budget, because you are not able to spend everything that you collect. I am definitely against option B. Please keep charging scheme as is. -- Tomasz Śląski pl.skonet

7 6

Charging Scheme 2020, calarification on resources issued on the same date
by Hostserver NOC 18 Apr '19

18 Apr '19

With the existing charging scheme, multiple PI resources that were issued on the same day share the same fee. With Option B, will that stay the same or will each PI resource be charged separately? Best Regards, Peter Hessler Hostserver GmbH

1 0

Regarding RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Two Options to Vote On
by Alessandro Bondesan 18 Apr '19

18 Apr '19

Hello all On the charging scheme B it’s stated “50 € per registration” I don’t understand if “registration” means “Database entry” or “Assignment made by RIPE” someone can explain that? Many thanks ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Gwen van Berne <gvanberne(a)ripe.net> Date: Apr 17, 2019 18:08 Subject: [ncc-announce] [GM] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Two Options to Vote On To: ncc-announce(a)ripe.net Cc: Dear colleagues, Members will vote on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 at the General Meeting from 22-24 May. In response to requests from members, the Executive Board is proposing two charging scheme options that the members can choose from at the GM. An overview of the two options is also available that explains the two models in more detail. The overview and the two charging schemes are available at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2019/supporting-d… In short, the options that members will choose between are: Option A: The RIPE NCC will maintain the existing charging scheme, according to which members pay an annual fee of EUR 1,400 plus an extra EUR 50 per independent number resource assignment. Option B: The RIPE NCC will switch to a new volume-based, per registration charging scheme. This would involve lowering the annual fee to EUR 1,150 whilst broadening the applicability of the separate EUR 50 charge to all number registrations held by the member. See the full list of registrations that would be charged in the document. The existing sign-up fee of EUR 2,000 will apply to both options. We encourage members to discuss the options on the Member Discuss mailing list at <members-discuss(a)ripe.net>. The Executive Board and the RIPE NCC Management will follow discussions closely ahead of the GM. If you have not yet registered for the GM, we strongly encourage you to do so and make sure you have your say on which of two distinct charging scheme options should be adopted in May. Full participation and voting options are available for all members. You can register now via the LIR Portal at: https://www.ripe.net/s/gm-registration-may-2019 All details on the GM, including the draft agenda, are available from: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2019/ Kind regards, Gwen van Berne Chief Financial Officer RIPE NCC

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-services-wg] Update of RIPE NCC Procedural Document
by Sergey Myasoedov 04 Apr '19

04 Apr '19

Dear Maria, Thank you for the announcement. I'm moving the discussion to members-discuss. > Other amendments were carried out to align the wording of specific sections with the wording used in the rest of the document, the RIPE NCC Standard Service Agreement (Sections A.1.2.2.g and B.1.d), and other RIPE NCC procedural documents (Section A.1.1). Similarly, changes were made to reflect changes in the RIPE Database (both operational and structural) and in RIPE Policy requirements (Sections A.1.2.1.1.c and B.1.c). I would not call this 'wording changes': $ diff ripe697 ripe716 7c7 < The Member repeatedly provides falsified data or information, or purposefully and/or repeatedly provides incorrect data or information (for example, falsified registration documents or IDs, incorrect/inaccurate contact details, etc.). --- > The Member provides falsified or misleading data or information (for example, falsified registration documents or IDs), or repeatedly provides incorrect data or information (for example, incorrect/inaccurate contact details). 11c11 < The Member submits repeatedly fraudulent requests for Internet number resources (for example, providing incorrect purpose/need or falsified information about the network, etc.). --- > The Member submits fraudulent requests for Internet number resources (for example, providing incorrect purpose/need or falsified information about the network, etc.). So the word 'repeatedly' disappear and in case of _any_ only document mistake, deliberately or not made by the member, the RIPE NCC can call this 'misleading data' or 'fraudulent request' and terminate the membership? Thank you. -- Kind regards, Sergey Myasoedov > On 1 Apr 2019, at 10:56, Maria Stafyla <mstafyla(a)ripe.net> wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > The RIPE NCC Procedural document 'Closure of Members, Deregistration of Internet Resources and Legacy Resources' has recently been reviewed and updated. The following is an overview of the amendments made. > > Section A.1.1 was amended to include situations where both the Member and the RIPE NCC agree to terminate the SSA before the usual three month period has passed. Other changes were made to avoid duplication of information. > > Section B.2 was updated to specify certain conditions under which a three month timeframe for deregistration of either Member or End User resources would be unreasonable. > > The wording in Section B.2.1 was amended to clarify that during the deregistration process the Member is not allowed to make new announcements using the resources to be deregistered, and that the RIPE NCC will update the maintainer on all the Member's resource objects - not just on the inetnum object. > > Section B.2.2 was amended to bring about alignment of the procedures for the deregistration of End User and Member resources and to clarify that if an End User does not have a sponsoring LIR when the deregistration procedure is initiated, they must first establish a contractual relationship with one before they can object to that procedure. > > Other amendments were carried out to align the wording of specific sections with the wording used in the rest of the document, the RIPE NCC Standard Service Agreement (Sections A.1.2.2.g and B.1.d), and other RIPE NCC procedural documents (Section A.1.1). Similarly, changes were made to reflect changes in the RIPE Database (both operational and structural) and in RIPE Policy requirements (Sections A.1.2.1.1.c and B.1.c). > > Please see here the relevant link: > https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-716/ > > Kind regards, > > Maria Stafyla > Legal Counsel > RIPE NCC

8 9

RIPE NCC LIR Ticketsystem
by Sebastian Wiesinger 03 Apr '19

03 Apr '19

Hello, I'm currently communicating with the RIPE NCC and I'm learning that I really and passionately dislike the new ticket system. There is no way to see a coherent and complete history of my ticket. The LIR web portal has no way to see the ticket history, you can only upload documents to it. You cannot comment on the ticket (which would be useless anyway as you see no context). Also apparently sending documents as attachment by mail is not possible anymore. So I'm forced to use email to update the ticket while I'm unable to see any status or history for my ticket. On the other hand I'm forced to use the website to upload documents to the ticket and I can't even see which documents are already uploaded. Please, this is a really bad user experience. Is this going to be improved? Regards Sebastian

10 11

RIPE ATLAS probe and yearly membership dues
by Hank Nussbacher 05 Mar '19

05 Mar '19

ASN coverage for RIPE ATLAS probes is just 5.6% (based on: https://atlas.ripe.net/results/maps/network-coverage/) That really doesn't give a complete global view for stats. Rather than return money to LIRs every year in their bill, why not state that any LIR running an active probe within their ASN (open to definition) will get a 50Euro credit on their bill? That alone would increase ASN footprint coverage quickly within RIPE. Regards, Hank

2 1