- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [members-discuss] [cs] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
by Andrew de la Haye 26 Sep '16

26 Sep '16

Dear Tim, These allocations were obtained through either the RIPE transfer policy or the mergers and acquisitions procedure that was in effect at the time of issuing. Both the RIPE policy and our own procedures have had some revisions over time. It’s still too early to say what effect recent changes have had, but we are monitoring this closely. Kind regards Andrew de la Haye Chief Operations Officer RIPE NCC > Dear Andrew, > > Am I correct in assuming that all of those with more than one /22 from > 185/8 did so via the various loopholes that have been closed over the > last > year? > > -Tim On 23 Sep 2016 8:43 a.m., "Andrew de la Haye" <andrewh at ripe.net> wrote: >> Dear Arash, >> >> We just wanted to confirm that there are currently 6,203 LIRs that >> hold a >> /22 allocation from 185/8 with no other IPv4 address space. Out of >> these, >> 444 LIRs have more than one /22 from this block, and together they >> hold >> 1,423 /22s. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Andrew de la Haye >> Chief Operations Officer >> RIPE NCC

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model (fwd)
by Carlos Friacas 23 Sep '16

23 Sep '16

> Coming back to the points of RIPE NCC being non-profit, it could also start > spending more money to improve the services that it provides. The "About us" > page tells us that RIPE NCC works with Internet Governance and External > Relations and Outreach. RIPE NCC could sure use more money and resources to > engage further with regards to these topics. For example, RIPE NCC engages > in Roundtable Meetings for governments, Forgot to mention that this outreach should have included strong messages so governments could be aware they should grab enough IPv4 addresses to satisfy their needs, in order to become truly independent from their current (or future) IP service providers. Some governments only understood they needed to "own" their share of IPv4 space when it was too late, and only got small crumbs... :-( In general, public administration procedures lead to periodic tenders, and service providers (ISPs) are likely to change, and renumbering processes become unavoidable if you don't "own" PI space, Legacy space our your own PA space... ;-) > regulators and law enforcement > agencies and could use these forums to educate these bodies about the > importance of safeguarding an open and neutral internet without any > artificial hurdles such as zero-rating. blocking of content etc. Regards, Carlos (pt.rccn)

7 12

Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
by Nigel Titley 17 Sep '16

17 Sep '16

Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC Executive Board asks that the membership consider the charging scheme model that the RIPE NCC currently uses. The current "one LIR-one fee" charging scheme was first used for the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2013. This scheme was introduced following the formation of a Charging Scheme Task Force in 2011, a discussion of the issue on the Members Discuss mailing list, and the presentation of three types of charging schemes for the members to vote on at the September 2012 General Meeting (GM). The three types of charging scheme presented to the members in 2012 can be seen at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/september-2012/docume… Since the approval of the "one LIR-one fee" charging scheme, annual fees per LIR have reduced from EUR 1,800 per annum to 1,400 per annum. Since 2015, members can also vote to approve the redistribution to the members of any surplus accumulated by the RIPE NCC in a year. The Executive Board believes that the current charging scheme model still meets the three broad criteria that the Charging Scheme Task Force recommended for the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme: - The Charging Scheme model that is decided upon should be applicable for several years. - There should be stable fees per member. - A small number of members should not pay most of the membership fees. However, the Executive Board recognises that the membership has grown considerably since the current charging scheme model was introduced and that some members now feel that the current model is not a equitable way to pay for the RIPE NCC's activities. This is evident from emails the board has received, from comments received in the RIPE NCC Survey 2016, and from discussions among the members on RIPE working group mailing lists. The Executive Board therefore proposes to discuss this issue at the upcoming GM. We ask that prior to the GM the membership discusses this issue on <members-discuss(a)ripe.net>, keeping the discussion focused on whether or not the "one LIR-one fee" model is the best model for RIPE NCC charging schemes and, if not, what the alternative should be. The Board has been contacted with a question regarding how a member could propose a topic to be voted on at a General Meeting. I would like to confirm that the board is always open to proposals regarding agenda items for the General Meeting. For the full background on how the agenda for a RIPE NCC General Meeting is set, please refer to articles 15.3 - 15.6 of the Articles of Association; as provided at the end of this email. Finally, I encourage all members to register to participate in the upcoming GM to ensure that the decisions reached reflect the overall wishes of the membership as far as possible. All details about the GM, including how to register, are available at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/october-2016 Best regards Nigel Titley RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman RIPE NCC Articles of Association https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-602 === 15.3 The agenda for the Annual Meeting shall include the following subjects: a. the adoption of the Financial Report; b. the discharge of the Executive Board with regard to its actions as they appear from the Annual Report; c. the filling of any vacancies in the Executive Board. 15.4 The following subjects shall be placed on the agenda for the Annual Meeting or on the agenda for another General Meeting to be held in the same calendar year: a. a discussion of the draft Activity Plan and draft budget after a presentation by the Executive Board; b. the adoption of the Charging Scheme with respect to the coming financial year upon proposal of the Executive Board; c. a discussion of the policy and the quality of services (to be) rendered by the Association. 15.5 If applicable, the agenda for the Annual Meeting or another General Meeting shall also include the following subjects: a. the extension of the period within which the Executive Board shall submit the Annual Report (as referred to in paragraph 14.2), which shall also constitute an extension of the period within which the Annual Meeting - at which the Annual Report is to be submitted - shall be held; b. the filling of any vacancies in the Executive Board; upon proposal by the Executive Board: adoption of amendments to the Standard Service Agreement; c. upon proposal by the Executive Board: approval of new arbiters and/or dismissal of current arbiters and/or adoption of amendments to the arbitration procedure; e. other proposals and/or discussion points put forward by the Executive Board or (a group of) Members of the Association (pursuant to paragraph 15.6) and announced in the convocation for the Meeting. 15.6 On the written application of a group of Members who are jointly entitled to cast at least two percent (2%) of the total number of possible votes, other subjects will be added to the agenda. Such an application, accompanied by the verbatim text of the resolutions proposed by the said Members, shall have to be sent to the Executive Board at least two weeks before the Meeting. The Executive Board shall immediately send the verbatim text of the resolutions proposed by the said Members to all the Members of the Association.

25 37

Re: [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
by Prager-IT e.U. 16 Sep '16

16 Sep '16

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 1:25 PM, Daniel Pearson <daniel(a)privatesystems.net> wrote: > On 09/16/2016 05:57 AM, Prager-IT e.U. wrote: > > The plan I envision is quite simple, move from the current Flatrate > charging scheme to a system that charges members an amount for the > resources they are using. This will ensure that each and every RIPE NCC > member will pay their fair share. > > > 1. Charge per allocated IPv4 address with a linear system. > > price_per_ipv4 = required_budget / amount_of_addresses_in_use > your_yearly_membership_fee = amount_of_ipv4_you_use * price_per_ipv4 > > > Did you happen to read my reply to the thread. This is going to equate to > almost no resources left as a /22 will cost roughly 24 EUR per year. > I read everything said so far, to prevent this from happening we also need to increase the setup fee as I already outlined. > > This will also apply to Provider Independent(PI) assignemnts, anycasting > assignments and Legacy Internet Resources registered via a sponsoring Local > Internet Registry(LIR). > > > You're going to be hard pressed to charge Legacy resource holders, BUT, > even if you did, my above figure of a /22 costing 24EUR would probably be > cut down to 16 EUR or less > If the resources are sponsored via a sponsoring Local Internet Registry(LIR) I don't see why we should not be able to charge the Legacy resource holders. > > > IPv6 PI assignments and IPv6 IXP assigments will remain unchanged at 50,-- > Euros per year. > > > Moot point here since the number of IPV6 resources avail. > The goal is to provide a comprehensive plan for the membership to vote on. The way I see this needs to be in addressed as well in order for that to happen. > > > If we ever reach a point where IPv4 becomes obsolete revert back to a > Flatrate System as due to the nature of IPv6 a Flatrate system is a fair > choice. > > > 2. Increase the Setup Fee to an amount that reflects the current reality > of the transfer market, 6.000,-- Euros. > > > Read the 2015 Budget, they collected slightly over 5 Million EUR in setup > fee's, which got dispersed back to its members as a credit on next years > bill, increasing the setup fee will simply act to lower, even further, the > yearly cost. In 2015 Each LIR would have received 'roughly' a 415 EUR > credit on their bill... So we might as well just not charge for IPv4 upto a > /19 , and if you're going to up the setup fee's then we might as well make > that a free /18. > I am well aware of the numbers. Under my plan there most likely would never be any sum significant enough to disperse. > > > > > 3. Introduce an Inter-RIR Transfer Fee for resources that leave the RIPE > Region so people don't flee with their resources into a cheaper Region, > 3,-- Euros per IPv4 address. > > > If you do this, then it's a two way street. Not to mention that in the > growing global age, you can't tell me every IP being routed to the ripe > region is under RIPEs control. By adding additional hurdles folks will > simply ignore, and announce their space globally from the originating RIR > more so than they currently do now. > The goal of the change is to prevent people from fleeing with their resources allocated by the RIPE NCC from fleeing into cheaper regions after the new charging scheme has been approved. I am confused as to why you are going on about where resources are being announced from. > > > > 4. Buy Back IPv4 resources and return them to the free pool with any > excess money from members that are willing to give back resources. > > > With what money are these bought back and at what price? Only to re-assign > at a financial loss and then have to buy it back again? Grand scheme of > things, everybody here is ignoring the fact that, with basically 21,000,000 > EUR budget to disperse between all LIR's in RIPE you aren't going to change > the world. Aside from a lot of keyboard warriors pounding away with random > ideas that have no factual backings this thread accomplishes nothing. > After the membership has approved the new plan via a majority vote there will be an excess in money available due to the higher setup fee. The price will be determined by availability. Again, I am well aware of the numbers it just seems that you are unable to see the picture yet. Kind Regards, Stefan Prager -- Prager-IT e.U. VAT Number: ATU69773505 Austrian Company Register: 438885w Skype: Prager-IT contact(a)prager-it.com +43 680 300 99 80 +44 20 376 962 11

5 5

Re: [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
by Prager-IT e.U. 16 Sep '16

16 Sep '16

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Jetten Raymond <raymond.jetten(a)elisa.fi> wrote: > Hi Stefan and All, > > > > How on earth are You, or who has resources to, do the measurement of > addresses “in use”? > > > Regarding the charging scheme I am referring to all resources that have either been allocated or assigned by the RIPE NCC as I think any other measurement would be silly as you obviously have no way to tell whether resources are actually in use or not. Kind Regards, Stefan Prager -- Prager-IT e.U. VAT Number: ATU69773505 Austrian Company Register: 438885w Skype: Prager-IT contact(a)prager-it.com +43 680 300 99 80 +44 20 376 962 11

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
by Prager-IT e.U. 16 Sep '16

16 Sep '16

The plan I envision is quite simple, move from the current Flatrate charging scheme to a system that charges members an amount for the resources they are using. This will ensure that each and every RIPE NCC member will pay their fair share. 1. Charge per allocated IPv4 address with a linear system. price_per_ipv4 = required_budget / amount_of_addresses_in_use your_yearly_membership_fee = amount_of_ipv4_you_use * price_per_ipv4 This will also apply to Provider Independent(PI) assignemnts, anycasting assignments and Legacy Internet Resources registered via a sponsoring Local Internet Registry(LIR). IPv6 PI assignments and IPv6 IXP assigments will remain unchanged at 50,-- Euros per year. If we ever reach a point where IPv4 becomes obsolete revert back to a Flatrate System as due to the nature of IPv6 a Flatrate system is a fair choice. 2. Increase the Setup Fee to an amount that reflects the current reality of the transfer market, 6.000,-- Euros. 3. Introduce an Inter-RIR Transfer Fee for resources that leave the RIPE Region so people don't flee with their resources into a cheaper Region, 3,-- Euros per IPv4 address. 4. Buy Back IPv4 resources and return them to the free pool with any excess money from members that are willing to give back resources. Kind Regards, Stefan Prager -- Prager-IT e.U. VAT Number: ATU69773505 Austrian Company Register: 438885w Skype: Prager-IT contact(a)prager-it.com +43 680 300 99 80 +44 20 376 962 11

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
by Chris Smith 14 Sep '16

14 Sep '16

Fearghas, I was specifically talking about 100% ready to go, 90% or 95% isn't good enough to turn off IPv4. Neither Sky nor BT have announced 100% ready to go as far as I am aware: http://arstechnica.co.uk/information-technology/2016/08/sky-will-push-all-su bscribers-onto-ipv6-network-by-summer-2016/ -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Fearghas Mckay Sent: 14 September 2016 11:02 AM To: members-discuss(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model Paul > On 14 Sep 2016, at 10:40, Paul Webb <Paul.Webb(a)clearstreamgroup.co.uk> wrote: > > Certainly RIPE, but organisations such as the IX's, could also start making IPv4 more expensive and help the migration and I'd argue they should be. Sadly the larger LIR's have a disproportionate influence in all the important places, which doesn't help. How does an IX that operates at Layer 2 drive the price of IPv4 up ? Chris > If you look at the UK for example, I can't think of any large LIR/ISP that is fully IPv6 ready (there's only one I can think of that isn't too far off), yet I can think of many smaller ones that are 100% good to go and have been for some time. Apart from BT and Sky that have both just finished the v6 rollouts. f ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/ Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.

1 0

Sign-up fee for additional LIR account
by Ping IP 26 Jul '16

26 Jul '16

Hello, A recent change has been made in the Billing and Fee Schedule 2016 , regarding the following sentence: "Members are charged a one-time sign-up fee of EUR 2,000 (two thousand euro) for each new LIR account." I'd like to discuss why an existing LIR member has to pay the sign-up fee again? As a new small LIR I'm paying a high price for a /22 IPv4. I think it's disproportionately to charge the sign-up fee again from an existing LIR member who is requesting an additional LIR account. I'd like to suggest to remove the one-time sign-up fee of EUR 2,000 for each additional LIR account. Or at least lower the sign-up fee to an acceptable rate. I'm not talking about the sign-up fee for a new LIR member, but about the sign-up fee for an additional LIR account. Thanks for discussing this subject. Best regards, Abdelouahed Haitoute Ping IP network

42 77

Re
by Comtel 25 Jul '16

25 Jul '16

9 10

Re: [members-discuss] Sign-up fee for additional LIR account
by Brandon Butterworth 25 Jul '16

25 Jul '16

> > > each entity has one vote > > > even if they have multiple LIR accounts under the same entity. > > > > In the current scheme, if you change the scheme that may change too > > We have a democratic system, if we follow your line of argumentation we > might as well setup a dictatorship. A large LIR may think you are planning a coup to overthrow a long established and member agreed system. > > > We are not shifting any costs, we are just asking each member to pay > > their > > > fair share for the amount of resources they are using > > > > Yes it is, it is shifting the cost to larger members, hugely > > I disagree, we are acting in the interests of the RIPE NCC membership. Some of the membership, mostly newer ones it seems who did not contribute to building it (I'm guessing from what you've said) Fairness is not one faction getting what they want to the detriment of the others. More so when the stated intent is to price them into giving up IPv4 space so you can have it instead. There is already a member agreed fair system for using money to move IPs between members > > > 8,23 Euros per year per 256 IPv4 addresses is hardly a business case > > > breaking amount of money. > > > > I referred to the current scheme which is also hardly a business case > > breaking amount of money. So cost is not a good reason to change it > > especially when changing it will drive the sort of behaviour that > > RIPE are trying to prevent > > Asking the people with the least amount of resources to cover the > membership fee for the 1% is inherently unfair especially when we have the > tools to re-establish some fairness in an inherently unfair system. Fees aren't based on quantity of IPs they are based on cost to RIPE of managing memberships (RIPE can better explain the current scheme). The fee is currently equal for all - one membership, one vote, one fee > The current membership fee of 1400 Euros per year represents for small > business an unnecessary burden and is inherently unfair and it needs to be > changed and I am sure the voting will reflect that sentiment. The small business chose to become a LIR and incur that fee, that's hardly unfair when it was their choice and known when they decided to enter that business. It's not like they are being asked to pay a large amount where they hadn't before > You seem to not want to re-establish fairness and keep the system unfair > for the sake of not changing anything, I don't want that and I will try to > use the democratic tools we currently still have at our disposal to make an > inherently unfair situation a little bit fairer but you are obviously > entitled to your opinion and should vote accordingly. Don't make up opinions for me, I haven't stated a view of how things should be I just explored some possible outcomes of doing this. As a small LIR we would benefit greatly from this change, that doesn't stop me considering the other sides view (ie trying to be fair to all) and doesn't mean I am arguing against or for you, I will decide that after a reasoanble debate and considering several views. regards brandon

2 1