- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

A Whim about next year's fees
by Lu Heng 14 Feb '12

14 Feb '12

Hi Colleagues: Just had a whim about next year's membership fees, since Ripe will almost certain running out this year, why shouldn't we divided the membership fees as the percentage of the total recourse we have?(mostly IPv4) The total amount of Ripe's IPv4 is known, and by end of this year, the total amount of each LIR's IPv4 is known as well. So why should we just simpy do a math as LIR total amount address(L)/Ripe's total amount of address(R)*100%*Ripe's total need(TN)=Lir's yearly contribution(C) So make the format simple: C=(L/R*100%)*TN Then I think it is "real fair". And as calculate the member fee based on the share of member in the organization's recourse's, it doesn't imply as "selling IP" rumor which has been the main reason we have categories rather than real fair solutions. How you think, my colleagues, and this is just my 2 cents thought. -- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.

10 10

RIPE NCC Charging scheme task force announcement
by Nigel Titley 20 Jan '12

20 Jan '12

Dear colleagues, As announced, the RIPE NCC Executive Board has initiated a Charging Scheme Task Force to look at the principles of the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme. The task force will have the following objectives: - Define the principles of future Charging Schemes - Propose an improved process for the annual Charging Scheme discussions and adoption - Set a pricing structure for several years for legacy address space holders - Advise the Executive Board on a discussion or resolution for the RIPE NCC General Meeting in April 2011 The task force will not discuss or set any actual fees or prices. Participants of the Task Force ------------------------------ To have an efficient task force, the group will be limited in size. The group will consist of participants from three groups, namely: - RIPE NCC Executive Board - Remco van Mook, Dmitry Burkov - RIPE NCC members - Eva Ornberg, Filip Herman, Olga Fomina, Piotr Strzyzewski and Vladislav Potapov - RIPE NCC staff - Jochem de Ruig, Andrea Cima The Executive Board has selected from each membership category (Extra Small, Small, etc.) one member by drawing lots from those who volunteered. The RIPE NCC staff have informed the people involved and will organise the task force. Because there has been a lot of interest in the charging scheme, there will be a separate mailing list (cs-tf(a)ripe.net) for all those interested and those who want to be informed and discuss this topic. The task force will report back to this mailing list on its progress. You can subscribe to the charging scheme mailing list at: https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/cs-tf. Regards, Nigel Titley Executive Board Chairman RIPE NCC

1 0

Who elected to the fee task force?
by Lu Heng 18 Jan '12

18 Jan '12

Hi Last time there was a opening for 4 members to join the new member fee task force, was the four member already selected? -- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.

2 2

SOPA and Ripe's police order
by Lu Heng 18 Jan '12

18 Jan '12

Hi colleagues: As a owner of a company have great relation of fighting censorship in China, I feel strongly about today's bill, and should like to share few of my concerns and thoughts about how the things might going. I personally didn't know we have so many regulations in EU about internet before I raised my ISP business. and I didn't realize that receiving legal latter will be part of the business.(as my lawyer count, on average, we receive about 100-200 legal notice per day, and we need to take down over 100 domains each day for the copy right infringement). Futurenally, I also have a company in China, so that legal costs has been kept in a relative low level. In last year short after the Ripe 63, Ripe was ordered by Dutch police force to take measurement of certain IP ranges.with today's US bill, we are very much concerning what government might take lead to in the future of internet. In China, all ISP have to censer themselves before they allow anything going public, otherwise it will results hash punishment up to a level that entire data center can be disconnected just by single offensive website(which in view of certain interest group). Will that happen one day in EU or US, if this trends continues? People might know that many Chinese use VPN service overseas to get over the firewall built by the government, however, as a company have relation in the business, we also see another type of VPN service being offered in China has increase popularity, it was offered to foreign Chinese in order also them to get back China. The reason for them to "to back China" is this: http://www.iqiyi.com/dianying/20120110/376d083f97061688.html Instead of actual video, You will see a quote "This video is only available for mainland China customers due to copyright restrictions" The reason this happen is because large amount of Chinese company(often legally US based) get sued by copyright groups in US/EU, therefore they impose the censorship to censer the content out of China. Does this censorship has anything different from the government censorship in China? Was that both block of certain content because of the interest of certain group of people? I am personally not interested in politics, the right or wrong of the content does not interest me. but as far as I have been to three Ripe meetings, I do feel a strong sense from the persons built the internet(look at how the basic protocol is written, it was very surprise me that anybody can announcing any range that doesn't require some sign of paper), that the internet should be a open and free place to share what you think what you thought, but not a place that police and government can break in at any minus and tell you what to do. As ISP, we are the ground of the internet, if this trends continues, I was very much worried that one day we have to do what Chinese ISPs are doing, we have to look carefully about every website's content and afraid in one middle night our entire business can be shut down due to something that we don't even know of. I thought it was impossible in western country, until I saw how aggressive the SOPA/Protect IP looks like. I don't know if something similar will happen in EU in a near future, my company lawyer told me that as long as we have data center here in EU, we are bounded by the EU laws. So are you, my colleagues. Here is just my 2 cents thought, I would hear from any colleagues that share the same concern as me and my company do. The raising legal costs and restrictions will not only damage the small business, start ups, it also require us one day become some sort of "internet local government" to police our client, and I wish that day never happen. -- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.

1 0

RIPE DB NRTM access.
by Pawel Tyll 10 Jan '12

10 Jan '12

Hello people (and ticket bots :>), I wanted to do some BGP filtering automation today, learned some interesting things in the process. I decided on setting up a local mirror of RIPE IRR and was quite puzzled with reasoning behind this: http://www.ripe.net/data-tools/db/nrtm-mirroring So, I can download the whole database snapshot for free from ftp.ripe.net, wasting bandwidth and other resources, or on the other hand I can pay for doing things the right and efficient way, which in the process is effectively cheaper for all involved parties. So the question is - what gives? :) - why does RIPE insist that I download >200MB of compressed data instead of catching up probably few hundred KB of daily changes? --Pawel.

7 11

Task Force
by Nigel Titley 28 Dec '11

28 Dec '11

Folks, I've had twenty volunteers already for the charging scheme task force. I'm going to give it to the end of today (midnight, GMT) and then I'm going to close the call. We'll then select, randomly, four of these volunteers to sit on the task force. All the best Nigel

17 25

Executive Board Activity Since the RIPE NCC General Meeting
by Nigel Titley 22 Dec '11

22 Dec '11

Dear all, We would like to give you an update on the thoughts and decisions of the RIPE NCC Executive Board since the RIPE 63 Meeting and RIPE NCC General Meeting three weeks ago. On Friday, 18 November, the Executive Board met for a teleconference to review the events and discussions that took place during that very busy week. First of all, we were all very pleased by the opportunity to meet so many of our members; we appreciate the lively discussions and see them as a sign that the RIPE NCC membership is very much alive and kicking. Thank you all for your contributions, whether they took place here on the mailing list or at the microphones in Vienna. The main business we conducted during our Board meeting revolved around the Charging Scheme, Budget and Activity Plan for 2012, as you would probably expect. As the proposed Charging Scheme did not find sufficient support, we will use the 2011 Charging Scheme for 2012. Because the 2011 Charging Scheme does not explicitly say that legacy space resources will have no impact on membership fees, the Board has decided to formally waive fees for legacy space resources for the coming year. With a view towards a sustainable and member-supported Charging Scheme, the Board would like to call for a small task force of RIPE NCC members and RIPE NCC staff to work together with Executive Board members on models for such a new Charging Scheme. Axel will work with his staff on a draft charter for this task force. Further to comments made during the General Meeting, we asked Axel to ensure a better alignment between the Activity Plan and Budget structures. On the Budget, having examined our options in order to reduce the effects on the services we offer to members, we have made a reduction in costs of approximately 2%, mainly in the areas of Travel, RIPE meeting organisation and Training efficiency: especially as these were highlighted as suitable areas for economies by the membership. On the income for 2012, we are are now expecting a slight surplus because new members and holders of independent resources will remain a strong source of income. The membership also voted to have the RIPE NCC continue with development of Resource Certification (RPKI) including route object authorisations (ROAs). However the Board recognises that a number of concerns were raised about certification and will ensure that those concerns are taken into account as development goes ahead. You can find the minutes of the Executive Board teleconference at: https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/executive-board/minutes/draft-minutes… If you have any further questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact us at <exec-board(a)ripe.net>. Kind regards, Nigel Titley Chairman, Executive Board

4 5

Re: [members-discuss] {Spam?} RE: Surprise on renew fees
by poty＠iiat.ru 16 Dec '11

16 Dec '11

-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Phil Barton Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 5:59 PM To: Potapov Vladislav Cc: members-discuss(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] {Spam?} RE: Surprise on renew fees "1. You contradict your own point. To raise more funds RIPE needed only to raise the prices in each category, not to change the basis of charging. The New Schema sought to change the basis of raising income by looking at other categories particularly the anomaly of PI's and is the reason for so many objections. It is a second issue that they raise income because of increased costs. In particular they wanted to bring the PI's into the formal scheme and have the users join RIPE." I don't think I contradict my own point. The schema must be stable. The only change we've seen up to now is the start of the IPv6 deployment which was already reflected in 2008 version. PI is here for many years. The fact that the RIPE NCC driven by some populism and based on some lobby managed to adopt the ill-conceived changes to the Schema in 2008 doesn't mean they did good job. For example, ASns at once became "special" and bring money of course, PIs - on the terms of dictated agreements and so on. It is this change that led to "anomaly of PI's". The way they tried to patch it in Schema 2012 is rude, poorly thought-out, unfair and punish more members which don't have such anomalies than the real guilty LIRs (and not LIRs). PIs become a sin, burdened with the double payment and very much involved in the side effect of shifting up in categories badly. But - you know - As soon as the community have voted we don't have the rights to blame it for its decision. "2. I have been involved for 3 -4 years, not much time compared to others, but the proposals round the new schema were discussed at every event. Perhaps the way they were discussed were subtle but I understood what they were trying to do and why. The final proposal made was merely to formalise this. And no I do not keep all the mailings and documents, it is just the impression I built up from the sessions I attended and the mailings I read." The policy process, especially in the world of finances, should be clear and open in the form of membership the RIPE NCC in. "Impressions", subtle moving, personal and other hidden ways of determining the policy - is very uneasy for most members which they showed at the last general meeting. As other RIPE policies the Schema must be discussed in the mailing list together with the principles and concerns it solves. And it MUST be stable for several years while there is no changes in the horizon! It doesn't mean no rises, but the schema itself must not be changed. "3. I may be mistaken on this point I thought RIPE were Belgium based and therefore if they were it was the price we paid for basing them there. But the point I make is Valid if salaries increase where our staff are based we have to pay more even (if in Russia as in the UK salaries in the corporate world are being held down). Decisions taken in other countries can affect the whole community look at the high Debt countries in the Eurozone and the immpact on the Euro. Just because one does not want it to be does not stop it." No it is Dutch-based. But you know - if there are international agreements involved it is not only one-side law that counts. "But it is the issues over PI's that is at the core of this and perhaps the new group will address this. We are a NPO. We joined RIPE to obtain our own IP addresses as the alternative to using PI's, so we of course tend to agree with the proposal. We raise one category in the new and old scheme because we now have a second allocation /21 as well as IPV6. If we did not ask for the second allocation we would remain at the smallest level." I can say that you are wrong at the point. It is easy to count according the document. But may I ask question about mentioned in the Schema "services"? Do you use them? "Perhaps the PI issue was sprung on some members and they should have been given time to adjust but also I think they shut their eyes to the wind of change presented at the meetings." The general meeting showed that the wind of change is not in the interests of the member. We are not thoughtless sailer - we can go against wrong tendencies. Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat

1 0

Invitation to participate in the Charging Scheme Task Force
by Nigel Titley 16 Dec '11

16 Dec '11

Dear all, at the RIPE NCC Board Meeting, last Thursday, we agreed to set up a small task force, to work on a successor of the current RIPE NCC Charging Scheme. Apart from members from the Executive Board and RIPE NCC staff, we are looking for representatives from our members. We know some of you are interested in the topic, and would like to encourage you to volunteer to work on this important task. The composition of the task force will be two RIPE NCC staff members, two Board members and a maximum of four members. I have included the proposed charter of the task force, so that you know what you are getting yourselves into. You can reply either directly to me or to the list or both. If we get more than four volunteers then four will be chosen randomly. Looking forward to the results, Best regards, Nigel Titley Chairman RIPE NCC Executive Board ----- Introduction In the course of 2011 the RIPE NCC Management and the RIPE NCC Board have put in a lot of effort to propose a new, future proof Charging Scheme. Several proposals were announced to the members-discuss mailing list in July and after extensive discussion with a variety of opinions and new models, the Executive Board decided to propose a different model having taken feedback into account. After further extensive discussion and comments, this model was voted down by the membership at the last General Meeting. To improve the Charging Scheme process and to get broader input on a future Charging Scheme model the Executive Board has decided to create a Task Force, representing different groups within the RIPE NCC organisation. Objectives of the Task Force The Task Force will have the following objectives: - Define the principles of a future Charging Scheme - Propose an improved process for the annual Charging Scheme discussions and adoption - Set a pricing structure for several years for Legacy holders - Advise the Executive Board on a discussion or resolution for the General Meeting in April 2011 The Task Force will not discuss or set any actual fees or prices. Participants of the Task Force To have an efficient task force the group will have to be limited in size. The Executive Board has selected key individuals that have put themselves forward, have good understanding of the Charging Scheme and represent a variety of member groups. The group will consist of participants from 3 groups namely: - RIPE NCC staff - Jochem de Ruig, Andrea Cima - RIPE NCC Executive Board – Remco van Mook, Dmitry Burkov - RIPE NCC members (4 representatives) Timeframe Several meetings/phone conferences in Q1 2012, send draft proposal to Board ahead of the General Meeting in April 2012.

11 11

Re: [members-discuss] {Spam?} RE: Surprise on renew fees
by poty＠iiat.ru 15 Dec '11

15 Dec '11

-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Phil Barton Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 3:44 PM To: 'Jon Morby'; 'Carlos Friacas' Cc: 'Nigel Titley'; members-discuss(a)ripe.net Subject: [members-discuss] {Spam?} RE: Surprise on renew fees Disagree on many points here. You wrote: "I agree the charging scheme and budget are not directly related - other than the total income and expenditure over a period should balance in a Not for Profit Organisation. The schema is just about how it is recovered - who pays what - not about how much is spent by the NPO." Yes, they are related! And this (unnecessarily) hard relation was made by the RIPE NCC itself. RIPE community has to renew the schema very often just to cover new expenses and to patch holes in (bad) thought procedure. I've already ask several questions about the new Schema - just too lazy to repeat them once more -you can look at them in the archives. I add to this one more doc - Activity Plan, which after many years become an ancient book of community wills without any relation to the understanding how effectively RIPE NCC does all the activities it mentions. Then: "However I have to say certainly the new Schema had been well debated over a long time and I personally feel vested interests stopped this when the majority were supportive or ambivalent." I don't know where it was debated, but according to the present rules it MUST BE debated in the open way - in the mailing list. Prior to publishing the Schema there was no debates around it (and around the principles of changes which should be incorporated in it either)! The Schema was published late - not in July as Nigel said, but in August (look at the date in the RIPE NCC repository) and the underlying reasons were hidden for community until I think the end of September. The vested interests you've mentioned are fully irrelevant in the context. The Schema 2012 becomes very questionable as many LIRs jumps 2-3 categories up just having 1 (one) PI (or not having PI at all), I even haven't started to mention some very rude patches to show the strongest fight for greedy LIRs having huge profit using cheap chunks of PI, and another point - intrusion of tie-in sale of RIPE NCC services. Then: "Also by LAW people in Belgium have to receive a wage increase every 3 months in line with the Gezondheidsindex so we have to pay staff more." It's the country's problem, the RIPE NCC serves not only Belgium - why should people from other countries pay for it according Belgium law? Regards, Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat

2 1