- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Executive Board Meeting to Discuss Charging Scheme Input from Members
by Claudius Zingerli 07 May '24

07 May '24

Dear readers, TL'DR: Below mail from the Executive Board reads to me as: We don't care about what our members say and coerce them into accepting one of the three proposed expensive solutions. I am surprised by how an elected Executive Board on one hand fails to convince the voters that their proposals are good and valid and on the other hand completely ignores the many proposals from the voters. In the past GMs the budget topic came up multiple times and members mostly agreed that expenses are too high and have to be cut. Instead we now get a proposal for an even higher budget and no option to decline it. On the last GM, the three pretty similar category-based models were declined not because they were category-based, but because the cost for most (many?) members would have gone up. Reading the mailing-list, I can assume there is a significant portion of members that would prefer to have the fees correlated to resource-consumption (mostly per #IPv4-addresses). Such models can be implemented neutral to RIPEs budget and in case that everyone migrates to IPv6, fee per IPv4 address/IPv6 prefix can be adapted accordingly. I am disappointed by the path the Executive Board is following. Stop presenting excuses ("not enough time", "not the right time", "not be added as a proposed resolution for members to vote on", "external law firm"), but LISTEN to what the members say and act accordingly! If you're sure that you're on a good path, add the proposed ideas and solutions to the agenda and let members vote on them. Currently, the May 2024 GM agenda is still called "Draft Agenda", so adding them should be just fine. Regards, Claudius -- Kantonsschule Zug/AS34288 Claudius Zingerli, Dr. sc. ETH Zürich Technischer Leiter Informatik, NOC Luessiweg 24 6300 Zug Switzerland On 07.05.24 15:54, Ondřej Filip wrote: > Dear members, > > On 6 May, 2024, the Executive Board held a meeting to discuss the input we received from members regarding the Board proposal for the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025. We will publish the minutes as soon as possible, but I want to first give you a summary of the discussions and the outcomes from the meeting. > > Since we started engaging with the membership on the charging scheme this year, we have received over 400 emails on the topic. For the first time, we also have a member proposal for a GM agenda topic that has received the required number of expressions of support to be added to the GM agenda. Therefore, we felt it was important for the Board to have this extra meeting, review the various points that were brought forward, and consider the next steps in this process. There were many important points to discuss at this meeting, and although the outcome might not please everyone, the Board was fully aligned on how it should move forward. > > First, we considered again what we had decided upon at the Board meeting in March. The Board consciously did not put forward a proposal to keep the charging scheme as it is because we don’t believe that it would be good governance to make a proposal that leaves us with a large deficit, and good governance is what is expected from us by the members who elect us. > > Furthermore, some of the suggestions from members would change the funding model in a way that would put the organisation at risk, and while the Board represents the members, it also has legal and fiduciary responsibilities towards the organisation. It is clear that one of the main responsibilities of the Board is to propose a charging scheme that will properly fund the association, and the charging scheme options we put forward will do that for 2025 and 2026. So we will put forward the three options as proposed on 24 April 2024 for members to vote on at the GM[1]. > > There were many proposals to provide that funding in alternative ways. However, we believe that this is not the right time to make fundamental changes to the charging model. We are about to embark on a full review of the organisation and its structures, and that will take some time. For us to implement that review and any resulting actions, we need stable funding. All three of the proposed options offer us this. We also note that the redistribution mechanism allows us to return any surplus made to the membership in the following year should members vote to do so. The Board and the Managing Director will also continue to work to improve efficiency and identify areas for cost savings. > > We did consider moving this vote to later in the year, but this would negatively impact our planning for 2025, and it would also distract from the very important discussions we need to have with members during the Activity Plan and Budget process this Autumn. During that discussion, we do expect that the members who are convinced that the RIPE NCC needs to reduce its budget will tell us which services need to be reduced or cut in order to accommodate such a reduction. > > At our meeting, the Board also discussed the structural review that will take place. This will begin at the RIPE 88 Meeting in two weeks with a BoF on how to build a stable future for the RIPE NCC. We expect that there will be a productive discussion on many issues that need to be resolved so that the RIPE NCC can move forward stably and with a funding model that has the support of its membership. We will keep the membership updated on the outcomes of those discussions and how the members can contribute to the work that will surely emerge from them. > > Regarding the membership proposal[2], we acknowledge that the threshold was met to add the GM agenda topic “Keep current billing scheme for the next year”. We will add this as a topic to the agenda as required by the Articles of Association. However, this will not be added as a proposed resolution for members to vote on. Articles 15.4, 15.5 and 15.6 of the RIPE NCC Articles of Association do not allow members to propose a Charging Scheme, as reaffirmed by the external law firm that gives us expert advice on Dutch corporate law. > > This legal framework ensures that a Charging Scheme may only be proposed by those who were elected to serve on the Executive Board, who have better insight into the financials and the operations of the organisation, and who have a duty of care for the well-being of the organisation and are liable in case of mismanagement. Parties without such insight, responsibility and liability may not put forward charging schemes for voting that - although appealing for individual members - may be inappropriate for the sustainability of the organisation. > > To summarise, the Board recognises the member sentiment and we are committed to addressing it for the long term. However, we must do what we believe is best for the stability of the organisation and its membership, even if it is not an easy or popular thing to do. This is what is required of us when we legally commit to be Board members, and we will faithfully execute on our commitments in this regard. > > We listen to your feedback and ideas, and on behalf of the Board I thank you for engaging in these important discussions and look forward to seeing them continue as we work towards a sustainable outcome for the RIPE NCC. > > The RIPE NCC Executive Board > > Ondřej Filip, Chair > Raymond Jetten, Treasurer > Piotr Strzyżewski, Secretary > Maria Häll, Member > Remco van Mook, Member > Job Snijders, Member > Harald A. Summa, Member > > [1] https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2024/documentation… > > [2] https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/member-proposals/ >

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Executive Board Meeting to Discuss Charging Scheme Input from Members
by Wieger Bontekoe 07 May '24

07 May '24

What a special turn of events. First you give the members (after confirmation from your side) the opportunity to come to a vote to add this to the agenda, then you withdraw the matter and say that "oops, it wasn't allowed after all"? > We will add this as a topic to the agenda as required by the Articles > of Association. However, this will not be added as a proposed > resolution for members to vote on. Articles 15.4, 15.5 and 15.6 of the > RIPE NCC Articles of Association do not allow members to propose a > Charging Scheme, as reaffirmed by the external law firm that gives us > expert advice on Dutch corporate law. Can you quote the part where this is stated, I have just read through the articles and cannot come to the same conclusion. Nowhere is a subject excluded in Article 15.6 to which it relates; > On the application In Writing 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. As you can read here, there are no specific restrictions as you now claim. The fact that Articles 15.4 and 15.5 state that the board will make a proposal does not rule this out either, if you are referring to the word 'other' here, then this is really far too vague and not exclusionary. If this is supposed to mean that subjects from Articles 15.4 and 15.5 are to be excluded, then this should have been immediately clear when the question came up (apparently this was also unclear to the board and had to find a way out through the lawyers), and it should have been explicitly stated that the subjects in the intended/above paragraphs are excluded. Given the amount of votes, it would send out a very bad signal if the Board would decide proceed in this way. Wieger Bontekoe Principal Site Reliability Engineer On 5/7/24 3:54 PM, Ondřej Filip wrote: > We will add this as a topic to the agenda as required by the Articles > of Association. However, this will not be added as a proposed > resolution for members to vote on. Articles 15.4, 15.5 and 15.6 of the > RIPE NCC Articles of Association do not allow members to propose a > Charging Scheme, as reaffirmed by the external law firm that gives us > expert advice on Dutch corporate law.

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Executive Board Meeting to Discuss Charging Scheme Input from Members
by ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED 07 May '24

07 May '24

Ondřej Filip, please reveal information about how EB members vote for that? Who vote for Accept this resolution and who vote for Reject this resolution. Thanks. On 07.05.2024 13:54, Ondřej Filip wrote: > Dear members, > > On 6 May, 2024, the Executive Board held a meeting to discuss the input > we received from members regarding the Board proposal for the RIPE NCC > Charging Scheme 2025. We will publish the minutes as soon as possible, > but I want to first give you a summary of the discussions and the > outcomes from the meeting. > > Since we started engaging with the membership on the charging scheme > this year, we have received over 400 emails on the topic. For the first > time, we also have a member proposal for a GM agenda topic that has > received the required number of expressions of support to be added to > the GM agenda. Therefore, we felt it was important for the Board to have > this extra meeting, review the various points that were brought forward, > and consider the next steps in this process. There were many important > points to discuss at this meeting, and although the outcome might not > please everyone, the Board was fully aligned on how it should move forward. > > First, we considered again what we had decided upon at the Board meeting > in March. The Board consciously did not put forward a proposal to keep > the charging scheme as it is because we don’t believe that it would be > good governance to make a proposal that leaves us with a large deficit, > and good governance is what is expected from us by the members who elect > us. > > Furthermore, some of the suggestions from members would change the > funding model in a way that would put the organisation at risk, and > while the Board represents the members, it also has legal and fiduciary > responsibilities towards the organisation. It is clear that one of the > main responsibilities of the Board is to propose a charging scheme that > will properly fund the association, and the charging scheme options we > put forward will do that for 2025 and 2026. So we will put forward the > three options as proposed on 24 April 2024 for members to vote on at the > GM[1]. > > There were many proposals to provide that funding in alternative ways. > However, we believe that this is not the right time to make fundamental > changes to the charging model. We are about to embark on a full review > of the organisation and its structures, and that will take some time. > For us to implement that review and any resulting actions, we need > stable funding. All three of the proposed options offer us this. We also > note that the redistribution mechanism allows us to return any surplus > made to the membership in the following year should members vote to do > so. The Board and the Managing Director will also continue to work to > improve efficiency and identify areas for cost savings. > > We did consider moving this vote to later in the year, but this would > negatively impact our planning for 2025, and it would also distract from > the very important discussions we need to have with members during the > Activity Plan and Budget process this Autumn. During that discussion, we > do expect that the members who are convinced that the RIPE NCC needs to > reduce its budget will tell us which services need to be reduced or cut > in order to accommodate such a reduction. > > At our meeting, the Board also discussed the structural review that will > take place. This will begin at the RIPE 88 Meeting in two weeks with a > BoF on how to build a stable future for the RIPE NCC. We expect that > there will be a productive discussion on many issues that need to be > resolved so that the RIPE NCC can move forward stably and with a funding > model that has the support of its membership. We will keep the > membership updated on the outcomes of those discussions and how the > members can contribute to the work that will surely emerge from them. > > Regarding the membership proposal[2], we acknowledge that the threshold > was met to add the GM agenda topic “Keep current billing scheme for the > next year”. We will add this as a topic to the agenda as required by the > Articles of Association. However, this will not be added as a proposed > resolution for members to vote on. Articles 15.4, 15.5 and 15.6 of the > RIPE NCC Articles of Association do not allow members to propose a > Charging Scheme, as reaffirmed by the external law firm that gives us > expert advice on Dutch corporate law. > > This legal framework ensures that a Charging Scheme may only be proposed > by those who were elected to serve on the Executive Board, who have > better insight into the financials and the operations of the > organisation, and who have a duty of care for the well-being of the > organisation and are liable in case of mismanagement. Parties without > such insight, responsibility and liability may not put forward charging > schemes for voting that - although appealing for individual members - > may be inappropriate for the sustainability of the organisation. > > To summarise, the Board recognises the member sentiment and we are > committed to addressing it for the long term. However, we must do what > we believe is best for the stability of the organisation and its > membership, even if it is not an easy or popular thing to do. This is > what is required of us when we legally commit to be Board members, and > we will faithfully execute on our commitments in this regard. > > We listen to your feedback and ideas, and on behalf of the Board I thank > you for engaging in these important discussions and look forward to > seeing them continue as we work towards a sustainable outcome for the > RIPE NCC. > > The RIPE NCC Executive Board > > Ondřej Filip, Chair > Raymond Jetten, Treasurer > Piotr Strzyżewski, Secretary > Maria Häll, Member > Remco van Mook, Member > Job Snijders, Member > Harald A. Summa, Member > > [1] > https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2024/documentation… > > > [2] https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/member-proposals/ >

1 0

End user (natural person) ID check: sensitive documents stored to "idenfy.com" ?
by Clement Cavadore 02 May '24

02 May '24

Dear all, I, as LIR, have received requests from RIPE NCC, as they are running a project to verify all the resource holders registered with them, to check the ID of some of our end users (natural persons). We have been provided links to a third party organization which (I think) runs ID check on behalf of RIPE NCC. The URL for those check is ivs.idenfy.com/<something>. The fact is that: - We do not have any information regarding how those sensitive documents are processed (and stored ?) - the URL is hosted bedhind an AWS URL, and this is not really an acceptable solution for RGPD. Could we please have more infos on this ? Thanks in advance Clément Cavadore

5 4

Board Meeting on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme
by Ondřej Filip 01 May '24

01 May '24

Dear all, We have continued to listen to the arguments you have put forward and we see the large number of support messages the proposed member agenda topic has received. We have scheduled a Board meeting for early next week to discuss the best way forward. We are also looking at the legal analysis and hope to arrive at a solution that is both compliant with our governance and which recognises the feedback we have received on this list. We will update the members on the outcome of that Board meeting as soon as possible. Kind regards, Ondřej Filip Chair, RIPE NCC Executive Board

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Final RIPE NCC Charging Schemes for Members to Vote On
by Sebastien Brossier 27 Apr '24

27 Apr '24

Dear board, On 24/04/2024 15:39, Ondřej Filip wrote: > The Board does not want to make fundamental changes to our charging > model while we are starting work to revamp our entire governance and > funding structures. To make dramatic changes now, while we are likely to > make big changes in the coming year or two, does not seem worthwhile or > appropriate at this time, and it might make the job of properly > reviewing our structures much more difficult. It seems a little bit pointless to discuss models now without knowing anything about the structural changes you are planning, if they are going to have such a big impact. Can you please tell us more about this revamp, maybe at the GM ? Best regards Sebastien Brossier

1 0

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