Dear RIPE NCC and community,

I would like to share a short observation regarding the ongoing discussion about the charging model.

The original purpose of the RIR system, including RIPE NCC, was to maintain an orderly and transparent registry of Internet number resources. The role of the registry was primarily coordination, documentation and stewardship of address space usage for the benefit of the Internet as a whole.

Today the IPv4 address pool is effectively closed. The total number of addresses is finite and well known, and the operational costs of RIPE NCC are publicly documented. Because of this, the basic parameters of the system are clear and measurable.

Over time, IPv4 addresses have also acquired significant market value due to their scarcity. In some cases, the value of address holdings has become comparable to, or even larger than, the operational value of the organisations that originally received them. While this development is understandable in a scarce resource environment, it was not the primary objective of the registry system.

At the same time, any change in the RIPE charging model would not significantly affect the market value of IPv4 addresses. The scarcity of IPv4 space will continue to determine its market dynamics regardless of the registry fee structure.

However, a transparent and proportional charging approach could contribute to better stewardship and more efficient use of the remaining address space. It could also encourage organisations holding unused resources to reconsider their utilisation of this finite pool.

From a purely mathematical perspective, the model can remain very simple and transparent. If the annual operational cost of RIPE NCC is divided by the total number of allocated IPv4 addresses in the RIPE region, we obtain the real cost of maintaining the system per address.

In principle:

total RIPE NCC operational cost ÷ total allocated IPv4 addresses = annual cost per IPv4 address

Such an approach would be predictable, transparent and directly proportional to the resources being maintained by the registry.

In addition, a modest administrative component could be introduced to support the maintenance of other services provided by RIPE NCC, such as operational infrastructure, security initiatives and community activities. This would allow the overall structure of fees to remain realistic and balanced, while still keeping the model simple and understandable.

Keeping the charging model simple and aligned with the original coordination role of the RIR system may help preserve the long-term stability and neutrality of Internet number resource management.

Kind regards

Bartłomiej Sztefko