11 Apr
2024
11 Apr
'24
3:40 p.m.
I personally think three things need to happen. 1) A base membership fee. weather 1000 or 1200 or 1400 or 800 is irellevant. This should just purely go towards operating the registry/db. 2) A fee for certain actions (regardless of outcome). Example: Independant Resource Assignment ticket (per resrouce) = 50 // Mergers/Aquisitions Ticket = 1x "Signup Fee" // Resource Transfer Fee = 250 Euro per Transfer //.... Resource Sponsoring billed at the current rates (I think ripe should bill AS-Numbers like any ohther PI-Resource). 3) Optional Contribution to other areas (Atlas, Events,....) where members can choose how much they want to contribute. Ideally with a mechanism where you can specify what projects 80 percent of their funding goes towards. The rest should be used for launching new projects..... and act as a buffer/reserve. Regards On 4/11/24 3:30 PM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight via members-discuss wrote: > > The proposed ASN fee is 0 on options A and B and 50 euro / year per > ASN with option C. > > 50 euro / year is just over 4 euro / month. > > So about the price of a cup of coffee… > > If that kills your business … > > -- > > Mr Michele Neylon > > Blacknight Solutions > > Hosting, Colocation & Domains > > https://www.blacknight.com/ <https://www.blacknight.com/> > > https://blacknight.blog/ <https://blacknight.blog/> > > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > > Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ <https://michele.blog/> > > Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ <https://ceo.hosting/> > > ------------------------------- > > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business > Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: > 370845 > > I have sent this email at a time that is convenient for me. I do not > expect you to respond to it outside of your usual working hours. > > *From: *members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf > of Mihail Fedorov <mihail@fedorov.net> > *Date: *Thursday, 11 April 2024 at 13:40 > *To: * > *Cc: *members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> > *Subject: *Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC > Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals > > [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Please use caution when opening attachments from > unrecognised sources. > > Charging per ASN is even worse than just price increase. It is > terrible and killing even more LIRs > > Imagine rather new LIR who is trying to do business based on what is > LIR intended for - providing LIR services to consumers. For example 30 > clients who requested ASN sponsorship during year. > If charged per ASN they will pay twice more than huge corporations > serving only purpose of their own. Those typically have just 1-2 ASNs > and tons of resources attached to it. They are main source of work for > RIPE staff and they should be funding expensive projects like Atlas > and others. > > Actually working LIRs also have business contracts/logic already > established on current charging scheme and adding ASN fee will kill them. > > Once again - why not just bill based on resources? It’s extremely > easy. Oh, right, resource holders won’t like it :) > > > On 11 Apr 2024, at 15:11, ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED > <admin@roskomnadzor.io> wrote: > > > > Why LIR who havent resources must pay same amount as LIR who have a > lot of resources? > > > > RIPE declaring about "community" and about "spending budget must be > distributed across all members" - but in practically is not. > > > > When RIPE want to take extra fee for ASN - its mean then RIPE want > to charge by resources. Then why RIPE dont want to charge due > resources for IPv4? > > > > Guess big members who hold a lot IPv4 allocations dont want it - > because current situation is fine for their point of view. Dont forget > - RIPE charget 50 EUR per resource - not matter what is it - /24 or /16. > > > > If we are not using all RIPE services - why we must pay for that? > Why not any option to select - "Only core services"? > > > > > > > > On 11.04.2024 11:45, Evgeniy Brodskiy wrote: > >> Confidential/Конфіденційно > >> Hi, > >> Not at all. > >> More RESOURCES in hands of some LIR doesn’t mean consuming MORE > SERVICES. > >> If you want to bill somebody based on consuming SERVICES it would > be logical to count consuming SERVICES, not RESOURCES. > >> But who cares about logic if goal to force somebody else to pay... > even if some particular BIG LIR doesn't use majority of this SERVICES. > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf > Of ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED > >> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2024 2:06 PM > >> To: members-discuss@ripe.net > >> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC > Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals > >> [Вы нечасто получаете письма от admin@roskomnadzor.io. Узнайте, > почему это важно, по адресу > https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] > >> Its great, but why RIPE trying to make funding from less adquate > method? > >> Big members of RIPE region request MORE SERVICE - but why ALL must > pay for that? > >> Why RIPE continue to ignoring taking membership fee based on RESOURCES? > >> Currently RIPE depend upon LIR signup fee and year/year LIR fee in > most cases - but its very unstable. > >> NOR, RIPE can take fee per IPv4/24 in holding per member and have > STABLE SOURCE OF FUNDING! > >> ARIN, APNIC, AFRINIC already a long time do it on successful basis. > >> Why small members of RIPE must pay SAME amount as big members? Are > its fair? Guess not. > >> Dont forget about fact - if early LIR guarantee receive /22, after only > >> /24 - then now LIR receive only place in waiting list (like in > Communists USSR) and undefined ETA on receive resources! But pay SAME > amount as any other. > >> Why RIPE didnt want to change fee based on fact - if LIR didnt have > IPv4 in holding - then LIR must pay less, nor LIR who holding > 10-100-100 IPv4 blocks? > >> On 11.04.2024 10:46, Daniel Stolpe via members-discuss wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> Yoel is absolutely right. A few years ago the financial situation was > >>> not looking good but the "last /8 policy" made a huge difference. The > >>> "handing out /22 blocks" was like printing new money - for a while. > >>> As the number of members whent sky rocket, RIPE could lower membership > >>> fees at the same time as an ever expanding budget. > >>> > >>> But now we are seeing what everyone could have predicted - the number > >>> of members are declining and the NCC keeps calling for more money. > >>> > >>> No, this is not reasonable. In tough times everyone has to try to make > >>> ends meet. The NCC should be no exception. For years only a few > >>> persistent voices have been trying to call for cuts or cost control as > >>> an alternative to eternal growth. What happened last year should have > >>> been a clear signal but instead the voting is now rigged with more or > >>> less equal outcomes. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Daniel Stolpe > >>> > >>> On Thu, 11 Apr 2024, Yoel Caspersen via members-discuss wrote: > >>> > >>>> Dear RIPE member, > >>>> > >>>> Kaj Niemi is absolutely right: RIPE increasing its budget does not > >>>> serve the interests of its members, and allowing it to pass because > >>>> you are spending other people's money is a sign of bad judgement and > >>>> lack of accountability. > >>>> > >>>> For years, I was wondering why RIPE was handing out /22 blocks at > >>>> what was effectively a fraction of the market price. I think we have > >>>> the answer now: Membership fees and diluted voting power of each > >>>> member served the interests of the management just fine. > >>>> > >>>> RIPE is a mandatory phonebook for IP addresses, nothing more and > >>>> nothing less. All the fat that has grown on the organisation in the > >>>> last decade must be trimmed, and I call for a drastic budget > >>>> reduction - if some members are willing to spend their own money on > >>>> additional services, they should be free to do so, but with absolute > >>>> emphasis on this part: their own money. > >>>> > >>>> From a fairness perspective, RIPE should be granted the necessary > >>>> funds to run the database service, meaning: > >>>> > >>>> - A base fee to keep the database service running, shared equally by > >>>> all members > >>>> - Fees on actions that require manual work from the RIPE NCC (e.g. > >>>> transfers, mergers etc) > >>>> > >>>> Forget about levying higher taxes on larger members - RIPE is not a > >>>> tax collector and doesn't exist to offset differences in wealth. It > >>>> exists to deliver a necessary service, and each member should pay > >>>> according to the burden they place on the organisation. > >>>> > >>>> How much should we pay for a database service? In the ideal world, > >>>> there should be no monopoly on the service and we could let the > >>>> market forces decide what the right price is. > >>>> > >>>> I realize that might not be feasible right now, so we are stuck with > >>>> the next best solution: Letting the community figure out what the > >>>> acceptable price is - I guess most RIPE members run some sort of > >>>> database service of their own and therefore possess a profound > >>>> understanding of the associated costs. > >>>> > >>>> Until we have better data, I suggest we look at the past for > >>>> inspiration: Use the budget for 2014 (€ 22 millions) and adjust for > >>>> inflation - that amounts to approximately € 28 millions. > >>>> > >>>> To get there we can slash External Engagement & Community (€ 9,4 > >>>> millions in the 2024 budget) - RIPE is a monopoly, and the members > >>>> will be there regardless of the activities in that area. > >>>> > >>>> I also suggest that we take a look at the expenses associated with > >>>> the Office of the Managing Director (€ 2,2 millions in the 2024 > >>>> budget) - after all, RIPE is an organisation with less than 200 > >>>> employees. > >>>> > >>>> I call for members of the community to contribute: What is the right > >>>> amount of staffing in the RIPE NCC? > >>>> > >>>> Regards, > >>>> > >>>> Yoel Caspersen > >>>> CTO > >>>> Kviknet.dk ApS > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 3:12 PM Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> wrote: > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> Very politely put I do not think any of the three proposed charging > >>>> schemes are in the membership's interest - they certainly aren't > in mine. > >>>> > >>>> All three seem to be designed to assure that NCC can continue along, > >>>> business as usual, with its tasks. Thus, we could pretend that there > >>>> isn't a big issue with the membership numbers declining. We could > >>>> also pretend there isn't a real problem with the value proposition of > >>>> the services. Furthermore, we could also pretend that we do not care > >>>> that it all is conveniently funded by the membership. I mean, what is > >>>> 1500 or > >>>> 1900 euro to most people? I have heard the last several times in the > >>>> past. After all, why should we care about the expenditure when the > >>>> sums are so small for each LIR? Why should we care when it is not our > >>>> own money? I'll tell you. Not caring about the transaction size is > >>>> bad, if you are willing to let these kinds of sums slide, you'll let > >>>> it slide on bigger amounts. As is treating other people's money (OPM) > >>>> differently than if it were your own. These eventually lead to lack > >>>> of accountability. > >>>> > >>>> What is being proposed is really a significant increase in membership > >>>> fees. In particular, significantly above what it used to cost on > >>>> average to produce services for each member (whether they use them or > >>>> not). Note when I say what it used to cost, as in FY2024 the cost per > >>>> LIR will be higher. > >>>> > >>>> Now, with the membership in further decline the average cost per > >>>> member will once more be higher in FY2025. Next year, I forecast that > >>>> we will have the same "discussion" for > >>>> FY2026 as NCC comes around and asks for more money. Once again. Why? > >>>> Because according to projections the amount of members will continue > >>>> to decrease resulting in higher fees per organization. Once again. > >>>> All in the advantageous name of the articles of association that > >>>> allow pretty much anything. > >>>> > >>>> Following the above rational thought with another is, that what one > >>>> should be doing is choosing what to either invoice separately or drop > >>>> completely. Yes, really. Everyone is happy with free services, it is > >>>> when you apply the money test - request someone to pay for something > >>>> - when you see if what you create contains value. > >>>> > >>>> Considering NCC managed to "save" 5% in the FY2024 budget compared to > >>>> FY2023, asking for 8.1% increase (4% annualized) the next year is, > >>>> well, kind of cheeky. It restores the budget pretty much to what it > >>>> would have been with two annual increases. As an exercise in > >>>> budgetary engineering I do approve. As a paying member I do not. > >>>> > >>>> What really would be needed is competition. Competition would make > >>>> the RIR market more efficient. It is rather obvious that the RIR > >>>> markets aren't anywhere near the efficiency they could be at. > >>>> Competition would mean that people wanting to pay > >>>> 1900 - or even more in the future - could choose to do so and those > >>>> who don't want could potentially pay less. Reduced to the very basics > >>>> one is paying for bits in a database. > >>>> In that sense this is rather similar to the certificate market where > >>>> at one time the cost per certificate was sky high and there were only > >>>> a few issuers. Today, I am guessing most do not pay thousands > >>>> annually for a few bits in theirs. Neither do most people care > >>>> whether the cert was issued by Verisign, Gandi or someone else. > >>>> Having looked into it out of curiosity, real competition does not > >>>> seem to be possible as the principles in > >>>> ICP-2 pretty much state that there can/should only be one RIR per > >>>> region. Which makes NCC the definition of a monopoly. Monopolies with > >>>> nice and polite people, well intended purpose and mission creep are > >>>> not good, they're bad. For everyone. > >>>> > >>>> Finally, the surplus. The concept itself is interesting and I do know > >>>> where it comes from. But from an financial point of view it is really > >>>> lending money to someone else and then (maybe) getting it back, a > >>>> year later, less inflation if they did not spend it. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I would kindly request that the EB would add option D or "Option D: > >>>> No Changes from 2023". :) > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Kaj > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Kaj > >>>> > >>>> _____________________________________________________________________ > >>>> _____________________________________________________________________ > >>>> ___________________________________________ > >>>> > >>>> From: ncc-announce <ncc-announce-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of > >>>> Simon-Jan Haytink <simonjh@ripe.net> > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 12:18 > >>>> To: ncc-announce@ripe.net <ncc-announce@ripe.net> > >>>> Subject: [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 > >>>> Proposals You don't often get email from simonjh@ripe.net. Learn why > >>>> this is important > >>>> > >>>> Dear RIPE NCC members, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> We can now share three draft charging scheme models for 2025 that the > >>>> Executive Board approved with the following resolution at its meeting > >>>> on 25 March 2024: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> The RIPE NCC Executive Board approves the submission of the RIPE NCC > >>>> Charging Scheme 2025 options to the upcoming RIPE NCC General Meeting > >>>> for members to vote on. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> - Option A - Charging Scheme as is with 22.58% price increase for > >>>> the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,900) and a 0% price > >>>> increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR > >>>> 50) > >>>> > >>>> - Option B - Charging Scheme as is with 20.97% price increase for > >>>> the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,875) and a 50% price > >>>> increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR > >>>> 75) > >>>> > >>>> - Option C - Charging Scheme as is with 16.13% price increase for > >>>> the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,800), a 50% price > >>>> increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR > >>>> 75) and a new AS Numbers fee of EUR 50 per assignment > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> *Resources falling under this charge are IPv4 and IPv6 PI > >>>> assignments; Anycast assignments; IPv4 and IPv6 IXP assignments; and > >>>> Legacy IPv4 resource registrations through a sponsoring LIR. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> The full draft charging scheme models are available from the GM > >>>> Documentation page: > >>>> https://www/ > >>>> .ripe.net%2Fmembership%2Fmeetings%2Fgm%2Fmeetings%2Fmay-2024%2Fdocume > >>>> ntation-and-archives%2Fsupporting-documents%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy > >>>> .Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd5 > >>>> 73bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004040536%7CUnknown%7CTW > >>>> FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI > >>>> 6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=3tUyMKDzZZY69M3vjjDqaKxgBrrQMeI1rnhBImzaex > >>>> Q%3D&reserved=0 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Although the proposed models are relatively simple, we provide a > >>>> calculator where you can see exactly what you would pay under each of > >>>> the proposed models: > >>>> > >>>> https://www/ > >>>> .ripe.net%2Fdocuments%2F3757%2FCS2025_Member_Calculator.xlsx&data=05% > >>>> 7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18 > >>>> 264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004051566% > >>>> 7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6I > >>>> k1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=glTH6W6VCl6MSXrBbsUC8A4K%2FK > >>>> TE8%2FavtiBwmmokOEY%3D&reserved=0 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> The main considerations for the Executive Board in proposing these > >>>> three models are: > >>>> > >>>> 1. The consolidation of LIR accounts, which means the burden to > >>>> generate sufficient income must be met by fewer accounts > >>>> > >>>> 2. Increased costs due to inflation that were previously catered for > >>>> by the large number of LIR accounts > >>>> > >>>> 3. Following the discussions last year and again this year, there > >>>> appears to be no clear consensus among members on how a > >>>> category-based model would work and the Board does not wish to put > >>>> another category model forward at the upcoming GM that will be > >>>> rejected by the members. Rather, the Board will propose a simple > >>>> model that guarantees adequate funding for 2025 and 2026 - under this > >>>> proposal, we expect there would be no need for a fee increase for > >>>> 2026. The Board will work with the RIPE NCC on a more in-depth > >>>> consultation with the members aimed at arriving at a sustainable > >>>> solution for 2027 and beyond, possibly involving a new charging > >>>> scheme task force. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> All three proposed models are designed to arrive at the same income > >>>> of EUR 41.1 million for the RIPE NCC in 2025. This will cover all > >>>> current services and activities, a 5% staff cost increase, a 2% > >>>> inflation increase on all non-staff costs, and EUR 1 million for > >>>> additional work relating to registry complexity and security projects > >>>> aimed at ensuring the resilience of the Registry and the RIPE NCC > >>>> more broadly. > >>>> Any such additional work would be discussed with the membership > >>>> during Activity Plan and Budget consultations and then need to be > >>>> approved by the Board. This will also allow some leeway should more > >>>> LIR accounts close than we expect. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> It’s important to note that the RIPE NCC aims for an income budget > >>>> that will provide a surplus, and this means that should we meet our > >>>> budgetary targets, a surplus can be returned to members in 2026 > >>>> should they so wish. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> While the RIPE NCC continues to carry out cost-cutting efforts across > >>>> the organisation, drastically reducing the budget at this time is not > >>>> advisable due to the work that needs to be carried out, especially in > >>>> relation to maintaining high-quality registry services and securing > >>>> the registry and RIPE NCC systems. Cutting services or activities is > >>>> not something the Board is planning to do, and such actions would > >>>> take time and need full consultation with the membership. An overview > >>>> of the activities and services that the membership fee covers is > >>>> provided below this email. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I also urge you to see the presentation we delivered at the charging > >>>> scheme open house in March so that the full context of the situation > >>>> and the financial landscape we face is clear to you. The slides are > >>>> available at: > >>>> > >>>> https://www/ > >>>> .ripe.net%2Fmembership%2Fmeetings%2Fopen-house%2Fripe-ncc-charging-sc > >>>> heme-2025%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d1 > >>>> 7e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0% > >>>> 7C638484307004057320%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQ > >>>> IjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5GTeIyn > >>>> nzxx1WLZ%2BDRoFNWAhaRPvTemPafvKwlIaEEk%3D&reserved=0 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Finally, I want to thank all those who have contributed to the > >>>> consultation so far on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025. The models > >>>> we present here are draft and in two weeks we will announce the final > >>>> proposal that members will vote on at the GM on 22-24 May. Please > >>>> discuss the draft proposal on the members-discuss@ripe.net list - any > >>>> input received by 19 April can be incorporated if possible into the > >>>> final models we propose. And make sure to register for the GM so that > >>>> you can vote on the charging scheme that will apply for you and all > >>>> members next year: > >>>> > >>>> https://my/. > >>>> ripe.net%2F%23%2Fmeetings%2Factive&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40 > >>>> kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6e > >>>> c3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004063238%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8ey > >>>> JWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0% > >>>> 7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2BkYHbjPqA8CwacCNlVg0M%2FVvao%2FK8z1zB8hrEeaLXVg%3D&r > >>>> eserved=0 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Simon-Jan Haytink > >>>> > >>>> Chief Financial Officer > >>>> > >>>> RIPE NCC > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Services and Activities Covered by the Member Fee > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> - A trusted, efficient, accurate and resilient registry that > >>>> guarantees uniqueness of resources held by members > >>>> > >>>> - Neutral information services uninfluenced by commercial or > >>>> government interests that allow both the RIPE NCC and the community > >>>> to carry out useful research into the Internet > >>>> > >>>> - Engagement activities, including RIPE and regional meetings, that > >>>> build an active membership and community and that contribute to the > >>>> overall good of the Internet > >>>> > >>>> - A voice and influence for the membership in key decision-making > >>>> fora, including with governments and regulators > >>>> > >>>> - Protection of the Joint Internet Number Registry as developed by > >>>> the Internet community > >>>> > >>>> - Learning and development activities that help to address skills > >>>> shortages and contribute to an educated membership > >>>> > >>>> - Support for the Policy Development Process (PDP) > >>>> > >>>> - An authoritative registry of routing information provided by RPKI > >>>> and the RIPE Database > >>>> > >>>> - K-root and DNS services > >>>> > >>>> - A dedicated staff with considerable expertise contributing to all > >>>> of the above > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> members-discuss mailing list > >>>> members-discuss@ripe.net > >>>> https://lis/ > >>>> ts.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvg > >>>> eniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f > >>>> 9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004071908%7CUnknown% > >>>> 7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJ > >>>> XVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TSE6bLTaGjEzZzbwPbLL8ZivguLE4ZUOG1YC6W > >>>> k3HVE%3D&reserved=0 > >>>> Unsubscribe: > >>>> https://lis/ > >>>> ts.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fyoel%2540kviknet. > >>>> dk&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d > >>>> 88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C63848430 > >>>> 7004081513%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMz > >>>> IiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=h8qgUsC1phTJj9r9T > >>>> HsO2THM2UZcg6CMMNwff4PP3SA%3D&reserved=0 > >>> > >>> ______________________________________________________________________ > >>> ___________ > >>> > >>> Daniel Stolpe Tel: 08 - 688 11 81 > >>> stolpe@resilans.se > >>> Resilans AB Fax: 08 - 55 00 21 63 > >>> http://www.resilans.se/ > >>> Box 45 094 556741-1193 > >>> 104 30 Stockholm > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> members-discuss mailing list > >>> members-discuss@ripe.net > >>> https://list/ > >>> s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvgen > >>> iy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd > >>> 573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004100103%7CUnknown%7CTW > >>> FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6 > >>> Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Y5j98PfqxzkN%2B2UYI6E5kDMJLYj1qlHRc64sClcZFa > >>> U%3D&reserved=0 > >>> Unsubscribe: > >>> https://list/ > >>> s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fregistry-ripe%2540r > >>> esilans.se&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9 > >>> f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C63 > >>> 8484307004109226%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV > >>> 2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2FLi%2BQEHdR > >>> thZtiNdR7ETMPAkPAzVevDnMjvq75F3kf8%3D&reserved=0 > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> members-discuss mailing list > >>> members-discuss@ripe.net > >>> https://list/ > >>> s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvgen > >>> iy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd > >>> 573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004115782%7CUnknown%7CTW > >>> FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6 > >>> Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=vY2oba0wvj08c6W4f%2FFaPi6BRvFFLM7AbIf5i84qT6 > >>> s%3D&reserved=0 > >>> Unsubscribe: > >>> https://list/ > >>> s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fadmin%2540roskomnad > >>> zor.io&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f542 > >>> 32d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484 > >>> 307004121940%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luM > >>> zIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=NlQ4MnUaG53yS1eKO > >>> %2F2nhgAkG8yzbN7B3c4koumTvKw%3D&reserved=0 > >>> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> members-discuss mailing list > >> members-discuss@ripe.net > >> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > >> Unsubscribe: > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/evgeniy.brodskiy%40kyivstar.net > > > > _______________________________________________ > > members-discuss mailing list > > members-discuss@ripe.net > > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/mihail%40fedorov.net > > > _______________________________________________ > members-discuss mailing list > members-discuss@ripe.net > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/michele%40blacknight.com > > > _______________________________________________ > members-discuss mailing list > members-discuss@ripe.net > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > Unsubscribe:https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ripe-members%40sebastian-graf.at