Hi, All. Once an once again! I haven't seen any real arguments from Task Force against the linear model, besides "what if they won't pay"?! Task Force NOT ONCE has proposed a linear model to discuss. I reread the same info and understood the ONE thing: ---!!!!-->> Let's be honest, the Task Force that wants to push its models to us is not interested in a linear board, because someone will have to pay honestly for resources. I believe that this "Task Force" should be disbanded due to its obvious one-sidedness of the approach to the problem. <<--!!!!---- Dmitry Serbulov.
**
*Dear members,*
*
Thanks again for the feedback shared so far, both on this mailing list and to me directly. I also appreciate the constructive suggestions that have been made on alternative models.
I would like to provide some additional background and explain the rationale behind the approach we’ve taken, which I hope will help inform further discussions.
Each year, when we publish the charging scheme, it prompts a wide-ranging discussion among the membership. These discussions have historically not resulted in a clear consensus on a charging scheme model. The Board therefore concluded that a set of principles developed by a member task force was needed to guide the development of a model. These principles allow us to create a model that might not match with everyone’s wishes, but they are based on the informed opinion of a diverse set of resource holders. Without these principles, we would have unlimited options and continue to revisit the same discussions without reaching consensus.
The principles can be found in the Task Force’s final report:https://www.ripe.net/s/charging-scheme-task-force-2024/final-report/ <https://www.ripe.net/s/charging-scheme-task-force-2024/final-report/>
In summary, the core principles that underpin the proposed models are:
1. The charging scheme model should strive for equity among members by taking into
account the different resources registered to members
2. The charging scheme should be based on the idea that people and organisations
pay a significant majority of their fees to be a member of the RIPE NCC, which
would allow additional charges for specific services
3. The charging scheme proposals should not compromise the tax agreement that the
RIPE NCC has with the Dutch government
4. The amount of categories should be determined by the RIPE NCC, but there should
be enough categories to ensure there is no significant increase from one category
to the next
5. The category that members are placed in should be based on the total PA resource
holdings of members and be structured to discourage members from manipulating
their placement to qualify for lower fees
6. There should be enough categories to ensure an equitable charging scheme based
on the distribution of resources
7. The category model should ensure that those with a small number of resources
would pay less than they would under a one LIR account, one fee model
8. The category model should ensure that only those with a large number of resources
are towards the higher level categories and those closer to the median allocation size are closer to the medium level categories
While these principles provided us with a framework for designing the models, we now need your input to help refine and improve them. In particular, we are looking for feedback on the category limits and the formula used in the models.
On the linear models and pay-per-IP approaches, these discussion points conflict with several of the Task Force’s principles, particularly around maintaining a membership-based model (see principle 2 above) and avoiding outcomes that would concentrate a disproportionate share of our income budget on a small number of members (see principle 6 above). The models presented represent a considerable shift away from the current approach of equality where we charge the same fee per LIR account.
Finally, I would like to note that several staff members involved in this work will be taking vacation days in the coming weeks. While we will continue to follow the discussions on the list, our availability to reply may be more limited than usual until the beginning of January.
Best regards,
Simon-Jan Haytink
Chief Financial Officer
RIPE NCC
*
On 18/12/2025 11:27, Kaj Niemi wrote:
We seem to have different definitions of fair.
Kaj ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* D. Walde - Walde IT-Systeme <walde@wcs-online.de> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 17, 2025 20:49 *To:* members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> *Subject:* [members-discuss] Re: Consultation on Future RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Models The models in both A and B are definitely promising. Even regarding the basic distribution of weighting and prices, someone has clearly put a lot of effort into designing a fair system. I support a fair distribution because I myself am one of the small businesses that only received a /24 subnet via the waiting list and could easily use a second or third in the future, for which I would be willing to pay higher fees. Perhaps this will lead to a change of heart among those who own networks, since there are currently no consequences. Fairness begins where others can share. Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Walde IT-Systemhaus - CEO Dirk Walde - IT-Specialist
Mangenberger Str. 76 - D-42655 Solingen - Germany
+49(0)212-3833235 -info@walde-it.de <mailto:info@walde-it.de> -http://www.walde-it.de <http://www.walde-it.de/>
NETWORK AS203226 + AS199679 + AS199681 / ABUSE:abuse@waldeit.de <mailto:abuse@waldeit.de>
** RIPE NCC Full Member - RIPE LIR Service **
DREG ID: 11/075 (§6 TKG) - TAX ID: DE159795091
Simon-Jan Haytink schrieb:
*
Dear RIPE NCC members,
We have opened Phase 1 of the Charging Scheme Consultation and invite your feedback on two proposed models for the annual fee, which represents the significant majority of the RIPE NCC’s income.
*What we are consulting on in Phase 1*
The RIPE NCC’s income from members consists of two parts - together they make up the Membership Fee:
1.
Annual Fee - the main part of our income
2.
Additional Fees - currently these are ASN fees, independent assignment fees and other one-off charges
In Phase 1, our focus is only on the annual fee, because this is the foundation of the Charging Scheme and the key element for our long-term financial stability.
We are asking for your input on two possible annual fee models:
- Model A – Category-based model
- Model B – Formula-based model
For each model, we have published an explanation and an interactive calculator so you can see how your annual fee would be calculated and explore different scenarios based on your IPv4 and IPv6 holdings.
You can find the consultation details and the calculators at:https://www.ripe.net/s/cs-model-consultation-phase-1/ <https://www.ripe.net/s/cs-model-consultation-phase-1/>
*What feedback we would like to hear*
At this stage, we are interested in how the models work in practice, not in fixing the final revenue amount.
The figures you see are illustrative and not final.
We would particularly value your views on questions such as:
- Are there too many categories in Model A, or too few?
- Are the category boundaries appropriate
*
- Is a formula-based approach (Model B) preferable to a category-based one?
- Does the current formula setup make sense, or are there better options?
- Do the models adequately reflect the principles defined by the Charging Scheme Task Force, especially the principle of equity?
- Are there any issues you can see that we’ve overlooked?
*
Both models are still drafts. Your feedback now is essential before we further develop the models.
Please share your input on the Members Discuss mailing list by the end of January 2026.
We will of course follow discussions and we will address queries and comments in early January after the holiday season.
*Next steps in the consultation*
This consultation is part of a three-phase process:
- Phase 1 (now): Consult on two annual fee models (A and B), with calculators – published Dec 2025
*
- Phase 2: Consult on separate fees (e.g. ASN and independent resource fees) – planned for Jan/Feb 2026
- Phase 3: Publish a combined Charging Scheme proposal (Annual Fee + separate fees) that incorporates member feedback from Phases 1 and 2 – planned for April 2026
*
The final Charging Scheme proposal will be presented for a vote at the RIPE NCC General Meeting in May 2026.
I strongly encourage you to review the two models, use the calculators, and share your perspective. Your participation is vital in helping us develop a Charging Scheme that is stable, transparent and equitable.
Kind regards,
Simon-Jan HaytinkChief Financial OfficerRIPE NCC
* ------------------------------------------------------------------------
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit:https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/ncc-announce.ripe.net/ <https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/ncc-announce.ripe.net/> As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at:https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/ <https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/>
To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details.
Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription.
Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at:https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details.
Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription.
Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/
----------------------------- С уважением Сербулов Дмитрий ООО "Альфа Нет Телеком" +7(498)785-8-000 раб. +7(495)940-92-11 доп. +7(925)518-10-69 сот.