The problem is that the scheme with categories transfers the load to those who do not have so many resources and they usually need them. It is very profitable for large address holders. It does not encourage the return of resources, but it will allow them to say - look, we pay more than others. Moreover, the scheme with categories does not contribute to the return of unused addresses. If I have 15,000 addresses, then it makes no sense to return 1000 unnecessary ones! Because I will still pay the same amount. Therefore, a fee should be charged for each subnet /24. This is the only way to encourage the return of unused ones. And the price should rise - this will force you to switch to IPV6. Serbulov Dmitry
Arguably charging scheme A is certainly per resource. The alternatives given for ASNs and xfer fees ditto. You end up with an a la carte meal instead of a flat-fee buffet.
Kaj ________________________________ From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Skyline Telecom <Skylinetelecom@outlook.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2023 17:23 To: Josh Jameson <josh@servebyte.com>; members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Response to Comments on the Charging Scheme Proposals
Hi,
A per resource charging scheme has been rejected many years ago because that type of charging would force RIPE to become a for profit organization - from the dutch government / fiscal point of view. It was a lenghty discussion and the consensus was that RIPE must remain a not-for-profit organization.
Silviu
________________________________ From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Josh Jameson <josh@servebyte.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2023 2:08:31 PM To: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Response to Comments on the Charging Scheme Proposals
The deadline for members to propose resolutions was 10th May. Unfortunately RIPE ignored the elephant in the room that showed the most activity in members-discuss, which was pay-per-ipv4 - like some other RIRs currently operate.
They are so confident that it is not something people will vote for, that they refused to include it as an option, despite it providing RIPE with the most funding of any other option.
If RIPE was not a monopoly in our region, I would go elsewhere. To say I am disgusted with the behavior is a gross understatement.
Regards, Josh Jameson
On 5/19/23 15:00, sdy@a-n-t.ru wrote:
Dear Simon-Jan,
Until the fee for one resource becomes the same for everyone, we will look for a way to distribute and pay for IPv4 resources indefinitely. If we don't have enough resources now, it doesn't matter how someone has 1 billion addresses for some reason. If they need them, they MUST to pay like everyone else!
I do not understand why the NCC do not offer to vote a scheme: 1 IP for everyone = one price for everyone !!!??? Are there any reasons? They do not want to pay for these addresses? OK! Somebody else will take it and will be pay in happy.
Dmitry Serbulov.
Dear all,
I’d like to answer the comments and questions that have been raised since the Board Treasurer announced the final proposed charging scheme options.
See Raymond’s mail announcing the options at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ncc-announce/2023-April/001645.html
Also see my colleague Fergal’s mail explaining the instant run-off voting method and how it will work with the charging scheme vote: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ncc-announce/2023-May/001647.html
Purpose of the Charging Scheme and Budget
The charging scheme is the mechanism the RIPE NCC uses to ensure it collects sufficient funds to carry out its promises to the members in future years. As a safeguard, any excess (or shortage) of funds is subject to a redistribution vote by the General Meeting. This redistribution has happened many times in the past. This ensures that the RIPE NCC operates on a cost-recovery basis, or in other words operates as a not-for-profit.
The Charging Scheme does not define the cost budget of the RIPE NCC, but of course there is a relation between the two. The projected income does at the very least provide direction regarding discussion on the Activity Plan and Budget.
The Activity Plan and Budget defines the planned activities and associated costs for a financial year. And for the longer term, we have developed a five-year strategy. Both of these documents are published for the members to provide input on, and they are then approved by the RIPE NCC Executive Board.
The Draft Activity Plan and Budget is published on a yearly basis every autumn, specifically to consult with our membership. Additionally, this year there is the option to provide input and feedback via the RIPE NCC Survey 2023, which will launch next week. The Activity Plan and Budget is effectively the RIPE NCC’s promise to its members in terms of what it will do and how much it will spend in the coming year.
The most recently approved Activity Plan and Budget (in this case 2023) forms the basis for projections of the required income for the following financial year, as this is the most recent approved “promise to our members”. All charging scheme projections are made with this promise in mind, to ensure sufficient income to continue that promise. If the Activity Plan and Budget 2024 requires us to cut or add activities or costs, then that is what we will do to fulfill our promise.
That being said, efficient and effective use of membership funds is a priority and will remain a priority of the Executive Board and the management of the RIPE NCC.
Why Change the Current Model?
We need to ensure sufficient and sustainable income to continue our operations in a stable and predictable manner. The high market value of IPv4 resources combined with the possibility of multiple LIR accounts per member has created uncertainty and unpredictability for a significant part of our income. A member-based model rather than an LIR account model will help to reduce this uncertainty by removing the LIR account as the basis for the charging scheme.
We are also addressing the stated unfairness in the current model. Although some members have expressed the desire for increased differentiation, we see the proposed change as a significant difference from the current one LIR-one fee model. It allows us to spread the funding burden differently because in the current model, all members with one LIR account pay the same fee (exception is the independent resources). Due to a significant inflow of New LIRs in 2019 and 2021, there is a considerable amount of members who hold more than one LIR account, and these members do pay additional LIR account fees. One of the major benefits of the category model is that it charges per member, and with that it reduces the uncertainty caused by multiple LIRs and the associated consolidation risk.
We aim to achieve a clearer distinction between RIPE Policy and the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme by removing the LIR account as the basis of the charging scheme.
And we want to ensure that the RIPE NCC together with its members is ready for any change the future might bring, by increasing the possibilities the charging scheme provides to adapt for this change. Of course, this can only happen with formal approval by the GM.
The Category Model
Under this model, the categories would apply as soon as a member holds IPv4 or IPv6 resources as defined in the charging scheme document. Limits as defined in the charging scheme document are the upper limits of the categories. The lower limit for Category 1 is one resource (one IPv4 address or one IPv6 address). The base category applies to all, including members with no IPv4 or IPv6 resources. We have been asked why there is not a per-IPv4 address model, with comments that the category model favours bigger members. In a way, it does, but less so than in the one-LIR account, one-fee model. We also need to stay true to the fact that we are a membership association, so while we can differentiate between members, this needs to stay within reason.
Additionally, we need to ensure the independence of the RIPE NCC by not becoming too dependent on a small subset of our membership for a significant part of our income. Furthermore, protecting the one member-one vote principle could become significantly more difficult if the contribution differences become extreme. So we can facilitate differentiation between members in size of contribution, especially compared to the current model we have, but it is essential that this stays within reason. One clear benefit of the category model is that we can refine it over time, working towards a model that is acceptable for more members.
On the pricing and category limits, they have been set with the latest Activity Plan and Budget in mind, to ensure at the very least that we can continue with our promise to members in 2024. If the Activity Plan and Budget 2024 requires the RIPE NCC to reduce or add activities or costs, we will act accordingly.
Regarding the options presented for voting, our initial plan was to submit two charging schemes for a vote, to provide a clear choice to the members on a category-based model or the current model. Both of these models would provide income at the level of the 2023 budget if we apply a correction for expected inflation of 5%, resulting in a projected income of EUR 42 million.
After feedback from members we wanted to ensure the GM could vote for “NO CHANGE” which is represented in Option D. Additionally to this “NO CHANGE” vote, I personally requested to add a vote to keep the income (before any correction for inflation) at the same level as in 2023, which is the reason Option C has been added. The 2nd or 3rd vote on charging for ASN assignments and/or transfers would (if approved) provide additional income over that provided by the charging scheme voted for by members.
The Waiting List
The current situation regarding the IPv4 waiting list and costs associated with a /24 IPv4 allocation is in our eyes an undesirable one. With the uncertainty of the waiting period (around 1.5 to 2 years) which can be shorter or longer, plus the two-year “non-transfer” policy, it means unpredictable costs for our members and income that is not transparent for the RIPE NCC. - Two-year waiting period = sign-up fee plus two years LIR service fee = 4,100 EUR - Two-year “non-transfer” policy = two years LIR service fee = 3,100 EUR - Indicative price 7,200 EUR
To address this, we propose a one-time join-the-waiting list fee, and a to-be-determined /24 IPv4 allocation fee. This would replace costs that apply to members based on being on the waiting list for a long time without receiving resources, as members would be charged the waiting list fee upon placement on the waiting list, and the allocation fee only just before resources are allocated (with the opportunity to reject the resources).
This is, in our opinion, a fairer way to charge for these resources. To define this charge and work out any possible issues with RIPE Policy, we are postponing this vote to allow for consultation with the membership because this to-be-determined fee will have an effect on who applies for the resources. We also need to consider fees already paid by LIR accounts, and whether a discount would be in order for fees already paid in relation to specific IPv4 allocations. And for this, time is needed to consult with membership.
Additionally, this fee will also result in additional income for the RIPE NCC, which will be subject to a redistribution vote, assuming this provides excess funds.
See the original announcement on the waiting list freeze: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ncc-announce/2023-April/001643.html
Finally, there are probably more questions and comments than I have answered here. But we are preparing for the General Meeting (GM) next week where there will be several presentations from our side on the charging and budgeting of the RIPE NCC. Our Managing Director will present at both the NCC Services Working Group on the past and future of the RIPE NCC, and he will present a more detailed presentation on budget developments in the GM. I will also present on the Charging Scheme options as well as give an update on our current financial situation.
I hope you will register to join and follow these presentations, and you will have the opportunity to further ask questions and discuss the various options to vote on.
https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2023
Kind regards,
Simon-Jan Haytink Chief Financial Officer RIPE NCC
_______________________________________________ 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/sdy%40a-n-t.ru
_______________________________________________ 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/josh%40servebyte.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/skylinetelecom%40outl... _______________________________________________ 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/sdy%40a-n-t.ru