Re: [members-discuss] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Open House: Recording and Slides Available
On Thursday 28 March 2024 18:17:47 Sebastien Brossier wrote:
On 28/03/2024 16:53, sdy@a-n-t.ru wrote: [..] You're right, small and big can mean different things and there are various financial realities.
But the only practical metric for RIPE NCC is the number of IP addresses. From there we can only assume that LIRs with lots of IP addresses have enough money for a higher membership fee, and that LIRs with very limited finances just have their initial allocation. Far from perfect, but it is difficult to do better. [..]
Please keep in mind that we moved from an allocation of an intangible technical resource (IPv4 addresses) to a scarcity of that while permitting the sale of that resource between parties, thus creating a market that assigned a value to that resource and consequentially has created an asset value that the companies have (should have?) put in the balance sheet. With this view is not so immediate to force the small companies (the not so small ones doesn't have this problem) to devalue their company in order to keep the costs low. It is a slippery road and for me was the first obrstacle to the poll and the resolution last year. From a practical stand point i think we can make a more informed calculation based on HOW MANY additional resources a company has requested and was granted beyond their INITIAL allocation ad the last-assignment in case of v4. See to myself, for example, i have a /21 that was the standard allocation at the time of me joining Ripe, and the last v4 allocation we all been offered in the past. Beyond that i will get my standard initial allocation of v6 addresses. Can I considered a big player? by no means. But last year in the proposal I was in the medium category with almost doubling the membership, and if forced to sell the addresses I have free at the moment i will suffer almost an halfing of the assets of my company, so i am not inclined to do that for a miriad of reasons. My humble proposal is to class basing on how many additional resources a company have beyond the basics that was valid at the time of joining Ripe. This manner of thinking, will naturally shift the majority of financial burdens to the very large organizations that, for the fact to be very large, can handle the money BUT with the provision to not alter the governance of Ripe (more money normally makes more power and influence, and we don't want this.) Best Regards, Andrea Borghi --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Andrea Borghi - W KEY srl - http://www.wkey.it
Hi, On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 07:04:30PM +0100, Andrea Borghi wrote:
My humble proposal is to class basing on how many additional resources a company have beyond the basics that was valid at the time of joining Ripe.
... and possibly how old these resources are... we got our blocks in 1995/1996, and they are considered "large" by today's standards. Back then, it was what you got as a fast-growing small ISP... So if we really go for something based on allocation size, adding a yearly depreciation factor in would make this "more fair" (... we've been paying our share for the last 29(!) years already). Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer, Ingo Lalla, Karin Schuler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hi it would be fair if the resource was not valued as a resource only as the number of IPs IP should be the basis for settlement - it is actually a cost there is a shortage of addresses, and some people have a lot of them unused and do not return them. If they paid for the addresses and it was a cost for them, they would wonder whether they really need them or whether it would be better to return some of them. Pozdrawiam Gabriel Sulka ------------------------------------------------------------- Firma Handlowo - Usługowa KOMPEX 34-400 Nowy Targ ul. Szaflarska 62A tel(18) 264-60-55 pn-pt 09:30 - 17:00 sb. 09:30 - 13:00 www.kompex.pl ; bok@kompex.pl ; kompex@nowytarg.net -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Gert Doering Sent: Friday, March 29, 2024 12:49 PM To: domain@wkey.it Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Open House: Recording and Slides Available Hi, On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 07:04:30PM +0100, Andrea Borghi wrote:
My humble proposal is to class basing on how many additional resources a company have beyond the basics that was valid at the time of joining Ripe.
... and possibly how old these resources are... we got our blocks in 1995/1996, and they are considered "large" by today's standards. Back then, it was what you got as a fast-growing small ISP... So if we really go for something based on allocation size, adding a yearly depreciation factor in would make this "more fair" (... we've been paying our share for the last 29(!) years already). Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer, Ingo Lalla, Karin Schuler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hello, That is not a valid way to put it. Simply because this resource is low on supply, does not mean that the owners of the actual resource should be coerced (financially or any way to be honest) to return it. Also the low supply is not necessarily created by small/medium companies, it is created by big first players in the industry. The 185.0.0.0/8 prefix that RIPE handed to LIR’s since 2013, it lasted for 6 years and it reached to thousands and thousands of companies that created a value added chain. Now if you look at assigned IPv4 to companies, you can see that companies like Ford and Mercedes and Cogent have EACH a /8. Which means supply for another 18 years for a RIR like RIPE. Yes, Cogent is a big ISP, but they do not need 16 million IPV4 on top of the other milions they have. And let’s not talk about the other 13 x /8 that a certain government agency has. By forcing some LIRs to give back some IPv4, we are searching to financially target companies that got late in the game. The big players are LEGACY holders and cannot be coerced at this point to pay anything for their resources. So how is that fair? Thanks, Petru
On 29 Mar 2024, at 14:01, Firma KOMPEX <gabi@kompex.pl> wrote:
Hi
it would be fair if the resource was not valued as a resource only as the number of IPs IP should be the basis for settlement - it is actually a cost there is a shortage of addresses, and some people have a lot of them unused and do not return them. If they paid for the addresses and it was a cost for them, they would wonder whether they really need them or whether it would be better to return some of them.
Pozdrawiam Gabriel Sulka
------------------------------------------------------------- Firma Handlowo - Usługowa KOMPEX 34-400 Nowy Targ ul. Szaflarska 62A tel(18) 264-60-55 pn-pt 09:30 - 17:00 sb. 09:30 - 13:00 www.kompex.pl ; bok@kompex.pl ; kompex@nowytarg.net
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Gert Doering Sent: Friday, March 29, 2024 12:49 PM To: domain@wkey.it Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Open House: Recording and Slides Available
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 07:04:30PM +0100, Andrea Borghi wrote:
My humble proposal is to class basing on how many additional resources a company have beyond the basics that was valid at the time of joining Ripe.
... and possibly how old these resources are... we got our blocks in 1995/1996, and they are considered "large" by today's standards. Back then, it was what you got as a fast-growing small ISP...
So if we really go for something based on allocation size, adding a yearly depreciation factor in would make this "more fair" (... we've been paying our share for the last 29(!) years already).
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer, Ingo Lalla, Karin Schuler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
_______________________________________________ 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/suport%40bunea.eu
Every Year we talking same things and every year the result is zero... Clearly it is not fair company which holds /22 IPV4 /32 IPV6 and few ASN to pay same amount as a company with /8 IPV4 /20 IPV6 and tens (if not hundreds) ASNs. Clearly charging scheme based on the holded resource not accepting. Well then why not we think about hard coded resource limits for each member: Annual fee of 1500 Euro per LIR gives : 1 x /20 Block of IPV4 (sum can be 16 x /24 or 4 x /22) 1 x /29 Block of IPV6 (sum can be 8 x /32...) 8 x ASNs If a LIR pass one or more of the above parameters the applied Annual fee +1500 Euro, so such LIR can hold and manage: 2 x /20 Block of IPV4 (sum) 2 x /29 Block of IPV6 (sum) 16 x ASN If again pass one or more of these +1500 Euro and so on. RIPE to send emails to each member with calculation for its next year fee, and with ask to free resources and return back to RIPE. Newly freed resources to be spread across members who not reach the first target (or at least to can ask for new resources without additional fee): 1 x /20 Block of IPV4 (sum can be 16 x /24 or 4 x /22 e.t.c.) 1 x /29 Block of IPV6 (sum can be 8 x /32... e.t.c) 8 x ASNs To legacy resource holders to be given 1 year, to find sponsoring LIR, and their resources to be counted in the LIR account sum resources. Or to be asked to become LIRs, with 500 euro one pay joining fee. This way RIPE can predict and calculate its bugdet much better. Ivaylo Josifov VarnaIX / Varteh LTD +359 52 969393 Varna, Bulgaria On Fri, 29 Mar 2024, Firma KOMPEX wrote:
Hi
it would be fair if the resource was not valued as a resource only as the number of IPs IP should be the basis for settlement - it is actually a cost there is a shortage of addresses, and some people have a lot of them unused and do not return them. If they paid for the addresses and it was a cost for them, they would wonder whether they really need them or whether it would be better to return some of them.
Pozdrawiam Gabriel Sulka
------------------------------------------------------------- Firma Handlowo - Us?ugowa KOMPEX 34-400 Nowy Targ ul. Szaflarska 62A tel(18) 264-60-55 pn-pt 09:30 - 17:00 sb. 09:30 - 13:00 www.kompex.pl ; bok@kompex.pl ; kompex@nowytarg.net
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Gert Doering Sent: Friday, March 29, 2024 12:49 PM To: domain@wkey.it Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Open House: Recording and Slides Available
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 07:04:30PM +0100, Andrea Borghi wrote:
My humble proposal is to class basing on how many additional resources a company have beyond the basics that was valid at the time of joining Ripe.
... and possibly how old these resources are... we got our blocks in 1995/1996, and they are considered "large" by today's standards. Back then, it was what you got as a fast-growing small ISP...
So if we really go for something based on allocation size, adding a yearly depreciation factor in would make this "more fair" (... we've been paying our share for the last 29(!) years already).
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer, Ingo Lalla, Karin Schuler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
_______________________________________________ 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/ivaylo%40bglans.net
Which underscores how ridiculous some people’s assumptions about “size” are -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: 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 Gert Doering <gert@space.net> Date: Friday, 29 March 2024 at 11:50 To: domain@wkey.it <domain@wkey.it> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Open House: Recording and Slides Available [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Please use caution when opening attachments from unrecognised sources. Hi, On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 07:04:30PM +0100, Andrea Borghi wrote:
My humble proposal is to class basing on how many additional resources a company have beyond the basics that was valid at the time of joining Ripe.
... and possibly how old these resources are... we got our blocks in 1995/1996, and they are considered "large" by today's standards. Back then, it was what you got as a fast-growing small ISP... So if we really go for something based on allocation size, adding a yearly depreciation factor in would make this "more fair" (... we've been paying our share for the last 29(!) years already). Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer, Ingo Lalla, Karin Schuler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
This is a very good suggestion. Best regards, Jerzy Pawlus ACK Cyfronet AGH
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 07:04:30PM +0100, Andrea Borghi wrote:
My humble proposal is to class basing on how many additional resources a company have beyond the basics that was valid at the time of joining Ripe.
... and possibly how old these resources are... we got our blocks in 1995/1996, and they are considered "large" by today's standards. Back then, it was what you got as a fast-growing small ISP...
So if we really go for something based on allocation size, adding a yearly depreciation factor in would make this "more fair" (... we've been paying our share for the last 29(!) years already).
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer, Ingo Lalla, Karin Schuler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
_______________________________________________ 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/jerzy.pawlus%40cyf-kr...
So if we really go for something based on allocation size, adding a yearly depreciation factor in would make this "more fair" (... we've been paying our share for the last 29(!) years already).
Following this logic, as older one company is as less government taxes should pay ? If all LIRs pay same amount, they _MUST_ have same rights and hold same resources. If we dont change the things now, the future of RIPE is dark really dark. In next 5-10 years number of LIR members will go dramatically down, fees will go up. The IT market in europe will consolidate faster. No new bussiness will start and there will be non stop RIPE budged cuts. In the end RIPE will gone. there will be 15-20 mastodont companies which will not need organization like RIPE. Let's make things fair for all. Now (after 30 years developing bussines) can you tell your company is on same level with same money turnover as deutsche telekom for example ? Because you pay as much as DT for completely different bussiness scales. Ivaylo Josifov VarnaIX / Varteh LTD +359 52 969393 Varna, Bulgaria On Fri, 29 Mar 2024, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 07:04:30PM +0100, Andrea Borghi wrote:
My humble proposal is to class basing on how many additional resources a company have beyond the basics that was valid at the time of joining Ripe.
... and possibly how old these resources are... we got our blocks in 1995/1996, and they are considered "large" by today's standards. Back then, it was what you got as a fast-growing small ISP...
So if we really go for something based on allocation size, adding a yearly depreciation factor in would make this "more fair" (... we've been paying our share for the last 29(!) years already).
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer, Ingo Lalla, Karin Schuler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Always with the same thing. WHY must the fee's go up? WHY is the equivalent to an internet phone book listing SO expensive? If we drop several thousand LIR's then should RIPE not downsize, it's obviously serving less members and should have far much less work to do! It's just like any business, if you have 25,000 clients you can afford to have 100 staff. If within 5 years you now have 15,000 clients, you should have 75 staff, not raise your prices because you are afraid to fire staff. RIPE is a member driven organization and it should accurately reflect the will of it's members and as a member I say NO to changing the fee structure and that RIPE needs to tighten its belt like everyone else. If membership is shrinking then RIPE needs to shrink along side it! If RIPE shrinks so much as you claim, HOW can you justify such a huge budget! Let's not forget, if you want the 'whales' to pay significantly more than you, trust me, they will make sure their voice is heard far more than yours. After all if you pay 1,000, and I pay 100,000 , why should your opinion matter to me? We are no longer equal are we? Daniel~ On 3/29/24 10:06, ivaylo wrote:
So if we really go for something based on allocation size, adding a yearly depreciation factor in would make this "more fair" (... we've been paying our share for the last 29(!) years already).
Following this logic, as older one company is as less government taxes should pay ?
If all LIRs pay same amount, they _MUST_ have same rights and hold same resources. If we dont change the things now, the future of RIPE is dark really dark. In next 5-10 years number of LIR members will go dramatically down, fees will go up. The IT market in europe will consolidate faster. No new bussiness will start and there will be non stop RIPE budged cuts. In the end RIPE will gone. there will be 15-20 mastodont companies which will not need organization like RIPE.
Let's make things fair for all. Now (after 30 years developing bussines) can you tell your company is on same level with same money turnover as deutsche telekom for example ? Because you pay as much as DT for completely different bussiness scales.
Ivaylo Josifov VarnaIX / Varteh LTD +359 52 969393 Varna, Bulgaria
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 07:04:30PM +0100, Andrea Borghi wrote:
My humble proposal is to class basing on how many additional resources a company have beyond the basics that was valid at the time of joining Ripe.
... and possibly how old these resources are... we got our blocks in 1995/1996, and they are considered "large" by today's standards. Back then, it was what you got as a fast-growing small ISP...
So if we really go for something based on allocation size, adding a yearly depreciation factor in would make this "more fair" (... we've been paying our share for the last 29(!) years already).
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer, Ingo Lalla, Karin Schuler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
_______________________________________________ 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/daniel%40privatesyste...
Indeed. Regards, Claudiu Foleanu TENNET TELECOM March 29, 2024 5:34 PM, "Emanuele Roserba (Tinext)" wrote: I 100%. Agree. RIPE has taken the path of all bureaucratic organizations, that end up working for the good of the bureaucrats and not for that of the users, and its budget is going out of control. >> Emanuele Roserba, Head of Operations Managed Cloud Services | Operations email: Emanuele.Roserba@tinext.com (mailto:Emanuele.Roserba@tinext.com) direct: +41 91 612 2224 Lugano – Geneva – Milan – Dubai – Kuwait City www.tinext.com (http://www.tinext.com) | cloud.tinext.com (https://cloud.tinext.com/) (https://www.facebook.com/tinextdigital) (https://www.linkedin.com/company/tinext-sa) (https://twitter.com/tinext_group) CONFIDENTIALITY: this message (including any attachments transmitted with it) contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named herein. If you are not the herein named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute, copy or otherwise make use of this message. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake, and delete it from your systems. -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss On Behalf Of Daniel Pearson Sent: Friday, March 29, 2024 4:18 PM To: members-discuss@ripe.net (mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net) Subject: Re: [members-discuss] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Open House: Recording and Slides Available Always with the same thing. WHY must the fee's go up? WHY is the equivalent to an internet phone book listing SO expensive? If we drop several thousand LIR's then should RIPE not downsize, it's obviously serving less members and should have far much less work to do! It's just like any business, if you have 25,000 clients you can afford to have 100 staff. If within 5 years you now have 15,000 clients, you should have 75 staff, not raise your prices because you are afraid to fire staff. RIPE is a member driven organization and it should accurately reflect the will of it's members and as a member I say NO to changing the fee structure and that RIPE needs to tighten its belt like everyone else. If membership is shrinking then RIPE needs to shrink along side it! If RIPE shrinks so much as you claim, HOW can you justify such a huge budget! Let's not forget, if you want the 'whales' to pay significantly more than you, trust me, they will make sure their voice is heard far more than yours. After all if you pay 1,000, and I pay 100,000 , why should your opinion matter to me? We are no longer equal are we? Daniel~ On 3/29/24 10:06, ivaylo wrote:
So if we really go for something based on allocation size, adding a yearly depreciation factor in would make this "more fair" (... we've been paying our share for the last 29(!) years already).
Following this logic, as older one company is as less government taxes should pay ?
If all LIRs pay same amount, they _MUST_ have same rights and hold same resources. If we dont change the things now, the future of RIPE is dark really dark. In next 5-10 years number of LIR members will go dramatically down, fees will go up. The IT market in europe will consolidate faster. No new bussiness will start and there will be non stop RIPE budged cuts. In the end RIPE will gone. there will be 15-20 mastodont companies which will not need organization like RIPE.
Let's make things fair for all. Now (after 30 years developing bussines) can you tell your company is on same level with same money turnover as deutsche telekom for example ? Because you pay as much as DT for completely different bussiness scales.
Ivaylo Josifov VarnaIX / Varteh LTD +359 52 969393 Varna, Bulgaria
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 07:04:30PM +0100, Andrea Borghi wrote:
My humble proposal is to class basing on how many additional resources a company have beyond the basics that was valid at the time of joining Ripe.
... and possibly how old these resources are... we got our blocks in 1995/1996, and they are considered "large" by today's standards. Back then, it was what you got as a fast-growing small ISP...
So if we really go for something based on allocation size, adding a yearly depreciation factor in would make this "more fair" (... we've been paying our share for the last 29(!) years already).
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer, Ingo Lalla, Karin Schuler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net (mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net) https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss (https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss) Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/daniel%40privat (https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/daniel%40privat) esystems.net
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net (mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net) https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss (https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss) Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/emanuele.roserba%40ti... (https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/emanuele.roserba%40ti...)
I think you miss some very important key points... In normal conditions world economic is target to have 2% anual inflations, and we all know what is the situation in the past 2 years we have not less than 30% inflation so just for past 2 years we have 60% that also reflect to RIPE budget. The ways to compensate this is by increasing member's fee or to attract new members. Obviously there are no many new candidates to become LIRs, so what else left ? RIPE is not just a "Internet Phone Book", they must support army of bureaucrats, lawyers, techcans, pay for equipment, high speed internet access, training programs and many more. How much do you think it cost to hire just one lawyer in a country like Netherland ? How much it cost to hire a skilled programmer or network engeneer ? As such I can trully tell you that I will not work for less than 4K euro and taxes (40%) separate which is only for one person 70 000 euro per year. Now take a look at how many different contires with different laws RIPE operates, how many different services like rpki, DNS and e.t.c. services they have to support. All of this need money. Do not get me wrong, I also think RIPE _MUST_ tight the bells and _MUST_ spend our money more transparently and reasonably. But I also see that to support all aspect of RIPE work, an appropriate budget is needed. By your logic, if 15k members drop which is 60%, the RIPE budget also must drop by 60%, to fire 60% of the staff, and you beleave all will keep working as before ? And what if 90% of the current LIRs merged/closed/bankrupt ? You think your fee will not go up and RIPE will still exist to defend and your interests + to provide you services needed for your bussiness ? For every ecosystem is extreamly important to have many and different members, some will gone, other will come with the years, but for sustainable life, their number must be not drop under some levels. With current charging scheme we going on the road to drop members and to not attract new such. Ivaylo Josifov VarnaIX / Varteh LTD +359 52 969393 Varna, Bulgaria On Fri, 29 Mar 2024, Emanuele Roserba (Tinext) wrote:
I 100%. Agree. RIPE has taken the path of all bureaucratic organizations, that end up working for the good of the bureaucrats and not for that of the users, and its budget is going out of control.
Emanuele Roserba, Head of Operations Managed Cloud Services | Operations email: Emanuele.Roserba@tinext.com direct: +41 91 612 2224
Lugano ? Geneva ? Milan ? Dubai ? Kuwait City
www.tinext.com | cloud.tinext.com
[IMAGE] [IMAGE] [IMAGE]
CONFIDENTIALITY: this message (including any attachments transmitted with it) contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named herein. If you are not the herein named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute, copy or otherwise make use of this message. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake, and delete it from your systems.
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Daniel Pearson Sent: Friday, March 29, 2024 4:18 PM To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Open House: Recording and Slides Available
Always with the same thing.
WHY must the fee's go up? WHY is the equivalent to an internet phone book listing SO expensive? If we drop several thousand LIR's then should RIPE not downsize, it's obviously serving less members and should have far much less work to do!
It's just like any business, if you have 25,000 clients you can afford to have 100 staff.
If within 5 years you now have 15,000 clients, you should have 75 staff, not raise your prices because you are afraid to fire staff. RIPE is a member driven organization and it should accurately reflect the will of it's members and as a member I say NO to changing the fee structure and that RIPE needs to tighten its belt like everyone else. If membership is shrinking then RIPE needs to shrink along side it!
If RIPE shrinks so much as you claim, HOW can you justify such a huge budget!
Let's not forget, if you want the 'whales' to pay significantly more than you, trust me, they will make sure their voice is heard far more than yours. After all if you pay 1,000, and I pay 100,000 , why should your opinion matter to me? We are no longer equal are we?
Daniel~
On 3/29/24 10:06, ivaylo wrote:
So if we really go for something based on allocation size, adding a yearly depreciation factor in would make this "more fair" (... we've been paying our share for the last 29(!) years already).
Following this logic, as older one company is as less government taxes should pay ?
If all LIRs pay same amount, they _MUST_ have same rights and hold same resources. If we dont change the things now, the future of RIPE is dark really dark. In next 5-10 years number of LIR members will go dramatically down, fees will go up. The IT market in europe will consolidate faster. No new bussiness will start and there will be non stop RIPE budged cuts. In the end RIPE will gone. there will be 15-20 mastodont companies which will not need organization like RIPE.
Let's make things fair for all. Now (after 30 years developing bussines) can you tell your company is on same level with same money turnover as deutsche telekom for example ? Because you pay as much as DT for completely different bussiness scales.
Ivaylo Josifov VarnaIX / Varteh LTD +359 52 969393 Varna, Bulgaria
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 07:04:30PM +0100, Andrea Borghi wrote:
My humble proposal is to class basing on how many additional resources a company have beyond the basics that was valid at the time of joining Ripe.
... and possibly how old these resources are... we got our blocks in 1995/1996, and they are considered "large" by today's standards. Back then, it was what you got as a fast-growing small ISP...
So if we really go for something based on allocation size, adding a yearly depreciation factor in would make this "more fair" (... we've been paying our share for the last 29(!) years already).
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer, Ingo Lalla, Karin Schuler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
_______________________________________________ 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/daniel%40privat esystems.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/emanuele.roserba%40t inext.com
participants (10)
-
Andrea Borghi -
claudiu.foleanu＠thorpanel.com -
Daniel Pearson -
Emanuele Roserba (Tinext) -
Firma KOMPEX -
Gert Doering -
ivaylo -
J Pawlus -
Michele Neylon - Blacknight -
Petru Bunea