Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024
Hi Simon, Thank you for the summary of proposed charging schemes. I only have a concern whether the ASN fee has received a rough approval from members. Is the AS number a limited resource, especially 32-bit ASNs? Is it valuable somehow? I would suggest to prepare a scheme without the ASN fee. And of course, members whose invoice amount will be increased should receive the quarterly payments benefit. PS. It's sad when the only option to keep the flat fee is don't approve all the proposed models. -- Kind regards, Sergey Myasoedov
On Apr 12, 2023, at 09:45, Simon-Jan Haytink <simonjh@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear RIPE NCC members,
I want to thank all those who contributed to the consultation so far on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 and the model we should use for the coming years.
We can now share three draft models that we developed based on input from the members on the Members Discuss mailing list and in the Charging Scheme Open House, as well as from the discussions at the recent Executive Board Meeting.
The result is that we are proposing three draft charging scheme models: one category-based and two that are based on the previous "one LIR account, one fee" model. We hope to receive feedback on these models by 19 April so the Executive Board can propose the final versions on 26 April. The members will then vote on those three models at the upcoming General Meeting on 24-26 May.
The three models all aim to fulfil a budget that is roughly the same as 2023 plus general cost increases including inflation, so EUR 42-45 million. By doing this, we can ensure that we can meet the potential budgetary requirements for 2024 while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contributions should we receive excess funds. The Activity Plan and Budget will be discussed with members this coming Autumn.
The three models are available to review at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/cha...
We also provide an updated calculator where members can see for themselves how much they might pay under the draft models: https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/new...
To summarise the main features of the three models:
Model A - Category Model
This model has ten categories to provide greater granularity. It also charges separately for independent and legacy resources in exactly the same way as in previous years. Additionally, a separate 50 EUR ASN assignment fee has been added. Both separately charged resources do not contribute to the category scores. This means there is no double charging and no specific charging for transfers or administrative work carried out by the RIPE NCC. There is a New /24 IPv4 administration fee to ensure there is a financial consequence to joining the IPv4 Waiting List. The fee would be payable upon receipt of the /24, and members joining the waiting list who do not have an eligible LIR account, would pay the new LIR sign-up fee to open a new LIR account and join the waiting list.
With this model, approximately 68% of members would pay less than the current annual fee, with the remaining 32% paying more.
The discussion with members helped us to see that a category-based model would receive significant support from members if the version was simplified. Should members see the need to charge for other elements, then that can be incorporated into the category model in the coming years. Any such additional charges could potentially then reduce the fees per category.
Model B - Price increase and ASN fee
This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there is a price increase of EUR 150 and a 50 EUR ASN fee to ensure we can meet our budgetary requirements while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contribution should we receive excess funds.
Model C - Transfer fee and ASN fee
This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there is a charge of EUR 1,000 per transfer to be paid by the receiving party and a 50 EUR ASN fee to ensure we can meet our budgetary requirements while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contribution should we receive excess funds.
Further information on the charging scheme models is provided at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/cha...
The RIPE NCC Executive Board believes that a category-based model is the best option to help address uncertainty that might be caused by consolidation with multiple LIRs and to provide greater flexibility and fairness in how we charge members in the coming years.
On 26 April, the final versions of the charging schemes that members will vote on will be published for the members to consider and discuss. If you have comments on the draft charging schemes, we therefore ask you to comment on the members-discuss mailing list by 19 April so we have time to incorporate any feedback if necessary.
Importantly, we ask all members to register for the RIPE NCC General Meeting where the final decision will be in your hands. Register to participate and vote at: https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active
Simon-Jan Haytink Chief Financial Officer RIPE NCC
Hi Simon, I agree with Sergey, it is quite disappointing to see that all 3 models include a 50 EUR/year charge for ASNs. While I am not as opposed to it as including ASNs in the category calculations, I do still think it has a chance to reduce the number of new younger network engineers. I won't go on too much about it again as I have already mentioned it before but I first got involved with the RIPE NCC and RIPE community thanks to the RIPE NCC not charging anything for ASNs. (and I am not the only one) I do know that these ASNs have a cost to the RIPE NCC because of the administrative work involved but I think that is a cost that is worth accepting and financing through other fees. Ben Cox posted about this[1] and I pretty much entirely agree with the points he is making. I urge the executive board to postpone this question for now (by removing the ASN fee from all 3 proposed models) and have a new vote later once we have decided on the other details of the charging scheme. I feel like there are too many parameters currently for it to make sense as one vote and this important detail might be overlooked. Additionally I see that the proposed transfer fee is still 1000 EUR which feels very high for resources that aren't IPv4. Please consider limiting this fee to only IPv4 space or heavily reducing it for IPv6 space and ASNs to 50 EUR or something. [1]: https://benjojo.co.uk/u/benjojo/h/7Vt72t2jh48Djh7nSw -Cynthia On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 4:23 PM Sergey Myasoedov via members-discuss < members-discuss@ripe.net> wrote:
Hi Simon,
Thank you for the summary of proposed charging schemes.
I only have a concern whether the ASN fee has received a rough approval from members. Is the AS number a limited resource, especially 32-bit ASNs? Is it valuable somehow?
I would suggest to prepare a scheme without the ASN fee. And of course, members whose invoice amount will be increased should receive the quarterly payments benefit.
PS. It's sad when the only option to keep the flat fee is don't approve all the proposed models.
-- Kind regards, Sergey Myasoedov
On Apr 12, 2023, at 09:45, Simon-Jan Haytink <simonjh@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear RIPE NCC members,
I want to thank all those who contributed to the consultation so far on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 and the model we should use for the coming years.
We can now share three draft models that we developed based on input from the members on the Members Discuss mailing list and in the Charging Scheme Open House, as well as from the discussions at the recent Executive Board Meeting.
The result is that we are proposing three draft charging scheme models: one category-based and two that are based on the previous "one LIR account, one fee" model. We hope to receive feedback on these models by 19 April so the Executive Board can propose the final versions on 26 April. The members will then vote on those three models at the upcoming General Meeting on 24-26 May.
The three models all aim to fulfil a budget that is roughly the same as 2023 plus general cost increases including inflation, so EUR 42-45 million. By doing this, we can ensure that we can meet the potential budgetary requirements for 2024 while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contributions should we receive excess funds. The Activity Plan and Budget will be discussed with members this coming Autumn.
The three models are available to review at:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/cha...
We also provide an updated calculator where members can see for
themselves how much they might pay under the draft models:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/new...
To summarise the main features of the three models:
Model A - Category Model
This model has ten categories to provide greater granularity. It also
charges separately for independent and legacy resources in exactly the same way as in previous years. Additionally, a separate 50 EUR ASN assignment fee has been added. Both separately charged resources do not contribute to the category scores. This means there is no double charging and no specific charging for transfers or administrative work carried out by the RIPE NCC. There is a New /24 IPv4 administration fee to ensure there is a financial consequence to joining the IPv4 Waiting List. The fee would be payable upon receipt of the /24, and members joining the waiting list who do not have an eligible LIR account, would pay the new LIR sign-up fee to open a new LIR account and join the waiting list.
With this model, approximately 68% of members would pay less than the
current annual fee, with the remaining 32% paying more.
The discussion with members helped us to see that a category-based model
would receive significant support from members if the version was simplified. Should members see the need to charge for other elements, then that can be incorporated into the category model in the coming years. Any such additional charges could potentially then reduce the fees per category.
Model B - Price increase and ASN fee
This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there is
a price increase of EUR 150 and a 50 EUR ASN fee to ensure we can meet our budgetary requirements while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contribution should we receive excess funds.
Model C - Transfer fee and ASN fee
This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there is
a charge of EUR 1,000 per transfer to be paid by the receiving party and a 50 EUR ASN fee to ensure we can meet our budgetary requirements while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contribution should we receive excess funds.
Further information on the charging scheme models is provided at:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/cha...
The RIPE NCC Executive Board believes that a category-based model is the
best option to help address uncertainty that might be caused by consolidation with multiple LIRs and to provide greater flexibility and fairness in how we charge members in the coming years.
On 26 April, the final versions of the charging schemes that members
will vote on will be published for the members to consider and discuss. If you have comments on the draft charging schemes, we therefore ask you to comment on the members-discuss mailing list by 19 April so we have time to incorporate any feedback if necessary.
Importantly, we ask all members to register for the RIPE NCC General
Meeting where the final decision will be in your hands. Register to participate and vote at:
https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active
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/me%40cynthia.re
On Apr 12, 2023, at 09:45, Simon-Jan Haytink <simonjh@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear RIPE NCC members,
I want to thank all those who contributed to the consultation so far on
Hi Simon, by reading this email and checking the calculator again I have the feeling that the "listening to the members" as you say was not happening. A majority of the members want a usage based charging scheme (as per the discussions on this mailing list) and this is completely not reflected. Just adding some more categories with the highest still only arround 10K is not sufficient. Also what I do not understand is that my personal account with more or less one of the lowest resources you can get is already in Category 2?!? I can just repeat what I have already done: It should be billed by real resources used and directly calculated not within categories Smaller LIRs should pay less and bigger LIRs should pay more It is important that there is an incentive to get rid of unused resources and bring them back, this is only possible when you pay for every resource separate, otherwise no-one will take care. I think this 3 models are not ready for vote and need to be revised. Also Model 3 I completely do not understand. Why should someone pay for transfers? This just means changes are going on and something happens. Why these companies should then pay more? The "bad" companies are the ones that do not implement IPv6 and their development just stall so nothing happens. Michael the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 and the model we should use for the coming years.
We can now share three draft models that we developed based on input from
the members on the Members Discuss mailing list and in the Charging Scheme Open House, as well as from the discussions at the recent Executive Board Meeting.
The result is that we are proposing three draft charging scheme models:
one category-based and two that are based on the previous "one LIR account, one fee" model. We hope to receive feedback on these models by 19 April so the Executive Board can propose the final versions on 26 April. The members will then vote on those three models at the upcoming General Meeting on 24-26 May.
The three models all aim to fulfil a budget that is roughly the same as
2023 plus general cost increases including inflation, so EUR 42-45 million. By doing this, we can ensure that we can meet the potential budgetary requirements for 2024 while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contributions should we receive excess funds. The Activity Plan and Budget will be discussed with members this coming Autumn.
The three models are available to review at:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/cha rging-scheme-2024-consultation
We also provide an updated calculator where members can see for themselves
how much they might pay under the draft models:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/new -calculator-charging-scheme-2024.xlsx
To summarise the main features of the three models:
Model A - Category Model
This model has ten categories to provide greater granularity. It also
charges separately for independent and legacy resources in exactly the same way as in previous years. Additionally, a separate 50 EUR ASN assignment fee has been added. Both separately charged resources do not contribute to the category scores. This means there is no double charging and no specific charging for transfers or administrative work carried out by the RIPE NCC. There is a New /24 IPv4 administration fee to ensure there is a financial consequence to joining the IPv4 Waiting List. The fee would be payable upon receipt of the /24, and members joining the waiting list who do not have an eligible LIR account, would pay the new LIR sign-up fee to open a new LIR account and join the waiting list.
With this model, approximately 68% of members would pay less than the
current annual fee, with the remaining 32% paying more.
The discussion with members helped us to see that a category-based model
would receive significant support from members if the version was simplified. Should members see the need to charge for other elements, then that can be incorporated into the category model in the coming years. Any such additional charges could potentially then reduce the fees per category.
Model B - Price increase and ASN fee
This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there is a
price increase of EUR 150 and a 50 EUR ASN fee to ensure we can meet our budgetary requirements while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contribution should we receive excess funds.
Model C - Transfer fee and ASN fee
This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there is a
charge of EUR 1,000 per transfer to be paid by the receiving party and a 50 EUR ASN fee to ensure we can meet our budgetary requirements while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contribution should we receive excess funds.
Further information on the charging scheme models is provided at:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/cha rging-scheme-2024-consultation/
The RIPE NCC Executive Board believes that a category-based model is the
best option to help address uncertainty that might be caused by consolidation with multiple LIRs and to provide greater flexibility and fairness in how we charge members in the coming years.
On 26 April, the final versions of the charging schemes that members will
vote on will be published for the members to consider and discuss. If you have comments on the draft charging schemes, we therefore ask you to comment on the members-discuss mailing list by 19 April so we have time to incorporate any feedback if necessary.
Importantly, we ask all members to register for the RIPE NCC General
Meeting where the final decision will be in your hands. Register to participate and vote at:
https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active
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/info%40cowmedia.de
I'd like to also say that I think the idea of having model A based on the number of resources used, instead of fixed categories, would be better. It would help encourage unused resources to be transferred or returned. --- Regards, Paul Lewis. On 2023-04-13 19:02, cowmedia.de wrote:
Hi Simon,
by reading this email and checking the calculator again I have the feeling that the "listening to the members" as you say was not happening. A majority of the members want a usage based charging scheme (as per the discussions on this mailing list) and this is completely not reflected. Just adding some more categories with the highest still only arround 10K is not sufficient.
Also what I do not understand is that my personal account with more or less one of the lowest resources you can get is already in Category 2?!?
I can just repeat what I have already done:
It should be billed by real resources used and directly calculated not within categories Smaller LIRs should pay less and bigger LIRs should pay more It is important that there is an incentive to get rid of unused resources and bring them back, this is only possible when you pay for every resource separate, otherwise no-one will take care.
I think this 3 models are not ready for vote and need to be revised. Also Model 3 I completely do not understand. Why should someone pay for transfers? This just means changes are going on and something happens. Why these companies should then pay more? The "bad" companies are the ones that do not implement IPv6 and their development just stall so nothing happens.
Michael
On Apr 12, 2023, at 09:45, Simon-Jan Haytink <simonjh@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear RIPE NCC members,
I want to thank all those who contributed to the consultation so far on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 and the model we should use for the coming years.
We can now share three draft models that we developed based on input from the members on the Members Discuss mailing list and in the Charging Scheme Open House, as well as from the discussions at the recent Executive Board Meeting.
The result is that we are proposing three draft charging scheme models: one category-based and two that are based on the previous "one LIR account, one fee" model. We hope to receive feedback on these models by 19 April so the Executive Board can propose the final versions on 26 April. The members will then vote on those three models at the upcoming General Meeting on 24-26 May.
The three models all aim to fulfil a budget that is roughly the same as 2023 plus general cost increases including inflation, so EUR 42-45 million. By doing this, we can ensure that we can meet the potential budgetary requirements for 2024 while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contributions should we receive excess funds. The Activity Plan and Budget will be discussed with members this coming Autumn.
The three models are available to review at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/cha rging-scheme-2024-consultation
We also provide an updated calculator where members can see for themselves how much they might pay under the draft models:https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/new -calculator-charging-scheme-2024.xlsx
To summarise the main features of the three models:
Model A - Category Model
This model has ten categories to provide greater granularity. It also charges separately for independent and legacy resources in exactly the same way as in previous years. Additionally, a separate 50 EUR ASN assignment fee has been added. Both separately charged resources do not contribute to the category scores. This means there is no double charging and no specific charging for transfers or administrative work carried out by the RIPE NCC. There is a New /24 IPv4 administration fee to ensure there is a financial consequence to joining the IPv4 Waiting List. The fee would be payable upon receipt of the /24, and members joining the waiting list who do not have an eligible LIR account, would pay the new LIR sign-up fee to open a new LIR account and join the waiting list.
With this model, approximately 68% of members would pay less than the current annual fee, with the remaining 32% paying more.
The discussion with members helped us to see that a category-based model would receive significant support from members if the version was simplified. Should members see the need to charge for other elements, then that can be incorporated into the category model in the coming years. Any such additional charges could potentially then reduce the fees per category.
Model B - Price increase and ASN fee
This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there is a price increase of EUR 150 and a 50 EUR ASN fee to ensure we can meet our budgetary requirements while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contribution should we receive excess funds.
Model C - Transfer fee and ASN fee
This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there is a charge of EUR 1,000 per transfer to be paid by the receiving party and a 50 EUR ASN fee to ensure we can meet our budgetary requirements while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contribution should we receive excess funds.
Further information on the charging scheme models is provided at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/cha rging-scheme-2024-consultation/
The RIPE NCC Executive Board believes that a category-based model is the best option to help address uncertainty that might be caused by consolidation with multiple LIRs and to provide greater flexibility and fairness in how we charge members in the coming years.
On 26 April, the final versions of the charging schemes that members will vote on will be published for the members to consider and discuss. If you have comments on the draft charging schemes, we therefore ask you to comment on the members-discuss mailing list by 19 April so we have time to incorporate any feedback if necessary.
Importantly, we ask all members to register for the RIPE NCC General Meeting where the final decision will be in your hands. Register to participate and vote at:
https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active
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/info%40cowmedia.de _______________________________________________ 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/paul.lewis%40fr89.uk
Although i find this idea interesting, this would IMHO just lead to fake inetnum records in the DB to avoid the costs. Regards, Lennart On 14.04.2023 17:27, Paul Lewis wrote:
I'd like to also say that I think the idea of having model A based on the number of resources used, instead of fixed categories, would be better. It would help encourage unused resources to be transferred or returned.
---
Regards, Paul Lewis.
On 2023-04-13 19:02, cowmedia.de wrote:
Hi Simon,
by reading this email and checking the calculator again I have the feeling that the "listening to the members" as you say was not happening. A majority of the members want a usage based charging scheme (as per the discussions on this mailing list) and this is completely not reflected. Just adding some more categories with the highest still only arround 10K is not sufficient.
Also what I do not understand is that my personal account with more or less one of the lowest resources you can get is already in Category 2?!?
I can just repeat what I have already done:
It should be billed by real resources used and directly calculated not within categories Smaller LIRs should pay less and bigger LIRs should pay more It is important that there is an incentive to get rid of unused resources and bring them back, this is only possible when you pay for every resource separate, otherwise no-one will take care.
I think this 3 models are not ready for vote and need to be revised. Also Model 3 I completely do not understand. Why should someone pay for transfers? This just means changes are going on and something happens. Why these companies should then pay more? The "bad" companies are the ones that do not implement IPv6 and their development just stall so nothing happens.
Michael
On Apr 12, 2023, at 09:45, Simon-Jan Haytink <simonjh@ripe.net <mailto:simonjh@ripe.net>> wrote:
Dear RIPE NCC members,
I want to thank all those who contributed to the consultation so far on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 and the model we should use for the coming years.
We can now share three draft models that we developed based on input from the members on the Members Discuss mailing list and in the Charging Scheme Open House, as well as from the discussions at the recent Executive Board Meeting.
The result is that we are proposing three draft charging scheme models: one category-based and two that are based on the previous "one LIR account, one fee" model. We hope to receive feedback on these models by 19 April so the Executive Board can propose the final versions on 26 April. The members will then vote on those three models at the upcoming General Meeting on 24-26 May.
The three models all aim to fulfil a budget that is roughly the same as 2023 plus general cost increases including inflation, so EUR 42-45 million. By doing this, we can ensure that we can meet the potential budgetary requirements for 2024 while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contributions should we receive excess funds. The Activity Plan and Budget will be discussed with members this coming Autumn.
The three models are available to review at:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/cha rging-scheme-2024-consultation
We also provide an updated calculator where members can see for themselves
how much they might pay under the draft models:https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/new -calculator-charging-scheme-2024.xlsx
To summarise the main features of the three models:
Model A - Category Model
This model has ten categories to provide greater granularity. It also
charges separately for independent and legacy resources in exactly the same way as in previous years. Additionally, a separate 50 EUR ASN assignment fee has been added. Both separately charged resources do not contribute to the category scores. This means there is no double charging and no specific charging for transfers or administrative work carried out by the RIPE NCC. There is a New /24 IPv4 administration fee to ensure there is a financial consequence to joining the IPv4 Waiting List. The fee would be payable upon receipt of the /24, and members joining the waiting list who do not have an eligible LIR account, would pay the new LIR sign-up fee to open a new LIR account and join the waiting list.
With this model, approximately 68% of members would pay less than the
current annual fee, with the remaining 32% paying more.
The discussion with members helped us to see that a category-based model
would receive significant support from members if the version was simplified. Should members see the need to charge for other elements, then that can be incorporated into the category model in the coming years. Any such additional charges could potentially then reduce the fees per category.
Model B - Price increase and ASN fee
This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there is a
price increase of EUR 150 and a 50 EUR ASN fee to ensure we can meet our budgetary requirements while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contribution should we receive excess funds.
Model C - Transfer fee and ASN fee
This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there is a
charge of EUR 1,000 per transfer to be paid by the receiving party and a 50 EUR ASN fee to ensure we can meet our budgetary requirements while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contribution should we receive excess funds.
Further information on the charging scheme models is provided at:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/cha rging-scheme-2024-consultation/
The RIPE NCC Executive Board believes that a category-based model is the
best option to help address uncertainty that might be caused by consolidation with multiple LIRs and to provide greater flexibility and fairness in how we charge members in the coming years.
On 26 April, the final versions of the charging schemes that members will
vote on will be published for the members to consider and discuss. If you have comments on the draft charging schemes, we therefore ask you to comment on the members-discuss mailing list by 19 April so we have time to incorporate any feedback if necessary.
Importantly, we ask all members to register for the RIPE NCC General
Meeting where the final decision will be in your hands. Register to participate and vote at:
https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active
Simon-Jan Haytink Chief Financial Officer RIPE NCC
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/info%40cowmedia.de
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/paul.lewis%40fr89.uk
_______________________________________________ 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/mail%40lseitz.de
-- Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Lennart Seitz PGP-Schlüssel: 0x187abd76a5660379 (https://pgp.lseitz.de/key.asc) --
Hi Lennart, not sure why do you think someone create fake records? The numbers for the calculation are independent from the records in the IP databases, but taken from the internal RIPE Database and not only used or unused ressources are billed, but ALL. Michael Von: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> Im Auftrag von Lennart Seitz via members-discuss Gesendet: Montag, 17. April 2023 18:47 An: members-discuss@ripe.net Betreff: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024 Although i find this idea interesting, this would IMHO just lead to fake inetnum records in the DB to avoid the costs. Regards, Lennart On 14.04.2023 17:27, Paul Lewis wrote: I'd like to also say that I think the idea of having model A based on the number of resources used, instead of fixed categories, would be better. It would help encourage unused resources to be transferred or returned. --- Regards, Paul Lewis. On 2023-04-13 19:02, cowmedia.de wrote: Hi Simon, by reading this email and checking the calculator again I have the feeling that the "listening to the members" as you say was not happening. A majority of the members want a usage based charging scheme (as per the discussions on this mailing list) and this is completely not reflected. Just adding some more categories with the highest still only arround 10K is not sufficient. Also what I do not understand is that my personal account with more or less one of the lowest resources you can get is already in Category 2?!? I can just repeat what I have already done: It should be billed by real resources used and directly calculated not within categories Smaller LIRs should pay less and bigger LIRs should pay more It is important that there is an incentive to get rid of unused resources and bring them back, this is only possible when you pay for every resource separate, otherwise no-one will take care. I think this 3 models are not ready for vote and need to be revised. Also Model 3 I completely do not understand. Why should someone pay for transfers? This just means changes are going on and something happens. Why these companies should then pay more? The "bad" companies are the ones that do not implement IPv6 and their development just stall so nothing happens. Michael On Apr 12, 2023, at 09:45, Simon-Jan Haytink <simonjh@ripe.net <mailto:simonjh@ripe.net> > wrote: Dear RIPE NCC members, I want to thank all those who contributed to the consultation so far on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 and the model we should use for the coming years. We can now share three draft models that we developed based on input from the members on the Members Discuss mailing list and in the Charging Scheme Open House, as well as from the discussions at the recent Executive Board Meeting. The result is that we are proposing three draft charging scheme models: one category-based and two that are based on the previous "one LIR account, one fee" model. We hope to receive feedback on these models by 19 April so the Executive Board can propose the final versions on 26 April. The members will then vote on those three models at the upcoming General Meeting on 24-26 May. The three models all aim to fulfil a budget that is roughly the same as 2023 plus general cost increases including inflation, so EUR 42-45 million. By doing this, we can ensure that we can meet the potential budgetary requirements for 2024 while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contributions should we receive excess funds. The Activity Plan and Budget will be discussed with members this coming Autumn. The three models are available to review at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/cha rging-scheme-2024-consultation We also provide an updated calculator where members can see for themselves how much they might pay under the draft models:https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/new -calculator-charging-scheme-2024.xlsx To summarise the main features of the three models: Model A - Category Model This model has ten categories to provide greater granularity. It also charges separately for independent and legacy resources in exactly the same way as in previous years. Additionally, a separate 50 EUR ASN assignment fee has been added. Both separately charged resources do not contribute to the category scores. This means there is no double charging and no specific charging for transfers or administrative work carried out by the RIPE NCC. There is a New /24 IPv4 administration fee to ensure there is a financial consequence to joining the IPv4 Waiting List. The fee would be payable upon receipt of the /24, and members joining the waiting list who do not have an eligible LIR account, would pay the new LIR sign-up fee to open a new LIR account and join the waiting list. With this model, approximately 68% of members would pay less than the current annual fee, with the remaining 32% paying more. The discussion with members helped us to see that a category-based model would receive significant support from members if the version was simplified. Should members see the need to charge for other elements, then that can be incorporated into the category model in the coming years. Any such additional charges could potentially then reduce the fees per category. Model B - Price increase and ASN fee This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there is a price increase of EUR 150 and a 50 EUR ASN fee to ensure we can meet our budgetary requirements while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contribution should we receive excess funds. Model C - Transfer fee and ASN fee This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there is a charge of EUR 1,000 per transfer to be paid by the receiving party and a 50 EUR ASN fee to ensure we can meet our budgetary requirements while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contribution should we receive excess funds. Further information on the charging scheme models is provided at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/cha rging-scheme-2024-consultation/ The RIPE NCC Executive Board believes that a category-based model is the best option to help address uncertainty that might be caused by consolidation with multiple LIRs and to provide greater flexibility and fairness in how we charge members in the coming years. On 26 April, the final versions of the charging schemes that members will vote on will be published for the members to consider and discuss. If you have comments on the draft charging schemes, we therefore ask you to comment on the members-discuss mailing list by 19 April so we have time to incorporate any feedback if necessary. Importantly, we ask all members to register for the RIPE NCC General Meeting where the final decision will be in your hands. Register to participate and vote at: https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active Simon-Jan Haytink Chief Financial Officer RIPE NCC _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/info%40cowmedia.de _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/paul.lewis%40fr89.uk _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/mail%40lseitz.de -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Lennart Seitz PGP-Schlüssel: 0x187abd76a5660379 (https://pgp.lseitz.de/key.asc) --
Hi Michael, that would be my way of interpreting
having model A based on the number of resources used, instead of fixed categories
But this could be easily avoided by creating fake records, therefore my assumptions of them rising in case this would be deployed. Regards, Lennart On 18.04.2023 22:08, cowmedia.de wrote:
Hi Lennart,
not sure why do you think someone create fake records? The numbers for the calculation are independent from the records in the IP databases, but taken from the internal RIPE Database and not only used or unused ressources are billed, but ALL.
Michael
*Von:*members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> *Im Auftrag von *Lennart Seitz via members-discuss *Gesendet:* Montag, 17. April 2023 18:47 *An:* members-discuss@ripe.net *Betreff:* Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024
Although i find this idea interesting, this would IMHO just lead to fake inetnum records in the DB to avoid the costs.
Regards, Lennart
On 14.04.2023 17:27, Paul Lewis wrote:
I'd like to also say that I think the idea of having model A based on the number of resources used, instead of fixed categories, would be better. It would help encourage unused resources to be transferred or returned.
---
Regards, Paul Lewis.
On 2023-04-13 19:02, cowmedia.de wrote:
Hi Simon,
by reading this email and checking the calculator again I have the feeling that the "listening to the members" as you say was not happening. A majority of the members want a usage based charging scheme (as per the discussions on this mailing list) and this is completely not reflected. Just adding some more categories with the highest still only arround 10K is not sufficient.
Also what I do not understand is that my personal account with more or less one of the lowest resources you can get is already in Category 2?!?
I can just repeat what I have already done:
It should be billed by real resources used and directly calculated not within categories Smaller LIRs should pay less and bigger LIRs should pay more It is important that there is an incentive to get rid of unused resources and bring them back, this is only possible when you pay for every resource separate, otherwise no-one will take care.
I think this 3 models are not ready for vote and need to be revised. Also Model 3 I completely do not understand. Why should someone pay for transfers? This just means changes are going on and something happens. Why these companies should then pay more? The "bad" companies are the ones that do not implement IPv6 and their development just stall so nothing happens.
Michael
On Apr 12, 2023, at 09:45, Simon-Jan Haytink <simonjh@ripe.net <mailto:simonjh@ripe.net>> wrote:
Dear RIPE NCC members,
I want to thank all those who contributed to the consultation so far on
the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 and the model we should use for the coming years.
We can now share three draft models that we developed based on input from
the members on the Members Discuss mailing list and in the Charging Scheme Open House, as well as from the discussions at the recent Executive Board Meeting.
The result is that we are proposing three draft charging scheme models:
one category-based and two that are based on the previous "one LIR account, one fee" model. We hope to receive feedback on these models by 19 April so the Executive Board can propose the final versions on 26 April. The members will then vote on those three models at the upcoming General Meeting on 24-26 May.
The three models all aim to fulfil a budget that is roughly the same as
2023 plus general cost increases including inflation, so EUR 42-45 million. By doing this, we can ensure that we can meet the potential budgetary requirements for 2024 while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contributions should we receive excess funds. The Activity Plan and Budget will be discussed with members this coming Autumn.
The three models are available to review at:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/cha rging-scheme-2024-consultation
We also provide an updated calculator where members can see for themselves
how much they might pay under the draft models:https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/new -calculator-charging-scheme-2024.xlsx
To summarise the main features of the three models:
Model A - Category Model
This model has ten categories to provide greater granularity. It also
charges separately for independent and legacy resources in exactly the same way as in previous years. Additionally, a separate 50 EUR ASN assignment fee has been added. Both separately charged resources do not contribute to the category scores. This means there is no double charging and no specific charging for transfers or administrative work carried out by the RIPE NCC. There is a New /24 IPv4 administration fee to ensure there is a financial consequence to joining the IPv4 Waiting List. The fee would be payable upon receipt of the /24, and members joining the waiting list who do not have an eligible LIR account, would pay the new LIR sign-up fee to open a new LIR account and join the waiting list.
With this model, approximately 68% of members would pay less than the
current annual fee, with the remaining 32% paying more.
The discussion with members helped us to see that a category-based model
would receive significant support from members if the version was simplified. Should members see the need to charge for other elements, then that can be incorporated into the category model in the coming years. Any such additional charges could potentially then reduce the fees per category.
Model B - Price increase and ASN fee
This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there is a
price increase of EUR 150 and a 50 EUR ASN fee to ensure we can meet our budgetary requirements while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contribution should we receive excess funds.
Model C - Transfer fee and ASN fee
This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there is a
charge of EUR 1,000 per transfer to be paid by the receiving party and a 50 EUR ASN fee to ensure we can meet our budgetary requirements while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contribution should we receive excess funds.
Further information on the charging scheme models is provided at:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/cha rging-scheme-2024-consultation/
The RIPE NCC Executive Board believes that a category-based model is the
best option to help address uncertainty that might be caused by consolidation with multiple LIRs and to provide greater flexibility and fairness in how we charge members in the coming years.
On 26 April, the final versions of the charging schemes that members will
vote on will be published for the members to consider and discuss. If you have comments on the draft charging schemes, we therefore ask you to comment on the members-discuss mailing list by 19 April so we have time to incorporate any feedback if necessary.
Importantly, we ask all members to register for the RIPE NCC General
Meeting where the final decision will be in your hands. Register to participate and vote at:
https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active
Simon-Jan Haytink Chief Financial Officer RIPE NCC
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/info%40cowmedia.de
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/paul.lewis%40fr89.uk
_______________________________________________
members-discuss mailing list
members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>
https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss
Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/mail%40lseitz.de
-- Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Lennart Seitz PGP-Schlüssel: 0x187abd76a5660379 (https://pgp.lseitz.de/key.asc) --
-- Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Lennart Seitz PGP-Schlüssel: 0x187abd76a5660379 (https://pgp.lseitz.de/key.asc) --
Hi Lennart, ok I see. This is my mistake, what I meant was resources hold by a LIR, that what you currently add in the Excel Calculator. Michael Von: Lennart Seitz <mail@lseitz.de> Gesendet: Dienstag, 18. April 2023 22:19 An: members-discuss@ripe.net; info@cowmedia.de Betreff: Re: AW: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024 Hi Michael, that would be my way of interpreting having model A based on the number of resources used, instead of fixed categories But this could be easily avoided by creating fake records, therefore my assumptions of them rising in case this would be deployed. Regards, Lennart On 18.04.2023 22:08, cowmedia.de wrote: Hi Lennart, not sure why do you think someone create fake records? The numbers for the calculation are independent from the records in the IP databases, but taken from the internal RIPE Database and not only used or unused ressources are billed, but ALL. Michael Von: members-discuss <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> Im Auftrag von Lennart Seitz via members-discuss Gesendet: Montag, 17. April 2023 18:47 An: members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Betreff: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024 Although i find this idea interesting, this would IMHO just lead to fake inetnum records in the DB to avoid the costs. Regards, Lennart On 14.04.2023 17:27, Paul Lewis wrote: I'd like to also say that I think the idea of having model A based on the number of resources used, instead of fixed categories, would be better. It would help encourage unused resources to be transferred or returned. --- Regards, Paul Lewis. On 2023-04-13 19:02, cowmedia.de wrote: Hi Simon, by reading this email and checking the calculator again I have the feeling that the "listening to the members" as you say was not happening. A majority of the members want a usage based charging scheme (as per the discussions on this mailing list) and this is completely not reflected. Just adding some more categories with the highest still only arround 10K is not sufficient. Also what I do not understand is that my personal account with more or less one of the lowest resources you can get is already in Category 2?!? I can just repeat what I have already done: It should be billed by real resources used and directly calculated not within categories Smaller LIRs should pay less and bigger LIRs should pay more It is important that there is an incentive to get rid of unused resources and bring them back, this is only possible when you pay for every resource separate, otherwise no-one will take care. I think this 3 models are not ready for vote and need to be revised. Also Model 3 I completely do not understand. Why should someone pay for transfers? This just means changes are going on and something happens. Why these companies should then pay more? The "bad" companies are the ones that do not implement IPv6 and their development just stall so nothing happens. Michael On Apr 12, 2023, at 09:45, Simon-Jan Haytink <simonjh@ripe.net <mailto:simonjh@ripe.net> > wrote: Dear RIPE NCC members, I want to thank all those who contributed to the consultation so far on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 and the model we should use for the coming years. We can now share three draft models that we developed based on input from the members on the Members Discuss mailing list and in the Charging Scheme Open House, as well as from the discussions at the recent Executive Board Meeting. The result is that we are proposing three draft charging scheme models: one category-based and two that are based on the previous "one LIR account, one fee" model. We hope to receive feedback on these models by 19 April so the Executive Board can propose the final versions on 26 April. The members will then vote on those three models at the upcoming General Meeting on 24-26 May. The three models all aim to fulfil a budget that is roughly the same as 2023 plus general cost increases including inflation, so EUR 42-45 million. By doing this, we can ensure that we can meet the potential budgetary requirements for 2024 while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contributions should we receive excess funds. The Activity Plan and Budget will be discussed with members this coming Autumn. The three models are available to review at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/cha rging-scheme-2024-consultation We also provide an updated calculator where members can see for themselves how much they might pay under the draft models:https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/new -calculator-charging-scheme-2024.xlsx To summarise the main features of the three models: Model A - Category Model This model has ten categories to provide greater granularity. It also charges separately for independent and legacy resources in exactly the same way as in previous years. Additionally, a separate 50 EUR ASN assignment fee has been added. Both separately charged resources do not contribute to the category scores. This means there is no double charging and no specific charging for transfers or administrative work carried out by the RIPE NCC. There is a New /24 IPv4 administration fee to ensure there is a financial consequence to joining the IPv4 Waiting List. The fee would be payable upon receipt of the /24, and members joining the waiting list who do not have an eligible LIR account, would pay the new LIR sign-up fee to open a new LIR account and join the waiting list. With this model, approximately 68% of members would pay less than the current annual fee, with the remaining 32% paying more. The discussion with members helped us to see that a category-based model would receive significant support from members if the version was simplified. Should members see the need to charge for other elements, then that can be incorporated into the category model in the coming years. Any such additional charges could potentially then reduce the fees per category. Model B - Price increase and ASN fee This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there is a price increase of EUR 150 and a 50 EUR ASN fee to ensure we can meet our budgetary requirements while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contribution should we receive excess funds. Model C - Transfer fee and ASN fee This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there is a charge of EUR 1,000 per transfer to be paid by the receiving party and a 50 EUR ASN fee to ensure we can meet our budgetary requirements while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contribution should we receive excess funds. Further information on the charging scheme models is provided at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/cha rging-scheme-2024-consultation/ The RIPE NCC Executive Board believes that a category-based model is the best option to help address uncertainty that might be caused by consolidation with multiple LIRs and to provide greater flexibility and fairness in how we charge members in the coming years. On 26 April, the final versions of the charging schemes that members will vote on will be published for the members to consider and discuss. If you have comments on the draft charging schemes, we therefore ask you to comment on the members-discuss mailing list by 19 April so we have time to incorporate any feedback if necessary. Importantly, we ask all members to register for the RIPE NCC General Meeting where the final decision will be in your hands. Register to participate and vote at: https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active Simon-Jan Haytink Chief Financial Officer RIPE NCC _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/info%40cowmedia.de _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/paul.lewis%40fr89.uk _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/mail%40lseitz.de -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Lennart Seitz PGP-Schlüssel: 0x187abd76a5660379 (https://pgp.lseitz.de/key.asc) -- -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Lennart Seitz PGP-Schlüssel: 0x187abd76a5660379 (https://pgp.lseitz.de/key.asc) --
I am absolutely agree with You! It is looks like NCC direction does not hear members! Where is 13 categories scheme???
Hi Simon,
by reading this email and checking the calculator again I have the feeling that the "listening to the members" as you say was not happening. A majority of the members want a usage based charging scheme (as per the discussions on this mailing list) and this is completely not reflected. Just adding some more categories with the highest still only arround 10K is not sufficient.
Also what I do not understand is that my personal account with more or less one of the lowest resources you can get is already in Category 2?!?
I can just repeat what I have already done:
It should be billed by real resources used and directly calculated not within categories Smaller LIRs should pay less and bigger LIRs should pay more It is important that there is an incentive to get rid of unused resources and bring them back, this is only possible when you pay for every resource separate, otherwise no-one will take care.
I think this 3 models are not ready for vote and need to be revised. Also Model 3 I completely do not understand. Why should someone pay for transfers? This just means changes are going on and something happens. Why these companies should then pay more? The "bad" companies are the ones that do not implement IPv6 and their development just stall so nothing happens.
Michael
On Apr 12, 2023, at 09:45, Simon-Jan Haytink <simonjh@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear RIPE NCC members,
I want to thank all those who contributed to the consultation so far on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 and the model we should use for the coming years.
We can now share three draft models that we developed based on input from the members on the Members Discuss mailing list and in the Charging Scheme Open House, as well as from the discussions at the recent Executive Board Meeting.
The result is that we are proposing three draft charging scheme models: one category-based and two that are based on the previous "one LIR account, one fee" model. We hope to receive feedback on these models by 19 April so the Executive Board can propose the final versions on 26 April. The members will then vote on those three models at the upcoming General Meeting on 24-26 May.
The three models all aim to fulfil a budget that is roughly the same as 2023 plus general cost increases including inflation, so EUR 42-45 million. By doing this, we can ensure that we can meet the potential budgetary requirements for 2024 while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contributions should we receive excess funds. The Activity Plan and Budget will be discussed with members this coming Autumn.
The three models are available to review at:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/cha rging-scheme-2024-consultation
We also provide an updated calculator where members can see for themselves
how much they might pay under the draft models:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/new -calculator-charging-scheme-2024.xlsx
To summarise the main features of the three models:
Model A - Category Model
This model has ten categories to provide greater granularity. It also
charges separately for independent and legacy resources in exactly the same way as in previous years. Additionally, a separate 50 EUR ASN assignment fee has been added. Both separately charged resources do not contribute to the category scores. This means there is no double charging and no specific charging for transfers or administrative work carried out by the RIPE NCC. There is a New /24 IPv4 administration fee to ensure there is a financial consequence to joining the IPv4 Waiting List. The fee would be payable upon receipt of the /24, and members joining the waiting list who do not have an eligible LIR account, would pay the new LIR sign-up fee to open a new LIR account and join the waiting list.
With this model, approximately 68% of members would pay less than the
current annual fee, with the remaining 32% paying more.
The discussion with members helped us to see that a category-based model
would receive significant support from members if the version was simplified. Should members see the need to charge for other elements, then that can be incorporated into the category model in the coming years. Any such additional charges could potentially then reduce the fees per category.
Model B - Price increase and ASN fee
This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there is a
price increase of EUR 150 and a 50 EUR ASN fee to ensure we can meet our budgetary requirements while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contribution should we receive excess funds.
Model C - Transfer fee and ASN fee
This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there is a
charge of EUR 1,000 per transfer to be paid by the receiving party and a 50 EUR ASN fee to ensure we can meet our budgetary requirements while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contribution should we receive excess funds.
Further information on the charging scheme models is provided at:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/cha rging-scheme-2024-consultation/
The RIPE NCC Executive Board believes that a category-based model is the
best option to help address uncertainty that might be caused by consolidation with multiple LIRs and to provide greater flexibility and fairness in how we charge members in the coming years.
On 26 April, the final versions of the charging schemes that members will
vote on will be published for the members to consider and discuss. If you have comments on the draft charging schemes, we therefore ask you to comment on the members-discuss mailing list by 19 April so we have time to incorporate any feedback if necessary.
Importantly, we ask all members to register for the RIPE NCC General
Meeting where the final decision will be in your hands. Register to participate and vote at:
https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active
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/info%40cowmedia.de _______________________________________________ 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
----------------------------- 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.
Hello Everyone, It's great to see that member feedback has been taken into account when developing these models. However, I would like to reiterate my concerns regarding Model C and propose that it should be excluded from the final selection. In summary, Model C introduces transfer fees, which, as I mentioned earlier, bring potential challenges, such as unpredictability in the RIPE NCC's annual budget, payment difficulties for sanctioned countries, increased administrative burdens, complexities related to PI blocks and ASNs transfers, etc. These factors could negatively affect the RIPE NCC and its members. Considering the potential issues with Model C, I suggest that focusing on Models A and B would be a more reasonable approach. Both models provide sufficient options for the members and maintain their respective merits without the risks associated with Model C. By excluding Model C from the final proposals, the voting process will be more focused, enabling members to make a well-informed decision between the two remaining models. This strategy would prevent Model C from diluting the decision-making process and ensure the adoption of a more suitable and sustainable charging scheme. Furthermore, Model B represents a familiar charging scheme for the members, ensuring stability and continuity. In contrast, Model A offers an alternative, category-based system catering to the diverse needs of the membership base, promoting fairness and adaptability within the RIPE NCC community. Model C, on the other hand, only adds uncertainty by introducing transfer fees, which could negatively affect the RIPE NCC's financial stability. As this model doesn't provide any significant benefits over Models A and B, it would be more advantageous to concentrate on refining Models A and B, ensuring a well-balanced charging scheme for the RIPE NCC community. Regards, Victor
Hi Simon,
Thank you for the summary of proposed charging schemes.
I only have a concern whether the ASN fee has received a rough approval from members. Is the AS number a limited resource, especially 32-bit ASNs? Is it valuable somehow?
I would suggest to prepare a scheme without the ASN fee. And of course, members whose invoice amount will be increased should receive the quarterly payments benefit.
PS. It's sad when the only option to keep the flat fee is don't approve all the proposed models.
-- Kind regards, Sergey Myasoedov
participants (7)
-
cowmedia.de -
Cynthia Revström -
i7 NOC -
Lennart Seitz -
Paul Lewis -
sdy＠a-n-t.ru -
Sergey Myasoedov