Response from Board on Charging Scheme Comments
Dear members, Thank you very much for your comments on the proposed Charging Scheme options. I am sorry I am not able to answer all your messages individually. It is not in my capability to do so. However, I want to assure you we read all your comments and take them seriously. In this message I will, of course, not address those comments that express a support for the board's proposal. First of all, the board is carefully listening to the members. We opened several channels to collect your feedback. We had the RIPE NCC Survey followed by the Open House discussion, and both indicated that members want the RIPE NCC to continue with the current projects helping our primary mission, which is to support technical coordination in our region. I understand that some of you have different opinions but we need to also consider the wishes and opinions of the wider membership. So we are preparing the Activity Plan and Budget in this regard. The discussion on this topic will be held in the Autumn. But whatever is the output of this discussion, the Charging Scheme should cover the expected company costs. Please note that a vast majority of our costs are related to salaries. That is something that we cannot get rid off quickly even if we decide to stop some of the projects. The RIPE NCC has to and will respect the local labour law in the Netherlands and other respective countries. We (the board and staff) will be very happy to discuss the usefulness of all activities, but again the survey very strongly indicated that the majority of the members does not want any radical change in this regard and is satisfied with the current NCC activities. The board and the management of the company take very seriously members' concerns related to the company costs. We made a lot of effort to cut many of them last year and again this year. However, it is necessary to note that cost saving cannot go on indefinitely. We strongly believe that the quality of our services cannot be affected and that we should continue to provide world class services to our members and community. On top of it, please keep in mind the rapidly changing environment we operate in. The high inflation in the previous years is one of the drivers of the costs. We employ highly skilled people and I guess that is something most of you recognize. But those people deserve corresponding salaries. Another aspect is related to security and privacy. As you know we have made a lot of improvements in this area. And yet with NIS2, there will be more of it. Last but not least, the changing geo-political situation brings many additional burdens that we need to deal with. By that I mean sanctions and other things related to the biggest war in our service region during the RIPE NCC’s existence. Saying all that, again I don't want to reconcile to the fact that costs are rising. The board with the management will continue to find opportunities for cost saving. Also please keep in mind that the fees are upper limits of what the NCC needs to operate. If we create a surplus (which is what we believe in) it can be redistributed by the standard mechanisms we use. We do not want to needlessly accumulate money, but we have to be sure the fees can allow the NCC to operate in this rapidly changing environment. It wouldn't be responsible to propose fees that would not allow the NCC to cover its costs. On the comments asking that the RIPE NCC budget be linked to the number of LIR accounts, it is true that the number of LIR accounts is reducing. But the number of members is actually very stable and using the membership number as a guide provides more stability than looking at LIR numbers. And the costs for the RIPE NCC are not necessarily linked to the number of accounts anyway. Also, as I noted above, IPv4 scarcity and the outbreak of war has added a lot of complexity to the work of the RIPE NCC just as the number of LIR accounts has started to reduce. For example, work to secure the registry or defend the registry system needs to happen regardless of how many LIR accounts there are. Let me also address the point of the fee structure and alternative suggestions raised by several of you. I understand and sympathise with the idea that the current fee structure means that the majority of the budget is covered by small members while larger and richer companies pay a minor part. This concept was approved a long time ago and the board unsuccessfully tried to propose changes. We are very open to discuss this topic again and again, but so far there is no solid model on the table. But we hear you and we will continue this discussion with you. Again, thank you for your comments and reactions. I am looking forward to meeting you for the GM in the beautiful town of Krakow or online. On behalf of the Executive Board Ondrej
Hello Ondrej! Can you please clarify what will count as "solid model on the table”. In which form it should be presented to be considered so? I’ve proposed and saw other proposed good solutions with fee based on plain number of resources, based on certain level, based on costs cut, based on defunding side projects and a lot of other ideas. Some with exact numbers and counts. The only thing that can make this counts better and sufficent is help from staff with source data and comments. Community is really looking forward to clarification what exactly should be done to offer RIPE good “solid” model. Thanks a lot!
On 11 Apr 2024, at 23:32, Ondrej Filip <feela@network.cz> wrote:
Dear members,
Thank you very much for your comments on the proposed Charging Scheme options. I am sorry I am not able to answer all your messages individually. It is not in my capability to do so. However, I want to assure you we read all your comments and take them seriously. In this message I will, of course, not address those comments that express a support for the board's proposal.
First of all, the board is carefully listening to the members. We opened several channels to collect your feedback. We had the RIPE NCC Survey followed by the Open House discussion, and both indicated that members want the RIPE NCC to continue with the current projects helping our primary mission, which is to support technical coordination in our region. I understand that some of you have different opinions but we need to also consider the wishes and opinions of the wider membership.
So we are preparing the Activity Plan and Budget in this regard. The discussion on this topic will be held in the Autumn. But whatever is the output of this discussion, the Charging Scheme should cover the expected company costs. Please note that a vast majority of our costs are related to salaries. That is something that we cannot get rid off quickly even if we decide to stop some of the projects. The RIPE NCC has to and will respect the local labour law in the Netherlands and other respective countries. We (the board and staff) will be very happy to discuss the usefulness of all activities, but again the survey very strongly indicated that the majority of the members does not want any radical change in this regard and is satisfied with the current NCC activities.
The board and the management of the company take very seriously members' concerns related to the company costs. We made a lot of effort to cut many of them last year and again this year. However, it is necessary to note that cost saving cannot go on indefinitely. We strongly believe that the quality of our services cannot be affected and that we should continue to provide world class services to our members and community. On top of it, please keep in mind the rapidly changing environment we operate in. The high inflation in the previous years is one of the drivers of the costs. We employ highly skilled people and I guess that is something most of you recognize. But those people deserve corresponding salaries.
Another aspect is related to security and privacy. As you know we have made a lot of improvements in this area. And yet with NIS2, there will be more of it. Last but not least, the changing geo-political situation brings many additional burdens that we need to deal with. By that I mean sanctions and other things related to the biggest war in our service region during the RIPE NCC’s existence.
Saying all that, again I don't want to reconcile to the fact that costs are rising. The board with the management will continue to find opportunities for cost saving. Also please keep in mind that the fees are upper limits of what the NCC needs to operate. If we create a surplus (which is what we believe in) it can be redistributed by the standard mechanisms we use. We do not want to needlessly accumulate money, but we have to be sure the fees can allow the NCC to operate in this rapidly changing environment. It wouldn't be responsible to propose fees that would not allow the NCC to cover its costs.
On the comments asking that the RIPE NCC budget be linked to the number of LIR accounts, it is true that the number of LIR accounts is reducing. But the number of members is actually very stable and using the membership number as a guide provides more stability than looking at LIR numbers. And the costs for the RIPE NCC are not necessarily linked to the number of accounts anyway. Also, as I noted above, IPv4 scarcity and the outbreak of war has added a lot of complexity to the work of the RIPE NCC just as the number of LIR accounts has started to reduce. For example, work to secure the registry or defend the registry system needs to happen regardless of how many LIR accounts there are.
Let me also address the point of the fee structure and alternative suggestions raised by several of you. I understand and sympathise with the idea that the current fee structure means that the majority of the budget is covered by small members while larger and richer companies pay a minor part. This concept was approved a long time ago and the board unsuccessfully tried to propose changes. We are very open to discuss this topic again and again, but so far there is no solid model on the table. But we hear you and we will continue this discussion with you.
Again, thank you for your comments and reactions. I am looking forward to meeting you for the GM in the beautiful town of Krakow or online.
On behalf of the Executive Board
Ondrej _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/mihail%40fedorov.net
Dear members,
Thank you very much for your comments on the proposed Charging Scheme options. I am sorry I am not able to answer all your messages individually. It is not in my capability to do so. However, I want to assure you we read all your comments and take them seriously. In this message I will, of course, not address those comments that express a support for the board's proposal.
First of all, the board is carefully listening to the members. We opened several channels to collect your feedback. We had the RIPE NCC Survey followed by the Open House discussion, and both indicated that members want the RIPE NCC to continue with the current projects helping our primary mission, which is to support technical coordination in our region. I understand that some of you have different opinions but we need to also consider the wishes and opinions of the wider membership.
So we are preparing the Activity Plan and Budget in this regard. The discussion on this topic will be held in the Autumn. But whatever is the output of this discussion, the Charging Scheme should cover the expected company costs. Please note that a vast majority of our costs are related to salaries. That is something that we cannot get rid off quickly even if we decide to stop some of the projects. The RIPE NCC has to and will respect the local labour law in the Netherlands and other respective countries. We (the board and staff) will be very happy to discuss the usefulness of all activities, but again the survey very strongly indicated that the majority of the members does not want any radical change in this regard and is satisfied with the current NCC activities. Salaries... I appreciate the detailed explanation regarding the Activity Plan and Budget. It's clear that a significant portion of the costs are tied to salaries, which are understandably less flexible in the short term due to compliance with local labor laws in the Netherlands and other relevant countries. However, I'd like to raise a concern that mirrors a trend seen across many companies during the COVID-19 pandemic. During this period, some companies experienced increased profit margins and consequently expanded their workforce. Unfortunately, this led to overhiring, and as
On Thu, 2024-04-11 at 22:32 +0200, Ondrej Filip wrote: profits normalized post-pandemic, these companies found themselves in a position where layoffs became necessary. While I am not suggesting that this is precisely the case with RIPE NCC, I believe it's a possibility worth considering. Furthermore, the membership fee increase linked to the "register as LIR and receive the last /22" was clearly temporary. Assuming this would lead to a permanent increase in resources, and overhiring based on that might have been an oversight. This situation seems to illustrate a broader issue of strategic planning where staffing levels were increased based on optimistic projections that did not materialize as expected. Thanks
Proposal about resources based fee was been rejected early - because RIPE doesnt offer unclear scheme. Nor category based, its must be flat resource based - i.e. linear. Not sure about rules allow it, but Im sugget to scheme with direct impact on resources. (and can offer Excel calculator for that) TOTAL = amount of entries IPv4 + amount of entries IPv6 + amount of entries ASN For current RIPE allocations its will be IPv4 SHARE (%) 58,7771% IPv6 SHARE (%) 16,5582% ASN SHARE (%) 24,6648% When RIPE saying - need 44M EUR funds in budget - okay! Then: - IPv4 SHARE - 25 861 909 € - IPv6 SHARE - 7 285 594 € - ASN SHARE - 10 852 497 € What are next? Next is making minimal countable resource: - IPv4 - is 1 x IPv4/32 - IPv6 - is 1 x IPv6/48 - ASN - is 1 x ASN Just now we can make calculation of membership fee based on this values For example: - Small LIR with 1 ASN, 1 IPv4 /24 and 1 IPv6 /32 - will be billed as: 7,91 € (IPv4) + 40,46 € (IPv6) + 276,48 € (ASN) = 325 €/YEAR - Some "old" small LIR with 1 ASN, 2 IPv4 /22 and 1 IPv6 /29 - will be billed as: 63,29 € (IPv4) + 323,69 € (IPv6) + 276,48 € (ASN) = 663 €/YEAR Its doesnt have any "corruption" or "lobby" variable, only fair share - have more = pay more, have less = pay less. Very simple. Are you agree? (Hope you reply) On 11.04.2024 20:32, Ondrej Filip wrote:
Dear members,
Thank you very much for your comments on the proposed Charging Scheme options. I am sorry I am not able to answer all your messages individually. It is not in my capability to do so. However, I want to assure you we read all your comments and take them seriously. In this message I will, of course, not address those comments that express a support for the board's proposal.
First of all, the board is carefully listening to the members. We opened several channels to collect your feedback. We had the RIPE NCC Survey followed by the Open House discussion, and both indicated that members want the RIPE NCC to continue with the current projects helping our primary mission, which is to support technical coordination in our region. I understand that some of you have different opinions but we need to also consider the wishes and opinions of the wider membership.
So we are preparing the Activity Plan and Budget in this regard. The discussion on this topic will be held in the Autumn. But whatever is the output of this discussion, the Charging Scheme should cover the expected company costs. Please note that a vast majority of our costs are related to salaries. That is something that we cannot get rid off quickly even if we decide to stop some of the projects. The RIPE NCC has to and will respect the local labour law in the Netherlands and other respective countries. We (the board and staff) will be very happy to discuss the usefulness of all activities, but again the survey very strongly indicated that the majority of the members does not want any radical change in this regard and is satisfied with the current NCC activities.
The board and the management of the company take very seriously members' concerns related to the company costs. We made a lot of effort to cut many of them last year and again this year. However, it is necessary to note that cost saving cannot go on indefinitely. We strongly believe that the quality of our services cannot be affected and that we should continue to provide world class services to our members and community. On top of it, please keep in mind the rapidly changing environment we operate in. The high inflation in the previous years is one of the drivers of the costs. We employ highly skilled people and I guess that is something most of you recognize. But those people deserve corresponding salaries.
Another aspect is related to security and privacy. As you know we have made a lot of improvements in this area. And yet with NIS2, there will be more of it. Last but not least, the changing geo-political situation brings many additional burdens that we need to deal with. By that I mean sanctions and other things related to the biggest war in our service region during the RIPE NCC’s existence.
Saying all that, again I don't want to reconcile to the fact that costs are rising. The board with the management will continue to find opportunities for cost saving. Also please keep in mind that the fees are upper limits of what the NCC needs to operate. If we create a surplus (which is what we believe in) it can be redistributed by the standard mechanisms we use. We do not want to needlessly accumulate money, but we have to be sure the fees can allow the NCC to operate in this rapidly changing environment. It wouldn't be responsible to propose fees that would not allow the NCC to cover its costs.
On the comments asking that the RIPE NCC budget be linked to the number of LIR accounts, it is true that the number of LIR accounts is reducing. But the number of members is actually very stable and using the membership number as a guide provides more stability than looking at LIR numbers. And the costs for the RIPE NCC are not necessarily linked to the number of accounts anyway. Also, as I noted above, IPv4 scarcity and the outbreak of war has added a lot of complexity to the work of the RIPE NCC just as the number of LIR accounts has started to reduce. For example, work to secure the registry or defend the registry system needs to happen regardless of how many LIR accounts there are.
Let me also address the point of the fee structure and alternative suggestions raised by several of you. I understand and sympathise with the idea that the current fee structure means that the majority of the budget is covered by small members while larger and richer companies pay a minor part. This concept was approved a long time ago and the board unsuccessfully tried to propose changes. We are very open to discuss this topic again and again, but so far there is no solid model on the table. But we hear you and we will continue this discussion with you.
Again, thank you for your comments and reactions. I am looking forward to meeting you for the GM in the beautiful town of Krakow or online.
On behalf of the Executive Board
Ondrej
_______________________________________________ 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/admin%40roskomnadzor....
Hi ROSKOMNADZOR (even if I don't like the signing with this state authority name),
IPv4 SHARE (%) 58,7771% IPv6 SHARE (%) 16,5582% ASN SHARE (%) 24,6648%
Could you elaborate more about these shares please? Thank you. -- Best regards, Sergey Myasoedov
On Apr 12, 2024, at 00:21, ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED <admin@roskomnadzor.io> wrote:
Proposal about resources based fee was been rejected early - because RIPE doesnt offer unclear scheme.
Nor category based, its must be flat resource based - i.e. linear.
Not sure about rules allow it, but Im sugget to scheme with direct impact on resources. (and can offer Excel calculator for that)
TOTAL = amount of entries IPv4 + amount of entries IPv6 + amount of entries ASN
For current RIPE allocations its will be
IPv4 SHARE (%) 58,7771% IPv6 SHARE (%) 16,5582% ASN SHARE (%) 24,6648%
When RIPE saying - need 44M EUR funds in budget - okay!
Then: - IPv4 SHARE - 25 861 909 € - IPv6 SHARE - 7 285 594 € - ASN SHARE - 10 852 497 €
What are next?
Next is making minimal countable resource: - IPv4 - is 1 x IPv4/32 - IPv6 - is 1 x IPv6/48 - ASN - is 1 x ASN
Just now we can make calculation of membership fee based on this values
For example:
- Small LIR with 1 ASN, 1 IPv4 /24 and 1 IPv6 /32 - will be billed as: 7,91 € (IPv4) + 40,46 € (IPv6) + 276,48 € (ASN) = 325 €/YEAR
- Some "old" small LIR with 1 ASN, 2 IPv4 /22 and 1 IPv6 /29 - will be billed as: 63,29 € (IPv4) + 323,69 € (IPv6) + 276,48 € (ASN) = 663 €/YEAR
Its doesnt have any "corruption" or "lobby" variable, only fair share - have more = pay more, have less = pay less.
Very simple.
Are you agree? (Hope you reply)
On 11.04.2024 20:32, Ondrej Filip wrote:
Dear members, Thank you very much for your comments on the proposed Charging Scheme options. I am sorry I am not able to answer all your messages individually. It is not in my capability to do so. However, I want to assure you we read all your comments and take them seriously. In this message I will, of course, not address those comments that express a support for the board's proposal. First of all, the board is carefully listening to the members. We opened several channels to collect your feedback. We had the RIPE NCC Survey followed by the Open House discussion, and both indicated that members want the RIPE NCC to continue with the current projects helping our primary mission, which is to support technical coordination in our region. I understand that some of you have different opinions but we need to also consider the wishes and opinions of the wider membership. So we are preparing the Activity Plan and Budget in this regard. The discussion on this topic will be held in the Autumn. But whatever is the output of this discussion, the Charging Scheme should cover the expected company costs. Please note that a vast majority of our costs are related to salaries. That is something that we cannot get rid off quickly even if we decide to stop some of the projects. The RIPE NCC has to and will respect the local labour law in the Netherlands and other respective countries. We (the board and staff) will be very happy to discuss the usefulness of all activities, but again the survey very strongly indicated that the majority of the members does not want any radical change in this regard and is satisfied with the current NCC activities. The board and the management of the company take very seriously members' concerns related to the company costs. We made a lot of effort to cut many of them last year and again this year. However, it is necessary to note that cost saving cannot go on indefinitely. We strongly believe that the quality of our services cannot be affected and that we should continue to provide world class services to our members and community. On top of it, please keep in mind the rapidly changing environment we operate in. The high inflation in the previous years is one of the drivers of the costs. We employ highly skilled people and I guess that is something most of you recognize. But those people deserve corresponding salaries. Another aspect is related to security and privacy. As you know we have made a lot of improvements in this area. And yet with NIS2, there will be more of it. Last but not least, the changing geo-political situation brings many additional burdens that we need to deal with. By that I mean sanctions and other things related to the biggest war in our service region during the RIPE NCC’s existence. Saying all that, again I don't want to reconcile to the fact that costs are rising. The board with the management will continue to find opportunities for cost saving. Also please keep in mind that the fees are upper limits of what the NCC needs to operate. If we create a surplus (which is what we believe in) it can be redistributed by the standard mechanisms we use. We do not want to needlessly accumulate money, but we have to be sure the fees can allow the NCC to operate in this rapidly changing environment. It wouldn't be responsible to propose fees that would not allow the NCC to cover its costs. On the comments asking that the RIPE NCC budget be linked to the number of LIR accounts, it is true that the number of LIR accounts is reducing. But the number of members is actually very stable and using the membership number as a guide provides more stability than looking at LIR numbers. And the costs for the RIPE NCC are not necessarily linked to the number of accounts anyway. Also, as I noted above, IPv4 scarcity and the outbreak of war has added a lot of complexity to the work of the RIPE NCC just as the number of LIR accounts has started to reduce. For example, work to secure the registry or defend the registry system needs to happen regardless of how many LIR accounts there are. Let me also address the point of the fee structure and alternative suggestions raised by several of you. I understand and sympathise with the idea that the current fee structure means that the majority of the budget is covered by small members while larger and richer companies pay a minor part. This concept was approved a long time ago and the board unsuccessfully tried to propose changes. We are very open to discuss this topic again and again, but so far there is no solid model on the table. But we hear you and we will continue this discussion with you. Again, thank you for your comments and reactions. I am looking forward to meeting you for the GM in the beautiful town of Krakow or online. On behalf of the Executive Board Ondrej _______________________________________________ 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/admin%40roskomnadzor....
_______________________________________________ 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/kaa%40net-art.cz
Hope you have fun with our "play of words" in naming :) Shares counted as 1) Download - https://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/stats/delegated-ripencc-latest 2) Taking header - its looks now (2024-04-12) ripencc * ipv4 * 93539 summary ripencc * asn * 39252 summary ripencc * ipv6 * 26351 summary 3) Its amount of ALL allocations under RIPE region Counting sum = 93539 + 39252 + 26351 = 159142 This value is sum of all allocations from region IPv4 - 93539 / 159142 = 58,7771% IPv6 - 39252 / 159142 = 16,5582% ASN - 26351 / 159142 = 24,6648% Share of even type of allocations On 12.04.2024 4:34, Sergey Myasoedov wrote:
Hi ROSKOMNADZOR (even if I don't like the signing with this state authority name),
IPv4 SHARE (%) 58,7771% IPv6 SHARE (%) 16,5582% ASN SHARE (%) 24,6648%
Could you elaborate more about these shares please?
Thank you.
-- Best regards, Sergey Myasoedov
On Apr 12, 2024, at 00:21, ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED <admin@roskomnadzor.io> wrote:
Proposal about resources based fee was been rejected early - because RIPE doesnt offer unclear scheme.
Nor category based, its must be flat resource based - i.e. linear.
Not sure about rules allow it, but Im sugget to scheme with direct impact on resources. (and can offer Excel calculator for that)
TOTAL = amount of entries IPv4 + amount of entries IPv6 + amount of entries ASN
For current RIPE allocations its will be
IPv4 SHARE (%) 58,7771% IPv6 SHARE (%) 16,5582% ASN SHARE (%) 24,6648%
When RIPE saying - need 44M EUR funds in budget - okay!
Then: - IPv4 SHARE - 25 861 909 € - IPv6 SHARE - 7 285 594 € - ASN SHARE - 10 852 497 €
What are next?
Next is making minimal countable resource: - IPv4 - is 1 x IPv4/32 - IPv6 - is 1 x IPv6/48 - ASN - is 1 x ASN
Just now we can make calculation of membership fee based on this values
For example:
- Small LIR with 1 ASN, 1 IPv4 /24 and 1 IPv6 /32 - will be billed as: 7,91 € (IPv4) + 40,46 € (IPv6) + 276,48 € (ASN) = 325 €/YEAR
- Some "old" small LIR with 1 ASN, 2 IPv4 /22 and 1 IPv6 /29 - will be billed as: 63,29 € (IPv4) + 323,69 € (IPv6) + 276,48 € (ASN) = 663 €/YEAR
Its doesnt have any "corruption" or "lobby" variable, only fair share - have more = pay more, have less = pay less.
Very simple.
Are you agree? (Hope you reply)
On 11.04.2024 20:32, Ondrej Filip wrote:
Dear members, Thank you very much for your comments on the proposed Charging Scheme options. I am sorry I am not able to answer all your messages individually. It is not in my capability to do so. However, I want to assure you we read all your comments and take them seriously. In this message I will, of course, not address those comments that express a support for the board's proposal. First of all, the board is carefully listening to the members. We opened several channels to collect your feedback. We had the RIPE NCC Survey followed by the Open House discussion, and both indicated that members want the RIPE NCC to continue with the current projects helping our primary mission, which is to support technical coordination in our region. I understand that some of you have different opinions but we need to also consider the wishes and opinions of the wider membership. So we are preparing the Activity Plan and Budget in this regard. The discussion on this topic will be held in the Autumn. But whatever is the output of this discussion, the Charging Scheme should cover the expected company costs. Please note that a vast majority of our costs are related to salaries. That is something that we cannot get rid off quickly even if we decide to stop some of the projects. The RIPE NCC has to and will respect the local labour law in the Netherlands and other respective countries. We (the board and staff) will be very happy to discuss the usefulness of all activities, but again the survey very strongly indicated that the majority of the members does not want any radical change in this regard and is satisfied with the current NCC activities. The board and the management of the company take very seriously members' concerns related to the company costs. We made a lot of effort to cut many of them last year and again this year. However, it is necessary to note that cost saving cannot go on indefinitely. We strongly believe that the quality of our services cannot be affected and that we should continue to provide world class services to our members and community. On top of it, please keep in mind the rapidly changing environment we operate in. The high inflation in the previous years is one of the drivers of the costs. We employ highly skilled people and I guess that is something most of you recognize. But those people deserve corresponding salaries. Another aspect is related to security and privacy. As you know we have made a lot of improvements in this area. And yet with NIS2, there will be more of it. Last but not least, the changing geo-political situation brings many additional burdens that we need to deal with. By that I mean sanctions and other things related to the biggest war in our service region during the RIPE NCC’s existence. Saying all that, again I don't want to reconcile to the fact that costs are rising. The board with the management will continue to find opportunities for cost saving. Also please keep in mind that the fees are upper limits of what the NCC needs to operate. If we create a surplus (which is what we believe in) it can be redistributed by the standard mechanisms we use. We do not want to needlessly accumulate money, but we have to be sure the fees can allow the NCC to operate in this rapidly changing environment. It wouldn't be responsible to propose fees that would not allow the NCC to cover its costs. On the comments asking that the RIPE NCC budget be linked to the number of LIR accounts, it is true that the number of LIR accounts is reducing. But the number of members is actually very stable and using the membership number as a guide provides more stability than looking at LIR numbers. And the costs for the RIPE NCC are not necessarily linked to the number of accounts anyway. Also, as I noted above, IPv4 scarcity and the outbreak of war has added a lot of complexity to the work of the RIPE NCC just as the number of LIR accounts has started to reduce. For example, work to secure the registry or defend the registry system needs to happen regardless of how many LIR accounts there are. Let me also address the point of the fee structure and alternative suggestions raised by several of you. I understand and sympathise with the idea that the current fee structure means that the majority of the budget is covered by small members while larger and richer companies pay a minor part. This concept was approved a long time ago and the board unsuccessfully tried to propose changes. We are very open to discuss this topic again and again, but so far there is no solid model on the table. But we hear you and we will continue this discussion with you. Again, thank you for your comments and reactions. I am looking forward to meeting you for the GM in the beautiful town of Krakow or online. On behalf of the Executive Board Ondrej _______________________________________________ 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/admin%40roskomnadzor....
_______________________________________________ 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/kaa%40net-art.cz
Hi, This is in my opinion by far the best proposal yet! Thanks for putting the numbers together. "Have more = pay more" is the way to go, not categories, not flat. IPs and ASNs are public resources and people should pay for their consumption (e.g. like water, electricity, gas). On the mailing list, there were many requests for such a model, so I cannot understand why RIPE NCC hasn't yet offered such a model - especially as all other registries (ARIN/Afrinic (stepwise(#IPs)) and APNIC (log(#IPs)) go into that direction. The linear approach is easy to understand (Flat Fee per IP) and IMHO the best approach against hoarding or "optimizing". I would like to separate the discussion between "Charging Model" and "Ripe NCC Budget". Budget can be handled separately (and in the AGM); this is only about the "Charging Model". I'd take the current RIPE NCC expenses, split that into EUR per currently allocated IPv4/32, IPv6/48 and ASN and base contributions on individual LIR allocations/assignments. e.g: Current budget: 44M EUR IPv4/32: 836 M (93549 prefixes) -> 26M EUR / 836M 0.031 EUR per /32 7.92 EUR per /24 31.67 EUR per /22 253.3 EUR per /19 51.9 kEUR per /8 IPv6/48:11801 M (26351 prefixes) -> 7.3M EUR / 12G 0.000062 EUR per /48 "free" 40.46 EUR per /32 324 EUR per /29 ASN/1: 39255 -> 11M / 39k 276.5 EUR per ASN => This change is neutral to the RIPE budget; i.e. members pay the same on average, smaller members pay less, larger members pay more. Very easy! Regards, Claudius -- Kantonsschule Zug/AS34288 Claudius Zingerli, Dr. sc. ETH Zürich Technischer Leiter Informatik,NOC Luessiweg 24 6300 Zug Switzerland claudius.zingerli@ksz.ch On 12.04.24 06:21, ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED wrote:
Proposal about resources based fee was been rejected early - because RIPE doesnt offer unclear scheme.
Nor category based, its must be flat resource based - i.e. linear.
Not sure about rules allow it, but Im sugget to scheme with direct impact on resources. (and can offer Excel calculator for that)
TOTAL = amount of entries IPv4 + amount of entries IPv6 + amount of entries ASN
For current RIPE allocations its will be
IPv4 SHARE (%) 58,7771% IPv6 SHARE (%) 16,5582% ASN SHARE (%) 24,6648%
When RIPE saying - need 44M EUR funds in budget - okay!
Then: - IPv4 SHARE - 25 861 909 € - IPv6 SHARE - 7 285 594 € - ASN SHARE - 10 852 497 €
What are next?
Next is making minimal countable resource: - IPv4 - is 1 x IPv4/32 - IPv6 - is 1 x IPv6/48 - ASN - is 1 x ASN
Just now we can make calculation of membership fee based on this values
For example:
- Small LIR with 1 ASN, 1 IPv4 /24 and 1 IPv6 /32 - will be billed as: 7,91 € (IPv4) + 40,46 € (IPv6) + 276,48 € (ASN) = 325 €/YEAR
- Some "old" small LIR with 1 ASN, 2 IPv4 /22 and 1 IPv6 /29 - will be billed as: 63,29 € (IPv4) + 323,69 € (IPv6) + 276,48 € (ASN) = 663 €/YEAR
Its doesnt have any "corruption" or "lobby" variable, only fair share - have more = pay more, have less = pay less.
Very simple.
Are you agree? (Hope you reply)
This is exactly scheme offered initially which RIPE board doesn’t want to consider. Exact counts with exact numbers. I advice only one change - removing size based price on IPv6 subnets - there is no lack of supply for them (and will never be) and everyone is advised to have /29 (or earlier /32). Making it pricy can demotivate LIR from owning v6 while we need opposite. It’s better for everyone to keep it free or with some low flat fee. That’s my personal opinion, but if someone thinks IPv6 should be in the same scheme - I’m ok with that as well.
On 12 Apr 2024, at 16:54, Claudius Zingerli <claudius.zingerli@ksz.ch> wrote:
Hi,
This is in my opinion by far the best proposal yet! Thanks for putting the numbers together. "Have more = pay more" is the way to go, not categories, not flat. IPs and ASNs are public resources and people should pay for their consumption (e.g. like water, electricity, gas). On the mailing list, there were many requests for such a model, so I cannot understand why RIPE NCC hasn't yet offered such a model - especially as all other registries (ARIN/Afrinic (stepwise(#IPs)) and APNIC (log(#IPs)) go into that direction. The linear approach is easy to understand (Flat Fee per IP) and IMHO the best approach against hoarding or "optimizing".
I would like to separate the discussion between "Charging Model" and "Ripe NCC Budget". Budget can be handled separately (and in the AGM); this is only about the "Charging Model".
I'd take the current RIPE NCC expenses, split that into EUR per currently allocated IPv4/32, IPv6/48 and ASN and base contributions on individual LIR allocations/assignments. e.g:
Current budget: 44M EUR
IPv4/32: 836 M (93549 prefixes) -> 26M EUR / 836M 0.031 EUR per /32 7.92 EUR per /24 31.67 EUR per /22 253.3 EUR per /19 51.9 kEUR per /8
IPv6/48:11801 M (26351 prefixes) -> 7.3M EUR / 12G 0.000062 EUR per /48 "free" 40.46 EUR per /32 324 EUR per /29
ASN/1: 39255 -> 11M / 39k 276.5 EUR per ASN
=> This change is neutral to the RIPE budget; i.e. members pay the same on average, smaller members pay less, larger members pay more. Very easy!
Regards,
Claudius
-- Kantonsschule Zug/AS34288 Claudius Zingerli, Dr. sc. ETH Zürich Technischer Leiter Informatik,NOC Luessiweg 24 6300 Zug Switzerland claudius.zingerli@ksz.ch
On 12.04.24 06:21, ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED wrote: Proposal about resources based fee was been rejected early - because RIPE doesnt offer unclear scheme. Nor category based, its must be flat resource based - i.e. linear. Not sure about rules allow it, but Im sugget to scheme with direct impact on resources. (and can offer Excel calculator for that) TOTAL = amount of entries IPv4 + amount of entries IPv6 + amount of entries ASN For current RIPE allocations its will be IPv4 SHARE (%) 58,7771% IPv6 SHARE (%) 16,5582% ASN SHARE (%) 24,6648% When RIPE saying - need 44M EUR funds in budget - okay! Then: - IPv4 SHARE - 25 861 909 € - IPv6 SHARE - 7 285 594 € - ASN SHARE - 10 852 497 € What are next? Next is making minimal countable resource: - IPv4 - is 1 x IPv4/32 - IPv6 - is 1 x IPv6/48 - ASN - is 1 x ASN Just now we can make calculation of membership fee based on this values For example: - Small LIR with 1 ASN, 1 IPv4 /24 and 1 IPv6 /32 - will be billed as: 7,91 € (IPv4) + 40,46 € (IPv6) + 276,48 € (ASN) = 325 €/YEAR - Some "old" small LIR with 1 ASN, 2 IPv4 /22 and 1 IPv6 /29 - will be billed as: 63,29 € (IPv4) + 323,69 € (IPv6) + 276,48 € (ASN) = 663 €/YEAR Its doesnt have any "corruption" or "lobby" variable, only fair share - have more = pay more, have less = pay less. Very simple. Are you agree? (Hope you reply)
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/mihail%40fedorov.net
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 17:33:37 +0300 Mihail Fedorov <mihail@fedorov.net> wrote:
I advice only one change - removing size based price on IPv6 subnets - there is no lack of supply for them (and will never be) and everyone is advised to have /29 (or earlier /32). Making it pricy can demotivate LIR from owning v6 while we need opposite. It’s better for everyone to keep it free or with some low flat fee.
That’s my personal opinion, but if someone thinks IPv6 should be in the same scheme - I’m ok with that as well.
If then the unlikely event, everybody switches to IPv6, happens then we will have the same problem again. Only with no shortage of resources. We still need a way to covers RIPE NCCs expenses. So, if this path is chosen we need to price IPv6. But you could say that the fee is then either for IPv4 or IPv6 usage. The one with the highest price is used. btw. The assumption that having small allocations means you are a small company is wrong. I can find several LIRs with very modest allocations that could, with out noticing on their budget, cover all RIPE NCC expenses by them self. /Martin
Le Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 10:32:45PM +0200, Ondrej Filip [feela@network.cz] a écrit: (...)
Let me also address the point of the fee structure and alternative suggestions raised by several of you. I understand and sympathise with the idea that the current fee structure means that the majority of the budget is covered by small members while larger and richer companies pay a minor part. This concept was approved a long time ago and the board unsuccessfully tried to propose changes.
A long time ago, RIPE members composition was probably different, and expenses also. The only "proposal" to change the fee calculation was about categories that did not fit anybody, neither small LIRs nor large ones.
We are very open to discuss this topic again and again, but so far there is no solid model on the table. But we hear you and we will continue this discussion with you.
RIPE financial people could quite easily elaborate a model with a base member fee, operations fees for those that require administrative handling ( LIR creation, assignements, etc. ), and a flat linear ressource fee, including legacy, with a weight towards most scarce ones (ipv4 and ASN) Add in this a multi-year plan for reducing costs, such a internalizing tasks currently handled by consultants (which is already on the go, if I understand reports correctly). -- Dominique Rousseau Neuronnexion, Prestataire Internet & Intranet 6 rue des Hautes cornes - 80000 Amiens tel: 03 22 71 61 90 - fax: 03 22 71 61 99 - http://www.neuronnexion.coop
And again... The Categories scheme can only work well if you don't have a shortage of resources. New categories will only permanently approve the "slavery" of LIRs on IPv4 for little money for the old "masters". This is a dead-end development path for NCC. It is necessary to charge an equal fee from each member for each scarce resource for its "fast" movement (for example, a land tax per square meter). Unlike the model with categories, where moving a small part of the resources does not mean anything to the owners' wallet.
Le Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 10:32:45PM +0200, Ondrej Filip [feela@network.cz] a écrit: (...)
Let me also address the point of the fee structure and alternative suggestions raised by several of you. I understand and sympathise with the idea that the current fee structure means that the majority of the budget is covered by small members while larger and richer companies pay a minor part. This concept was approved a long time ago and the board unsuccessfully tried to propose changes.
A long time ago, RIPE members composition was probably different, and expenses also. The only "proposal" to change the fee calculation was about categories that did not fit anybody, neither small LIRs nor large ones.
We are very open to discuss this topic again and again, but so far there is no solid model on the table. But we hear you and we will continue this discussion with you.
RIPE financial people could quite easily elaborate a model with a base member fee, operations fees for those that require administrative handling ( LIR creation, assignements, etc. ), and a flat linear ressource fee, including legacy, with a weight towards most scarce ones (ipv4 and ASN) Add in this a multi-year plan for reducing costs, such a internalizing tasks currently handled by consultants (which is already on the go, if I understand reports correctly).
-- Dominique Rousseau Neuronnexion, Prestataire Internet & Intranet 6 rue des Hautes cornes - 80000 Amiens tel: 03 22 71 61 90 - fax: 03 22 71 61 99 - http://www.neuronnexion.coop
_______________________________________________ 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.
On 12. Apr 2024, at 11:15, sdy@a-n-t.ru wrote:
The Categories scheme can only work well if you don't have a shortage of resources. New categories will only permanently approve the "slavery" of LIRs on IPv4 for little money for the old "masters". This is a dead-end development path for NCC.
I realise there might be a language barrier in play here but I firmly ask you to stay away from these kind of terms to describe something that couldn’t be further from it. Stay civil or lose your argument, whatever that might be. -- Sebastian Wiesinger Senior Principal Network Architect Service Integration noris network AG Thomas-Mann-Straße 16-20 90471 Nürnberg Deutschland Tel +49 911 9352 1459 Fax +49 911 9352 100 Email sebastian.wiesinger@noris.de noris network AG - Mehr Leistung als Standard Vorstand: Ingo Kraupa (Vorsitzender), Joachim Astel, Florian Sippel Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Stefan Schnabel - AG Nürnberg HRB 17689
Banning the use of certain words does not change their meaning. I understand that in a United Europe it is now fashionable to call black "not quite white". But the fact remains. Charging money by category freezes the situation of unequal access to scarce resources. P.S. And sorry, at what moment words 'slaves' and 'masters' stay forbidden in your country?
On 12. Apr 2024, at 11:15, sdy@a-n-t.ru wrote:
The Categories scheme can only work well if you don't have a shortage of resources. New categories will only permanently approve the "slavery" of LIRs on IPv4 for little money for the old "masters". This is a dead-end development path for NCC.
I realise there might be a language barrier in play here but I firmly ask you to stay away from these kind of terms to describe something that couldn’t be further from it.
Stay civil or lose your argument, whatever that might be. -- Sebastian Wiesinger Senior Principal Network Architect Service Integration
noris network AG Thomas-Mann-Straße 16-20 90471 Nürnberg Deutschland
Tel +49 911 9352 1459 Fax +49 911 9352 100 Email sebastian.wiesinger@noris.de
noris network AG - Mehr Leistung als Standard Vorstand: Ingo Kraupa (Vorsitzender), Joachim Astel, Florian Sippel Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Stefan Schnabel - AG Nürnberg HRB 17689 _______________________________________________ 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.
participants (10)
-
Claudius Zingerli -
Denys Fedoryshchenko -
Dominique Rousseau -
Martin Hein -
Mihail Fedorov -
Ondrej Filip -
ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED -
sdy＠a-n-t.ru -
Sebastian Wiesinger -
Sergey Myasoedov