Hi members, We should really not be voting for this make the big players pay, I saw something that would work well but got ignored. " 1. Im suggest this scheme LIR membership fixed fee - 100 EUR/year per account + Resouce based fee: - ASN - 0 EUR/year per ASN - IPv6 - 0.05 EUR/year per IPv6 /48 (i.e. /48 = 0.05 EUR/year, /29 = 50 EUR/year) - IPv4 - 0.046875 EUR/year per IPv4 /32 (i.e. /24 = 12 EUR/year, /22 = 48 EUR/year) With parsed public stats from RIPE its resulted as = 42 529 216 EUR (TOTAL) -------------------------------- 2 149 200 EUR (LIR fixed fee) 1 152 761 EUR (IPv6) 39 227 255 EUR (IPv4) Someone say, ITS TO HIGH... But stop! IPv/4 on market for lease cost over 100 EUR/month (or 1200 EUR/year), but for LIR its will be cost only 12 EUR/year(!) - x100 difference! If some LIR dont want to have x100 profit over year - then, this LIR can return resources to RIPE pool and its will be RE-distributed across LIRs who seek resources. " Not sure who posted it but I think this would be the most "fair" way as the current billing scheme does not look "fair" at all right now, someone with a /8 is paying the same as someone who has a /24 please just stop and take that in. You are letting the rich get richer, please do not vote for this and actually make a change. Kind regards, Blake @ BGP Technologies LTD. ________________________________ From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Daniel Pearson <daniel@privatesystems.net> Sent: 24 April 2024 16:33 To: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] GM topic I'll support that, it's simple enough. On 4/24/24 10:28 AM, Max Tulyev wrote:

I have created the request for GM Agenda proposal "Keep current billing scheme for the next year".

Now it depends on your support. If there will be 400 supports, it should be included to GM.

Here it is the link: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/member-proposals/1/

You just need to click on the "Support" button.

24.04.24 17:37, Max Tulyev пише:

...

Hello!

I as the member would like to add a topic for vote on GM.

What is the procedure to do that?

_______________________________________________ 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/maxtul%40netassist.ua

_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/daniel%40privatesyste...

_______________________________________________ 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/blake66%40live.co.uk

Hi. I and my clients LIRs support this proposal despite RIPE board replied multiple times it’s not discussable question. I honestly believe RIPE can not ignore members and decide budget and fees on their own without community. Timeframe given for discussion was extremely small and no input from members was heard. Also proposal just today gained 168 votes (at the moment I’m writing this) and that clearly indicates that’s not minority like some other members say. If we can not agree on fee scheme suitable for everyone - we are required to stick to current fee and not raise it, that’s my opinion.

On 25 Apr 2024, at 1:33, M. Omer GOLGELI via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> wrote:

I agree with this kind of logic.

If 59% of RIPE NCC's yearly budget goes to salaries, then either that or the reason behind that should be handled instead of asking people to pay more. We all knew the number of LIRs would be decreasing with the exhaustion of IPv4 space. We need a sustainable solution that will make better sense for all, not just for some.

A LIR with a single assignment shouldn't be paying the same amount (or a few hundred less) compared to a LIR with a /8 and hundreds of ASNs, tickets etc. Due to using more assignments, having more needs, if they are using more resources (IT, DB, human, legal etc.) then they should be paying a lot more.

It doesn't make sense pay for their operating costs on the dime of smaller LIRs. And I don't understand why this kind of Charging Scheme is never made part of these votings.

/Omer

M. Omer GOLGELI --- AS202365

https://as202365.peeringdb.com https://bgp.he.net/AS202365

April 24, 2024 at 7:02 PM, "Blake Shepherd" <blake66@live.co.uk> wrote:

...

Hi members,

We should really not be voting for this make the big players pay, I saw something that would work well but got ignored.

"

1.

Im suggest this scheme

LIR membership fixed fee - 100 EUR/year per account + Resouce based fee: - ASN - 0 EUR/year per ASN - IPv6 - 0.05 EUR/year per IPv6 /48 (i.e. /48 = 0.05 EUR/year, /29 = 50 EUR/year) - IPv4 - 0.046875 EUR/year per IPv4 /32 (i.e. /24 = 12 EUR/year, /22 = 48 EUR/year)

With parsed public stats from RIPE its resulted as

= 42 529 216 EUR (TOTAL) -------------------------------- 2 149 200 EUR (LIR fixed fee) 1 152 761 EUR (IPv6) 39 227 255 EUR (IPv4)

Someone say, ITS TO HIGH...

But stop!

IPv/4 on market for lease cost over 100 EUR/month (or 1200 EUR/year), but for LIR its will be cost only 12 EUR/year(!) - x100 difference!

If some LIR dont want to have x100 profit over year - then, this LIR can return resources to RIPE pool and its will be RE-distributed across LIRs who seek resources.

"

Not sure who posted it but I think this would be the most "fair" way as the current billing scheme does not look "fair" at all right now, someone with a /8 is paying the same as someone who has a /24 please just stop and take that in.

You are letting the rich get richer, please do not vote for this and actually make a change.

**Kind regards,**

**Blake @ BGP Technologies LTD.**

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

**From:** members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Daniel Pearson <daniel@privatesystems.net> **Sent:** 24 April 2024 16:33 **To:** members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> **Subject:** Re: [members-discuss] GM topic

I'll support that, it's simple enough.

...

On 4/24/24 10:28 AM, Max Tulyev wrote:

I have created the request for GM Agenda proposal "Keep current

...

billing scheme for the next year".

...

...

Now it depends on your support. If there will be 400 supports, it

...

should be included to GM.

...

...

Here it is the link:

...

https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/member-proposals/1/

...

...

You just need to click on the "Support" button.

...

...

24.04.24 17:37, Max Tulyev пише:

...

...

Hello!

...

...

...

...

I as the member would like to add a topic for vote on GM.

...

...

...

...

What is the procedure to do that?

...

...

...

...

_______________________________________________

...

...

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/maxtul%40netassist.ua

...

...

...

...

_______________________________________________

...

members-discuss mailing list

...

members-discuss@ripe.net

...

https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss

...

Unsubscribe:

...

https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/daniel%40privatesyste...

_______________________________________________

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/blake66%40live.co.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/mihail%40fedorov.net

But the fact that how many addresses LIR holds does not imply how many tickets it generates. Please don't use this the popular lie that more LIR automatically generates more tickets when he has larger allocation. Experienced people with years of experience usually work there compared to new startup LIRs, who are learning related stuff (and and sometimes asks over ticket). And documentation of assignments is a community requirement. And from this perspective fair-share of related expenes (IT etc) is on the contrary, adequate. - Daniel On 4/25/24 12:32 AM, M. Omer GOLGELI via members-discuss wrote:

A LIR with a single assignment shouldn't be paying the same amount (or a few hundred less) compared to a LIR with a /8 and hundreds of ASNs, tickets etc. Due to using more assignments, having more needs, if they are using more resources (IT, DB, human, legal etc.) then they should be paying a lot more.

It doesn't make sense pay for their operating costs on the dime of smaller LIRs. And I don't understand why this kind of Charging Scheme is never made part of these votings.

I very much support this proposal, even though I probably won't vote for it. But I think it's an important signal that there are parts of the membership who are against the way NCC Leadership conducts their work. I haven't participated in this discussion because I don't have the time (as the Broadcom costs a large amount of time and money - a very good reminder that trusting the big American organizations is a dangerous proposition), and also because we already had all those discussions last year. But what irks me is the way we are treated. Last year, they tried to get their usual budget increase in by giving us no option for a new charging scheme that didn't have a budget increase baked in, and in the end the proposals failed and instead we stayed with the old charging scheme. I think that was because it was the only option without budget increase, but I might be very wrong. I don't think there was ever a survey about it. So now instead they give us no option that doesn't increase the money they can play with. We always hear "this is a membership organization" and "we are reading the list" but in the end what the membership wants doesn't matter. The activity plan and with it the budget is set by the Executive Board with "input" from membership, but the membership has no decision powers. In my opinion this will be a never ending story as long as that's the case. The way I see it, the activities that are financed by our membership fees (and with them the budget) should be voted on by the membership. And if the Board wants to have additional "services" they can always be paid addons. With that in place, the charging scheme could just be set once by voting on the type of charging scheme we want, without fixed fees but instead based on a formula that calculates the fees each year based on the budget and expected membership numbers. When the budget changes and / or the membership decreases, the fees can be automatically recalculated to ensure the budget will be available. Of course, I have no clue about the legality of such an approach. I'm very much of the opinion that RIPE as a registry and a lobby organization is very important for us and should have the funding it needs to fulfil these functions. I do object to the way the leadership seems to think all the members are here for is to provide their yearly budget increase like nice little zombies. Best regards, Andreas -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> Im Auftrag von Max Tulyev Gesendet: Mittwoch, 24. April 2024 17:28 An: members-discuss@ripe.net Betreff: Re: [members-discuss] GM topic I have created the request for GM Agenda proposal "Keep current billing scheme for the next year". Now it depends on your support. If there will be 400 supports, it should be included to GM. Here it is the link: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/member-proposals/1/ You just need to click on the "Support" button.

+1 Note: I repeat, I feel the need to share this endorsement that I am agree with this sharing because the board thinks that we do not agree if we don’t share anything. -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards Murat TERZIOGLU PREBITS Bochumer Str. 20 44866 Bochum Deutschland Telefon: 0234/58825994 Telefax: 0234/58825995 <http://www.prebits.de/> www.prebits.de <mailto:info@prebits.de> info@prebits.de USt-ID: DE315418902 Von: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> Im Auftrag von Kai Siering via members-discuss Gesendet: Donnerstag, 25. April 2024 02:07 An: members-discuss@ripe.net Betreff: Re: [members-discuss] GM topic Moin, am 25.04.24 um 00:13 schrieb Andreas Grabmüller | QuarIt GmbH: I very much support this proposal, even though I probably won't vote for it. But I think it's an important signal that there are parts of the membership who are against the way NCC Leadership conducts their work. Ack. […] what irks me is the way we are treated. Last year, they tried to get their usual budget increase in by giving us no option for a new charging scheme that didn't have a budget increase baked in, and in the end the proposals failed and instead we stayed with the old charging scheme. I think that was because it was the only option without budget increase, but I might be very wrong. I don't think there was ever a survey about it. So now instead they give us no option that doesn't increase the money they can play with. Ack. We always hear "this is a membership organization" and "we are reading the list" but in the end what the membership wants doesn't matter. The activity plan and with it the budget is set by the Executive Board with "input" from membership, but the membership has no decision powers. Ack. And in my opinion this must change. In 2024, that is. […] The way I see it, the activities that are financed by our membership fees (and with them the budget) should be voted on by the membership. Ack. I'm very much of the opinion that RIPE as a registry and a lobby organization is very important for us and should have the funding it needs to fulfil these functions. I do object to the way the leadership seems to think all the members are here for is to provide their yearly budget increase like nice little zombies. With emphasis of "seems to think": Ack. I'm upset by the neglectance the Board is demonstrating with regards to last Spring's discussion. Yes, there's a five year plan in place the Board wants to follow thru. (Did we, the membership, actually got to vote on that plan? I really don't remember.) Even if the membership green-lighted that plan, given the recent change in economics AND last Spring's discussion, it's rather defiant of the Board to simply state "we do not believe that this is the right year to change the existing model" and call it a day. Given that it's now being discussed what kind of proposals by the membership are allowed by the Articles of Association, I strongly suggest the Board should drop the topic "Charging scheme 2025" from upcoming GM's agenda, do their homework and move this topic – in revised form! – to the Autumn GM. Regards, -kai -- Kai Siering Senior System Engineer mail.de GmbH Münsterstraße 3 D-33330 Gütersloh Tel.: +49 (0) 5241 / 74 34 986 Fax: +49 (0) 5241 / 74 34 987 E-Mail: k.siering@team.mail.de <mailto:k.siering@team.mail.de> Web: https://mail.de/ Geschäftsführender Gesellschafter: Fabian Bock Sitz der Gesellschaft Nordhastedt Handelsregister Pinneberg HRB 8007 PI Steuernummer 18 293 20020

Dear friends, please dont forget to register to the GM May 2024 to be able to vote and show our active contribution: Registration Link: https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active GM Vote Registrations Per Country: https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2024/ -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards Murat TERZIOGLU PREBITS Bochumer Str. 20 44866 Bochum Deutschland Telefon: 0234/58825994 Telefax: 0234/58825995 <http://www.prebits.de/> www.prebits.de <mailto:info@prebits.de> info@prebits.de USt-ID: DE315418902 Von: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> Im Auftrag von info@survivor.com.tr Gesendet: Donnerstag, 25. April 2024 09:24 An: members-discuss@ripe.net Betreff: Re: [members-discuss] GM topic Dear Ripe NNC, I repeat, I feel the need to share this endorsement that I am agree with this sharing because the board thinks that we do not agree if we don’t share anything. Hear the members' voices. Turkish translation support is also requested for more active communication. Ripe NCC has these facilities. Best regards Zekeriya Köş Managing Partner Phone:+90 850 840 6452 Direct: +90 542 790 6502 kos.zekeriya@survivor.com.tr <mailto:kos.zekeriya@survivor.com.tr> SURVIVOR Bilişim Teknolojileri Anonim Şirketi http://www.survivor.com.tr From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> > On Behalf Of Kai Siering via members-discuss Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2024 3:07 AM To: members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] GM topic Moin, am 25.04.24 um 00:13 schrieb Andreas Grabmüller | QuarIt GmbH: I very much support this proposal, even though I probably won't vote for it. But I think it's an important signal that there are parts of the membership who are against the way NCC Leadership conducts their work. Ack. […] what irks me is the way we are treated. Last year, they tried to get their usual budget increase in by giving us no option for a new charging scheme that didn't have a budget increase baked in, and in the end the proposals failed and instead we stayed with the old charging scheme. I think that was because it was the only option without budget increase, but I might be very wrong. I don't think there was ever a survey about it. So now instead they give us no option that doesn't increase the money they can play with. Ack. We always hear "this is a membership organization" and "we are reading the list" but in the end what the membership wants doesn't matter. The activity plan and with it the budget is set by the Executive Board with "input" from membership, but the membership has no decision powers. Ack. And in my opinion this must change. In 2024, that is. […] The way I see it, the activities that are financed by our membership fees (and with them the budget) should be voted on by the membership. Ack. I'm very much of the opinion that RIPE as a registry and a lobby organization is very important for us and should have the funding it needs to fulfil these functions. I do object to the way the leadership seems to think all the members are here for is to provide their yearly budget increase like nice little zombies. With emphasis of "seems to think": Ack. I'm upset by the neglectance the Board is demonstrating with regards to last Spring's discussion. Yes, there's a five year plan in place the Board wants to follow thru. (Did we, the membership, actually got to vote on that plan? I really don't remember.) Even if the membership green-lighted that plan, given the recent change in economics AND last Spring's discussion, it's rather defiant of the Board to simply state "we do not believe that this is the right year to change the existing model" and call it a day. Given that it's now being discussed what kind of proposals by the membership are allowed by the Articles of Association, I strongly suggest the Board should drop the topic "Charging scheme 2025" from upcoming GM's agenda, do their homework and move this topic – in revised form! – to the Autumn GM. Regards, -kai -- Kai Siering Senior System Engineer mail.de GmbH Münsterstraße 3 D-33330 Gütersloh Tel.: +49 (0) 5241 / 74 34 986 Fax: +49 (0) 5241 / 74 34 987 E-Mail: k.siering@team.mail.de <mailto:k.siering@team.mail.de> Web: https://mail.de/ Geschäftsführender Gesellschafter: Fabian Bock Sitz der Gesellschaft Nordhastedt Handelsregister Pinneberg HRB 8007 PI Steuernummer 18 293 20020

RIPE NCC: I find it so incredible the way that RIPE NCC have approached, yet again, this . It seems that what ever feedback is given, RIPE management just want to push their view through. I would have thought that last year would have made the Management team think about the feedback given. But know , here we go again. We fully support the GM agenda proposal put forward by Max Tulyev in the hopes that RIPE Management may take note of the silent majority. Just because we do not jump up and down and shout doesn’t mean you can just assume that your way is right. George Porter Operations Director 01928238390 07956592260 george.porter@in-services.co.uk [ins 100x120] SUPPLY - INSTALL - SUPPORT www.in-services.co.uk<http://www.in-services.co.uk/> This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. Integrated Network Services Limited, The Heath Business Park, Runcorn, Cheshire WA7 4QX. Tel 01928 238390. Registered in England 7360277. From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of info@survivor.com.tr Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2024 8:24 AM To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] GM topic Dear Ripe NNC, I repeat, I feel the need to share this endorsement that I am agree with this sharing because the board thinks that we do not agree if we don’t share anything. Hear the members' voices. Turkish translation support is also requested for more active communication. Ripe NCC has these facilities. Best regards Zekeriya Köş Managing Partner Phone:+90 850 840 6452 Direct: +90 542 790 6502 kos.zekeriya@survivor.com.tr<mailto:kos.zekeriya@survivor.com.tr> SURVIVOR Bilişim Teknolojileri Anonim Şirketi http://www.survivor.com.tr From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> On Behalf Of Kai Siering via members-discuss Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2024 3:07 AM To: members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] GM topic Moin, am 25.04.24 um 00:13 schrieb Andreas Grabmüller | QuarIt GmbH: I very much support this proposal, even though I probably won't vote for it. But I think it's an important signal that there are parts of the membership who are against the way NCC Leadership conducts their work. Ack. […] what irks me is the way we are treated. Last year, they tried to get their usual budget increase in by giving us no option for a new charging scheme that didn't have a budget increase baked in, and in the end the proposals failed and instead we stayed with the old charging scheme. I think that was because it was the only option without budget increase, but I might be very wrong. I don't think there was ever a survey about it. So now instead they give us no option that doesn't increase the money they can play with. Ack. We always hear "this is a membership organization" and "we are reading the list" but in the end what the membership wants doesn't matter. The activity plan and with it the budget is set by the Executive Board with "input" from membership, but the membership has no decision powers. Ack. And in my opinion this must change. In 2024, that is. […] The way I see it, the activities that are financed by our membership fees (and with them the budget) should be voted on by the membership. Ack. I'm very much of the opinion that RIPE as a registry and a lobby organization is very important for us and should have the funding it needs to fulfil these functions. I do object to the way the leadership seems to think all the members are here for is to provide their yearly budget increase like nice little zombies. With emphasis of "seems to think": Ack. I'm upset by the neglectance the Board is demonstrating with regards to last Spring's discussion. Yes, there's a five year plan in place the Board wants to follow thru. (Did we, the membership, actually got to vote on that plan? I really don't remember.) Even if the membership green-lighted that plan, given the recent change in economics AND last Spring's discussion, it's rather defiant of the Board to simply state "we do not believe that this is the right year to change the existing model" and call it a day. Given that it's now being discussed what kind of proposals by the membership are allowed by the Articles of Association, I strongly suggest the Board should drop the topic "Charging scheme 2025" from upcoming GM's agenda, do their homework and move this topic – in revised form! – to the Autumn GM. Regards, -kai -- Kai Siering Senior System Engineer mail.de GmbH Münsterstraße 3 D-33330 Gütersloh Tel.: +49 (0) 5241 / 74 34 986 Fax: +49 (0) 5241 / 74 34 987 E-Mail: k.siering@team.mail.de<mailto:k.siering@team.mail.de> Web: https://mail.de/ Geschäftsführender Gesellschafter: Fabian Bock Sitz der Gesellschaft Nordhastedt Handelsregister Pinneberg HRB 8007 PI Steuernummer 18 293 20020

Dear RIPE NCC, Among the multiple LIR I represent, I only can add support from 3 of them. RIPE NCC, please, make it possible to add support from all of them. best, Clément Cavadore On Wed, 2024-04-24 at 18:28 +0300, Max Tulyev wrote:

I have created the request for GM Agenda proposal "Keep current billing scheme for the next year".

Now it depends on your support. If there will be 400 supports, it should be included to GM.

Here it is the link: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/member-proposals/1/

You just need to click on the "Support" button.

24.04.24 17:37, Max Tulyev пише:

...

Hello!

I as the member would like to add a topic for vote on GM.

What is the procedure to do that?

_______________________________________________ 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/maxtul%40netassist.ua

_______________________________________________ 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/ccavadore%40vedege.ne...

I agree 100% with this! On 4/25/24 2:18 AM, Hank Nussbacher wrote:

On 24/04/2024 18:28, Max Tulyev wrote:

I have added my support as I suggest everyone else do.

Everyone should realize that the major issue here is whether the annual fees will increase somewhere between 16-23%.  Max has suggested a 0% increase.

Look at the 2023 financial report: https://www.ripe.net/documents/3756/ripe-821.pdf

No need to read all 39 pages - just page 6.  Quote:

"In 2023, we focused on reducing costs to ensure we can cope with the reduction in income due to the decrease of LIR accounts over the past few years. As a result, total expenditure was 37.3M EUR, 2.7 kEUR (7%) below the budget of 40M EUR. This puts us in a good position to operate within the 2024 budget of 38.2M EUR and to cope with inflation."

A target budget of 37-38M Euro is easily doable and we should not agree to a 20% increase in fees in order to support a 20% increase in total budget.

Regards, Hank

...

I have created the request for GM Agenda proposal "Keep current billing scheme for the next year".

Now it depends on your support. If there will be 400 supports, it should be included to GM.

Here it is the link: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/member-proposals/1/

You just need to click on the "Support" button.

_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/daniel%40privatesyste...

Hello all, I just want to make some corrections on the facts that can help with the discussion. On the budget numbers, a 20% revenue or cost budget increase is simply incorrect.When I talk about revenue budget, I specifically mean the revenue the Charging Scheme is projected to generate. This is the discussion we are having now, and will be decided at the upcoming GM. When I talk about cost budget, I specifically mean the Activity Plan & Budget. As part of our governance, this discussion will start after the summer. Option A from the three proposals does indeed propose a 22.58% LIR fee increase. This is correct. All three options project a budget revenue of 41.1 Million EUR, which is an 8% increase from the 2024 revenue budget of 38M EUR, and a 3% increase compared to 2023 (40M EUR). This projection is based on a reducing number of LIR accounts:- 2023 Budget number of LIR Accounts 22,500- 2024 Budget number of LIR Accounts 21,500- 2025 projected Budget number of LIR Accounts 20,000 - equal to the number of individual members The reason for this decline is the expected continued consolidation of multiple LIR accounts.Additionally, we see a stable development of individual members, at around 20,000 for the past four years, and we use this as the basis to ensure some stability in our revenue budget. We use the Activity Plan & Budget 2024 to estimate the cost budget for 2025, including a general increase for inflation and salary increases. This is under the assumption the RIPE NCC will execute our responsibilities without any change in activities. Our projected revenue budget does not define our cost budget for 2025 - the Activity Plan and Budget process does. If the situation arises that we have collected more funds than needed our governance requires a redistribution vote at the autumn GM.Please note that with the assumption that the LIR account projection of 20,000 for 2025 is correct, not increasing the LIR fee would result in a projected revenue budget of 34 Million EUR.This would mean a reduction of 11% (34M) compared to revenue budget 2024 (38M), and a 15% reduction compared to 2023 (40M). Lastly, I want to make it very clear that we, as the RIPE NCC, are not opposed to differentiation between members. We did propose the category model last year based on extensive consultation and discussion with the members, which could have been the start of this differentiation. This model was rejected, and we have to respect that. Any proposal will need consensus, as well as input from a diverse group of members, to ensure we reach a Charging Scheme that serves the needs (as far as possible) of all our members. Please use my words here as input for the discussion. I have purposely not given an opinion, as the discussion should be among members. Kind regards, Simon Jan HaytinkRIPE NCC CFO On 25/04/2024 09:18, Hank Nussbacher wrote:

On 24/04/2024 18:28, Max Tulyev wrote:

I have added my support as I suggest everyone else do.

Everyone should realize that the major issue here is whether the annual fees will increase somewhere between 16-23%.  Max has suggested a 0% increase.

Look at the 2023 financial report: https://www.ripe.net/documents/3756/ripe-821.pdf

No need to read all 39 pages - just page 6.  Quote:

"In 2023, we focused on reducing costs to ensure we can cope with the reduction in income due to the decrease of LIR accounts over the past few years. As a result, total expenditure was 37.3M EUR, 2.7 kEUR (7%) below the budget of 40M EUR. This puts us in a good position to operate within the 2024 budget of 38.2M EUR and to cope with inflation."

A target budget of 37-38M Euro is easily doable and we should not agree to a 20% increase in fees in order to support a 20% increase in total budget.

Regards, Hank

...

I have created the request for GM Agenda proposal "Keep current billing scheme for the next year".

Now it depends on your support. If there will be 400 supports, it should be included to GM.

Here it is the link: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/member-proposals/1/

You just need to click on the "Support" button.

_______________________________________________ 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/simonjh%40ripe.net

Hello Simon, i agree with Mihail and i would add also something: I think it is necessary to ensure active participation of members in discussions and voting. As there are barriers (language and timing) and I think it is difficult to say that 100% correct decisions could have been made with 5% participation. And only for that not to add the category model as an option or other models is not a good solution i think. Offered models were actually one model with minor changes. There were no resource based models for example... -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards Murat TERZIOGLU PREBITS Bochumer Str. 20 44866 Bochum Deutschland Telefon: 0234/58825994 Telefax: 0234/58825995 www.prebits.de info@prebits.de USt-ID: DE315418902 -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> Im Auftrag von Mihail Fedorov Gesendet: Freitag, 26. April 2024 10:40 An: Simon-Jan Haytink <simonjh@ripe.net> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Betreff: Re: [members-discuss] GM topic Hello Simon! I appreciate your work and thanks for noticing this discussion. You’re mentioning a significant and diverse group of members. As you can see in proposal just overnight it was signed by 450 LIRs from different places in the whole region, big and small. Does it count as diverse group? I honestly believe it’s majority of those who actually read this list. Member proposal is formed as simple “do not change” because current logic clearly prohibits to propose anything else. I thinks it’s terrible on its own. Proposed by board charging scheme was posted as a draft just recently and got hundreds of disagreements instantly. This clearly indicates it needs to be reworked. Yet it wasn’t done. Me, and many other members want to see clear answer why it wasn’t even tried. Reasoning behind not doing anything is absurd: 1. If members didn’t voted for this last year - you should not remove such option this year. Maybe they changed their mind? After all if members disagree with anything other proposed they still can vote for original scheme. 2. Members clearly indicated that RIPE budget decrease MUST be discussed. It’s always sounds scary, but this happens and there is no shame in discussing that. Pardon my wording, but I still see no clear reason why different scheme wasn’t worked, only friendly responses without intent to do something. Sometimes not even friendly, just statements that it won’t be discussed. If you state that board is not opposed to different charging scheme or budget cuts - please clearly indicate why it was not done. Thanks!

On 26 Apr 2024, at 10:59, Simon-Jan Haytink <simonjh@ripe.net> wrote:

Simon

_______________________________________________ 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/m.terzioglu%40prebits...

Moin, am 30.04.24 um 13:57 schrieb Simon-Jan Haytink:

As an association, we need to ensure we do not become too dependent on large multinational contributors that can easily move registrations to other RIRs.

Well, IANAL, but I'd like to understand why anybody should be able to move "their" resources out of the RIPE Service Region in the first place. If they are not to be used within the RIPE Service Region anymore, clearly the provisions for allocating these resources (from those managed by the RIPE NCC for the RIPE Service Region) don't apply anymore, hence these have to be returned to the RIPE NCC.

We see and have accepted the fact that last year’s category model was not without its flaws. To ensure we can actually submit a model that is as good as possible, we will need time to further consult with our members, and that could well result in a category or tiered model. […] Overall, we see and acknowledge the need to seriously review our charging model, but what we are asking for is time and stability in the short term so we can put in the required work to come up with a model that works.

So, what happened between April 2023 and April 2024 in this area? Did I miss the request for input for a new charging model after the proposed category model failed approvement last year? See, I do read your lines, but I fail to see appropriate action by the Board in this regard — only after the current backfire came statements like yours, but that's just too little much too late, imho. Regards, -kai -- Kai Siering Senior System Engineer mail.de GmbH Münsterstraße 3 D-33330 Gütersloh Tel.: +49 (0) 5241 / 74 34 986 Fax: +49 (0) 5241 / 74 34 987 E-Mail:k.siering@team.mail.de Web:https://mail.de/ Geschäftsführender Gesellschafter: Fabian Bock Sitz der Gesellschaft Nordhastedt Handelsregister Pinneberg HRB 8007 PI Steuernummer 18 293 20020

Dear Mihail, all,Defining what exactly a diverse group is will be difficult. There are 20,000 members and over 5,000 subscribed to this list, with many obviously following closely. It is also interesting to note that over 400 people have unsubscribed from the members-discuss list in this month alone. Some are very committed to this topic, while others are actively removing themselves from the conversation. This highlights how difficult it can be to reach a good consensus or make sure all members are engaged on the topics that matter. But clearly there are strong opinions from a large set of members that we can’t ignore. Translating this into a good Charging Scheme for all members will still be a difficult task, and one that we will have to invest a lot of time and effort into together with the membership. And I completely agree that we should not be afraid to discuss our budget or other things that the members want to discuss. In fact, that discussion is vital if we are to arrive at a good model. Every year during the Activity Plan & Budget process, we do everything we can to get input from our members, but it seems this discussion mainly takes place when we discuss the Charging Scheme. As a financial person, I do understand why, as it can be seen as a boundary for the Cost Budget. But the intent of the Charging Scheme is to ensure sufficient revenue to execute our committed activities. Our Activity Plan & Budget defines these activities. The redistribution vote required by our governance is the safeguard to ensure an excess of funds can be returned to our members (it can also ensure a shortage of funds is charged to our members). As CFO, I will do what I can to ensure we remain conservative and reasonable, but at the same time, we must ensure we have sufficient funds. Active participation is something that is always high on the agenda of the RIPE NCC. But I do want to highlight the position we are currently in. We see requests to ensure active engagement, and to give more training and carry out communication in local languages, but to increase these efforts, which we are more than willing to do, we need to ensure we have sufficient funds. We also have priorities such as enhancing the security of the Registry and members’ resources and accommodating the greatly increased complexity in the registry. In short, we are being asked to do significantly more while significantly cutting costs, so something will have to give somewhere. I do think this is a challenge every organisation faces, whether it’s a for-profit company or a not-for-profit company. We have accepted this challenge and will continue to focus on cost efficiency, but to be successful in this challenge we also need a stable association, and financial uncertainty does not help stability. Kind regards, Simon-Jan HaytinkRIPE NCC, CFO On 26/04/2024 10:40, Mihail Fedorov wrote:

Hello Simon!

I appreciate your work and thanks for noticing this discussion.

You’re mentioning a significant and diverse group of members. As you can see in proposal just overnight it was signed by 450 LIRs from different places in the whole region, big and small. Does it count as diverse group? I honestly believe it’s majority of those who actually read this list.

Member proposal is formed as simple “do not change” because current logic clearly prohibits to propose anything else. I thinks it’s terrible on its own.

Proposed by board charging scheme was posted as a draft just recently and got hundreds of disagreements instantly. This clearly indicates it needs to be reworked. Yet it wasn’t done. Me, and many other members want to see clear answer why it wasn’t even tried.

Reasoning behind not doing anything is absurd:

1. If members didn’t voted for this last year - you should not remove such option this year. Maybe they changed their mind? After all if members disagree with anything other proposed they still can vote for original scheme.

2. Members clearly indicated that RIPE budget decrease MUST be discussed. It’s always sounds scary, but this happens and there is no shame in discussing that.

Pardon my wording, but I still see no clear reason why different scheme wasn’t worked, only friendly responses without intent to do something. Sometimes not even friendly, just statements that it won’t be discussed.

If you state that board is not opposed to different charging scheme or budget cuts - please clearly indicate why it was not done.

Thanks!

...

On 26 Apr 2024, at 10:59, Simon-Jan Haytink<simonjh@ripe.net> wrote:

Simon

On 30 Apr 2024, at 16:11, Patrick Velder <lists@velder.li> wrote:

 Hi Simon-Jan

Thanks for your words. Let me add my 2 comments:

Mailing list: If I ever unsubscribe this list, it will be due to thousands of ticket systems, which are auto responding to literally every single mail. Or other members trying to unsubscribe me from the list, after posting. Or people posting "unsubscribe me!!!". Funding: I agree, that the RIPE NCC needs enough funding for its core services. As long as the CEO's office is listed in your budget with 2,2mio € (this is >120x my rent, and I'm not living in a cheap country), I guess you are funded very very well.

Just to be exact, the CEO office budget is salaries of all the executives, and the EA, and includes significant travel expenses. So it is not that high, all things considered.

Apart from that, the membership said "no" twice to ASN fees. Introducing them through the back door is not fair and will probably fail a 3rd time. Please accept the fact that the community does not want ASN fees.

Regarding the proposals: RIPE had one year time to work on several proposals. Unfortunately they were published just a few weeks prior the meeting and no input of the discussion was used to develop these models.

I am now start to wonder what is the best option to reach rough consensus (as I think a polarizing vote is not good to move forward) while keeping the organization funded. While there is a statutory obligation to vote on CS in 2024 so 2025 income is predicted, perhaps a potential move of agenda point to the Prague meeting is a solution? It has a potential for more board meetings between now and then to improve the offer, for Krakow meeting discussions to take place and go further, perhaps another open house, and even for a newly elected board members to participate (while someone leaving a board would be excluded, so there is a trade off.) Meanwhile I see that one of member proposals has a huge support, while the other, not so. Any comment from the board on that?

Best regards Patrick

On 30.04.24 13:55, Simon-Jan Haytink wrote:

...

Dear Mihail, all,

Defining what exactly a diverse group is will be difficult. There are 20,000 members and over 5,000 subscribed to this list, with many obviously following closely. It is also interesting to note that over 400 people have unsubscribed from the members-discuss list in this month alone.

I worry more about 3/4 membership not interested in our discussions than 400 leaving. While some people could have been unsubscribed by their will over the time, or due to bounced email addresses, I recall that one was added to the list upon LIR creation. Any ideas why people are not on the list? — dk@ (waiting for one more NOC ticket…)

Dear Dmitry, Please see the mail from Ondrej regarding the Board meeting that will take place on Monday. The board will discuss all the options available including the two proposals received from members. Thanks for your input on this. Regards, Simon Jan Haytink RIPE NCC CFO On 30/04/2024 19:48, Dmitry Kohmanyuk via members-discuss wrote:

On 30 Apr 2024, at 16:11, Patrick Velder <lists@velder.li> wrote:

...



Hi Simon-Jan

Thanks for your words. Let me add my 2 comments:

1. Mailing list: If I ever unsubscribe this list, it will be due to thousands of ticket systems, which are auto responding to literally every single mail. Or other members trying to unsubscribe me from the list, after posting. Or people posting "unsubscribe me!!!". 2. Funding: I agree, that the RIPE NCC needs enough funding for its core services. As long as the CEO's office is listed in your budget with 2,2mio € (this is >120x my rent, and I'm not living in a cheap country), I guess you are funded very very well.

Just to be exact, the CEO office budget is salaries of all the executives, and the EA, and includes significant travel expenses.

So it is not that high, all things considered.

...

Apart from that, the membership said "no" twice to ASN fees. Introducing them through the back door is not fair and will probably fail a 3rd time. Please accept the fact that the community does not want ASN fees.

Regarding the proposals: RIPE had one year time to work on several proposals. Unfortunately they were published just a few weeks prior the meeting and no input of the discussion was used to develop these models.

I am now start to wonder what is the best option to reach rough consensus (as I think a polarizing vote is not good to move forward) while keeping the organization funded.

While there is a statutory obligation to vote on CS in 2024 so 2025 income is predicted, perhaps a potential move of agenda point to the Prague meeting is a solution?

It has a potential for more board meetings between now and then to improve the offer, for Krakow meeting discussions to take place and go further, perhaps another open house, and even for a newly elected board members to participate (while someone leaving a board would be excluded, so there is a trade off.)

Meanwhile I see that one of member proposals has a huge support, while the other, not so. Any comment from the board on that?

...

Best regards Patrick

On 30.04.24 13:55, Simon-Jan Haytink wrote:

...

Dear Mihail, all,Defining what exactly a diverse group is will be difficult. There are 20,000 members and over 5,000 subscribed to this list, with many obviously following closely. It is also interesting to note that over 400 people have unsubscribed from the members-discuss list in this month alone.

I worry more about 3/4 membership not interested in our discussions than 400 leaving. While some people could have been unsubscribed by their will over the time, or due to bounced email addresses, I recall that one was added to the list upon LIR creation.

Any ideas why people are not on the list?

— dk@ (waiting for one more NOC ticket…)

_______________________________________________ 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/simonjh%40ripe.net

Hi Gert

The AP WG has clearly voiced a need for an ASN reclaim mechanism

I agree that a small fee would solve this problem. On the other hand, I don't understand why ASNs should be more expensive than IPv4 or IPv6 allocations. If we could agree on "Fees for sponsored ASNs" my answer would be yes, since there is more work involved (like ID check) compared to an assignment to a LIR. Best regards Patrick On 30.04.24 20:21, Gert Doering wrote:

Hi,

...

Apart from that, the membership said "no" twice to ASN fees. Introducing them through the back door is not fair and will probably fail a 3rd time. Please accept the fact that the community does not want ASN fees. We had ASN fees, and they disappeared through a less-than-transparent

On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 03:09:30PM +0200, Patrick Velder wrote: process. The AP WG has clearly voiced a need for an ASN reclaim mechanism that is more cost efficient than "hostmasters calling up members on a regular basis and asking 'is this still in use?'" - and a yearly fee, trivially affordable but annoying enough to question yourself(!) "do I still need that?" is working nicely.

So it's up there for a vote again - and this has nothing to do with "backdoor". It's one option. It will *lower* the fee for all members that have 0 or 1 ASN, and members that hand out ASNs like they are free should have had this in their financial plannings. Our sponsoring LIR contracts all have the clause "and we charge whatever RIPE asks us for, plus a handling fee"...

Gert Doering -- NetMaster

Hi Gert and all, We are discussing about the RIPE NCC membership Fee which is a service fee. The fee is intended to cover the costs for the expenses of the services used more or less individual by the NCC members and additional activities of the RIPE NCC. IMHO it should not be misused as tax. (The german word for Tax is "Steuern", which means: to control/direct/regulate ). We may discuss, if a flatrate model is the best or if those members, consuming more services ( != hold ressouces) should pay more fees, was a better model. Finally I would maybe follow an argumentation, that additional ASNs could cause more overhead for the RIPE NCC, for example in the Routing Database and would accept a moderate fee if it was in relation to the real overhead. BTW, I was speaking about members. I never understood the sense of multiple LIRs per member, except that it was enabling members to get more "last /22" by paying Setup- and annual fees for it. Andreas Schmieja On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 08:21:01PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: Hi, On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 03:09:30PM +0200, Patrick Velder wrote: > Apart from that, the membership said "no" twice to ASN fees. Introducing > them through the back door is not fair and will probably fail a 3rd time. > Please accept the fact that the community does not want ASN fees. We had ASN fees, and they disappeared through a less-than-transparent process. The AP WG has clearly voiced a need for an ASN reclaim mechanism that is more cost efficient than "hostmasters calling up members on a regular basis and asking 'is this still in use?'" - and a yearly fee, trivially affordable but annoying enough to question yourself(!) "do I still need that?" is working nicely. So it's up there for a vote again - and this has nothing to do with "backdoor". It's one option. It will *lower* the fee for all members that have 0 or 1 ASN, and members that hand out ASNs like they are free should have had this in their financial plannings. Our sponsoring LIR contracts all have the clause "and we charge whatever RIPE asks us for, plus a handling fee"... Gert Doering

Dear Patrick, On the autoresponders, I share your frustration. We have been working to remove them and have seen a reduction, and we will continue to do this. The Office of the Managing Director, apart from the 2.6 FTEs, includes 1.2 million in contributions with the remainder being employment and operational expenses as well as the Board travel and expenses. The costs for the rest of the Executive Team are not included here - these are spread over the activities they are responsible for. This area saw 24% budget cuts compared to 2023. More details are in the Activity Plan and Budget 2024: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-814/#4.6%20Office%20of%20the%20M... <https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-814/#4.6%20Office%20of%20the%20Managing%20Director> It’s a fair point about ASNs. We did want to include options on how to divide the costs based on resources held in a way that fits with the “one LIR account-one fee” model because this offers the short-term simplicity I have been talking about. And as for why we didn’t use the time since the last GM to develop new proposals, the simple answer is that our priorities were on cost-cutting efforts, which has taken serious work that still continues. Together with the rejection of the category model last year, we felt it better to propose a simple model that would cover costs for 2025 and 2026. I understand the frustration but given the feedback last year was mainly focused on our budget, we felt the need to invest all our efforts into reducing costs wherever possible while maintaining our current services. Developing a completely different model with financial, legal and impact analyses from the Registry and other parts of the organisation is no small task and takes quite some time. But we are willing to invest that time to arrive at a better solution given the strength of opinion from members. Best regards, Simon Jan Haytink RIPE NCC CFO On 30/04/2024 15:09, Patrick Velder wrote:

Hi Simon-Jan

Thanks for your words. Let me add my 2 comments:

1. Mailing list: If I ever unsubscribe this list, it will be due to thousands of ticket systems, which are auto responding to literally every single mail. Or other members trying to unsubscribe me from the list, after posting. Or people posting "unsubscribe me!!!". 2. Funding: I agree, that the RIPE NCC needs enough funding for its core services. As long as the CEO's office is listed in your budget with 2,2mio € (this is >120x my rent, and I'm not living in a cheap country), I guess you are funded very very well.

Apart from that, the membership said "no" twice to ASN fees. Introducing them through the back door is not fair and will probably fail a 3rd time. Please accept the fact that the community does not want ASN fees.

Regarding the proposals: RIPE had one year time to work on several proposals. Unfortunately they were published just a few weeks prior the meeting and no input of the discussion was used to develop these models.

Best regards Patrick

On 30.04.24 13:55, Simon-Jan Haytink wrote:

...

Dear Mihail, all,Defining what exactly a diverse group is will be difficult. There are 20,000 members and over 5,000 subscribed to this list, with many obviously following closely. It is also interesting to note that over 400 people have unsubscribed from the members-discuss list in this month alone. Some are very committed to this topic, while others are actively removing themselves from the conversation. This highlights how difficult it can be to reach a good consensus or make sure all members are engaged on the topics that matter.

But clearly there are strong opinions from a large set of members that we can’t ignore. Translating this into a good Charging Scheme for all members will still be a difficult task, and one that we will have to invest a lot of time and effort into together with the membership. And I completely agree that we should not be afraid to discuss our budget or other things that the members want to discuss. In fact, that discussion is vital if we are to arrive at a good model.

Every year during the Activity Plan & Budget process, we do everything we can to get input from our members, but it seems this discussion mainly takes place when we discuss the Charging Scheme. As a financial person, I do understand why, as it can be seen as a boundary for the Cost Budget. But the intent of the Charging Scheme is to ensure sufficient revenue to execute our committed activities. Our Activity Plan & Budget defines these activities. The redistribution vote required by our governance is the safeguard to ensure an excess of funds can be returned to our members (it can also ensure a shortage of funds is charged to our members). As CFO, I will do what I can to ensure we remain conservative and reasonable, but at the same time, we must ensure we have sufficient funds.

Active participation is something that is always high on the agenda of the RIPE NCC. But I do want to highlight the position we are currently in. We see requests to ensure active engagement, and to give more training and carry out communication in local languages, but to increase these efforts, which we are more than willing to do, we need to ensure we have sufficient funds. We also have priorities such as enhancing the security of the Registry and members’ resources and accommodating the greatly increased complexity in the registry. In short, we are being asked to do significantly more while significantly cutting costs, so something will have to give somewhere.

I do think this is a challenge every organisation faces, whether it’s a for-profit company or a not-for-profit company. We have accepted this challenge and will continue to focus on cost efficiency, but to be successful in this challenge we also need a stable association, and financial uncertainty does not help stability.

Kind regards,

Simon-Jan HaytinkRIPE NCC, CFO

On 26/04/2024 10:40, Mihail Fedorov wrote:

...

Hello Simon!

I appreciate your work and thanks for noticing this discussion.

You’re mentioning a significant and diverse group of members. As you can see in proposal just overnight it was signed by 450 LIRs from different places in the whole region, big and small. Does it count as diverse group? I honestly believe it’s majority of those who actually read this list.

Member proposal is formed as simple “do not change” because current logic clearly prohibits to propose anything else. I thinks it’s terrible on its own.

Proposed by board charging scheme was posted as a draft just recently and got hundreds of disagreements instantly. This clearly indicates it needs to be reworked. Yet it wasn’t done. Me, and many other members want to see clear answer why it wasn’t even tried.

Reasoning behind not doing anything is absurd:

1. If members didn’t voted for this last year - you should not remove such option this year. Maybe they changed their mind? After all if members disagree with anything other proposed they still can vote for original scheme.

2. Members clearly indicated that RIPE budget decrease MUST be discussed. It’s always sounds scary, but this happens and there is no shame in discussing that.

Pardon my wording, but I still see no clear reason why different scheme wasn’t worked, only friendly responses without intent to do something. Sometimes not even friendly, just statements that it won’t be discussed.

If you state that board is not opposed to different charging scheme or budget cuts - please clearly indicate why it was not done.

Thanks!

...

On 26 Apr 2024, at 10:59, Simon-Jan Haytink<simonjh@ripe.net> wrote:

Simon

_______________________________________________ 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/lists%40velder.li

_______________________________________________ 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/simonjh%40ripe.net

On 30 Apr 2024 at 17:46:26, Jeremy <liste@freeheberg.com> wrote:

If the RIPE wanted to spend its money wisely, it would be useful, for example, if all official communications were translated into all EU languages!

RIPE has a wider community than just the EU… so this may not be the most balanced proposal too reach out to all members. f

Hi!

When I see the RIPE invoices arrive every year, I always ask the same question: Why do I have to pay for a service I never use?

The founders of RIPE had (approx. 30 years ago) in mind what would happen if the ISP community would not self-organise the IP address/number management. (I followed those discussions at that time via email lists etc). It was a very wise and forward-looking decision to have it structured like it is structured right now. Compare RIPE/IETF/etc with ITU and specs from the telco world. Compare RIPE/IETF/etc with the way mobile frequencies are managed. One scenario was to have the governments handle the numbers management. We can be sure it would much more expensive (fee structure) and slower and would still cost the ISP much more money to apply for resources. One scenario was that the big TelCos would start a sort of club and sort it out between themselves. No small niche players/startups would have been possible. Endless lawsuits between the big TelCos and the competition authorities and the different countries, trying to eek out bizarre thousand-page thick rulebooks with endless exceptions. One scenario was that basically the US government would decide all of that. *Those* were some of the possible futures at that time. We would live in a different internet world nowadays, the innovation and cost curve would look much different and most of the LIRs today would not exist at all. It will not be easy to find a solution for our time/structure today, but we should invest the time we have thanks to the RIPE financial reserves to really dig into short-, mid- and long-term scenarios with a much wider view of the possible futures. That's why keeping the fee structure the same for the time being and use our discussion bandwidth to look at the broader view is a sensible way out. (speaking for 2 LIRs, with a bit of history in mind) -- MfG/Best regards, Kurt Jaeger Now what ? Dr.-Ing. Nepustil & Co. GmbH fon +49 7123 93006-0 pi@nepustil.net Rathausstr. 3 mob +49 171 3101372 72658 Bempflingen

Hey all, The proposition now has 480 supporters. Almast 1/5th of RIPE NCC members support this idea. But the number of registrations for voting this in May is not even close. In order to vote, please do not forget to register below; in case you didn't. https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2024/ Also, @Simon,

Lastly, I want to make it very clear that we, as the RIPE NCC, are not opposed to differentiation between members. We did propose the category model last year based on extensive consultation and discussion with the members, which could have been the start of this differentiation. This model was rejected, and we have to respect that. Any proposal will need consensus, as well as input from a diverse group of members, to ensure we reach a Charging Scheme that serves the needs (as far as possible) of all our members.

That was a bad proposal. And why do you even insist on a category with a cap? And, what percentage of members did in total vote, for or against? Why are you dismissing that? All of these proposals that are coming, are only favoring mega players. That shouldn't fly. M. Omer GOLGELI --- AS202365       https://as202365.peeringdb.com       https://bgp.he.net/AS202365 April 26, 2024 at 10:58 AM, "Simon-Jan Haytink" <simonjh@ripe.net> wrote:

Hello all,

I just want to make some corrections on the facts that can help with the discussion. 

On the budget numbers, a 20% revenue or cost budget increase is simply incorrect.When I talk about revenue budget, I specifically mean the revenue the Charging Scheme is projected to generate. This is the discussion we are having now, and will be decided at the upcoming GM.

When I talk about cost budget, I specifically mean the Activity Plan & Budget. As part of our governance, this discussion will start after the summer. 

Option A from the three proposals does indeed propose a 22.58% LIR fee increase. This is correct.

All three options project a budget revenue of 41.1 Million EUR, which is an 8% increase from the 2024 revenue budget of 38M EUR, and a 3% increase compared to 2023 (40M EUR). 

This projection is based on a reducing number of LIR accounts:- 2023 Budget number of LIR Accounts 22,500- 2024 Budget number of LIR Accounts 21,500- 2025 projected Budget number of LIR Accounts 20,000 - equal to the number of individual members

The reason for this decline is the expected continued consolidation of multiple LIR accounts.Additionally, we see a stable development of individual members, at around 20,000 for the past four years, and we use this as the basis to ensure some stability in our revenue budget.

We use the Activity Plan & Budget 2024 to estimate the cost budget for 2025, including a general increase for inflation and salary increases. This is under the assumption the RIPE NCC will execute our responsibilities without any change in activities. Our projected revenue budget does not define our cost budget for 2025 - the Activity Plan and Budget process does. If the situation arises that we have collected more funds than needed our governance requires a redistribution vote at the autumn GM.Please note that with the assumption that the LIR account projection of 20,000 for 2025 is correct, not increasing the LIR fee would result in a projected revenue budget of 34 Million EUR.This would mean a reduction of 11% (34M) compared to revenue budget 2024 (38M), and a 15% reduction compared to 2023 (40M).

Lastly, I want to make it very clear that we, as the RIPE NCC, are not opposed to differentiation between members. We did propose the category model last year based on extensive consultation and discussion with the members, which could have been the start of this differentiation. This model was rejected, and we have to respect that. Any proposal will need consensus, as well as input from a diverse group of members, to ensure we reach a Charging Scheme that serves the needs (as far as possible) of all our members.

Please use my words here as input for the discussion. I have purposely not given an opinion, as the discussion should be among members.

Kind regards,

Simon Jan HaytinkRIPE NCC CFO On 25/04/2024 09:18, Hank Nussbacher wrote:

...

On 24/04/2024 18:28, Max Tulyev wrote:

I have added my support as I suggest everyone else do.

Everyone should realize that the major issue here is whether the annual fees will increase somewhere between 16-23%.  Max has suggested a 0% increase.

Look at the 2023 financial report:

https://www.ripe.net/documents/3756/ripe-821.pdf

No need to read all 39 pages - just page 6.  Quote:

"In 2023, we focused on reducing costs to ensure we can cope with the reduction in income due to the decrease of LIR accounts over the past few years. As a result, total expenditure was 37.3M EUR, 2.7 kEUR (7%) below the budget of 40M EUR. This puts us in a good position to operate within the 2024 budget of 38.2M EUR and to cope with inflation."

A target budget of 37-38M Euro is easily doable and we should not agree to a 20% increase in fees in order to support a 20% increase in total budget.

Regards,

Hank

...

I have created the request for GM Agenda proposal "Keep current billing scheme for the next year".

Now it depends on your support. If there will be 400 supports, it should be included to GM.

Here it is the link: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/member-proposals/1/

You just need to click on the "Support" button.

_______________________________________________

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/simonjh%40ripe.net

Hi, On 4/26/24 11:14 AM, Gert Doering wrote:

On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 09:09:33AM +0000, M. Omer GOLGELI via members-discuss wrote:

...

The proposition now has 480 supporters. Almast 1/5th of RIPE NCC members support this idea.

More like 1/50th. We're at 20.000 members, and 5x480 is 2.400.

Math is hard.

Yes, we have ~20000 members, but only from ~1500 to ~3000 are voting activelly, as you can see in previous GM reports regularly. I think this is the number used by Omer - there's no reason for such insultations like "math is hard". Majority of members unfortunately doesn't care. I think majority even doesn't follow these mailing lists much. It's their right. The active community is much smaller compared to how many members we have. - Daniel

Hey all, The proposition currently has 480 supporters. Not such a small group. But the number of registrations for voting this in May is not even close. In order to vote, please do not forget to register below; in case you didn't. https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2024/ Also, @Simon,

Lastly, I want to make it very clear that we, as the RIPE NCC, are not opposed to differentiation between members. We did propose the category model last year based on extensive consultation and discussion with the members, which could have been the start of this differentiation. This model was rejected, and we have to respect that. Any proposal will need consensus, as well as input from a diverse group of members, to ensure we reach a Charging Scheme that serves the needs (as far as possible) of all our members.

That was a bad proposal. Conservative and only favoring mega LIRs. Why do you even insist on a category with a cap? Also, the percentage of members voted; for or against, last year was only 1/7th of total members. It's no reason to stop talking about having a fair charging schedule. M. Omer GOLGELI --- AS202365       https://as202365.peeringdb.com/       https://bgp.he.net/AS202365 April 26, 2024 at 10:58 AM, "Simon-Jan Haytink" <simonjh@ripe.net> wrote:

Hello all,

I just want to make some corrections on the facts that can help with the discussion. 

On the budget numbers, a 20% revenue or cost budget increase is simply incorrect.When I talk about revenue budget, I specifically mean the revenue the Charging Scheme is projected to generate. This is the discussion we are having now, and will be decided at the upcoming GM.

When I talk about cost budget, I specifically mean the Activity Plan & Budget. As part of our governance, this discussion will start after the summer. 

Option A from the three proposals does indeed propose a 22.58% LIR fee increase. This is correct.

All three options project a budget revenue of 41.1 Million EUR, which is an 8% increase from the 2024 revenue budget of 38M EUR, and a 3% increase compared to 2023 (40M EUR). 

This projection is based on a reducing number of LIR accounts:- 2023 Budget number of LIR Accounts 22,500- 2024 Budget number of LIR Accounts 21,500- 2025 projected Budget number of LIR Accounts 20,000 - equal to the number of individual members

The reason for this decline is the expected continued consolidation of multiple LIR accounts.Additionally, we see a stable development of individual members, at around 20,000 for the past four years, and we use this as the basis to ensure some stability in our revenue budget.

We use the Activity Plan & Budget 2024 to estimate the cost budget for 2025, including a general increase for inflation and salary increases. This is under the assumption the RIPE NCC will execute our responsibilities without any change in activities. Our projected revenue budget does not define our cost budget for 2025 - the Activity Plan and Budget process does. If the situation arises that we have collected more funds than needed our governance requires a redistribution vote at the autumn GM.Please note that with the assumption that the LIR account projection of 20,000 for 2025 is correct, not increasing the LIR fee would result in a projected revenue budget of 34 Million EUR.This would mean a reduction of 11% (34M) compared to revenue budget 2024 (38M), and a 15% reduction compared to 2023 (40M).

Lastly, I want to make it very clear that we, as the RIPE NCC, are not opposed to differentiation between members. We did propose the category model last year based on extensive consultation and discussion with the members, which could have been the start of this differentiation. This model was rejected, and we have to respect that. Any proposal will need consensus, as well as input from a diverse group of members, to ensure we reach a Charging Scheme that serves the needs (as far as possible) of all our members.

Please use my words here as input for the discussion. I have purposely not given an opinion, as the discussion should be among members.

Kind regards,

Simon Jan HaytinkRIPE NCC CFO

On 25/04/2024 09:18, Hank Nussbacher wrote:

On 24/04/2024 18:28, Max Tulyev wrote:

I have added my support as I suggest everyone else do.

Everyone should realize that the major issue here is whether the annual fees will increase somewhere between 16-23%.  Max has suggested a 0% increase.

Look at the 2023 financial report:

https://www.ripe.net/documents/3756/ripe-821.pdf

No need to read all 39 pages - just page 6.  Quote:

"In 2023, we focused on reducing costs to ensure we can cope with the reduction in income due to the decrease of LIR accounts over the past few years. As a result, total expenditure was 37.3M EUR, 2.7 kEUR (7%) below the budget of 40M EUR. This puts us in a good position to operate within the 2024 budget of 38.2M EUR and to cope with inflation."

A target budget of 37-38M Euro is easily doable and we should not agree to a 20% increase in fees in order to support a 20% increase in total budget.

Regards,

Hank

...

...

I have created the request for GM Agenda proposal "Keep current billing scheme for the next year".

...

...

...

...

Now it depends on your support. If there will be 400 supports, it should be included to GM.

...

...

...

...

Here it is the link: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/member-proposals/1/

...

...

...

...

You just need to click on the "Support" button.

...

_______________________________________________

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/simonjh%40ripe.net

M. Omer GOLGELI via members-discuss wrote on 26/04/2024 10:14:

Also, the percentage of members voted; for or against, last year was only1/7th of total members. It's no reason to stop talking about having a fair charging schedule. The starting point for this discussion would be building a clear, consensus-based definition of what the word "fair" means.

Nick

On 26/04/2024, 11:11:44, "Eimantas via members-discuss" <members-discuss@ripe.net> wrote:

regarding category charging scheme. Last year it was rejected, as well as proposals to increase in LIR fees were also rejected, yet increase for LIR fees is again here for voting this year,

The longer we reject increases the larger they will become, unless costs are reduced. We have been told costs will take some years to reduce so it is not a surprise to see the rejected increase for inflation requested again plus this years inflation and no zero increase option. I don't like that but have not seen any immediate and generally acceptable alternative.

According to the calculations RIPE provided, using category scheme 68% of the members would have paid up to 6x times less compared to what they are paying now (1550 Eur yearly) and much less with the currently proposed scheme for 2025.

Here are some guesses why those in the lower categories did not vote for that lower fee. 1. guilt - the new LIR that are soon to go away causing this fee problem know they soon won't be paying but will be cashing in those allocations and just want to quietly exit. 2. acceptance - they joined knowing the costs and what they were to receive, think it is a fair deal, don't feel the need to reduce their cost at others expense. This discussion is mostly about reducing newer members fees at the expense of older members. Smaller older members would have benefited but maybe they were not unhappy. 3. planning - knowing that most of the exiting LIRs will be in the same lower categories as themselves they calculated that their category would have a huge reduction in members, say -50% in the lowest categories, and thus in future years they will face a huge increase in cost, +100%, which would be higher than the flat feee model. Maybe future years would avoid that and the categories would be calculated differently, it was too much to risk and find out. 4. don't care - they are busy making lots of money to cover this and many other larger costs of doing business. 5. ignorance - screw those guys, they can't even be bothered to get involved so why should we vote them a saving.

I think RIPE did poor job to inform majority of the members about the benefits of the new charging scheme and how much exactly they would pay next year with this scheme.

I agree, any model should come with estimates of cost for your LIR, not a calculator you have to find and correctly input your data. Any model predicated on pricing members into releasing v4 space back to RIPE is bogus and so should be discounted. The best hope is they will sell/lease some, there is already adequate available to buy/lease so why should RIPE intervene in the market? Eventually in a v6 world there will be very few categories so we will be back to the current model.

Only 805 ( I think 35% of all voters) voted for category option when there were 13,710 who would have benefited from this charging scheme significantly including having stability for RIPE budget for upcoming years. Also category 4 seems to be not that much of increase compared to current RIPE proposals so the benefiters % would go even higher this year.

3. above is the reason I didn't vote for the category model - it would have instantly increased our costs lots even though we don't have much and exposed us to much larger increases in later years as LIR close. Any new category model must not repeat such peril. With the flat model the cost of exiting LIR is shared equally not heaped on a subset of members, flat returns us to where we were pre expansion, if we reduce the budget.

Last year less than 10% of total members voted, where is the voice from the other 90% and why the decisions important like these are made with such a small amount of votes?

Many of us never vote unless there is something that will badly affect us. We are largely happy with what RIPE do and trust they will look after things for us. We do not want lots of drama or risk, there is enough of that elsewhere to deal with. ktnx, The Silent Majority.

Shouldn't these important votes have minimum 40-50% of the members votes

That seems impractical. brandon

On 26/04/2024 10:58, Simon-Jan Haytink wrote: Someone (Massimiliano?) wrote up a very interesting analysis comparing the RIR costs from all 5 RIRs: https://as58280.net/en/articles/RIR-Costs Worth the read to see how your RIPE fee compares at other RIRs. Regards, Hank

Hello all,

I just want to make some corrections on the facts that can help with the discussion.

On the budget numbers, a 20% revenue or cost budget increase is simply incorrect.When I talk about revenue budget, I specifically mean the revenue the Charging Scheme is projected to generate. This is the discussion we are having now, and will be decided at the upcoming GM.

When I talk about cost budget, I specifically mean the Activity Plan & Budget. As part of our governance, this discussion will start after the summer.

Option A from the three proposals does indeed propose a 22.58% LIR fee increase. This is correct.

All three options project a budget revenue of 41.1 Million EUR, which is an 8% increase from the 2024 revenue budget of 38M EUR, and a 3% increase compared to 2023 (40M EUR).

This projection is based on a reducing number of LIR accounts:- 2023 Budget number of LIR Accounts 22,500- 2024 Budget number of LIR Accounts 21,500- 2025 projected Budget number of LIR Accounts 20,000 - equal to the number of individual members

The reason for this decline is the expected continued consolidation of multiple LIR accounts.Additionally, we see a stable development of individual members, at around 20,000 for the past four years, and we use this as the basis to ensure some stability in our revenue budget.

We use the Activity Plan & Budget 2024 to estimate the cost budget for 2025, including a general increase for inflation and salary increases. This is under the assumption the RIPE NCC will execute our responsibilities without any change in activities. Our projected revenue budget does not define our cost budget for 2025 - the Activity Plan and Budget process does. If the situation arises that we have collected more funds than needed our governance requires a redistribution vote at the autumn GM.Please note that with the assumption that the LIR account projection of 20,000 for 2025 is correct, not increasing the LIR fee would result in a projected revenue budget of 34 Million EUR.This would mean a reduction of 11% (34M) compared to revenue budget 2024 (38M), and a 15% reduction compared to 2023 (40M).

Lastly, I want to make it very clear that we, as the RIPE NCC, are not opposed to differentiation between members. We did propose the category model last year based on extensive consultation and discussion with the members, which could have been the start of this differentiation. This model was rejected, and we have to respect that. Any proposal will need consensus, as well as input from a diverse group of members, to ensure we reach a Charging Scheme that serves the needs (as far as possible) of all our members.

Please use my words here as input for the discussion. I have purposely not given an opinion, as the discussion should be among members.

Kind regards,

Simon Jan HaytinkRIPE NCC CFO

On 25/04/2024 09:18, Hank Nussbacher wrote:

...

On 24/04/2024 18:28, Max Tulyev wrote:

I have added my support as I suggest everyone else do.

Everyone should realize that the major issue here is whether the annual fees will increase somewhere between 16-23%.  Max has suggested a 0% increase.

Look at the 2023 financial report: https://www.ripe.net/documents/3756/ripe-821.pdf

No need to read all 39 pages - just page 6.  Quote:

"In 2023, we focused on reducing costs to ensure we can cope with the reduction in income due to the decrease of LIR accounts over the past few years. As a result, total expenditure was 37.3M EUR, 2.7 kEUR (7%) below the budget of 40M EUR. This puts us in a good position to operate within the 2024 budget of 38.2M EUR and to cope with inflation."

A target budget of 37-38M Euro is easily doable and we should not agree to a 20% increase in fees in order to support a 20% increase in total budget.

Regards, Hank

...

I have created the request for GM Agenda proposal "Keep current billing scheme for the next year".

Now it depends on your support. If there will be 400 supports, it should be included to GM.

Here it is the link: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/member-proposals/1/

You just need to click on the "Support" button.

_______________________________________________ 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/simonjh%40ripe.net

_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/hank%40interall.co.il

Hi, On 26.04.2024 16:40, Thibaud Perret wrote:

I have a question for Massimiliano, if he sees it:

Do you really need that many IPv6 addresses? Couldn't you just go with a single /40 allocation instead? That would still make a couple of /48 to be announced separately for you to keep your "lab allocation". If the answer is "yes" to that question, you could then pay well less in most if not all other RIR regions.

I could do with a much smaller allocation. At present, I'm announcing both /29s, with the first one being where my infrastructure is (and an address I'm writing this e-mail from), and the second /29 has been used for some research such as the one you can find here (https://labs.ripe.net/author/stucchimax/a-bgp-side-effect-of-rpki/). The point of the article was to compare what a "normal" LIR would pay in the different RIRs. If I were to compare having a /48 (which would be PI at that point) I would be comparing two different things. Additionally, I wanted to showcase how some decision could be hindering Internet development, such as the one from LACNIC to charge so much for IPv6 compared to all the other RIRs, and the similar situation at APNIC, although to a lesser extent. To wrap this, could I do with a smaller allocation? Definitely. But I received a /29 as part of my membership and I can make some use of it. I could also live without a second /29, but that does not increase my membership fees. I would return it if the charging scheme were to be like APNIC or LACNIC. Ciao! -- Massimiliano Stucchi MS16801-RIPE https://stucchi.ch

I think it’s great we are being creative with the ideation of the models but… Fair is a very vague yet complicated concept. Here I agree with Nick ;) Distribution in the past has been needs based (based on existing or projected need). It's done. Any real implementation of forcing a "fair re-redistribution" of RIR assigned resources, as you suggest, will lead in lawsuits. Whether it would be 1, 10 or 1000 doesn't matter. The association will not have the financial resources and time to handle those. Probably not the best use of LIR fees, either. I doubt anyone in legal would ever ACK this. Any of the companies holding address space that RIPE-639 refers to might not have an interest, or even be aware of the "benefits" of being a RIPE LIR themselves. Yes, they don't know about RPKI either, usually. Legacy reverse DNS might be enough. Many of these are multinationals in non-tech sectors who have gotten addresses before the RIR system existed. Some of these got addresses around the time classless routing came along from their vendors who themselves had gotten the addresses from IANA just by asking. Some of these do not route the addresses on the internet, some others do, etc. etc. Again, ruining someone's day by "reclaiming" - let's call it what it really is, hijacking - address space that hasn't been RIR assigned will certainly lead to costly lawsuits and claims of damages as above. Don't think a "Pigouvian tax" would work either as the alternative is always for the holder to sell or rent the addresses. I think it'll lead to more consolidation of addresses to the cloud providers. Probably again not what was intended originally. Any added cost would eventually be shifted to the customers one way or another. Apropos that, Cogent is raising a 200M note secured by a bunch of IPv4 addresses and rental cash flows. Addresses have a significant value as collateral just as stable cash flows do. :) Kaj Sent from my iPad ________________________________ From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of ivaylo <ivaylo@bglans.net> Sent: Friday, April 26, 2024 9:26 PM To: Massimiliano Stucchi <max@stucchi.ch> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] GM topic Thank you for this example Massimiliano ! It is very good example how bad the resources can be used, and how bad is to have flat fee for all members ! That's why RIPE fee _MUST_ include per resource component. I am currious about technical aspects in the logic, Even if you go with EUI-64 standart for your network infrastructure (nobody do this, because the addresses unprediction) a /29 IPV6 will let you have 34 358 689 800 ( > 34 Bilions segments). With the maximum ttl value of 255 (limited by the one byte in the header, current around the internet is used just 64), You can have 134 739 960 (> 134 millions) router interfaces. With the modern switching asics, you will need and around 144 000 000 000 000 (> 144 trillions) ethernet switches where you can connect up to 18446744073709551616 end hosts per segment. Let me also remind that IPV6 protocol allow to use a single (just one) adress per a system/ruter/host (not per interface as IPV4) implemented in almost all vendors equipment and OS. Yes in theory it is posible to need huge address space, but in theory every one of us (LIRs) have to drawn all ipv6 + ipv4 + ASN from IANA (not from RIPE only) to cover all very unlikely future needs. ----- The problems RIPE NCC and we members have, is not the charging scheme is fair or unfair, the root of the problem is _UNFAIR RESROURCES DISTRIBUTION_ during the years. As everything in the real world internet resources are also finite numbers. So how to spread finite resources to group of members which by presumptions are equal (First and most important RIPE obligation - threat all members equally) ? Logically - equal. If we were 5 members maybe we can handshake each other and have an agreement (not sure ether when we talk about concurent companies / personals), but we are 21k that's why we need clear, transparent and strong rules equal to all. We currently have a strong discrimination based on very vague foundations and rules. I will be very happy somebody from RIPE to explain us, why one member can hold /8 just for fun (or testing or whatever), in the same time other member to have single /24 (or to be in a waiting queues) extreamly dificult to operate its bussiness because lack of resources and both of them to be forced to pay same fee. Which rule in the RIPE founding agreement exactly says this is fair and equal ? Also how many from the RIPE NCC staff and you LIRs, with hand on heart will tell the current situation is moral, normal and fair to all ? In all cases after the posible delegated resources to RIPE have limits we also need limits for the resource each of us can hold and operate with. thing more fair can be than to take all resources in each category (IPV4/IPV6/ASN) which are delegated to RIPENCC and divide by the LIR members number. Solution one: Redistribute resources equaly to all. Not imposible as I already wrote, but will that lead to tremors in the work of operators - very likely. But what is that is equal fees, equal rights, equal resources. Solution two: Start to "penalise" the the LIRs which holds and operate resources over the fair share limits. That will not make disruption of the internet work in the region. And will give time to those who want to optimise the resource usage to do it and save expenses. How to do it ? - With money ofcourse. To prevent adding too much initial stress to all, we have to start with small steps and calibrate the "penalisation" fee with time. As I wrote in my previous mail the current fair shair resources for each LIR member based on what I checked (by IANA documents and 21500 LIRs) are: 1 x /18 IPV4 block 1 x /28 IPV6 block 16 x ASN Everything above these numbers should be "penalise" with a small fee per each resource over the limit. Ofcourse these limits must be shifted if we become 40k members or down to 10k, but it is an easy part. Also "penalty" fee by 10 euro per year for /24, /32, ASN looks prety resonable in the light of current free market prices - 15k "buy" / 100 euro month rent. It is not a category based charging scheme ! It is fair share charging scheme ! Can be looked at like extension of the scheme C, but guarantee much more RIPE NCC sustainable future and covers all LIR resources (not only PI). Current offered option C is inanity, because one LIR can hold /8 PA and none PI space, the other can hold single /24 PA and 10 x /24 PI, and will pay much more than the first one with /8 PA (fair ?) ! Another important theme is RIPE-639. 10 Years after the adoption we still have nearly 34% undiscovered resources. How much more time it needs ? If for 10 years you cant find legacy holders what will be the chance to do it in the next 10 or 100 years ? We need a straight deadline to point 2.6. I think RIPE NCC can safely suspend (not delete) all records for these 34% resources. It is good to put dummy records to point to call or email to RIPE support staff, and these resource to be gobaly announce. If nobody call in few (3) mounths, can be consider free and can be drawn into the pool. Ivaylo Josifov VarnaIX / Varteh LTD +359 52 969393 Varna, Bulgaria On Fri, 26 Apr 2024, Massimiliano Stucchi wrote:

Hi,

On 26.04.2024 16:40, Thibaud Perret wrote:

...

I have a question for Massimiliano, if he sees it: Do you really need that many IPv6 addresses? Couldn't you just go with a single /40 allocation instead? That would still make a couple of /48 to be announced separately for you to keep your "lab allocation". If the answer is "yes" to that question, you could then pay well less in most if not all other RIR regions.

I could do with a much smaller allocation. At present, I'm announcing both /29s, with the first one being where my infrastructure is (and an address I'm writing this e-mail from), and the second /29 has been used for some research such as the one you can find here (https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flabs.ripe.net%2Fauthor%2Fstucchimax%2Fa-bgp-side-effect-of-rpki%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C0b84b59374a24b82c60308dc661e588c%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638497527736209710%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=y2T5QV8Ea7AuXD4WBPSVxPxiuOcA80pYk7PGy8LHnyQ%3D&reserved=0<https://labs.ripe.net/author/stucchimax/a-bgp-side-effect-of-rpki/>).

The point of the article was to compare what a "normal" LIR would pay in the different RIRs. If I were to compare having a /48 (which would be PI at that point) I would be comparing two different things. Additionally, I wanted to showcase how some decision could be hindering Internet development, such as the one from LACNIC to charge so much for IPv6 compared to all the other RIRs, and the similar situation at APNIC, although to a lesser extent.

To wrap this, could I do with a smaller allocation? Definitely. But I received a /29 as part of my membership and I can make some use of it. I could also live without a second /29, but that does not increase my membership fees. I would return it if the charging scheme were to be like APNIC or LACNIC.

Ciao!

-- Massimiliano Stucchi MS16801-RIPE https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstucchi.ch%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C0b84b59374a24b82c60308dc661e588c%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638497527736218822%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=CCE0El%2F5B41Uiky2BkscGB%2Fb%2FnkIWS2tKh4KGwPNA%2F4%3D&reserved=0<https://stucchi.ch/>

_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7C%7C0b84b59374a24b82c60308dc661e588c%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638497527736224712%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=AKpL%2FBU%2BGivvG9mSvj2oFyeYeLXVit3cGEBi0iHep9Y%3D&reserved=0<https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss> Unsubscribe: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fkajtzu%2540basen.net&data=05%7C02%7C%7C0b84b59374a24b82c60308dc661e588c%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638497527736228202%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=wGy%2BZKcmJxuRIwj9%2BTXb5a6zDlImgJ%2BgmCg51B4zlw8%3D&reserved=0<https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/kajtzu%40basen.net>

I think it?s great we are being creative with the ideation of the models but?

Fair is a very vague yet complicated concept. Here I agree with Nick ;)

Distribution in the past has been needs based (based on existing or projected need). It's done.

I dont see how the word "fair" can be vague. When you dont have shortage of the resource it purely means "depend on your needs" (current situation with IPV6, ASN). But when you run on the limit it means equal (IPV4). Let me ask you 3 questions: 1. If you have 3 own hungry childrens and just one apple how will you distribute the apple to them ? 2. If you have 3 own hungry childrens and 1000 apples, but tomorow your apple tree can give you another 1000 apples ? 3. If you have 3 own hungry childrens 1000 apples, but you old apple tree is dead and that food is all you have for undefined period of time until your new not seeded yet apple tree grow and start giving you apples ? When you answer me of these 3 questions you will see and what _MUST_ mean of the word -->fair<-- is for RIPE. And when you find the common point of your answers you will know what RIPE NCC must do. Kaj, you talk so much about lawsuits, but can you give a citate, or point to RIPE policy or agreement, where it is said that allocated from RIPE *INR to the LIRs are not subject of change, not subject of their quantity change, and they are distributed for undefined period of time ? If there are still people or companies which mistake the word "hold" with the word "own" is entirely their problem. Nor RIR, LIR or end user can "own" *INR. They just can hold and operate with given INR for defined period of time (look at the RIPE documents and contracts, then tell me where is used the word "own"). The funny part is that the only way personal or company to be identified as authority of the given resource is the register itself. If the register stop functioning no one will know which *INR you can operate with. So if you screw (lawsuits) the register you are screwing and your own interests. *INR - Internet Number Resources. Any Internet identifiers such as IP addresses (IPv4, IPv6) and Autonomous System Numbers. (Citate from RIPE documents) One _OBLIGATION_ of RIPE NCC is to care for *fair* distribution of the resources across the LIRs in the region. And am not saying it is subject of member's wish or vote how the INR have been / are / will be distributed, I am saying it _MUST_ be fundamental rule that RIPE NCC must apply to guarantee its future, and it must not depend on any contractor or requestor wish. ---- About RIPE-639 The policy: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-639/ Mr. Xavier Le Bris report from 12.01.2024 (Big thanks for his work and efforts): https://labs.ripe.net/author/xavier/10-years-of-legacy-policy/ I dont see anywhere the RIPE register is _obligated_ to keep legacy resources records for undefined time. I only read the RIPE register is _authoritive_ for these INR. With other words the data for legacy resources are holded in the register by good will. And there is no any obstacle to _NOT_ have deadline to keep doing this (in point 2.6). Also from the report 9% of 12 x /8 IPV4 blocks (nearly full /8 IPV4 block) is with undefined status. Another legacy holders which holds nearly 30% of the INR are out of any contracts or touch. So where is the benefit to keep holding such records ? Will the register be more acurate - NO ! Will the memebers will benefit of unusing nearly /8 - NO ! Are these legacy holders contribute something to the RIPE NCC - NO ! Correct me if I am wrong please. ------ About the claim "Last year base of the members rejected category based charging scheme, we will not offer it again". As I remember offered model B for 2024 also was not supported (rejected) , why it is offer for 2025 again ? When we take a decision what to offer and what not is rely on principle or on personal subjective opinion ? For 2024: https://www.ripe.net/media/documents/Option_B_-_Price_Increase_10_-_RIPE_NCC... For 2025: https://www.ripe.net/media/documents/Option_B_RIPE_NCC_Charging_Scheme_2025.... To note that I and organisations I present are against category based charging schemes which will put the main load over the small to medium resource holders (LIRs), and will favoritize the biggest (what was offered in the last year). Ivaylo Josifov VarnaIX / Varteh LTD +359 52 969393 Varna, Bulgaria On Fri, 26 Apr 2024, Kaj Niemi wrote:

I think it?s great we are being creative with the ideation of the models but?

Fair is a very vague yet complicated concept. Here I agree with Nick ;)

Distribution in the past has been needs based (based on existing or projected need). It's done.

Any real implementation of forcing a "fair re-redistribution" of RIR assigned resources, as you suggest, will lead in lawsuits. Whether it would be 1, 10 or 1000 doesn't matter. The association will not have the financial resources and time to handle those. Probably not the best use of LIR fees, either. I doubt anyone in legal would ever ACK this.

Any of the companies holding address space that RIPE-639 refers to might not have an interest, or even be aware of the "benefits" of being a RIPE LIR themselves. Yes, they don't know about RPKI either, usually. Legacy reverse DNS might be enough. Many of these are multinationals in non-tech sectors who have gotten addresses before the RIR system existed. Some of these got addresses around the time classless routing came along from their vendors who themselves had gotten the addresses from IANA just by asking. Some of these do not route the addresses on the internet, some others do, etc. etc. Again, ruining someone's day by "reclaiming" - let's call it what it really is, hijacking - address space that hasn't been RIR assigned will certainly lead to costly lawsuits and claims of damages as above.

Don't think a "Pigouvian tax" would work either as the alternative is always for the holder to sell or rent the addresses. I think it'll lead to more consolidation of addresses to the cloud providers. Probably again not what was intended originally. Any added cost would eventually be shifted to the customers one way or another. Apropos that, Cogent is raising a 200M note secured by a bunch of IPv4 addresses and rental cash flows. Addresses have a significant value as collateral just as stable cash flows do.

:)

Kaj

Sent from my iPad

____________________________________________________________________________ From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of ivaylo <ivaylo@bglans.net> Sent: Friday, April 26, 2024 9:26 PM To: Massimiliano Stucchi <max@stucchi.ch> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] GM topic

Thank you for this example Massimiliano !

It is very good example how bad the resources can be used, and how bad is to have flat fee for all members ! That's why RIPE fee _MUST_ include per resource component.

I am currious about technical aspects in the logic, Even if you go with EUI-64 standart for your network infrastructure (nobody do this, because the addresses unprediction) a /29 IPV6 will let you have 34 358 689 800 ( > 34 Bilions segments). With the maximum ttl value of 255 (limited by the one byte in the header, current around the internet is used just 64), You can have 134 739 960 (> 134 millions) router interfaces. With the modern switching asics, you will need and around 144 000 000 000 000 (> 144 trillions) ethernet switches where you can connect up to 18446744073709551616 end hosts per segment. Let me also remind that IPV6 protocol allow to use a single (just one) adress per a system/ruter/host (not per interface as IPV4) implemented in almost all vendors equipment and OS.

Yes in theory it is posible to need huge address space, but in theory every one of us (LIRs) have to drawn all ipv6 + ipv4 + ASN from IANA (not from RIPE only) to cover all very unlikely future needs.

-----

The problems RIPE NCC and we members have, is not the charging scheme is fair or unfair, the root of the problem is _UNFAIR RESROURCES DISTRIBUTION_ during the years. As everything in the real world internet resources are also finite numbers. So how to spread finite resources to group of members which by presumptions are equal (First and most important RIPE obligation - threat all members equally) ? Logically - equal. If we were 5 members maybe we can handshake each other and have an agreement (not sure ether when we talk about concurent companies / personals), but we are 21k that's why we need clear, transparent and strong rules equal to all. We currently have a strong discrimination based on very vague foundations and rules.

I will be very happy somebody from RIPE to explain us, why one member can hold /8 just for fun (or testing or whatever), in the same time other member to have single /24 (or to be in a waiting queues) extreamly dificult to operate its bussiness because lack of resources and both of them to be forced to pay same fee. Which rule in the RIPE founding agreement exactly says this is fair and equal ? Also how many from the RIPE NCC staff and you LIRs, with hand on heart will tell the current situation is moral, normal and fair to all ?

In all cases after the posible delegated resources to RIPE have limits we also need limits for the resource each of us can hold and operate with. thing more fair can be than to take all resources in each category (IPV4/IPV6/ASN) which are delegated to RIPENCC and divide by the LIR members number.

Solution one: Redistribute resources equaly to all. Not imposible as I already wrote, but will that lead to tremors in the work of operators - very likely. But what is that is equal fees, equal rights, equal resources.

Solution two: Start to "penalise" the the LIRs which holds and operate resources over the fair share limits. That will not make disruption of the internet work in the region. And will give time to those who want to optimise the resource usage to do it and save expenses. How to do it ? - With money ofcourse. To prevent adding too much initial stress to all, we have to start with small steps and calibrate the "penalisation" fee with time.

As I wrote in my previous mail the current fair shair resources for each LIR member based on what I checked (by IANA documents and 21500 LIRs) are:

1 x /18 IPV4 block 1 x /28 IPV6 block 16 x ASN

Everything above these numbers should be "penalise" with a small fee per each resource over the limit. Ofcourse these limits must be shifted if we become 40k members or down to 10k, but it is an easy part. Also "penalty" fee by 10 euro per year for /24, /32, ASN looks prety resonable in the light of current free market prices - 15k "buy" / 100 euro month rent.

It is not a category based charging scheme ! It is fair share charging scheme ! Can be looked at like extension of the scheme C, but guarantee much more RIPE NCC sustainable future and covers all LIR resources (not only PI). Current offered option C is inanity, because one LIR can hold /8 PA and none PI space, the other can hold single /24 PA and 10 x /24 PI, and will pay much more than the first one with /8 PA (fair ?) !

Another important theme is RIPE-639. 10 Years after the adoption we still have nearly 34% undiscovered resources. How much more time it needs ? If for 10 years you cant find legacy holders what will be the chance to do it in the next 10 or 100 years ? We need a straight deadline to point 2.6. I think RIPE NCC can safely suspend (not delete) all records for these 34% resources. It is good to put dummy records to point to call or email to RIPE support staff, and these resource to be gobaly announce. If nobody call in few (3) mounths, can be consider free and can be drawn into the pool.

Ivaylo Josifov VarnaIX / Varteh LTD +359 52 969393 Varna, Bulgaria

On Fri, 26 Apr 2024, Massimiliano Stucchi wrote:

...

Hi,

On 26.04.2024 16:40, Thibaud Perret wrote:

...

I have a question for Massimiliano, if he sees it: Do you really need that many IPv6 addresses? Couldn't you just go with a single /40 allocation instead? That would still make a couple of /48 to be announced separately for you to keep your "lab allocation". If the answer is "yes"

...

...

that question, you could then pay well less in most if not all other RIR regions.

I could do with a much smaller allocation. At present, I'm announcing both /29s, with the first one being where my infrastructure is (and an address I'm writing this e-mail from), and the second /29 has been used for some research such as the one you can find here (https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flabs.rip e.net%2Fauthor%2Fstucchimax%2Fa-bgp-side-effect-of-rpki%2F&data=05%7C02%7C %7C0b84b59374a24b82c60308dc661e588c%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0 %7C0%7C638497527736209710%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQ IjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=y2T5QV8Ea 7AuXD4WBPSVxPxiuOcA80pYk7PGy8LHnyQ%3D&reserved=0).

The point of the article was to compare what a "normal" LIR would pay in

...

different RIRs. If I were to compare having a /48 (which would be PI at

to the that

...

point) I would be comparing two different things. Additionally, I wanted to showcase how some decision could be hindering Internet development, such as the one from LACNIC to charge so much for IPv6 compared to all the other RIRs, and the similar situation at APNIC, although to a lesser extent.

To wrap this, could I do with a smaller allocation? Definitely. But I received a /29 as part of my membership and I can make some use of it. I could also live without a second /29, but that does not increase my membership fees. I would return it if the charging scheme were to be like APNIC or LACNIC.

Ciao!

-- Massimiliano Stucchi MS16801-RIPE https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstucchi.c h%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C0b84b59374a24b82c60308dc661e588c%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc 923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638497527736218822%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJW IjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7 C%7C&sdata=CCE0El%2F5B41Uiky2BkscGB%2Fb%2FnkIWS2tKh4KGwPNA%2F4%3D&reserved =0

_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.rip e.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7C%7C0b84b59374a 24b82c60308dc661e588c%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C6384975 27736224712%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLC JBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=AKpL%2FBU%2BGivvG9mSvj2 oFyeYeLXVit3cGEBi0iHep9Y%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe:https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.rip e.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fkajtzu%2540basen.net&data=05 %7C02%7C%7C0b84b59374a24b82c60308dc661e588c%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b 55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638497527736228202%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAw MDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=w Gy%2BZKcmJxuRIwj9%2BTXb5a6zDlImgJ%2BgmCg51B4zlw8%3D&reserved=0

Thank you very much for your opinion Doru Serdin ! Thank you very much for your opinion Kaj Niemi ! Thank you very much for your opinion Kai Siering ! Down here wrote comments to every one of you (combined in one mail to not bloat the list).

"1. If you have 3 own hungry childrens and just one apple how will you distribute the apple to them ? " Your analogy is ..... lacking. RIPE members are not hungry children who can't get their own food and RIPE is not anyone's caretaker. Resources are held by RIPE members (AKE the children) and transfers are made every day, some people just don't want to pay for IPv4 simply because in the past they were given out for free when needed.

Some members not are only hungry, they are starving for INR (waiting queue list). My analogue is as much as close to the current situation, if you have better one explain it please. RIPE NCC always were, are, and will be care taker / arbiter (in case you close your LIR, what will you do with your ASN and IPV6 ? will "sell" them too ? or will return them to RIPE pool for redistribution ?)

You appear to simply want IPv4, not want to pay for said IPv4 and are looking for changes that would benefit you at the expense of those that already have that IPv4 available.

Do you have any proofs for these your words ? I appeal you show such proofs publicly here ! Otherwise we can assume your statement as slander and you as lier. Luckily this mailing list is public and all messages are logged, you can go find and show us with quote, which I have wrote that these are my intentions.

Now IPv4 has been distributed already, it's gone, deal with it. Either use IPv6 or buy/rent IPv4 from other LIRs. The solution exists for everyone who wants IPv4, it's called money.

No the [re]distribution process is endless process. For all INR there will be always in/out actions from the pool. From a registry perspective, it makes no difference whether we are talking about IPV4/IPV6/ASN. All INR should be treated by the same universal rules. If we have a shortage of IPV4 today, it could be also ASN or IPV6 tomorrow.

I on the other hand only want RIPE to spend less money in order for everyone to have to pay less in membership fees in the future. If you want to have a membership fee based on held resources, then the voting power for each LIR should be proportional to that membership fee.

I have a proposal for you: Transfer all your LIR resources for free to my company LIR. We will do a contract with your company, and I will provide you registry services for *some* time. We will charge you with 1/4 from our LIR anual fee and will give you 1/4 from our vote right. All aspects of your logic will be filled: 1. Company to Company contract for INR, and not RIR to LIR (LIR to LIR contracts about INR for money) 2. Less fee for your company. 3. Propotioning voting power of your fee. Do you agree mr Doru Serdin ? ---------- To: Kaj Niemi

RIPE-639 specifically mentions in its scope that rights to hold, use or transfer (and remember transfers do not need to be free) "are not addressed or restricted" by it. It also mentions that any existing or future policies do not apply to legacy holders unless it is explicitly included in the other policy.

Citate in point 1.2 from ripe-639: "Any existing or future RIPE policy referring to resources shall not apply to legacy resources unless the policy explicitly includes legacy resources in its scope." And because I am talking for a change in ripe-639 (update) my statements are prety valid. ----> Change in policy that include legacy resources in its scope. Another one point here, in the next 2-5 years we the network operators access/content ISP, maybe will completely drop to rely on an old inetnum/inet6num routing information and will switch entirely to ROA/rpki mechanisms. So what will be the purpouse and usage of these legacy resources then ? No one will forward to/from these networks, so why should the register still support them ? The purpose of RIR registers is to provide adequate information about GLOBAL INTERNET PUBLIC RESOURCES wich operators to use for guarantee normal internet work and fraud prevention, not for registering someone's private intranets.

RIPE-822 mentions that assignments are valid as long as the original criteria the assignment was based on is valid and the assignment is registered in the database. It also mentions something about fairness.

You are refering to point 6.3 wich describe LIR to end user assignment. We are talking for point 5. RIPE NCC to LIR allocations.

In practice, whether you want it or not, holder equals owner and holding equals ownership.

All laws and lawers in EU and in 99% of the world will tell you right oposite. You dont own part of the road on the highway where your car is, just because you pay tax your car to be on the road. You can use it, hold it (for some time), but you can not go drill it dig it take a part of it and sell it, because your car is on top of it and it is "your" property.

One cannot sell or rent something that one do not own or have the rights to. Doing so would constitute some kind of fraud. People sell and buy and rent these daily.

In practice it is kind of a fraud indeed. But it is regulated by contract between companies / personals. If I want somebody to pay me for the air he/she breath, finding person whom agree to pay me, and then we make official contract, how to classify it ? Human stupidity is limitless, but to what extent exploiting it is legal or legally prohibited is a stretch question.

As for the apples. 1. in three or 4 parts depending on whether you're willing to sacrifice yourself in favor of your progeny, 2. you should look into buying futures to lock in the price of apples as you are producing a lot daily (not financial advice), 3. you buy apples from someone else.

For 1, now you know what RIPE NCC must do with the IPV4 space, and as a parrent you will cut the apple on 3 equal pieces, because every normal parrent love equal all its own kids, and always is ready to sacrifice self in favor of progeny. For 2 Even it not very standart answer, it shows what have to be made with IPV6 and ASN INR, RIPE NCC should lock part of his budget and on that resources too. for the future when IPV4 will be totaly unusable. Also soon or later you will go to question 3 (nothing is forever, soon or later your tree will die - IPV6/ASN will be exhausted) For 3 You can not just buy apples from somewhere, INR are not magicaly show up from somewhere and somebody to sell them to you, they are finite numbers. To produce new INR you need decades in developing, clear and implementing new standarts all over the world (as you can see with IPV6 integration), and another decades to make everybody start using it. Thats why we also need a guard mechanisms to prevent wastage and rapid unreasonable depletion. Now combine all and find common point, with wich we can achive all key targets. And tell what strategy we should have to complete the goals. ---------- To: Kai Siering All facts you are showing are true, but such a policy was a mistake, and we _must_ not repeat the same mistakes again and again. Today the main focus is on IPV4, but tomorow these talks will be applied on IPV6. Then again LIR-X will say... "Hey why LIR-Z hold /4 IPV6, and pay same fee as LIR-X wich holds only /32 IPV6 ?". In one of previous mails someone gave example with cogent 200M flow from INR (btw such sum is pocket money for one of the biggest T1 carriers, and such huge company), and from 200M do you beleave they can not contribute 1M to the register from wich they earn ? We need clear fair INR distribution rules / policies / charing fees, not related of the time line or resource shortage / previous historical distributions. We need RIPE NCC to be resource distribution arbiter between us, because human nature is to want more and more, to be greedy. RIPE NCC have to start look at its LIRs as to own childrens, whom can not be separated on categories or be disriminated on some signs. This is the only way RIPE NCC to have stable future and guarantee propper budget to operate. Otherwise the RIPE will lose the trust of his own members. That is what I am fighting for, loosing my time, and writing tons of emails here. Ivaylo Josifov VarnaIX / Varteh LTD +359 52 969393 Varna, Bulgaria On Mon, 29 Apr 2024, Doru Serdin wrote:

"1. If you have 3 own hungry childrens and just one apple how will you distribute the apple to them ? " Your analogy is ..... lacking. RIPE members are not hungry children who can't get their own food and RIPE is not anyone's caretaker. Resources are held by RIPE members (AKE the children) and transfers are made every day, some people just don't want to pay for IPv4 simply because in the past they were given out for free when needed. You appear to simply want IPv4, not want to pay for said IPv4 and are looking for changes that would benefit you at the expense of those that already have that IPv4 available. Now IPv4 has been distributed already, it's gone, deal with it. Either use IPv6 or buy/rent IPv4 from other LIRs. The solution exists for everyone who wants IPv4, it's called money. I on the other hand only want RIPE to spend less money in order for everyone to have to pay less in membership fees in the future. If you want to have a membership fee based on held resources, then the voting power for each LIR should be proportional to that membership fee. --

____________________________________________________________________________ Doru Serdin Network Manager Office: +4 031 82 52 657 E-mail: doru.serdin@mediasat.ro

www.mediasat.ro

www.alonia.ro

Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer does not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.

?

On 29.04.2024 3:18 PM, ivaylo wrote:

I think it?s great we are being creative with the ideation of the models but?

Fair is a very vague yet complicated concept. Here I agree with Nick ;)

Distribution in the past has been needs based (based on existing or projected need). It's done.

I dont see how the word "fair" can be vague. When you dont have shortage of the resource it purely means "depend on your needs" (current situation with IPV6, ASN). But when you run on the limit it means equal (IPV4).

Let me ask you 3 questions:

1. If you have 3 own hungry childrens and just one apple how will you distribute the apple to them ? 2. If you have 3 own hungry childrens and 1000 apples, but tomorow your apple tree can give you another 1000 apples ? 3. If you have 3 own hungry childrens 1000 apples, but you old apple tree is dead and that food is all you have for undefined period of time until your new not seeded yet apple tree grow and start giving you apples ?

When you answer me of these 3 questions you will see and what _MUST_ mean of the word -->fair<-- is for RIPE. And when you find the common point of your answers you will know what RIPE NCC must do.

Kaj, you talk so much about lawsuits, but can you give a citate, or point to RIPE policy or agreement, where it is said that allocated from RIPE *INR to the LIRs are not subject of change, not subject of their quantity change, and they are distributed for undefined period of time ?

If there are still people or companies which mistake the word "hold" with the word "own" is entirely their problem. Nor RIR, LIR or end user can "own" *INR. They just can hold and operate with given INR for defined period of time (look at the RIPE documents and contracts, then tell me where is used the word "own"). The funny part is that the only way personal or company to be identified as authority of the given resource is the register itself. If the register stop functioning no one will know which *INR you can operate with. So if you screw (lawsuits) the register you are screwing and your own interests.

*INR - Internet Number Resources. Any Internet identifiers such as IP addresses (IPv4, IPv6) and Autonomous System Numbers. (Citate from RIPE documents)

One _OBLIGATION_ of RIPE NCC is to care for *fair* distribution of the resources across the LIRs in the region. And am not saying it is subject of member's wish or vote how the INR have been / are / will be distributed, I am saying it _MUST_ be fundamental rule that RIPE NCC must apply to guarantee its future, and it must not depend on any contractor or requestor wish.

---- About RIPE-639

The policy: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-639/

Mr. Xavier Le Bris report from 12.01.2024 (Big thanks for his work and efforts): https://labs.ripe.net/author/xavier/10-years-of-legacy-policy/

I dont see anywhere the RIPE register is _obligated_ to keep legacy resources records for undefined time. I only read the RIPE register is _authoritive_ for these INR. With other words the data for legacy resources are holded in the register by good will. And there is no any obstacle to _NOT_ have deadline to keep doing this (in point 2.6). Also from the report 9% of 12 x /8 IPV4 blocks (nearly full /8 IPV4 block) is with undefined status. Another legacy holders which holds nearly 30% of the INR are out of any contracts or touch. So where is the benefit to keep holding such records ? Will the register be more acurate - NO ! Will the memebers will benefit of unusing nearly /8 - NO ! Are these legacy holders contribute something to the RIPE NCC - NO ! Correct me if I am wrong please.

------ About the claim "Last year base of the members rejected category based charging scheme, we will not offer it again". As I remember offered model B for 2024 also was not supported (rejected) , why it is offer for 2025 again ? When we take a decision what to offer and what not is rely on principle or on personal subjective opinion ?

For 2024: https://www.ripe.net/media/documents/Option_B_-_Price_Increase_10_-_RIPE_NC C_Charging_Scheme_2024.pdf

For 2025: https://www.ripe.net/media/documents/Option_B_RIPE_NCC_Charging_Scheme_2025 .pdf

To note that I and organisations I present are against category based charging schemes which will put the main load over the small to medium resource holders (LIRs), and will favoritize the biggest (what was offered in the last year).

Ivaylo Josifov VarnaIX / Varteh LTD +359 52 969393 Varna, Bulgaria

On Fri, 26 Apr 2024, Kaj Niemi wrote:

I think it?s great we are being creative with the ideation of the models but?

Fair is a very vague yet complicated concept. Here I agree with Nick ;)

Distribution in the past has been needs based (based on existing or projected need). It's done.

Any real implementation of forcing a "fair re-redistribution" of RIR assigned resources, as you suggest, will lead in lawsuits. Whether it would be 1, 10 or 1000 doesn't matter. The association will not have the financial resources and time to handle those. Probably not the best use of LIR fees, either. I doubt anyone in legal would ever ACK this.

Any of the companies holding address space that RIPE-639 refers to might not have an interest, or even be aware of the "benefits" of being a RIPE LIR themselves. Yes, they don't know about RPKI either, usually. Legacy reverse DNS might be enough. Many of these are multinationals in non-tech sectors who have gotten addresses before the RIR system existed. Some of these got addresses around the time classless routing came along from their vendors who themselves had gotten the addresses from IANA just by asking. Some of these do not route the addresses on the internet, some others do, etc. etc. Again, ruining someone's day by "reclaiming" - let's call it what it really is, hijacking - address space that hasn't been RIR assigned will certainly lead to costly lawsuits and claims of damages as above.

Don't think a "Pigouvian tax" would work either as the alternative is always for the holder to sell or rent the addresses. I think it'll lead to more consolidation of addresses to the cloud providers. Probably again not what was intended originally. Any added cost would eventually be shifted to the customers one way or another. Apropos that, Cogent is raising a 200M note secured by a bunch of IPv4 addresses and rental cash flows. Addresses have a significant value as collateral just as stable cash flows do.

:)

Kaj

Sent from my iPad

___________________________________________________________________________ _ From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of ivaylo <ivaylo@bglans.net> Sent: Friday, April 26, 2024 9:26 PM To: Massimiliano Stucchi <max@stucchi.ch> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] GM topic

Thank you for this example Massimiliano !

It is very good example how bad the resources can be used, and how bad is to have flat fee for all members ! That's why RIPE fee _MUST_ include per resource component.

I am currious about technical aspects in the logic, Even if you go with EUI-64 standart for your network infrastructure (nobody do this, because the addresses unprediction) a /29 IPV6 will let you have 34 358 689 800 ( > 34 Bilions segments). With the maximum ttl value of 255 (limited by the one byte in the header, current around the internet is used just 64), You can have 134 739 960 (> 134 millions) router interfaces. With the modern switching asics, you will need and around 144 000 000 000 000 (> 144 trillions) ethernet switches where you can connect up to 18446744073709551616 end hosts per segment. Let me also remind that IPV6 protocol allow to use a single (just one) adress per a system/ruter/host (not per interface as IPV4) implemented in almost all vendors equipment and OS.

Yes in theory it is posible to need huge address space, but in theory every one of us (LIRs) have to drawn all ipv6 + ipv4 + ASN from IANA (not from RIPE only) to cover all very unlikely future needs.

-----

The problems RIPE NCC and we members have, is not the charging scheme is fair or unfair, the root of the problem is _UNFAIR RESROURCES DISTRIBUTION_ during the years. As everything in the real world internet resources are also finite numbers. So how to spread finite resources to group of members which by presumptions are equal (First and most important RIPE obligation - threat all members equally) ? Logically - equal. If we were 5 members maybe we can handshake each other and have an agreement (not sure ether when we talk about concurent companies / personals), but we are 21k that's why we need clear, transparent and strong rules equal to all. We currently have a strong discrimination based on very vague foundations and rules.

I will be very happy somebody from RIPE to explain us, why one member can hold /8 just for fun (or testing or whatever), in the same time other member to have single /24 (or to be in a waiting queues) extreamly dificult to operate its bussiness because lack of resources and both of them to be forced to pay same fee. Which rule in the RIPE founding agreement exactly says this is fair and equal ? Also how many from the RIPE NCC staff and you LIRs, with hand on heart will tell the current situation is moral, normal and fair to all ?

In all cases after the posible delegated resources to RIPE have limits we also need limits for the resource each of us can hold and operate with. thing more fair can be than to take all resources in each category (IPV4/IPV6/ASN) which are delegated to RIPENCC and divide by the LIR members number.

Solution one: Redistribute resources equaly to all. Not imposible as I already wrote, but will that lead to tremors in the work of operators - very likely. But what is that is equal fees, equal rights, equal resources.

Solution two: Start to "penalise" the the LIRs which holds and operate resources over the fair share limits. That will not make disruption of the internet work in the region. And will give time to those who want to optimise the resource usage to do it and save expenses. How to do it ? - With money ofcourse. To prevent adding too much initial stress to all, we have to start with small steps and calibrate the "penalisation" fee with time.

As I wrote in my previous mail the current fair shair resources for each LIR member based on what I checked (by IANA documents and 21500 LIRs) are:

1 x /18 IPV4 block 1 x /28 IPV6 block 16 x ASN

Everything above these numbers should be "penalise" with a small fee per each resource over the limit. Ofcourse these limits must be shifted if we become 40k members or down to 10k, but it is an easy part. Also "penalty" fee by 10 euro per year for /24, /32, ASN looks prety resonable in the light of current free market prices - 15k "buy" / 100 euro month rent.

It is not a category based charging scheme ! It is fair share charging scheme ! Can be looked at like extension of the scheme C, but guarantee much more RIPE NCC sustainable future and covers all LIR resources (not only PI). Current offered option C is inanity, because one LIR can hold /8 PA and none PI space, the other can hold single /24 PA and 10 x /24 PI, and will pay much more than the first one with /8 PA (fair ?) !

Another important theme is RIPE-639. 10 Years after the adoption we still have nearly 34% undiscovered resources. How much more time it needs ? If for 10 years you cant find legacy holders what will be the chance to do it in the next 10 or 100 years ? We need a straight deadline to point 2.6. I think RIPE NCC can safely suspend (not delete) all records for these 34% resources. It is good to put dummy records to point to call or email to RIPE support staff, and these resource to be gobaly announce. If nobody call in few (3) mounths, can be consider free and can be drawn into the pool.

Ivaylo Josifov VarnaIX / Varteh LTD +359 52 969393 Varna, Bulgaria

On Fri, 26 Apr 2024, Massimiliano Stucchi wrote:

> > Hi, > > On 26.04.2024 16:40, Thibaud Perret wrote: > >> I have a question for Massimiliano, if he sees it: >> Do you really need that many IPv6 addresses? Couldn't you just go with a >> single >> /40 allocation instead? That would still make a couple of /48 to be >> announced >> separately for you to keep your "lab allocation". If the answer is "yes" to >> that >> question, you could then pay well less in most if not all other RIR >> regions. > > I could do with a much smaller allocation. At present, I'm announcing both > /29s, with the first one being where my infrastructure is (and an address I'm > writing this e-mail from), and the second /29 has been used for some research > such as the one you can find here

...

(https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flabs.ri p e.net%2Fauthor%2Fstucchimax%2Fa-bgp-side-effect-of-rpki%2F&data=05%7C02%7C %7C0b84b59374a24b82c60308dc661e588c%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0 %7C0%7C638497527736209710%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQ IjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=y2T5QV8Ea 7AuXD4WBPSVxPxiuOcA80pYk7PGy8LHnyQ%3D&reserved=0). > > The point of the article was to compare what a "normal" LIR would pay in the > different RIRs. If I were to compare having a /48 (which would be PI at that > point) I would be comparing two different things. > Additionally, I wanted to showcase how some decision could be hindering > Internet development, such as the one from LACNIC to charge so much for IPv6 > compared to all the other RIRs, and the similar situation at APNIC, although > to a lesser extent. > > To wrap this, could I do with a smaller allocation? Definitely. But I > received a /29 as part of my membership and I can make some use of it. I > could also live without a second /29, but that does not increase my > membership fees. I would return it if the charging scheme were to be like > APNIC or LACNIC. > > Ciao! > > -- > Massimiliano Stucchi > MS16801-RIPE https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstucchi. c h%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C0b84b59374a24b82c60308dc661e588c%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc 923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638497527736218822%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJW IjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7 C%7C&sdata=CCE0El%2F5B41Uiky2BkscGB%2Fb%2FnkIWS2tKh4KGwPNA%2F4%3D&reserved =0 >

_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.rip

e.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7C%7C0b84b59374a 24b82c60308dc661e588c%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C6384975 27736224712%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLC JBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=AKpL%2FBU%2BGivvG9mSvj2 oFyeYeLXVit3cGEBi0iHep9Y%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe:https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F %2Flists.rip e.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fkajtzu%2540basen.net&data=05 %7C02%7C%7C0b84b59374a24b82c60308dc661e588c%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b 55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638497527736228202%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAw MDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=w Gy%2BZKcmJxuRIwj9%2BTXb5a6zDlImgJ%2BgmCg51B4zlw8%3D&reserved=0

_______________________________________________ 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/doru.serdin%40medias at.ro

Hi, RIPE-639 specifically mentions in its scope that rights to hold, use or transfer (and remember transfers do not need to be free) "are not addressed or restricted" by it. It also mentions that any existing or future policies do not apply to legacy holders unless it is explicitly included in the other policy. RIPE-822 mentions that assignments are valid as long as the original criteria the assignment was based on is valid and the assignment is registered in the database. It also mentions something about fairness. In practice, whether you want it or not, holder equals owner and holding equals ownership. One cannot sell or rent something that one do not own or have the rights to. Doing so would constitute some kind of fraud. People sell and buy and rent these daily. As for the apples. 1. in three or 4 parts depending on whether you're willing to sacrifice yourself in favor of your progeny, 2. you should look into buying futures to lock in the price of apples as you are producing a lot daily (not financial advice), 3. you buy apples from someone else. Kaj ________________________________ From: ivaylo <ivaylo@bglans.net> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 15:18 To: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Cc: Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] GM topic

I think it?s great we are being creative with the ideation of the models but?

Fair is a very vague yet complicated concept. Here I agree with Nick ;)

Distribution in the past has been needs based (based on existing or projected need). It's done.

I dont see how the word "fair" can be vague. When you dont have shortage of the resource it purely means "depend on your needs" (current situation with IPV6, ASN). But when you run on the limit it means equal (IPV4). Let me ask you 3 questions: 1. If you have 3 own hungry childrens and just one apple how will you distribute the apple to them ? 2. If you have 3 own hungry childrens and 1000 apples, but tomorow your apple tree can give you another 1000 apples ? 3. If you have 3 own hungry childrens 1000 apples, but you old apple tree is dead and that food is all you have for undefined period of time until your new not seeded yet apple tree grow and start giving you apples ? When you answer me of these 3 questions you will see and what _MUST_ mean of the word -->fair<-- is for RIPE. And when you find the common point of your answers you will know what RIPE NCC must do. Kaj, you talk so much about lawsuits, but can you give a citate, or point to RIPE policy or agreement, where it is said that allocated from RIPE *INR to the LIRs are not subject of change, not subject of their quantity change, and they are distributed for undefined period of time ? If there are still people or companies which mistake the word "hold" with the word "own" is entirely their problem. Nor RIR, LIR or end user can "own" *INR. They just can hold and operate with given INR for defined period of time (look at the RIPE documents and contracts, then tell me where is used the word "own"). The funny part is that the only way personal or company to be identified as authority of the given resource is the register itself. If the register stop functioning no one will know which *INR you can operate with. So if you screw (lawsuits) the register you are screwing and your own interests. *INR - Internet Number Resources. Any Internet identifiers such as IP addresses (IPv4, IPv6) and Autonomous System Numbers. (Citate from RIPE documents) One _OBLIGATION_ of RIPE NCC is to care for *fair* distribution of the resources across the LIRs in the region. And am not saying it is subject of member's wish or vote how the INR have been / are / will be distributed, I am saying it _MUST_ be fundamental rule that RIPE NCC must apply to guarantee its future, and it must not depend on any contractor or requestor wish. ---- About RIPE-639 The policy: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.net%2Fpublications%2Fdocs%2Fripe-639%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C950ec21ba0cf47dde90508dc68468008%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638499899231222420%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=JCmn5DPzSrZT1ga3MLbcPv45%2FdsB2ceC%2FgOxoxn6ZXs%3D&reserved=0<https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-639/> Mr. Xavier Le Bris report from 12.01.2024 (Big thanks for his work and efforts): https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flabs.ripe.net%2Fauthor%2Fxavier%2F10-years-of-legacy-policy%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C950ec21ba0cf47dde90508dc68468008%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638499899231232278%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xDx%2BIJ%2BEs5p86oeimpX8CF5GinmTQEJDasxAeiR9Tq0%3D&reserved=0<https://labs.ripe.net/author/xavier/10-years-of-legacy-policy/> I dont see anywhere the RIPE register is _obligated_ to keep legacy resources records for undefined time. I only read the RIPE register is _authoritive_ for these INR. With other words the data for legacy resources are holded in the register by good will. And there is no any obstacle to _NOT_ have deadline to keep doing this (in point 2.6). Also from the report 9% of 12 x /8 IPV4 blocks (nearly full /8 IPV4 block) is with undefined status. Another legacy holders which holds nearly 30% of the INR are out of any contracts or touch. So where is the benefit to keep holding such records ? Will the register be more acurate - NO ! Will the memebers will benefit of unusing nearly /8 - NO ! Are these legacy holders contribute something to the RIPE NCC - NO ! Correct me if I am wrong please. ------ About the claim "Last year base of the members rejected category based charging scheme, we will not offer it again". As I remember offered model B for 2024 also was not supported (rejected) , why it is offer for 2025 again ? When we take a decision what to offer and what not is rely on principle or on personal subjective opinion ? For 2024: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.net%2Fmedia%2Fdocuments%2FOption_B_-_Price_Increase_10_-_RIPE_NCC_Charging_Scheme_2024.pdf&data=05%7C02%7C%7C950ec21ba0cf47dde90508dc68468008%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638499899231238356%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Kskagg4F0z2z7slQVPZlBdWEdrkgut527Ct7OlU3DiE%3D&reserved=0<https://www.ripe.net/media/documents/Option_B_-_Price_Increase_10_-_RIPE_NCC_Charging_Scheme_2024.pdf> For 2025: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.net%2Fmedia%2Fdocuments%2FOption_B_RIPE_NCC_Charging_Scheme_2025.pdf&data=05%7C02%7C%7C950ec21ba0cf47dde90508dc68468008%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638499899231242924%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=x%2FwA9u%2BK3yycy4RFlgViG%2BbKIHVaaRbG6WF9%2B6Uve2s%3D&reserved=0<https://www.ripe.net/media/documents/Option_B_RIPE_NCC_Charging_Scheme_2025.pdf> To note that I and organisations I present are against category based charging schemes which will put the main load over the small to medium resource holders (LIRs), and will favoritize the biggest (what was offered in the last year). Ivaylo Josifov VarnaIX / Varteh LTD +359 52 969393 Varna, Bulgaria On Fri, 26 Apr 2024, Kaj Niemi wrote:

I think it?s great we are being creative with the ideation of the models but?

Fair is a very vague yet complicated concept. Here I agree with Nick ;)

Distribution in the past has been needs based (based on existing or projected need). It's done.

Any real implementation of forcing a "fair re-redistribution" of RIR assigned resources, as you suggest, will lead in lawsuits. Whether it would be 1, 10 or 1000 doesn't matter. The association will not have the financial resources and time to handle those. Probably not the best use of LIR fees, either. I doubt anyone in legal would ever ACK this.

Any of the companies holding address space that RIPE-639 refers to might not have an interest, or even be aware of the "benefits" of being a RIPE LIR themselves. Yes, they don't know about RPKI either, usually. Legacy reverse DNS might be enough. Many of these are multinationals in non-tech sectors who have gotten addresses before the RIR system existed. Some of these got addresses around the time classless routing came along from their vendors who themselves had gotten the addresses from IANA just by asking. Some of these do not route the addresses on the internet, some others do, etc. etc. Again, ruining someone's day by "reclaiming" - let's call it what it really is, hijacking - address space that hasn't been RIR assigned will certainly lead to costly lawsuits and claims of damages as above.

Don't think a "Pigouvian tax" would work either as the alternative is always for the holder to sell or rent the addresses. I think it'll lead to more consolidation of addresses to the cloud providers. Probably again not what was intended originally. Any added cost would eventually be shifted to the customers one way or another. Apropos that, Cogent is raising a 200M note secured by a bunch of IPv4 addresses and rental cash flows. Addresses have a significant value as collateral just as stable cash flows do.

:)

Kaj

Sent from my iPad

____________________________________________________________________________ From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of ivaylo <ivaylo@bglans.net> Sent: Friday, April 26, 2024 9:26 PM To: Massimiliano Stucchi <max@stucchi.ch> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] GM topic

Thank you for this example Massimiliano !

It is very good example how bad the resources can be used, and how bad is to have flat fee for all members ! That's why RIPE fee _MUST_ include per resource component.

I am currious about technical aspects in the logic, Even if you go with EUI-64 standart for your network infrastructure (nobody do this, because the addresses unprediction) a /29 IPV6 will let you have 34 358 689 800 ( > 34 Bilions segments). With the maximum ttl value of 255 (limited by the one byte in the header, current around the internet is used just 64), You can have 134 739 960 (> 134 millions) router interfaces. With the modern switching asics, you will need and around 144 000 000 000 000 (> 144 trillions) ethernet switches where you can connect up to 18446744073709551616 end hosts per segment. Let me also remind that IPV6 protocol allow to use a single (just one) adress per a system/ruter/host (not per interface as IPV4) implemented in almost all vendors equipment and OS.

Yes in theory it is posible to need huge address space, but in theory every one of us (LIRs) have to drawn all ipv6 + ipv4 + ASN from IANA (not from RIPE only) to cover all very unlikely future needs.

-----

The problems RIPE NCC and we members have, is not the charging scheme is fair or unfair, the root of the problem is _UNFAIR RESROURCES DISTRIBUTION_ during the years. As everything in the real world internet resources are also finite numbers. So how to spread finite resources to group of members which by presumptions are equal (First and most important RIPE obligation - threat all members equally) ? Logically - equal. If we were 5 members maybe we can handshake each other and have an agreement (not sure ether when we talk about concurent companies / personals), but we are 21k that's why we need clear, transparent and strong rules equal to all. We currently have a strong discrimination based on very vague foundations and rules.

I will be very happy somebody from RIPE to explain us, why one member can hold /8 just for fun (or testing or whatever), in the same time other member to have single /24 (or to be in a waiting queues) extreamly dificult to operate its bussiness because lack of resources and both of them to be forced to pay same fee. Which rule in the RIPE founding agreement exactly says this is fair and equal ? Also how many from the RIPE NCC staff and you LIRs, with hand on heart will tell the current situation is moral, normal and fair to all ?

In all cases after the posible delegated resources to RIPE have limits we also need limits for the resource each of us can hold and operate with. thing more fair can be than to take all resources in each category (IPV4/IPV6/ASN) which are delegated to RIPENCC and divide by the LIR members number.

Solution one: Redistribute resources equaly to all. Not imposible as I already wrote, but will that lead to tremors in the work of operators - very likely. But what is that is equal fees, equal rights, equal resources.

Solution two: Start to "penalise" the the LIRs which holds and operate resources over the fair share limits. That will not make disruption of the internet work in the region. And will give time to those who want to optimise the resource usage to do it and save expenses. How to do it ? - With money ofcourse. To prevent adding too much initial stress to all, we have to start with small steps and calibrate the "penalisation" fee with time.

As I wrote in my previous mail the current fair shair resources for each LIR member based on what I checked (by IANA documents and 21500 LIRs) are:

1 x /18 IPV4 block 1 x /28 IPV6 block 16 x ASN

Everything above these numbers should be "penalise" with a small fee per each resource over the limit. Ofcourse these limits must be shifted if we become 40k members or down to 10k, but it is an easy part. Also "penalty" fee by 10 euro per year for /24, /32, ASN looks prety resonable in the light of current free market prices - 15k "buy" / 100 euro month rent.

It is not a category based charging scheme ! It is fair share charging scheme ! Can be looked at like extension of the scheme C, but guarantee much more RIPE NCC sustainable future and covers all LIR resources (not only PI). Current offered option C is inanity, because one LIR can hold /8 PA and none PI space, the other can hold single /24 PA and 10 x /24 PI, and will pay much more than the first one with /8 PA (fair ?) !

Another important theme is RIPE-639. 10 Years after the adoption we still have nearly 34% undiscovered resources. How much more time it needs ? If for 10 years you cant find legacy holders what will be the chance to do it in the next 10 or 100 years ? We need a straight deadline to point 2.6. I think RIPE NCC can safely suspend (not delete) all records for these 34% resources. It is good to put dummy records to point to call or email to RIPE support staff, and these resource to be gobaly announce. If nobody call in few (3) mounths, can be consider free and can be drawn into the pool.

Ivaylo Josifov VarnaIX / Varteh LTD +359 52 969393 Varna, Bulgaria

On Fri, 26 Apr 2024, Massimiliano Stucchi wrote:

...

Hi,

On 26.04.2024 16:40, Thibaud Perret wrote:

...

I have a question for Massimiliano, if he sees it: Do you really need that many IPv6 addresses? Couldn't you just go with a single /40 allocation instead? That would still make a couple of /48 to be announced separately for you to keep your "lab allocation". If the answer is "yes"

...

...

that question, you could then pay well less in most if not all other RIR regions.

I could do with a much smaller allocation. At present, I'm announcing both /29s, with the first one being where my infrastructure is (and an address I'm writing this e-mail from), and the second /29 has been used for some research such as the one you can find here (https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flabs.rip%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C950ec21ba0cf47dde90508dc68468008%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638499899231246984%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=a7TJ86ya0vcvV6%2Bk0nI84V%2Fy6N5oqgnZNTo3rwDtj%2Fo%3D&reserved=0 e.net%2Fauthor%2Fstucchimax%2Fa-bgp-side-effect-of-rpki%2F&data=05%7C02%7C %7C0b84b59374a24b82c60308dc661e588c%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0 %7C0%7C638497527736209710%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQ IjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=y2T5QV8Ea 7AuXD4WBPSVxPxiuOcA80pYk7PGy8LHnyQ%3D&reserved=0).

The point of the article was to compare what a "normal" LIR would pay in

...

different RIRs. If I were to compare having a /48 (which would be PI at

to the that

...

point) I would be comparing two different things. Additionally, I wanted to showcase how some decision could be hindering Internet development, such as the one from LACNIC to charge so much for IPv6 compared to all the other RIRs, and the similar situation at APNIC, although to a lesser extent.

To wrap this, could I do with a smaller allocation? Definitely. But I received a /29 as part of my membership and I can make some use of it. I could also live without a second /29, but that does not increase my membership fees. I would return it if the charging scheme were to be like APNIC or LACNIC.

Ciao!

-- Massimiliano Stucchi MS16801-RIPE https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstucchi.c%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C950ec21ba0cf47dde90508dc68468008%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638499899231250933%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=aSKa3hJRvfdc5SJ6BvErwshNUvaidwEDgBDcEYyeI7k%3D&reserved=0<https://stucchi.c/> h%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C0b84b59374a24b82c60308dc661e588c%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc 923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638497527736218822%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJW IjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7 C%7C&sdata=CCE0El%2F5B41Uiky2BkscGB%2Fb%2FnkIWS2tKh4KGwPNA%2F4%3D&reserved =0

_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.rip%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C950ec21ba0cf47dde90508dc68468008%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638499899231254695%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=RV8fxe0aEPnm%2BR2pG87fttskB%2BUgn1pOSVLmzsG3XPo%3D&reserved=0<https://lists.rip/> e.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7C%7C0b84b59374a 24b82c60308dc661e588c%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C6384975 27736224712%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLC JBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=AKpL%2FBU%2BGivvG9mSvj2 oFyeYeLXVit3cGEBi0iHep9Y%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe:https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.rip%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C950ec21ba0cf47dde90508dc68468008%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638499899231258309%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=j0oa3UCNy%2Br56X2FC1b07MwF1ZyhVtKXTajyFfXoV6Q%3D&reserved=0 e.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fkajtzu%2540basen.net&data=05 %7C02%7C%7C0b84b59374a24b82c60308dc661e588c%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b 55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638497527736228202%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAw MDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=w Gy%2BZKcmJxuRIwj9%2BTXb5a6zDlImgJ%2BgmCg51B4zlw8%3D&reserved=0

Hi, On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 02:40:34PM +0000, Thibaud Perret wrote:

Do you really need that many IPv6 addresses? Couldn't you just go with a single /40 allocation instead? That would still make a couple of /48 to be announced separately for you to keep your "lab allocation". If the answer is "yes" to that question, you could then pay well less in most if not all other RIR regions.

I observe problematic consequences of the fee structure in ARIN land here. The whole idea behind IPv6 having a large address space is that you can be very liberal with it, and give your customers /56s or /48s, because LIRs can get reasonably huge allocations with no extra costs (I can do math, and a /29 or even /24 per possible LIR is something that can fit into the available space, with plenty of room to go). The ARIN fee structure leads to LIRs going for a /36 instead, because it's cheaper - and that, of course, has consequences of the end user offerings. So whatever we go for, there should never be a financial incentive to reduce end user IPv6 assignment size for default-sized (non "extra large") LIR allocations. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Ingo Lalla, Karin Schuler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

Hi, Gert! If you want to stop some discussion - simply do not discuss it yourself. But for my opinion: Taking flat payment for deficit resouces - is the best way to fill NCC budget and return some unused IPv4 to RIPE. --- Serbulov Dmitry.

...

On 26 Apr 2024, at 17:00, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:

The ARIN fee structure leads to LIRs going for a /36 instead, because it's cheaper - and that, of course, has consequences of the end user offerings.

So whatever we go for, there should never be a financial incentive to reduce end user IPv6 assignment size for default-sized (non "extra large") LIR allocations.

… and possibly IPv6 costs could create incentives to not deploy IPv6 at all.

Can we stop discussing (and believing) that high costs for IPv4 would lead to enough IPv4 being returned to make everybody happy?

That will never be the case! There simply isn’t enough IPv4, so let’s stop riding that dead horse!

The only sustainable way to support future development is by having everything on IPv6.

You can complain about unfair distribution of IPv4 as long as you want, that’s now history that can't be changed.

With IPv6, however, those historic “mistakes" can be avoided (and are avoided).

Cheers

PS: “mistakes” in quotes because back then they were not considered mistakes. In hindsight, you can discuss...

Michel LANNERS CIO at LU-CIX Management G.I.E. -- <https://www.luxchat.lu/> Mail: michel.lanners@lu-cix.lu <mailto:michel.lanners@lu-cix.lu> Luxchat: @3eb2pdflrq57:01.lu-cix.luxchat.lu Phone: (+352) 28 99 29 92-81

LU-CIX Management G.I.E. 202, Z.A.E. Wolser F L-3290 Bettembourg lu-cix.lu <https://www.lu-cix.lu/> luxchat.lu <https://www.luxchat.lu/> luxembourg-internet-days.com <https://luxembourg-internet-days.com/> lunog.lu <https://www.lunog.lu/>

...

Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Ingo Lalla, Karin Schuler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/michel.lanners%40lu-c...

_______________________________________________ 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.

Gert. I am very Sorry, of course it must was addressed to Michael. It was my mistake! --- Dmitry Serbulov

Hi,

On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 06:25:33PM +0300, sdy@a-n-t.ru wrote:

...

Hi, Gert!

If you want to stop some discussion - simply do not discuss it yourself.

Seems quoting e-mail is as hard as maths. I did not write the part about "Can we stop discussing"...

(And I try to keep out of this discussion - unless some widely dangerous or false claims are made that directly touch my work over the last years as APWG chair, trying to achive a good and workable IPv6 policy, and trying to do the best we could with the remains of IPv4)

Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Ingo Lalla, Karin Schuler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

----------------------------- 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.