Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month
It's about fair distribution. And companies that earn millions should also understand that they have to do their share. And not just laugh and say, "Yeah, unfortunately, you came 30 years too late." You won't even be able to get started in the market. We need to come up with a new fee structure that is fair to all members. Yes, I'm exaggerating about the statement about millions. But it should be possible to even consider approaches to a fair model. Everyone should openly say how we could improve the model without being immediately punished by others. Suggestions are welcome. Just because the model is 30 years old doesn't necessarily make it good or fair. Suggestions are ideas, and they can be good, bad, or whatever. But that's what suggestions are about: the exchange of ideas and opinions. Just because I like chocolate ice cream the most doesn't mean everyone has to share my opinion. or even like ice cream. Greetings, Dirk -- Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen Walde IT-Systemhaus - CEO Dirk Walde - IT-Specialist
One of the holders of large blocks are universities. The're not earning milions - they aren't doing business. They only existed at a time when class-B allocation was the norm. And often on the internet they were before the internet started to be really interesting for business... Generalization through allocation size is a false argument here. How do you want to solve this? By making rules with lots of exceptions? Or do you think that schools have spare money? And no, the solution here isn't to force them to give up those addresses (just because some business entity wants them). - Daniel On 5/30/25 10:05 PM, D. Walde - Walde IT-Systemhaus wrote:
It's about fair distribution. And companies that earn millions should also understand that they have to do their share. And not just laugh and say, "Yeah, unfortunately, you came 30 years too late." You won't even be able to get started in the market.
Well then, fair enough. But in that case — let’s be pragmatic: If universities don’t need the addresses for active use, they should either: lease them out, sell them, or return them to the free pool. Holding onto large allocations “just in case” while others face real shortages serves no one. That’s essentially a dog in the manger — not using the resource, but also preventing others from doing so. We’re not talking about forcing anyone. But unused capacity in today’s market is a strategic bottleneck. RIR policy shouldn’t become a sanctuary for inefficiency. Sent from my iPhone
On 31 May 2025, at 01:07, Daniel Suchy via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> wrote:
One of the holders of large blocks are universities. The're not earning milions - they aren't doing business. They only existed at a time when class-B allocation was the norm. And often on the internet they were before the internet started to be really interesting for business...
Generalization through allocation size is a false argument here.
How do you want to solve this? By making rules with lots of exceptions? Or do you think that schools have spare money? And no, the solution here isn't to force them to give up those addresses (just because some business entity wants them).
- Daniel
On 5/30/25 10:05 PM, D. Walde - Walde IT-Systemhaus wrote: It's about fair distribution. And companies that earn millions should also understand that they have to do their share. And not just laugh and say, "Yeah, unfortunately, you came 30 years too late." You won't even be able to get started in the market.
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
It doesn't matter if it's a university or a company. Why does a university need tens of thousands of IPv4 addresses in the age of NAT? They may well return most of the resources. In the end, let them look for sponsors. At a price of 3-5 euros at the beginning per /24 per year, none of them will go broke. --- Serbulov Dmitry
One of the holders of large blocks are universities. The're not earning milions - they aren't doing business. They only existed at a time when class-B allocation was the norm. And often on the internet they were before the internet started to be really interesting for business...
Generalization through allocation size is a false argument here.
How do you want to solve this? By making rules with lots of exceptions? Or do you think that schools have spare money? And no, the solution here isn't to force them to give up those addresses (just because some business entity wants them).
- Daniel
On 5/30/25 10:05 PM, D. Walde - Walde IT-Systemhaus wrote:
It's about fair distribution. And companies that earn millions should also understand that they have to do their share. And not just laugh and say, "Yeah, unfortunately, you came 30 years too late." You won't even be able to get started in the market.
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
NAT does not allow end to end connectivity. And if this discussion isn't about transitioning to IPv6, then the existence of NAT is not a valid argument either. IPv6 was created as a solution to the IPv4 shortage. NAT was created as a means to postpone the problem solved by IPv6. It's funny that the similar arguments come mostly from entities who failed to implement IPv6 even after a quarter of a century. Although arguments are being made that this debate is not about the transition to IPv6, arguments are then being made about how to throw out some more IPv4 "somewhere". Obligatory efforts to revive a dead horse. No, the debate is about RIPE funding. And if each member wants to have the same weight of his vote, they should contribute to RIPE budget equally. Or let's make RIPE a joint stock company, Each asset will correspond to one share. The vote of shareholders holding more shares will have greater weight. That's fair solution. - Daniel On 5/31/25 2:58 AM, sdy@a-n-t.ru wrote:
It doesn't matter if it's a university or a company. Why does a university need tens of thousands of IPv4 addresses in the age of NAT? They may well return most of the resources. In the end, let them look for sponsors. At a price of 3-5 euros at the beginning per /24 per year, none of them will go broke. --- Serbulov Dmitry
One of the holders of large blocks are universities. The're not earning milions - they aren't doing business. They only existed at a time when class-B allocation was the norm. And often on the internet they were before the internet started to be really interesting for business...
Please open an IPv6 transition thread and stop the disinformation in this thread. Speaking of which, as pointed out hundred of times, all other RIRs have successfully implemented tiered charging schemes, some of them with weighted voting power, others not. So stop misleading people by saying that tiered charging will ruin RIPE when it's been working fine at other RIRs. On Sat, 31 May 2025, 10:14 Daniel Suchy via members-discuss, < members-discuss@ripe.net> wrote:
NAT does not allow end to end connectivity. And if this discussion isn't about transitioning to IPv6, then the existence of NAT is not a valid argument either. IPv6 was created as a solution to the IPv4 shortage. NAT was created as a means to postpone the problem solved by IPv6.
It's funny that the similar arguments come mostly from entities who failed to implement IPv6 even after a quarter of a century.
Although arguments are being made that this debate is not about the transition to IPv6, arguments are then being made about how to throw out some more IPv4 "somewhere". Obligatory efforts to revive a dead horse.
No, the debate is about RIPE funding. And if each member wants to have the same weight of his vote, they should contribute to RIPE budget equally. Or let's make RIPE a joint stock company, Each asset will correspond to one share. The vote of shareholders holding more shares will have greater weight. That's fair solution.
- Daniel
On 5/31/25 2:58 AM, sdy@a-n-t.ru wrote:
It doesn't matter if it's a university or a company. Why does a university need tens of thousands of IPv4 addresses in the age of NAT? They may well return most of the resources. In the end, let them look for sponsors. At a price of 3-5 euros at the beginning per /24 per year, none of them will go broke. --- Serbulov Dmitry
One of the holders of large blocks are universities. The're not earning milions - they aren't doing business. They only existed at a time when class-B allocation was the norm. And often on the internet they were before the internet started to be really interesting for business...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
I never said that the layered model would ruin RIPE. That's your personal lie. If we want to compare with other RIRs, we should not cherry-pick just some aspects. In a similar comparison, we must also take into account the size of the budget and what the money is spent on and where. It's not just about implementing a layered model and problem is solved. It is also true that each RIR lives in a slightly different legal environment. And among other things, the tax implications of the tiered model must also be well evaluated. In our legal environment, tax authorities may assess the tiered model as a provision of a service. Besides, it was an argument at a time when the tiered model was abandoned in RIPE (which many have already forgotten). The argument that they have it that way in the US or Africa probably won't hold up at all before the European (Dutch) tax office. Non-profit organizations usually have some tax breaks. But if the tax office determines that it is a regular service, the tax breaks will disappear. And from my perspective, a better solution is for the money to stay in the community. Not in some government budget. - Daniel On 5/31/25 9:19 AM, Jean Salim wrote:
Please open an IPv6 transition thread and stop the disinformation in this thread. Speaking of which, as pointed out hundred of times, all other RIRs have successfully implemented tiered charging schemes, some of them with weighted voting power, others not. So stop misleading people by saying that tiered charging will ruin RIPE when it's been working fine at other RIRs.
Now we can't have a tiered charging because of dutch tax laws 🤦 I thought that I have heard it all. The excuses are becoming more and more ridiculous, as ridiculous as the situation where a one /24 holder pays the same as a large LIR making bank by renting out their resources. On Sat, 31 May 2025, 11:13 Daniel Suchy via members-discuss, < members-discuss@ripe.net> wrote:
I never said that the layered model would ruin RIPE. That's your personal lie.
If we want to compare with other RIRs, we should not cherry-pick just some aspects. In a similar comparison, we must also take into account the size of the budget and what the money is spent on and where. It's not just about implementing a layered model and problem is solved.
It is also true that each RIR lives in a slightly different legal environment. And among other things, the tax implications of the tiered model must also be well evaluated.
In our legal environment, tax authorities may assess the tiered model as a provision of a service. Besides, it was an argument at a time when the tiered model was abandoned in RIPE (which many have already forgotten).
The argument that they have it that way in the US or Africa probably won't hold up at all before the European (Dutch) tax office. Non-profit organizations usually have some tax breaks. But if the tax office determines that it is a regular service, the tax breaks will disappear.
And from my perspective, a better solution is for the money to stay in the community. Not in some government budget.
- Daniel
On 5/31/25 9:19 AM, Jean Salim wrote:
Please open an IPv6 transition thread and stop the disinformation in this thread. Speaking of which, as pointed out hundred of times, all other RIRs have successfully implemented tiered charging schemes, some of them with weighted voting power, others not. So stop misleading people by saying that tiered charging will ruin RIPE when it's been working fine at other RIRs.
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
You're not paying for /24 🤦 That's just a misinterpretation. You're paying membersip in association. The cost of your membership is the same no matter how many addresses you have. RIPE does not sell any services. On 5/31/25 10:17 AM, Jean Salim wrote:
Now we can't have a tiered charging because of dutch tax laws 🤦 I thought that I have heard it all. The excuses are becoming more and more ridiculous, as ridiculous as the situation where a one /24 holder pays the same as a large LIR making bank by renting out their resources.
You're still trying to contort the facts just to keep an unfair charging scheme that all other RIRs have gotten rid of because of its unfairness. Just for some greedy large LIRs that want to save some measly Euros when they are making tens of thousands of by renting out these resources at the expense of small, cash strapped LIRs operating in countries with failing economies. On Sat, 31 May 2025, 12:18 Daniel Suchy via members-discuss, < members-discuss@ripe.net> wrote:
You're not paying for /24 🤦 That's just a misinterpretation.
You're paying membersip in association. The cost of your membership is the same no matter how many addresses you have. RIPE does not sell any services.
On 5/31/25 10:17 AM, Jean Salim wrote:
Now we can't have a tiered charging because of dutch tax laws 🤦 I thought that I have heard it all. The excuses are becoming more and more ridiculous, as ridiculous as the situation where a one /24 holder pays the same as a large LIR making bank by renting out their resources.
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Do you expect all your vendors to provide you services at a lower rate than "market"? How does that work out for you? Like are CPUs, memory, SSDs, and optics somehow cheaper in your country? If they are, why? If they aren't, why not? I really think your accusations are quite unfounded. There isn't a secret large LIR cabal running the show behind the scenes. NCC bends over backwards to include disadvantaged or less developed parts of the service region through community engagement and whatnot. This is subsidized by everyone through membership fees to the tune of 1/4 of the annual budget. Kaj Sent from my iPhone ________________________________ From: Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net> Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2025 1:22 PM To: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net>; Daniel Suchy <danny@danysek.cz> Subject: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month You don't often get email from jean@bsmart-isp.net. Learn why this is important<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification> You're still trying to contort the facts just to keep an unfair charging scheme that all other RIRs have gotten rid of because of its unfairness. Just for some greedy large LIRs that want to save some measly Euros when they are making tens of thousands of by renting out these resources at the expense of small, cash strapped LIRs operating in countries with failing economies. On Sat, 31 May 2025, 12:18 Daniel Suchy via members-discuss, <members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> wrote: You're not paying for /24 🤦 That's just a misinterpretation. You're paying membersip in association. The cost of your membership is the same no matter how many addresses you have. RIPE does not sell any services. On 5/31/25 10:17 AM, Jean Salim wrote:
Now we can't have a tiered charging because of dutch tax laws 🤦 I thought that I have heard it all. The excuses are becoming more and more ridiculous, as ridiculous as the situation where a one /24 holder pays the same as a large LIR making bank by renting out their resources.
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
First thank you Jean Salim. ########################################### That's everyday life out there. Just a simple example for you to read and think about. With luck, I'll get a /24 in two months, but if I had a cash cow, I could rent a little more. As a member, I have the same rights and pay the same. Why is an old LIR allowed to exploit his membership like this? And if I asked if I could get two or three /18, I'd probably be told it's no problem or can it be a little more. Here's something to think about. ######################################################################## Hi, That’s the price for rent per month. CXXXXXX doesn’t sell IPs, only renting.
On 30 May 2025, at 21:09, D. Walde
For that price I'd gladly buy the block
Walde IT-Systemhaus - CEO Dirk Walde - IT-Specialist
CXXXXXX
Hi Dirk, Can you, please let me know if you are interested in the below. Thanks, CXXXXXX
Subject: RE: CXXXXXX /18
Hi Dirk,
Hope you are doing well! I still haven’t heard from you. Is it 0.35 per IP a good price for you? Kind regards,
CXXXXXX Subject: RE: CXXXXXX /18 Hi Dirk, I will appreciate some reply on the below. Thank you,CXXXXXX
Hi Dirk, Hope you are well! Is /18 - 5,700 per month of your interest? Kind regards,CXXXXXX
Subject: RE: CXXXXXX /18
We recently reduced our pricing for larger blocks of IPv4. What range you would be interested in?
Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen Walde IT-Systemhaus - CEO Dirk Walde - IT-Specialist Jean Salim schrieb:
You're still trying to contort the facts just to keep an unfair charging scheme that all other RIRs have gotten rid of because of its unfairness. Just for some greedy large LIRs that want to save some measly Euros when they are making tens of thousands of by renting out these resources at the expense of small, cash strapped LIRs operating in countries with failing economies.
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 12:18 Daniel Suchy via members-discuss, <members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> wrote:
You're not paying for /24 🤦 That's just a misinterpretation.
You're paying membersip in association. The cost of your membership is the same no matter how many addresses you have. RIPE does not sell any services.
On 5/31/25 10:17 AM, Jean Salim wrote: > Now we can't have a tiered charging because of dutch tax laws 🤦 > I thought that I have heard it all. > The excuses are becoming more and more ridiculous, as ridiculous as the > situation where a one /24 holder pays the same as a large LIR making bank > by renting out their resources. > ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Do I understand correctly that you are calling for rules that will retroactively affect previous allocations? Retroactivity is one of the basic things that I really can't imagine in a civilized legal world. Yes - someone was lucky to come first. So now we're going to punish them with something because others came? These debates remind me a bit of communist envy. The situation we have is not an "exploit". It's just a consequence of history. And of course, mistakes that just happened. You can't get back time. And among other things, one of the things that I think is that when you start pushing too hard on the saw, the water will be thrown out with the bathtub. You won't get new addresses cheaper. Even those who have had no reason to do so will start speculating with addresses in order to cover their own costs. Of course, this will be reflected in the prices for end customers, even where the (legacy) internet has not been cripled, and I assign public IPs to home connections as well. I understand the frustration of late arrivals. But that's life. If you come to the supermarket too late, there won't be any bread left for you. Starting to loot the homes of those who arrived earlier isn't a solution to the problem. And if the capacity of the bakery in the supermarket is objectively insufficient, a more efficient one needs to be built. And in this paraphrase, we all know very well what the better bakery is... And those who are blocking the launch of these new bakery because they stick to bread from the old oven are real frogs on the spring. They're the reason why second-hand markets make more money with bread than our supermarket. End of paraphrases. if you look at LIR, which're crying as much as they can... so they're in no hurry to implement IPv6 (some haven't even started their prefix propagation). The transition will not happen overnight by magic. Yes, these transitional phases are pain somewhat - and we have experienced this many times. But it's necessary not to cry and start. Any attempts to generate additional IPv4 addresses into RIR free pool are just a waste of time. You won't solve the problem, at most you'll postpone it for a while. It doesn't make sense. And all these debates about charging scheme changes are actually just attempts to get those legacy addresses. This is evident from many comments. Everyone thinking rationally knows that in a few years the transition will happen anyway and all IPv4 will be useless. The long-term sustainability of RIPE cannot be built on IPv4 allocations. Charging based on IPv4 allocation is only a short-term solution. - Daniel On 5/31/25 8:47 PM, D. Walde - Walde IT-Systemhaus wrote:
Why is an old LIR allowed to exploit his membership like this?
Dear , I completely agree you that we should not base policy on resentment toward those who happened to arrive earlier. IPv4 allocation history is just that—history—and trying to rebalance it now would only lead to unintended consequences. I also agree that tying fees directly to IPv4 holdings is fundamentally flawed. It reinforces the past instead of preparing for the future. IPv4 still matters today, but charging based on it is at best a short-term patch. In the long run, we need a model aligned with where we want the Internet to go—not where it came from. In my view, a sustainable approach should separate membership fees from service fees. Service fees should continue to reflect the specific services a member uses, as they do now. But membership fees, instead of being equal for all or based on legacy resource counts, should reflect the member’s actual operational scale and network impact. Not all LIRs are equal in this regard. Some are small teams managing a few thousand devices, while others operate infrastructure that supports entire countries. If a small LIR fails, a few customers are affected; if a large LIR fails, entire regions could experience disruption. In a community model like RIPE, where we all share responsibility for the health of the Internet, it’s reasonable that larger, more impactful members contribute more. That said, we must not assume IPv4 quantity equates to impact. IPv4 was once the dominant factor, but we’re trying to build a future based on IPv6. Therefore, a fairer way to assess “network scale” could be based on IPv6 holdings. Meanwhile, regarding IPv4, instead of using it as a billing anchor, we should use it as a driver for transition. One constructive idea would be to encourage IPv6 adoption in proportion to IPv4 resources held. For example: * A member holding a /24 to /21 of IPv4 could be expected to also hold at least an IPv6 /28. * A /20 to /17 IPv4 holder might be expected to hold at least an IPv6 /24. * A /16 to /13 holder might be expected to hold an IPv6 /20, and so on. This way, larger IPv4 holders take on a corresponding responsibility to deploy and promote IPv6. Simultaneously, members with large IPv6 holdings (regardless of IPv4 status) would be recognized as operating significant networks and placed in an appropriate membership fee tier. In this model, we don’t penalize legacy allocations—but we do place expectations and incentives around modern best practices. And we shift financial responsibility in line with actual network impact, not historic luck. Thanks again for raising these important points. I share your view that we must be forward-looking and realistic—not reactive—and I hope the community can move in that direction. Best regards, Chenyang Sent from my iPhone On Jun 1, 2025, at 22:50, Daniel Suchy via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> wrote: Do I understand correctly that you are calling for rules that will retroactively affect previous allocations? Retroactivity is one of the basic things that I really can't imagine in a civilized legal world. Yes - someone was lucky to come first. So now we're going to punish them with something because others came? These debates remind me a bit of communist envy. The situation we have is not an "exploit". It's just a consequence of history. And of course, mistakes that just happened. You can't get back time. And among other things, one of the things that I think is that when you start pushing too hard on the saw, the water will be thrown out with the bathtub. You won't get new addresses cheaper. Even those who have had no reason to do so will start speculating with addresses in order to cover their own costs. Of course, this will be reflected in the prices for end customers, even where the (legacy) internet has not been cripled, and I assign public IPs to home connections as well. I understand the frustration of late arrivals. But that's life. If you come to the supermarket too late, there won't be any bread left for you. Starting to loot the homes of those who arrived earlier isn't a solution to the problem. And if the capacity of the bakery in the supermarket is objectively insufficient, a more efficient one needs to be built. And in this paraphrase, we all know very well what the better bakery is... And those who are blocking the launch of these new bakery because they stick to bread from the old oven are real frogs on the spring. They're the reason why second-hand markets make more money with bread than our supermarket. End of paraphrases. if you look at LIR, which're crying as much as they can... so they're in no hurry to implement IPv6 (some haven't even started their prefix propagation). The transition will not happen overnight by magic. Yes, these transitional phases are pain somewhat - and we have experienced this many times. But it's necessary not to cry and start. Any attempts to generate additional IPv4 addresses into RIR free pool are just a waste of time. You won't solve the problem, at most you'll postpone it for a while. It doesn't make sense. And all these debates about charging scheme changes are actually just attempts to get those legacy addresses. This is evident from many comments. Everyone thinking rationally knows that in a few years the transition will happen anyway and all IPv4 will be useless. The long-term sustainability of RIPE cannot be built on IPv4 allocations. Charging based on IPv4 allocation is only a short-term solution. - Daniel On 5/31/25 8:47 PM, D. Walde - Walde IT-Systemhaus wrote: Why is an old LIR allowed to exploit his membership like this? ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Am Samstag, dem 31.05.2025 um 11:17 +0300 schrieb Jean Salim:
Now we can't have a tiered charging because of dutch tax laws 🤦 I thought that I have heard it all. The excuses are becoming more and more ridiculous, as ridiculous as the situation where a one /24 holder pays the same as a large LIR making bank by renting out their resources.
This is not a new argument. Please study the discussions and it was said time and time again, that this would conflict the dutch tax law. Matthias
Matthias Brumm wrote on 31/05/2025 10:35:
This is not a new argument. Please study the discussions and it was said time and time again, that this would conflict the dutch tax law.
The issue is not that it conflicts with dutch tax law, but that if the RIPE NCC were seen to provide pro-rata services, e.g. pay-per-ipv4 address, then any surplus would be taxed and the Clearing House arrangement (RIPE-625) would likely be voided. So, anyone proposing a pay-per-ip model needs to accept that this model will bring the RIPE NCC into scope for taxation, i.e. higher overall fees, and while it would be easy to abandon the current Clearing House arrangement, it would be extremely difficult to attempt to regain it, if at any stage in the future, the RIPE NCC wanted to revert back. Nick
You're saying strange things. Did I understand correctly? The problem with taxes is not that some of the members will pay more and some less, but that the budget of the NCC will become a surplus, and we won't be able to spend that money, is that why the fees will rise in the future? Ok! Who will it grow up for? For large resource holders? Wonderful! Let them take out unnecessary IPv4! This IPv4 will be taken by those who need them and who are willing to pay a reasonable fee, not the current speculative price! Serbulov Dmitry.
Matthias Brumm wrote on 31/05/2025 10:35:
This is not a new argument. Please study the discussions and it was said time and time again, that this would conflict the dutch tax law.
The issue is not that it conflicts with dutch tax law, but that if the RIPE NCC were seen to provide pro-rata services, e.g. pay-per-ipv4 address, then any surplus would be taxed and the Clearing House arrangement (RIPE-625) would likely be voided.
So, anyone proposing a pay-per-ip model needs to accept that this model will bring the RIPE NCC into scope for taxation, i.e. higher overall fees, and while it would be easy to abandon the current Clearing House arrangement, it would be extremely difficult to attempt to regain it, if at any stage in the future, the RIPE NCC wanted to revert back.
Nick ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
We are paying €1850 for a service we actively use — simply because NCC doesn’t want to classify it as a ‘regular service’. Meanwhile, others who hold hundreds of times more resources than we do are generating commercial benefit from them — and in a completely disproportionate way. I became a member of this organization solely because of these resources — because we are required to. The internet depends on them. But am I truly on equal footing when it comes to accessing these resources? Especially compared to someone who happened to become a member 20 years ago? I can already hear people saying, ‘Then just lease the resources from a provider… -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards Murat TERZIOGLU PREBITS - Premium Business IT Solutions Bochumer Str. 20 D-44866 Bochum Telefon: 0234/58825994 Telefax: 0234/58825995 www.prebits.de m.terzioglu@prebits.de USt-ID: DE315418902
Am 31.05.2025 um 10:11 schrieb Daniel Suchy via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net>:
I never said that the layered model would ruin RIPE. That's your personal lie.
If we want to compare with other RIRs, we should not cherry-pick just some aspects. In a similar comparison, we must also take into account the size of the budget and what the money is spent on and where. It's not just about implementing a layered model and problem is solved.
It is also true that each RIR lives in a slightly different legal environment. And among other things, the tax implications of the tiered model must also be well evaluated.
In our legal environment, tax authorities may assess the tiered model as a provision of a service. Besides, it was an argument at a time when the tiered model was abandoned in RIPE (which many have already forgotten).
The argument that they have it that way in the US or Africa probably won't hold up at all before the European (Dutch) tax office. Non-profit organizations usually have some tax breaks. But if the tax office determines that it is a regular service, the tax breaks will disappear.
And from my perspective, a better solution is for the money to stay in the community. Not in some government budget.
- Daniel
On 5/31/25 9:19 AM, Jean Salim wrote: Please open an IPv6 transition thread and stop the disinformation in this thread. Speaking of which, as pointed out hundred of times, all other RIRs have successfully implemented tiered charging schemes, some of them with weighted voting power, others not. So stop misleading people by saying that tiered charging will ruin RIPE when it's been working fine at other RIRs.
To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
If you want or have to use IPv4 now, that would be the solution. Why did I not buy a house ten years ago, it would have been cheaper as today and I would have a permanent place to live. These big real estate investors should give their properties to people who want to start a family. But unlike the housing crisis the IPv4 problem has the rather smart and good working solution. Matthias Am Samstag, dem 31.05.2025 um 10:44 +0200 schrieb Murat Terzioglu | PREBITS:
We are paying €1850 for a service we actively use — simply because NCC doesn’t want to classify it as a ‘regular service’.
Meanwhile, others who hold hundreds of times more resources than we do are generating commercial benefit from them — and in a completely disproportionate way.
I became a member of this organization solely because of these resources — because we are required to. The internet depends on them.
But am I truly on equal footing when it comes to accessing these resources? Especially compared to someone who happened to become a member 20 years ago?
I can already hear people saying, ‘Then just lease the resources from a provider…
-- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards
Murat TERZIOGLU PREBITS - Premium Business IT Solutions Bochumer Str. 20 D-44866 Bochum Telefon: 0234/58825994 Telefax: 0234/58825995 www.prebits.de m.terzioglu@prebits.de USt-ID: DE315418902
Am 31.05.2025 um 10:11 schrieb Daniel Suchy via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net>:
I never said that the layered model would ruin RIPE. That's your personal lie.
If we want to compare with other RIRs, we should not cherry-pick just some aspects. In a similar comparison, we must also take into account the size of the budget and what the money is spent on and where. It's not just about implementing a layered model and problem is solved.
It is also true that each RIR lives in a slightly different legal environment. And among other things, the tax implications of the tiered model must also be well evaluated.
In our legal environment, tax authorities may assess the tiered model as a provision of a service. Besides, it was an argument at a time when the tiered model was abandoned in RIPE (which many have already forgotten).
The argument that they have it that way in the US or Africa probably won't hold up at all before the European (Dutch) tax office. Non-profit organizations usually have some tax breaks. But if the tax office determines that it is a regular service, the tax breaks will disappear.
And from my perspective, a better solution is for the money to stay in the community. Not in some government budget.
- Daniel
On 5/31/25 9:19 AM, Jean Salim wrote:
Please open an IPv6 transition thread and stop the disinformation in this thread. Speaking of which, as pointed out hundred of times, all other RIRs have successfully implemented tiered charging schemes, some of them with weighted voting power, others not. So stop misleading people by saying that tiered charging will ruin RIPE when it's been working fine at other RIRs.
To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Do you own any property? Then you’d know — you pay taxes to the state based on the size of the land and the structure built on it or location, etc.. You pay according to what you use. Was it for nothing that I gave this example? -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards Murat TERZIOGLU PREBITS - Premium Business IT Solutions Bochumer Str. 20 D-44866 Bochum Telefon: 0234/58825994 Telefax: 0234/58825995 www.prebits.de m.terzioglu@prebits.de USt-ID: DE315418902
Am 31.05.2025 um 11:30 schrieb Matthias Brumm <matthias@brumm.net>:
If you want or have to use IPv4 now, that would be the solution.
Why did I not buy a house ten years ago, it would have been cheaper as today and I would have a permanent place to live.
These big real estate investors should give their properties to people who want to start a family.
But unlike the housing crisis the IPv4 problem has the rather smart and good working solution.
Matthias
Am Samstag, dem 31.05.2025 um 10:44 +0200 schrieb Murat Terzioglu | PREBITS: We are paying €1850 for a service we actively use — simply because NCC doesn’t want to classify it as a ‘regular service’.
Meanwhile, others who hold hundreds of times more resources than we do are generating commercial benefit from them — and in a completely disproportionate way.
I became a member of this organization solely because of these resources — because we are required to. The internet depends on them.
But am I truly on equal footing when it comes to accessing these resources? Especially compared to someone who happened to become a member 20 years ago?
I can already hear people saying, ‘Then just lease the resources from a provider…
-- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards
Murat TERZIOGLU PREBITS - Premium Business IT Solutions
Bochumer Str. 20 D-44866 Bochum
Telefon: 0234/58825994 Telefax: 0234/58825995
www.prebits.de m.terzioglu@prebits.de
USt-ID: DE315418902
Am 31.05.2025 um 10:11 schrieb Daniel Suchy via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net>:
I never said that the layered model would ruin RIPE. That's your personal lie.
If we want to compare with other RIRs, we should not cherry-pick just some aspects. In a similar comparison, we must also take into account the size of the budget and what the money is spent on and where. It's not just about implementing a layered model and problem is solved.
It is also true that each RIR lives in a slightly different legal environment. And among other things, the tax implications of the tiered model must also be well evaluated.
In our legal environment, tax authorities may assess the tiered model as a provision of a service. Besides, it was an argument at a time when the tiered model was abandoned in RIPE (which many have already forgotten).
The argument that they have it that way in the US or Africa probably won't hold up at all before the European (Dutch) tax office. Non-profit organizations usually have some tax breaks. But if the tax office determines that it is a regular service, the tax breaks will disappear.
And from my perspective, a better solution is for the money to stay in the community. Not in some government budget.
- Daniel
On 5/31/25 9:19 AM, Jean Salim wrote:
Please open an IPv6 transition thread and stop the disinformation in this thread. Speaking of which, as pointed out hundred of times, all other RIRs have successfully implemented tiered charging schemes, some of them with weighted voting power, others not. So stop misleading people by saying that tiered charging will ruin RIPE when it's been working fine at other RIRs.
To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
No, they want to pay the same tax when they have a huge mall and you have a small shack. They have no argument to be made here, just gaslighting, misinformation campaigns and hijacking the conversation. On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:01 Murat Terzioglu | PREBITS, < m.terzioglu@prebits.de> wrote:
Do you own any property? Then you’d know — you pay taxes to the state based on the size of the land and the structure built on it or location, etc.. You pay according to what you use.
Was it for nothing that I gave this example?
--
Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards
*Murat TERZIOGLU* *PREBITS - Premium Business IT Solutions*
Bochumer Str. 20 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Bochumer+Str.+20+D-44866+Bochum?entry=gmail&source=g>
D-44866 Bochum <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Bochumer+Str.+20+D-44866+Bochum?entry=gmail&source=g>
Telefon: 0234/58825994
Telefax: 0234/58825995
www.prebits.de
m.terzioglu@prebits.de
USt-ID: DE315418902
Am 31.05.2025 um 11:30 schrieb Matthias Brumm <matthias@brumm.net>:
If you want or have to use IPv4 now, that would be the solution.
Why did I not buy a house ten years ago, it would have been cheaper as today and I would have a permanent place to live.
These big real estate investors should give their properties to people who want to start a family.
But unlike the housing crisis the IPv4 problem has the rather smart and good working solution.
Matthias
Am Samstag, dem 31.05.2025 um 10:44 +0200 schrieb Murat Terzioglu | PREBITS:
We are paying €1850 for a service we actively use — simply because
NCC doesn’t want to classify it as a ‘regular service’.
Meanwhile, others who hold hundreds of times more resources than we
do are generating commercial benefit from them — and in a completely
disproportionate way.
I became a member of this organization solely because of these
resources — because we are required to. The internet depends on them.
But am I truly on equal footing when it comes to accessing these
resources?
Especially compared to someone who happened to become a member 20
years ago?
I can already hear people saying, ‘Then just lease the resources from
a provider…
--
Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards
Murat TERZIOGLU
PREBITS - Premium Business IT Solutions
Bochumer Str. 20 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Bochumer+Str.+20+D-44866+Bochum?entry=gmail&source=g>
D-44866 Bochum <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Bochumer+Str.+20+D-44866+Bochum?entry=gmail&source=g>
Telefon: 0234/58825994
Telefax: 0234/58825995
www.prebits.de
m.terzioglu@prebits.de
USt-ID: DE315418902
Am 31.05.2025 um 10:11 schrieb Daniel Suchy via members-discuss
<members-discuss@ripe.net>:
I never said that the layered model would ruin RIPE. That's your
personal lie.
If we want to compare with other RIRs, we should not cherry-pick
just some aspects. In a similar comparison, we must also take into
account the size of the budget and what the money is spent on and
where. It's not just about implementing a layered model and problem
is solved.
It is also true that each RIR lives in a slightly different legal
environment. And among other things, the tax implications of the
tiered model must also be well evaluated.
In our legal environment, tax authorities may assess the tiered
model as a provision of a service. Besides, it was an argument at a
time when the tiered model was abandoned in RIPE (which many have
already forgotten).
The argument that they have it that way in the US or Africa
probably won't hold up at all before the European (Dutch) tax
office. Non-profit organizations usually have some tax breaks. But
if the tax office determines that it is a regular service, the tax
breaks will disappear.
And from my perspective, a better solution is for the money to stay
in the community. Not in some government budget.
- Daniel
On 5/31/25 9:19 AM, Jean Salim wrote:
Please open an IPv6 transition thread and stop the disinformation
in this
thread.
Speaking of which, as pointed out hundred of times, all other
RIRs have
successfully implemented tiered charging schemes, some of them
with
weighted voting power, others not.
So stop misleading people by saying that tiered charging will
ruin RIPE
when it's been working fine at other RIRs.
-----
To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription
options, please visit:
https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/
As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an
account with the email matching your subscription before you can
change your settings. More details at:
https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
-----
To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription
options, please visit:
https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/
As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account
with the email matching your subscription before you can change your
settings.
More details at:
https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Am Samstag, dem 31.05.2025 um 11:57 +0200 schrieb Murat Terzioglu | PREBITS:
Do you own any property? Then you’d know — you pay taxes to the state based on the size of the land and the structure built on it or location, etc.. You pay according to what you use.
That was not the point I wanted to argue. And if you have to get utility for the property you would pay even more taxes. You pay taxes according how big the property is. A situation RIPE NCC and the community would like to avoid, because the fees would not benefit solely the community but who knows who. Matthias
Why should the membership fee that is paid to RIPE have any correlation with realized economic benefit? It is not CIT. I don't want it to be likened to CIT, either. Nobody should want this. If you have a /24, your cost per IP address will be less than 2 cents per day. The cost can usually be expensed. I'm also going to go out on a limb here and make the supposition that your daily realized benefit is significantly higher. Besides there are legacy address space holders who don't pay anything to anyone. Kaj Sent from my iPhone ________________________________ From: Murat Terzioglu | PREBITS <m.terzioglu@prebits.de> Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2025 12:20 PM To: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net>; Daniel Suchy <danny@danysek.cz> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month We are paying €1850 for a service we actively use — simply because NCC doesn’t want to classify it as a ‘regular service’. Meanwhile, others who hold hundreds of times more resources than we do are generating commercial benefit from them — and in a completely disproportionate way. I became a member of this organization solely because of these resources — because we are required to. The internet depends on them. But am I truly on equal footing when it comes to accessing these resources? Especially compared to someone who happened to become a member 20 years ago? I can already hear people saying, ‘Then just lease the resources from a provider… -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards Murat TERZIOGLU PREBITS - Premium Business IT Solutions Bochumer Str. 20 D-44866 Bochum Telefon: 0234/58825994 Telefax: 0234/58825995 www.prebits.de m.terzioglu@prebits.de USt-ID: DE315418902 Am 31.05.2025 um 10:11 schrieb Daniel Suchy via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net>: I never said that the layered model would ruin RIPE. That's your personal lie. If we want to compare with other RIRs, we should not cherry-pick just some aspects. In a similar comparison, we must also take into account the size of the budget and what the money is spent on and where. It's not just about implementing a layered model and problem is solved. It is also true that each RIR lives in a slightly different legal environment. And among other things, the tax implications of the tiered model must also be well evaluated. In our legal environment, tax authorities may assess the tiered model as a provision of a service. Besides, it was an argument at a time when the tiered model was abandoned in RIPE (which many have already forgotten). The argument that they have it that way in the US or Africa probably won't hold up at all before the European (Dutch) tax office. Non-profit organizations usually have some tax breaks. But if the tax office determines that it is a regular service, the tax breaks will disappear. And from my perspective, a better solution is for the money to stay in the community. Not in some government budget. - Daniel On 5/31/25 9:19 AM, Jean Salim wrote: Please open an IPv6 transition thread and stop the disinformation in this thread. Speaking of which, as pointed out hundred of times, all other RIRs have successfully implemented tiered charging schemes, some of them with weighted voting power, others not. So stop misleading people by saying that tiered charging will ruin RIPE when it's been working fine at other RIRs. ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Hi, There’s a saying that only death and taxes are unavoidable—and indeed, taxes are a concern for any individual or organization. However, when discussing RIPE’s fee model, I believe it’s important to keep in mind the primary purpose of an RIR: ensuring stable operation of the Internet, fair distribution of number resources, and encouraging technical progress. Financial efficiency supports these goals, but is not itself the goal. Of course, tax implications should be considered seriously. But unless a proposed model leads to disproportionately higher costs (e.g., like tariffs that double operational expenses), we may risk focusing too much on cost avoidance rather than on what best serves the community’s long-term objectives. This brings me to a question: if RIPE has in the past seriously considered a tiered fee model similar to ARIN’s (i.e., charges based on total resource holdings but with equal voting rights), was it rejected primarily due to concerns around taxation? If so, I’d be very interested in whether any financial or legal evaluations from that time are available. It would help the community understand the scale of the impact such a model might have had. Additionally, I wonder hypothetically—if ARIN operated under the Dutch tax framework, would their current model be unsustainable? It could be helpful to understand whether the concern is truly about feasibility, or more about established preferences and administrative tradition. I’d also like to raise one idea related to IPv6 promotion. Since we all likely agree that IPv6 needs to be adopted more widely, but IPv4 remains necessary in the short term (for technical, legal, and commercial reasons), perhaps policy could better reflect that dual reality. For example, we could set minimum IPv6 holdings based on IPv4 resource levels—encouraging larger IPv4 holders to also deploy and promote IPv6 more actively. A rough outline might look like: * IPv4 /24–/21 holders → at least IPv6 /28 * IPv4 /20–/17 holders → at least IPv6 /24 * IPv4 /16–/13 holders → at least IPv6 /20 * … and so on. Then, if we later adopt a unified fee model, it could be based on IPv6 holdings only—focusing on the future rather than legacy resources. This might help separate the discussion of technology promotion from that of financial structure, which currently often get mixed. Finally, I hope raising such questions won’t be interpreted as simply advocating for another RIR’s model. I’ve seen replies in the past implying “if you like that model, just go there.” But open, constructive discussion about what works and what doesn’t is essential if we want to improve how this community operates. Whether one supports change or prefers the status quo, the conversation is most valuable when arguments are made with the broader community’s benefit in mind—not only individual interests. Best regards, Chenyang On May 31, 2025, at 16:14, Daniel Suchy via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> wrote: I never said that the layered model would ruin RIPE. That's your personal lie. If we want to compare with other RIRs, we should not cherry-pick just some aspects. In a similar comparison, we must also take into account the size of the budget and what the money is spent on and where. It's not just about implementing a layered model and problem is solved. It is also true that each RIR lives in a slightly different legal environment. And among other things, the tax implications of the tiered model must also be well evaluated. In our legal environment, tax authorities may assess the tiered model as a provision of a service. Besides, it was an argument at a time when the tiered model was abandoned in RIPE (which many have already forgotten). The argument that they have it that way in the US or Africa probably won't hold up at all before the European (Dutch) tax office. Non-profit organizations usually have some tax breaks. But if the tax office determines that it is a regular service, the tax breaks will disappear. And from my perspective, a better solution is for the money to stay in the community. Not in some government budget. - Daniel On 5/31/25 9:19 AM, Jean Salim wrote: Please open an IPv6 transition thread and stop the disinformation in this thread. Speaking of which, as pointed out hundred of times, all other RIRs have successfully implemented tiered charging schemes, some of them with weighted voting power, others not. So stop misleading people by saying that tiered charging will ruin RIPE when it's been working fine at other RIRs. ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Hi Gao, For context, RIPE NCC did operate a category-based fee model before replacing it with a flat fee under circumstances many members still question. The change passed with (AFAIK) roughly 3.8 % voter turnout, after a ballot design that, in my view, narrowed genuine choice. I am compiling a report on how these procedural shifts have eroded voting rights within RIPE NCC. On Sat, 2025-05-31 at 10:31 +0000, Gao Chenyang wrote:
Hi,
There’s a saying that only death and taxes are unavoidable—and indeed, taxes are a concern for any individual or organization. However, when discussing RIPE’s fee model, I believe it’s important to keep in mind the primary purpose of an RIR: ensuring stable operation of the Internet, fair distribution of number resources, and encouraging technical progress. Financial efficiency supports these goals, but is not itself the goal.
Of course, tax implications should be considered seriously. But unless a proposed model leads to disproportionately higher costs (e.g., like tariffs that double operational expenses), we may risk focusing too much on cost avoidance rather than on what best serves the community’s long-term objectives.
This brings me to a question: if RIPE has in the past seriously considered a tiered fee model similar to ARIN’s (i.e., charges based on total resource holdings but with equal voting rights), was it rejected primarily due to concerns around taxation? If so, I’d be very interested in whether any financial or legal evaluations from that time are available. It would help the community understand the scale of the impact such a model might have had.
Additionally, I wonder hypothetically—if ARIN operated under the Dutch tax framework, would their current model be unsustainable? It could be helpful to understand whether the concern is truly about feasibility, or more about established preferences and administrative tradition.
I’d also like to raise one idea related to IPv6 promotion. Since we all likely agree that IPv6 needs to be adopted more widely, but IPv4 remains necessary in the short term (for technical, legal, and commercial reasons), perhaps policy could better reflect that dual reality.
For example, we could set minimum IPv6 holdings based on IPv4 resource levels—encouraging larger IPv4 holders to also deploy and promote IPv6 more actively. A rough outline might look like:
* IPv4 /24–/21 holders → at least IPv6 /28 * IPv4 /20–/17 holders → at least IPv6 /24 * IPv4 /16–/13 holders → at least IPv6 /20 * … and so on.
Then, if we later adopt a unified fee model, it could be based on IPv6 holdings only—focusing on the future rather than legacy resources. This might help separate the discussion of technology promotion from that of financial structure, which currently often get mixed.
Finally, I hope raising such questions won’t be interpreted as simply advocating for another RIR’s model. I’ve seen replies in the past implying “if you like that model, just go there.” But open, constructive discussion about what works and what doesn’t is essential if we want to improve how this community operates. Whether one supports change or prefers the status quo, the conversation is most valuable when arguments are made with the broader community’s benefit in mind—not only individual interests.
Best regards, Chenyang
On May 31, 2025, at 16:14, Daniel Suchy via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> wrote:
I never said that the layered model would ruin RIPE. That's your personal lie.
If we want to compare with other RIRs, we should not cherry-pick just some aspects. In a similar comparison, we must also take into account the size of the budget and what the money is spent on and where. It's not just about implementing a layered model and problem is solved.
It is also true that each RIR lives in a slightly different legal environment. And among other things, the tax implications of the tiered model must also be well evaluated.
In our legal environment, tax authorities may assess the tiered model as a provision of a service. Besides, it was an argument at a time when the tiered model was abandoned in RIPE (which many have already forgotten).
The argument that they have it that way in the US or Africa probably won't hold up at all before the European (Dutch) tax office. Non-profit organizations usually have some tax breaks. But if the tax office determines that it is a regular service, the tax breaks will disappear.
And from my perspective, a better solution is for the money to stay in the community. Not in some government budget.
- Daniel
On 5/31/25 9:19 AM, Jean Salim wrote:
Please open an IPv6 transition thread and stop the disinformation in this thread. Speaking of which, as pointed out hundred of times, all other RIRs have successfully implemented tiered charging schemes, some of them with weighted voting power, others not. So stop misleading people by saying that tiered charging will ruin RIPE when it's been working fine at other RIRs.
To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3- migration/
Daniel, The obstacles you list do more than complicate a tiered-fee discussion—they question the wisdom of keeping the RIPE NCC incorporated in the Netherlands at all: Physical access – Visa barriers exclude members from GM participation. Geopolitical neutrality – The host state has used armed force against several member economies. Sanctions exposure – EU measures already restrict Russian, Iranian, Syrian and other members. Tax rigidity – Dutch rules are cited as blocking a usage-based charging model adopted by every other RIR. If the legal and fiscal climate in the Netherlands cannot accommodate a cost-causation fee structure, we should assess jurisdictions that can. Comparable non-profit registries in Germany (DENIC), France (AFNIC), the UK (Nominet) and Canada (CIRA) all combine member-governed models with per-resource charging—without losing tax-exempt status. Maybe we should expect action: launch a formal study on relocating the RIPE NCC to a legally neutral venue that: - Allows tiered/usage-based fees under clear non-profit rules. - Offers visa-light access for all members. - Minimises sanctions entanglements. - Preserves the community’s oversight and surplus-reinvestment principles. Continuing with a flat-fee model in a restrictive jurisdiction leaves a growing share of the membership disenfranchised and subsidising the heaviest resource users. Let us evaluate relocation now, before governance credibility erodes further. P.S. All four operate under EU or OECD tax codes, none lose their non- profit status (or equivalent), and each successfully allocates cost in proportion to resource usage. Nominet UK (Private company limited by guarantee—surpluses reinvested for public benefit (no shareholders, no dividends) £ 58.6 m (£41.1 m registry, £15.3 m cyber-security, £2.2 m investment income) Membership fee: £400 + VAT one-off joining £100 + VAT annual renewal (prorated £50 if joining after 1 Feb) Other fees: - Domain Availability Checker: £25 / yr - Searchable WHOIS: £400 / yr - Domain Lock: £90 per name / yr - Wholesale registry fee: £3.90 per .uk-year CIRA (Canada) (Incorporated as a not-for-profit organisation under Canadian federal law. ) C$ 34.3 m total revenue (C$ 29.6 m domain-registry; C$ 4.7 m cyber- security & other) Membership fee: NONE Other fees: - Wholesale registry fee DENIC eG (.de) (Private, not-for-profit co-operative (~300 member companies)) € 51.3 m total income; gross earnings € 15.9 m; annual surplus € 0.04 m Membership fee: €595 processing (DE) / €500 (non-DE) €1 000 admission (one-off) €1 500 capital share per unit (min 1, max 3). No published recurring dues; the share remains on the books while a member. Other fees: - Wholesale registry fee - Training, escrow, etc. charged separately. AFNIC (.fr) (Non-profit association governed by French law. ) € 22.0 m turnover (of which € 20.45 m from .fr) Annual dues by college (calendar year): - Companies & Registrars: €190 - Individuals: €50 - Students: €20 Other fees: - Registrar accreditation: €500 / yr - Create / renew / transfer / restore: €4.56 per domain-year (2024 tariff). On Sat, 2025-05-31 at 09:36 +0200, Daniel Suchy via members-discuss wrote:
I never said that the layered model would ruin RIPE. That's your personal lie.
If we want to compare with other RIRs, we should not cherry-pick just some aspects. In a similar comparison, we must also take into account the size of the budget and what the money is spent on and where. It's not just about implementing a layered model and problem is solved.
It is also true that each RIR lives in a slightly different legal environment. And among other things, the tax implications of the tiered model must also be well evaluated.
In our legal environment, tax authorities may assess the tiered model as a provision of a service. Besides, it was an argument at a time when the tiered model was abandoned in RIPE (which many have already forgotten).
The argument that they have it that way in the US or Africa probably won't hold up at all before the European (Dutch) tax office. Non- profit organizations usually have some tax breaks. But if the tax office determines that it is a regular service, the tax breaks will disappear.
And from my perspective, a better solution is for the money to stay in the community. Not in some government budget.
- Daniel
On 5/31/25 9:19 AM, Jean Salim wrote:
Please open an IPv6 transition thread and stop the disinformation in this thread. Speaking of which, as pointed out hundred of times, all other RIRs have successfully implemented tiered charging schemes, some of them with weighted voting power, others not. So stop misleading people by saying that tiered charging will ruin RIPE when it's been working fine at other RIRs.
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Some of the points seem to solve themselves. I mean Syria is getting off US and EU [1] sanctions lists and all it took was a regime change. Perhaps something the others on those lists should consider? just a thought. :) [1] https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2025/05/28/syria-eu-... Kaj Sent from my iPad ________________________________ From: Denys Fedoryshchenko <nuclearcat@nuclearcat.com> Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2025 3:35 PM To: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month Daniel, The obstacles you list do more than complicate a tiered-fee discussion—they question the wisdom of keeping the RIPE NCC incorporated in the Netherlands at all: Physical access – Visa barriers exclude members from GM participation. Geopolitical neutrality – The host state has used armed force against several member economies. Sanctions exposure – EU measures already restrict Russian, Iranian, Syrian and other members. Tax rigidity – Dutch rules are cited as blocking a usage-based charging model adopted by every other RIR. If the legal and fiscal climate in the Netherlands cannot accommodate a cost-causation fee structure, we should assess jurisdictions that can. Comparable non-profit registries in Germany (DENIC), France (AFNIC), the UK (Nominet) and Canada (CIRA) all combine member-governed models with per-resource charging—without losing tax-exempt status. Maybe we should expect action: launch a formal study on relocating the RIPE NCC to a legally neutral venue that: - Allows tiered/usage-based fees under clear non-profit rules. - Offers visa-light access for all members. - Minimises sanctions entanglements. - Preserves the community’s oversight and surplus-reinvestment principles. Continuing with a flat-fee model in a restrictive jurisdiction leaves a growing share of the membership disenfranchised and subsidising the heaviest resource users. Let us evaluate relocation now, before governance credibility erodes further. P.S. All four operate under EU or OECD tax codes, none lose their non- profit status (or equivalent), and each successfully allocates cost in proportion to resource usage. Nominet UK (Private company limited by guarantee—surpluses reinvested for public benefit (no shareholders, no dividends) £ 58.6 m (£41.1 m registry, £15.3 m cyber-security, £2.2 m investment income) Membership fee: £400 + VAT one-off joining £100 + VAT annual renewal (prorated £50 if joining after 1 Feb) Other fees: - Domain Availability Checker: £25 / yr - Searchable WHOIS: £400 / yr - Domain Lock: £90 per name / yr - Wholesale registry fee: £3.90 per .uk-year CIRA (Canada) (Incorporated as a not-for-profit organisation under Canadian federal law. ) C$ 34.3 m total revenue (C$ 29.6 m domain-registry; C$ 4.7 m cyber- security & other) Membership fee: NONE Other fees: - Wholesale registry fee DENIC eG (.de) (Private, not-for-profit co-operative (~300 member companies)) € 51.3 m total income; gross earnings € 15.9 m; annual surplus € 0.04 m Membership fee: €595 processing (DE) / €500 (non-DE) €1 000 admission (one-off) €1 500 capital share per unit (min 1, max 3). No published recurring dues; the share remains on the books while a member. Other fees: - Wholesale registry fee - Training, escrow, etc. charged separately. AFNIC (.fr) (Non-profit association governed by French law. ) € 22.0 m turnover (of which € 20.45 m from .fr) Annual dues by college (calendar year): - Companies & Registrars: €190 - Individuals: €50 - Students: €20 Other fees: - Registrar accreditation: €500 / yr - Create / renew / transfer / restore: €4.56 per domain-year (2024 tariff). On Sat, 2025-05-31 at 09:36 +0200, Daniel Suchy via members-discuss wrote:
I never said that the layered model would ruin RIPE. That's your personal lie.
If we want to compare with other RIRs, we should not cherry-pick just some aspects. In a similar comparison, we must also take into account the size of the budget and what the money is spent on and where. It's not just about implementing a layered model and problem is solved.
It is also true that each RIR lives in a slightly different legal environment. And among other things, the tax implications of the tiered model must also be well evaluated.
In our legal environment, tax authorities may assess the tiered model as a provision of a service. Besides, it was an argument at a time when the tiered model was abandoned in RIPE (which many have already forgotten).
The argument that they have it that way in the US or Africa probably won't hold up at all before the European (Dutch) tax office. Non- profit organizations usually have some tax breaks. But if the tax office determines that it is a regular service, the tax breaks will disappear.
And from my perspective, a better solution is for the money to stay in the community. Not in some government budget.
- Daniel
On 5/31/25 9:19 AM, Jean Salim wrote:
Please open an IPv6 transition thread and stop the disinformation in this thread. Speaking of which, as pointed out hundred of times, all other RIRs have successfully implemented tiered charging schemes, some of them with weighted voting power, others not. So stop misleading people by saying that tiered charging will ruin RIPE when it's been working fine at other RIRs.
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailman.ripe.net%2Fmailman3%2Flists%2Fmembers-discuss.ripe.net%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C5b5e1547e9d14061b10008dda03f900c%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638842917076566654%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=e0F%2FDQBkH%2FDYxV1CdpiH%2BcYpnrbOOgxAreD%2FVPffZ5k%3D&reserved=0<https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/> As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.net%2Fmembership%2Fmail%2Fmailman-3-migration%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C5b5e1547e9d14061b10008dda03f900c%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638842917076588256%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=HCrhRhsfyK5yiB%2FmSmTHiVfdbmZP1w4laUIySQHz2Q0%3D&reserved=0<https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/>
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailman.ripe.net%2Fmailman3%2Flists%2Fmembers-discuss.ripe.net%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C5b5e1547e9d14061b10008dda03f900c%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638842917076603049%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=EyHDK1YxIOhCawPUST2mUjJHLaUq0%2F3D5GxrnWQ7gOY%3D&reserved=0<https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/> As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.net%2Fmembership%2Fmail%2Fmailman-3-migration%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C5b5e1547e9d14061b10008dda03f900c%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638842917076621153%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=qviHNMe0WDZ1%2BT1XOD592Nd4vlS1ezYZ8oW7sdA3dYo%3D&reserved=0<https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/>
Brilliant solution, Kaj! Let's add 'overthrow your government' to RIPE's membership requirements. Or - here's a radical idea - we could relocate RIPE NCC to a jurisdiction that doesn't force us to exclude members based on geopolitics. One option requires regime change; the other requires only that RIPE NCC act like the neutral technical body it claim to be. On Sat, 2025-05-31 at 13:07 +0000, Kaj Niemi wrote:
Some of the points seem to solve themselves.
I mean Syria is getting off US and EU [1] sanctions lists and all it took was a regime change. Perhaps something the others on those lists should consider? just a thought.
:)
[1] https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2025/05/28/syria-eu-...
Kaj
Sent from my iPad
From: Denys Fedoryshchenko <nuclearcat@nuclearcat.com> Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2025 3:35 PM To: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month
Daniel,
The obstacles you list do more than complicate a tiered-fee discussion—they question the wisdom of keeping the RIPE NCC incorporated in the Netherlands at all:
Physical access – Visa barriers exclude members from GM participation.
Geopolitical neutrality – The host state has used armed force against several member economies.
Sanctions exposure – EU measures already restrict Russian, Iranian, Syrian and other members.
Tax rigidity – Dutch rules are cited as blocking a usage-based charging model adopted by every other RIR.
If the legal and fiscal climate in the Netherlands cannot accommodate a cost-causation fee structure, we should assess jurisdictions that can. Comparable non-profit registries in Germany (DENIC), France (AFNIC), the UK (Nominet) and Canada (CIRA) all combine member-governed models with per-resource charging—without losing tax-exempt status.
Maybe we should expect action: launch a formal study on relocating the RIPE NCC to a legally neutral venue that: - Allows tiered/usage-based fees under clear non-profit rules. - Offers visa-light access for all members. - Minimises sanctions entanglements. - Preserves the community’s oversight and surplus-reinvestment principles.
Continuing with a flat-fee model in a restrictive jurisdiction leaves a growing share of the membership disenfranchised and subsidising the heaviest resource users. Let us evaluate relocation now, before governance credibility erodes further.
P.S. All four operate under EU or OECD tax codes, none lose their non- profit status (or equivalent), and each successfully allocates cost in proportion to resource usage.
Nominet UK (Private company limited by guarantee—surpluses reinvested for public benefit (no shareholders, no dividends) £ 58.6 m (£41.1 m registry, £15.3 m cyber-security, £2.2 m investment income) Membership fee: £400 + VAT one-off joining £100 + VAT annual renewal (prorated £50 if joining after 1 Feb) Other fees: - Domain Availability Checker: £25 / yr - Searchable WHOIS: £400 / yr - Domain Lock: £90 per name / yr - Wholesale registry fee: £3.90 per .uk-year
CIRA (Canada) (Incorporated as a not-for-profit organisation under Canadian federal law. ) C$ 34.3 m total revenue (C$ 29.6 m domain-registry; C$ 4.7 m cyber- security & other) Membership fee: NONE Other fees: - Wholesale registry fee
DENIC eG (.de) (Private, not-for-profit co-operative (~300 member companies)) € 51.3 m total income; gross earnings € 15.9 m; annual surplus € 0.04 m Membership fee: €595 processing (DE) / €500 (non-DE) €1 000 admission (one-off) €1 500 capital share per unit (min 1, max 3). No published recurring dues; the share remains on the books while a member. Other fees: - Wholesale registry fee - Training, escrow, etc. charged separately.
AFNIC (.fr) (Non-profit association governed by French law. ) € 22.0 m turnover (of which € 20.45 m from .fr) Annual dues by college (calendar year): - Companies & Registrars: €190 - Individuals: €50 - Students: €20 Other fees: - Registrar accreditation: €500 / yr - Create / renew / transfer / restore: €4.56 per domain-year (2024 tariff).
On Sat, 2025-05-31 at 09:36 +0200, Daniel Suchy via members-discuss wrote:
I never said that the layered model would ruin RIPE. That's your personal lie.
If we want to compare with other RIRs, we should not cherry-pick just some aspects. In a similar comparison, we must also take into account the size of the budget and what the money is spent on and where. It's not just about implementing a layered model and problem is solved.
It is also true that each RIR lives in a slightly different legal environment. And among other things, the tax implications of the tiered model must also be well evaluated.
In our legal environment, tax authorities may assess the tiered model as a provision of a service. Besides, it was an argument at a time when the tiered model was abandoned in RIPE (which many have already forgotten).
The argument that they have it that way in the US or Africa probably won't hold up at all before the European (Dutch) tax office. Non- profit organizations usually have some tax breaks. But if the tax office determines that it is a regular service, the tax breaks will disappear.
And from my perspective, a better solution is for the money to stay in the community. Not in some government budget.
- Daniel
On 5/31/25 9:19 AM, Jean Salim wrote:
Please open an IPv6 transition thread and stop the disinformation in this thread. Speaking of which, as pointed out hundred of times, all other RIRs have successfully implemented tiered charging schemes, some of them with weighted voting power, others not. So stop misleading people by saying that tiered charging will ruin RIPE when it's been working fine at other RIRs.
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailman.ri... As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.n...
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit:https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F %2Fmailman.ripe.net%2Fmailman3%2Flists%2Fmembers- discuss.ripe.net%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C5b5e1547e9d14061b10008dda03f900 c%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638842917076603049%7CU nknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAi OiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Ey HDK1YxIOhCawPUST2mUjJHLaUq0%2F3D5GxrnWQ7gOY%3D&reserved=0 As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.n...
I've always fancied myself as an out of the box thinker. I don't believe there would be a regime which would not have at least one other regime within the service region or not follow EU or US OFAC sanction lists. Feel free to map it out, however. Maybe I'm wrong. The benefit of Netherlands is also that it is generally recognized to adhere strongly to the rule of law. Also, it's quite high up on the list of non-corrupt countries. Kaj Sent from my iPad ________________________________ From: Denys Fedoryshchenko <nuclearcat@nuclearcat.com> Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2025 5:23 PM To: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month Brilliant solution, Kaj! Let's add 'overthrow your government' to RIPE's membership requirements. Or - here's a radical idea - we could relocate RIPE NCC to a jurisdiction that doesn't force us to exclude members based on geopolitics. One option requires regime change; the other requires only that RIPE NCC act like the neutral technical body it claim to be. On Sat, 2025-05-31 at 13:07 +0000, Kaj Niemi wrote:
Some of the points seem to solve themselves.
I mean Syria is getting off US and EU [1] sanctions lists and all it took was a regime change. Perhaps something the others on those lists should consider? just a thought.
:)
Kaj
Sent from my iPad
From: Denys Fedoryshchenko <nuclearcat@nuclearcat.com> Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2025 3:35 PM To: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month
Daniel,
The obstacles you list do more than complicate a tiered-fee discussion—they question the wisdom of keeping the RIPE NCC incorporated in the Netherlands at all:
Physical access – Visa barriers exclude members from GM participation.
Geopolitical neutrality – The host state has used armed force against several member economies.
Sanctions exposure – EU measures already restrict Russian, Iranian, Syrian and other members.
Tax rigidity – Dutch rules are cited as blocking a usage-based charging model adopted by every other RIR.
If the legal and fiscal climate in the Netherlands cannot accommodate a cost-causation fee structure, we should assess jurisdictions that can. Comparable non-profit registries in Germany (DENIC), France (AFNIC), the UK (Nominet) and Canada (CIRA) all combine member-governed models with per-resource charging—without losing tax-exempt status.
Maybe we should expect action: launch a formal study on relocating the RIPE NCC to a legally neutral venue that: - Allows tiered/usage-based fees under clear non-profit rules. - Offers visa-light access for all members. - Minimises sanctions entanglements. - Preserves the community’s oversight and surplus-reinvestment principles.
Continuing with a flat-fee model in a restrictive jurisdiction leaves a growing share of the membership disenfranchised and subsidising the heaviest resource users. Let us evaluate relocation now, before governance credibility erodes further.
P.S. All four operate under EU or OECD tax codes, none lose their non- profit status (or equivalent), and each successfully allocates cost in proportion to resource usage.
Nominet UK (Private company limited by guarantee—surpluses reinvested for public benefit (no shareholders, no dividends) £ 58.6 m (£41.1 m registry, £15.3 m cyber-security, £2.2 m investment income) Membership fee: £400 + VAT one-off joining £100 + VAT annual renewal (prorated £50 if joining after 1 Feb) Other fees: - Domain Availability Checker: £25 / yr - Searchable WHOIS: £400 / yr - Domain Lock: £90 per name / yr - Wholesale registry fee: £3.90 per .uk-year
CIRA (Canada) (Incorporated as a not-for-profit organisation under Canadian federal law. ) C$ 34.3 m total revenue (C$ 29.6 m domain-registry; C$ 4.7 m cyber- security & other) Membership fee: NONE Other fees: - Wholesale registry fee
DENIC eG (.de) (Private, not-for-profit co-operative (~300 member companies)) € 51.3 m total income; gross earnings € 15.9 m; annual surplus € 0.04 m Membership fee: €595 processing (DE) / €500 (non-DE) €1 000 admission (one-off) €1 500 capital share per unit (min 1, max 3). No published recurring dues; the share remains on the books while a member. Other fees: - Wholesale registry fee - Training, escrow, etc. charged separately.
AFNIC (.fr) (Non-profit association governed by French law. ) € 22.0 m turnover (of which € 20.45 m from .fr) Annual dues by college (calendar year): - Companies & Registrars: €190 - Individuals: €50 - Students: €20 Other fees: - Registrar accreditation: €500 / yr - Create / renew / transfer / restore: €4.56 per domain-year (2024 tariff).
On Sat, 2025-05-31 at 09:36 +0200, Daniel Suchy via members-discuss wrote:
I never said that the layered model would ruin RIPE. That's your personal lie.
If we want to compare with other RIRs, we should not cherry-pick just some aspects. In a similar comparison, we must also take into account the size of the budget and what the money is spent on and where. It's not just about implementing a layered model and problem is solved.
It is also true that each RIR lives in a slightly different legal environment. And among other things, the tax implications of the tiered model must also be well evaluated.
In our legal environment, tax authorities may assess the tiered model as a provision of a service. Besides, it was an argument at a time when the tiered model was abandoned in RIPE (which many have already forgotten).
The argument that they have it that way in the US or Africa probably won't hold up at all before the European (Dutch) tax office. Non- profit organizations usually have some tax breaks. But if the tax office determines that it is a regular service, the tax breaks will disappear.
And from my perspective, a better solution is for the money to stay in the community. Not in some government budget.
- Daniel
On 5/31/25 9:19 AM, Jean Salim wrote:
Please open an IPv6 transition thread and stop the disinformation in this thread. Speaking of which, as pointed out hundred of times, all other RIRs have successfully implemented tiered charging schemes, some of them with weighted voting power, others not. So stop misleading people by saying that tiered charging will ruin RIPE when it's been working fine at other RIRs.
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailman.ripe.net%2Fmailman3%2Flists%2Fmembers-discuss.ripe.net%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7Ce46c13b283cd4e345c1d08dda04ea92d%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638842982041827587%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C64000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=fud9SOhRGhWCl6OJFyYhHeIMFz9uznxeVjoUg1jCMFM%3D&reserved=0<https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/> As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.net%2Fmembership%2Fmail%2Fmailman-3-migration%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7Ce46c13b283cd4e345c1d08dda04ea92d%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638842982041841966%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C64000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=iLLmG%2FeKd89FIKo09w%2B%2FAE8rc%2B7lcIy3SuzSp3Am8Gc%3D&reserved=0<https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/>
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit:https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F %2Fmailman.ripe.net%2Fmailman3%2Flists%2Fmembers- discuss.ripe.net%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C5b5e1547e9d14061b10008dda03f900 c%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638842917076603049%7CU nknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAi OiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Ey HDK1YxIOhCawPUST2mUjJHLaUq0%2F3D5GxrnWQ7gOY%3D&reserved=0 As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.net%2Fmembership%2Fmail%2Fmailman-3-migration%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7Ce46c13b283cd4e345c1d08dda04ea92d%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638842982041862688%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C64000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=hnMf5QbENLdmVJr6BzM4aC57LNBYuQuseaOqJRPkEHM%3D&reserved=0<https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/>
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailman.ripe.net%2Fmailman3%2Flists%2Fmembers-discuss.ripe.net%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7Ce46c13b283cd4e345c1d08dda04ea92d%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638842982041878766%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C64000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=S%2BGKUoaLauooqIL%2F4iqb2C3edITOZcCBjp%2BXlDjLAVU%3D&reserved=0<https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/> As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.net%2Fmembership%2Fmail%2Fmailman-3-migration%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7Ce46c13b283cd4e345c1d08dda04ea92d%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638842982041892317%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C64000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2BiYtMCEj%2FrUmZiqO0sAxTqAZq2vJRq4CuOLsrM9CyXc%3D&reserved=0<https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/>
UAE (DIFC) and Qatar (QFC/Doha) deliver the cleanest mix of: - high rule-of-law & CPI, - broad visa waiver/e-visa schemes, - limited mandatory uptake of EU/OFAC sanctions, - clear legal forms for a member-funded, usage-based not-for-profit. Georgia is a low-cost fallback with excellent visa openness and explicit non-alignment on sanctions today-but governance scores are lower and EU harmonisation could narrow the gap. On Sat, 2025-05-31 at 14:34 +0000, Kaj Niemi wrote:
I've always fancied myself as an out of the box thinker.
I don't believe there would be a regime which would not have at least one other regime within the service region or not follow EU or US OFAC sanction lists. Feel free to map it out, however. Maybe I'm wrong.
The benefit of Netherlands is also that it is generally recognized to adhere strongly to the rule of law. Also, it's quite high up on the list of non-corrupt countries.
Kaj
Sent from my iPad
From: Denys Fedoryshchenko <nuclearcat@nuclearcat.com> Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2025 5:23 PM To: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month
Brilliant solution, Kaj! Let's add 'overthrow your government' to RIPE's membership requirements. Or - here's a radical idea - we could relocate RIPE NCC to a jurisdiction that doesn't force us to exclude members based on geopolitics. One option requires regime change; the other requires only that RIPE NCC act like the neutral technical body it claim to be.
On Sat, 2025-05-31 at 13:07 +0000, Kaj Niemi wrote:
Some of the points seem to solve themselves.
I mean Syria is getting off US and EU [1] sanctions lists and all it took was a regime change. Perhaps something the others on those lists should consider? just a thought.
:)
[1] https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.consil...
Kaj
Sent from my iPad
From: Denys Fedoryshchenko <nuclearcat@nuclearcat.com> Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2025 3:35 PM To: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month
Daniel,
The obstacles you list do more than complicate a tiered-fee discussion—they question the wisdom of keeping the RIPE NCC incorporated in the Netherlands at all:
Physical access – Visa barriers exclude members from GM participation.
Geopolitical neutrality – The host state has used armed force against several member economies.
Sanctions exposure – EU measures already restrict Russian, Iranian, Syrian and other members.
Tax rigidity – Dutch rules are cited as blocking a usage-based charging model adopted by every other RIR.
If the legal and fiscal climate in the Netherlands cannot accommodate a cost-causation fee structure, we should assess jurisdictions that can. Comparable non-profit registries in Germany (DENIC), France (AFNIC), the UK (Nominet) and Canada (CIRA) all combine member-governed models with per-resource charging—without losing tax-exempt status.
Maybe we should expect action: launch a formal study on relocating the RIPE NCC to a legally neutral venue that: - Allows tiered/usage-based fees under clear non-profit rules. - Offers visa-light access for all members. - Minimises sanctions entanglements. - Preserves the community’s oversight and surplus-reinvestment principles.
Continuing with a flat-fee model in a restrictive jurisdiction leaves a growing share of the membership disenfranchised and subsidising the heaviest resource users. Let us evaluate relocation now, before governance credibility erodes further.
P.S. All four operate under EU or OECD tax codes, none lose their non- profit status (or equivalent), and each successfully allocates cost in proportion to resource usage.
Nominet UK (Private company limited by guarantee—surpluses reinvested for public benefit (no shareholders, no dividends) £ 58.6 m (£41.1 m registry, £15.3 m cyber-security, £2.2 m investment income) Membership fee: £400 + VAT one-off joining £100 + VAT annual renewal (prorated £50 if joining after 1 Feb) Other fees: - Domain Availability Checker: £25 / yr - Searchable WHOIS: £400 / yr - Domain Lock: £90 per name / yr - Wholesale registry fee: £3.90 per .uk-year
CIRA (Canada) (Incorporated as a not-for-profit organisation under Canadian federal law. ) C$ 34.3 m total revenue (C$ 29.6 m domain-registry; C$ 4.7 m cyber- security & other) Membership fee: NONE Other fees: - Wholesale registry fee
DENIC eG (.de) (Private, not-for-profit co-operative (~300 member companies)) € 51.3 m total income; gross earnings € 15.9 m; annual surplus € 0.04 m Membership fee: €595 processing (DE) / €500 (non-DE) €1 000 admission (one-off) €1 500 capital share per unit (min 1, max 3). No published recurring dues; the share remains on the books while a member. Other fees: - Wholesale registry fee - Training, escrow, etc. charged separately.
AFNIC (.fr) (Non-profit association governed by French law. ) € 22.0 m turnover (of which € 20.45 m from .fr) Annual dues by college (calendar year): - Companies & Registrars: €190 - Individuals: €50 - Students: €20 Other fees: - Registrar accreditation: €500 / yr - Create / renew / transfer / restore: €4.56 per domain-year (2024 tariff).
On Sat, 2025-05-31 at 09:36 +0200, Daniel Suchy via members-discuss wrote:
I never said that the layered model would ruin RIPE. That's your personal lie.
If we want to compare with other RIRs, we should not cherry-pick just some aspects. In a similar comparison, we must also take into account the size of the budget and what the money is spent on and where. It's not just about implementing a layered model and problem is solved.
It is also true that each RIR lives in a slightly different legal environment. And among other things, the tax implications of the tiered model must also be well evaluated.
In our legal environment, tax authorities may assess the tiered model as a provision of a service. Besides, it was an argument at a time when the tiered model was abandoned in RIPE (which many have already forgotten).
The argument that they have it that way in the US or Africa probably won't hold up at all before the European (Dutch) tax office. Non- profit organizations usually have some tax breaks. But if the tax office determines that it is a regular service, the tax breaks will disappear.
And from my perspective, a better solution is for the money to stay in the community. Not in some government budget.
- Daniel
On 5/31/25 9:19 AM, Jean Salim wrote:
Please open an IPv6 transition thread and stop the disinformation in this thread. Speaking of which, as pointed out hundred of times, all other RIRs have successfully implemented tiered charging schemes, some of them with weighted voting power, others not. So stop misleading people by saying that tiered charging will ruin RIPE when it's been working fine at other RIRs.
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailman.ri... As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.n...
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F %2Fmailman.ripe.net%2Fmailman3%2Flists%2Fmembers- discuss.ripe.net%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C5b5e1547e9d14061b10008dda03f9 00 c%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638842917076603049%7 CU nknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIl Ai OiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata= Ey HDK1YxIOhCawPUST2mUjJHLaUq0%2F3D5GxrnWQ7gOY%3D&reserved=0 As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.n...
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit:https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F %2Fmailman.ripe.net%2Fmailman3%2Flists%2Fmembers- discuss.ripe.net%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7Ce46c13b283cd4e345c1d08dda04ea92 d%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638842982041878766%7CU nknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAi OiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C64000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=S %2BGKUoaLauooqIL%2F4iqb2C3edITOZcCBjp%2BXlDjLAVU%3D&reserved=0 As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.n...
Your examples aren't good... ;-) If you're mentionin DENIC as a example, it's services are subject to all standard taxes in Germany. Just look on their activity report, there're two numbers - EBT and surplus. Translated and simplified: DENIC pays standard (corporate) taxes. Same thing applies on AFNIC. Domains are taxed like a service. And domain fees are main income of mentioned organisations. Pure membership fees make up an insignificant part of their income in terms of total turnover. Sure, you can separate memberships fees from payments for services even in RIPE. Switch everything (not only ASN, but also IPv4 and IPv6) to service. But at that point it becomes subject of corporate taxes in the country where the organization is domiciled. It is not uncommon for a non-profit organization to create a "secondary" economic activity from which it finances its main activities. But such activity has no exempts from taxes. And if we try to lie to the Dutch tax authorities that the tiered model based on IPv4 consumption isn't services, they will probably stumble. Of course, every country wants to improve its budget. So in fact the rest of the RIPE service region will contribute to the Dutch goverment budget. Sure, DENIC & AFNIC are mostly "national" institutions (so national taxes linked to services aren't issue for them) by their nature - but this also isn't case of RIPE, which is primarily international. - Daniel On 5/31/25 1:54 PM, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote:
Daniel,
The obstacles you list do more than complicate a tiered-fee discussion—they question the wisdom of keeping the RIPE NCC incorporated in the Netherlands at all:
Physical access – Visa barriers exclude members from GM participation.
Geopolitical neutrality – The host state has used armed force against several member economies.
Sanctions exposure – EU measures already restrict Russian, Iranian, Syrian and other members.
Tax rigidity – Dutch rules are cited as blocking a usage-based charging model adopted by every other RIR.
If the legal and fiscal climate in the Netherlands cannot accommodate a cost-causation fee structure, we should assess jurisdictions that can. Comparable non-profit registries in Germany (DENIC), France (AFNIC), the UK (Nominet) and Canada (CIRA) all combine member-governed models with per-resource charging—without losing tax-exempt status.
Maybe we should expect action: launch a formal study on relocating the RIPE NCC to a legally neutral venue that: - Allows tiered/usage-based fees under clear non-profit rules. - Offers visa-light access for all members. - Minimises sanctions entanglements. - Preserves the community’s oversight and surplus-reinvestment principles.
Continuing with a flat-fee model in a restrictive jurisdiction leaves a growing share of the membership disenfranchised and subsidising the heaviest resource users. Let us evaluate relocation now, before governance credibility erodes further.
P.S. All four operate under EU or OECD tax codes, none lose their non- profit status (or equivalent), and each successfully allocates cost in proportion to resource usage.
Nominet UK (Private company limited by guarantee—surpluses reinvested for public benefit (no shareholders, no dividends) £ 58.6 m (£41.1 m registry, £15.3 m cyber-security, £2.2 m investment income) Membership fee: £400 + VAT one-off joining £100 + VAT annual renewal (prorated £50 if joining after 1 Feb) Other fees: - Domain Availability Checker: £25 / yr - Searchable WHOIS: £400 / yr - Domain Lock: £90 per name / yr - Wholesale registry fee: £3.90 per .uk-year
CIRA (Canada) (Incorporated as a not-for-profit organisation under Canadian federal law. ) C$ 34.3 m total revenue (C$ 29.6 m domain-registry; C$ 4.7 m cyber- security & other) Membership fee: NONE Other fees: - Wholesale registry fee
DENIC eG (.de) (Private, not-for-profit co-operative (~300 member companies)) € 51.3 m total income; gross earnings € 15.9 m; annual surplus € 0.04 m Membership fee: €595 processing (DE) / €500 (non-DE) €1 000 admission (one-off) €1 500 capital share per unit (min 1, max 3). No published recurring dues; the share remains on the books while a member. Other fees: - Wholesale registry fee - Training, escrow, etc. charged separately.
AFNIC (.fr) (Non-profit association governed by French law. ) € 22.0 m turnover (of which € 20.45 m from .fr) Annual dues by college (calendar year): - Companies & Registrars: €190 - Individuals: €50 - Students: €20 Other fees: - Registrar accreditation: €500 / yr - Create / renew / transfer / restore: €4.56 per domain-year (2024 tariff).
1. RIPE NCC already pays Dutch corporate tax Since 2015 any year-end surplus has been liable for Dutch Corporate Income Tax (CIT). 2023: EUR569 k surplus -> EUR23 k CIT (~ 4 %). https://www.ripe.net/documents/3788/B._Finance_Report_FINAL.pdf A tiered fee schedule would change the size of that surplus; it would not create an entirely new tax. 2. "Membership" vs "service" affects VAT, not CIT Dutch law treats the invoice line called service fee as a service delivered in the Netherlands. VAT is applied (or reverse-charged) exactly as today; re-labelling IPv4/IPv6/ASN charges will not alter that mechanism. https://www.ripe.net/membership/payment/tax/ 3. Usage-based charging and non-profit status coexist elsewhere RIR precedents - ARIN (USA) and APNIC (Australia) charge strictly by total IPv4/IPv6/ASN holdings and remain tax-exempt non-profits. ccTLD precedents - DENIC (DE) and AFNIC (FR) fund themselves mainly from per-domain fees, file normal corporate-tax returns and retain their cooperative/association status. 4. "Foreign members funding Dutch coffers" is already reality Dutch tax is levied where the activity occurs, not where the member is located. International money flows into the Dutch budget under the flat fee today; a tiered model would merely change the amounts. On Sat, 2025-05-31 at 15:17 +0200, Daniel Suchy via members-discuss wrote:
Your examples aren't good... ;-)
If you're mentionin DENIC as a example, it's services are subject to all standard taxes in Germany. Just look on their activity report, there're two numbers - EBT and surplus. Translated and simplified: DENIC pays standard (corporate) taxes. Same thing applies on AFNIC.
Domains are taxed like a service. And domain fees are main income of mentioned organisations. Pure membership fees make up an insignificant part of their income in terms of total turnover.
Sure, you can separate memberships fees from payments for services even in RIPE. Switch everything (not only ASN, but also IPv4 and IPv6) to service. But at that point it becomes subject of corporate taxes in the country where the organization is domiciled. It is not uncommon for a non-profit organization to create a "secondary" economic activity from which it finances its main activities. But such activity has no exempts from taxes. And if we try to lie to the Dutch tax authorities that the tiered model based on IPv4 consumption isn't services, they will probably stumble. Of course, every country wants to improve its budget.
So in fact the rest of the RIPE service region will contribute to the Dutch goverment budget. Sure, DENIC & AFNIC are mostly "national" institutions (so national taxes linked to services aren't issue for them) by their nature - but this also isn't case of RIPE, which is primarily international.
- Daniel
On 5/31/25 1:54 PM, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote:
Daniel,
The obstacles you list do more than complicate a tiered-fee discussion—they question the wisdom of keeping the RIPE NCC incorporated in the Netherlands at all:
Physical access – Visa barriers exclude members from GM participation.
Geopolitical neutrality – The host state has used armed force against several member economies.
Sanctions exposure – EU measures already restrict Russian, Iranian, Syrian and other members.
Tax rigidity – Dutch rules are cited as blocking a usage-based charging model adopted by every other RIR.
If the legal and fiscal climate in the Netherlands cannot accommodate a cost-causation fee structure, we should assess jurisdictions that can. Comparable non-profit registries in Germany (DENIC), France (AFNIC), the UK (Nominet) and Canada (CIRA) all combine member-governed models with per-resource charging—without losing tax-exempt status.
Maybe we should expect action: launch a formal study on relocating the RIPE NCC to a legally neutral venue that: - Allows tiered/usage-based fees under clear non-profit rules. - Offers visa-light access for all members. - Minimises sanctions entanglements. - Preserves the community’s oversight and surplus-reinvestment principles.
Continuing with a flat-fee model in a restrictive jurisdiction leaves a growing share of the membership disenfranchised and subsidising the heaviest resource users. Let us evaluate relocation now, before governance credibility erodes further.
P.S. All four operate under EU or OECD tax codes, none lose their non- profit status (or equivalent), and each successfully allocates cost in proportion to resource usage.
Nominet UK (Private company limited by guarantee—surpluses reinvested for public benefit (no shareholders, no dividends) £ 58.6 m (£41.1 m registry, £15.3 m cyber-security, £2.2 m investment income) Membership fee: £400 + VAT one-off joining £100 + VAT annual renewal (prorated £50 if joining after 1 Feb) Other fees: - Domain Availability Checker: £25 / yr - Searchable WHOIS: £400 / yr - Domain Lock: £90 per name / yr - Wholesale registry fee: £3.90 per .uk-year
CIRA (Canada) (Incorporated as a not-for-profit organisation under Canadian federal law. ) C$ 34.3 m total revenue (C$ 29.6 m domain-registry; C$ 4.7 m cyber- security & other) Membership fee: NONE Other fees: - Wholesale registry fee
DENIC eG (.de) (Private, not-for-profit co-operative (~300 member companies)) € 51.3 m total income; gross earnings € 15.9 m; annual surplus € 0.04 m Membership fee: €595 processing (DE) / €500 (non-DE) €1 000 admission (one-off) €1 500 capital share per unit (min 1, max 3). No published recurring dues; the share remains on the books while a member. Other fees: - Wholesale registry fee - Training, escrow, etc. charged separately.
AFNIC (.fr) (Non-profit association governed by French law. ) € 22.0 m turnover (of which € 20.45 m from .fr) Annual dues by college (calendar year): - Companies & Registrars: €190 - Individuals: €50 - Students: €20 Other fees: - Registrar accreditation: €500 / yr - Create / renew / transfer / restore: €4.56 per domain-year (2024 tariff).
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
From legal perspective, precedents from other continents will *NOT* work in Europe. Tou have to find a legal framework that fits our conditions. RIPE is not going to move to the US or Australia... and no court in Europe will be concerned with how things are in Australia or US. Copy & paste doesn't work here. On 5/31/25 4:41 PM, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote:
3. Usage-based charging and non-profit status coexist elsewhere
RIR precedents - ARIN (USA) and APNIC (Australia) charge strictly by total IPv4/IPv6/ASN holdings and remain tax-exempt non-profits.
On Sat, 31-05-2025 13h 56min, Denys Fedoryshchenko <nuclearcat@nuclearcat.com> wrote:
Daniel,
The obstacles you list do more than complicate a tiered-fee discussion—they question the wisdom of keeping the RIPE NCC incorporated in the Netherlands at all:
Physical access – Visa barriers exclude members from GM participation.
Depends on the country/region hosting the GM. Not Dutch specific.
Geopolitical neutrality – The host state has used armed force against several member economies.
So how is this relevant? Main criteria should be 'rule of law', NL is complaint.
Sanctions exposure – EU measures already restrict Russian, Iranian, Syrian and other members.
Those 3 countries have no 'rule of law' and two have active hostile (state) operations ongoing against other 'RIPE covered' countries. Some residents or operators from these countries might view sanctions as unwarrented, unwelcome and possibly unfair. But hey, if you as a country behave like a baboon there are consequences, these consequences are very visible in 'rule of law' countries while 'other' countries might be more or less 'in orbit' of these bad actors.
Tax rigidity – Dutch rules are cited as blocking a usage-based charging model adopted by every other RIR.
The NL tax climate is very business friendly, the fact that RIPE can have 40mio in reserves is testament to this. The issue here is more of ensuring RIPE gets the right statute. Is it a non-profit, ie a resource holder admin office with some extra non profit activities, or is it a full commercial company selling scarce resources. If the latter, even being a association when you run a commercial activity you will be treated as a commercial entity, for tax reasons but also for competition reasons. RIPE primary goal is to stay in the 'non-profit' bracket as this is best for the members.
If the legal and fiscal climate in the Netherlands cannot accommodate a cost-causation fee structure, we should assess jurisdictions that can.
Nothing prohibits RIPE from using this fee structure as long as you keep the above in mind.
On Sat, 2025-05-31 at 09:36 +0200, Daniel Suchy via members-discuss wrote:
I never said that the layered model would ruin RIPE. That's your personal lie.
If we want to compare with other RIRs, we should not cherry-pick just some aspects. In a similar comparison, we must also take into account the size of the budget and what the money is spent on and where. It's not just about implementing a layered model and problem is solved.
It is also true that each RIR lives in a slightly different legal environment. And among other things, the tax implications of the tiered model must also be well evaluated.
In our legal environment, tax authorities may assess the tiered model as a provision of a service. Besides, it was an argument at a time when the tiered model was abandoned in RIPE (which many have already forgotten).
The argument that they have it that way in the US or Africa probably won't hold up at all before the European (Dutch) tax office. Non- profit organizations usually have some tax breaks. But if the tax office determines that it is a regular service, the tax breaks will disappear.
And from my perspective, a better solution is for the money to stay in the community. Not in some government budget.
- Daniel
On 5/31/25 9:19 AM, Jean Salim wrote:
Please open an IPv6 transition thread and stop the disinformation in this thread. Speaking of which, as pointed out hundred of times, all other RIRs have successfully implemented tiered charging schemes, some of them with weighted voting power, others not. So stop misleading people by saying that tiered charging will ruin RIPE when it's been working fine at other RIRs.
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Pay attention to the CG NAT solutions. I recently published such opensource code for linux, but it's in Russian language, so you'll need to work on it a little harder. Although someone cloned it without my consent in github, as if on my behalf. Look for 'ANAT'. Or best go here: https://forum.nag.ru/index.php?/topic/195398-anat-advanced-asymmetric-cg-nat... Serbulov Dmitry
NAT does not allow end to end connectivity. And if this discussion isn't about transitioning to IPv6, then the existence of NAT is not a valid argument either. IPv6 was created as a solution to the IPv4 shortage. NAT was created as a means to postpone the problem solved by IPv6.
It's funny that the similar arguments come mostly from entities who failed to implement IPv6 even after a quarter of a century.
Although arguments are being made that this debate is not about the transition to IPv6, arguments are then being made about how to throw out some more IPv4 "somewhere". Obligatory efforts to revive a dead horse.
No, the debate is about RIPE funding. And if each member wants to have the same weight of his vote, they should contribute to RIPE budget equally. Or let's make RIPE a joint stock company, Each asset will correspond to one share. The vote of shareholders holding more shares will have greater weight. That's fair solution.
- Daniel
On 5/31/25 2:58 AM, sdy@a-n-t.ru wrote:
It doesn't matter if it's a university or a company. Why does a university need tens of thousands of IPv4 addresses in the age of NAT? They may well return most of the resources. In the end, let them look for sponsors. At a price of 3-5 euros at the beginning per /24 per year, none of them will go broke. --- Serbulov Dmitry
One of the holders of large blocks are universities. The're not earning milions - they aren't doing business. They only existed at a time when class-B allocation was the norm. And often on the internet they were before the internet started to be really interesting for business...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
----------------------------- 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.
CGNAT is stil NAT (and your solution will be same) - with reserved /10 just for this fun. Any kind of NAT breaks end-to-end connectivity, It's just a cripled internet, which relies on only one party establishing the connection. If you hide 200 users behind 10 IP addresses, it can't possibly turn out any other way. Yes, many end-users have already learned to live with it, or rather we "stupidly" teach them that it can't be done any other way. Again, both NAT and CIDR only came to delay the end of IPv4. And whole this discussion, hidden behind some ferocity, in reality it tries to do the same thing - just in a different way. But it was clearly stated 31 years ago that the only real solution is a new protocol. Even RIPE itself tried to delay the end - by gradually reducing the minimum allocation. Then politics came last /8 and with it a lot of speculators, as new LIRs were created just to grab the last /22. From short-term perspective, it was good, income was growing and there was no knowing what to do with the money. When the pond dried up, those speculative LIRs began to gradually dwindle and merge. That's cause of today's sustainability problem. understandably, this places increased demands on RIPE itself. Today's problems are primarily caused by speculation around those little "new" LIRs. And I don't blame NCC for this, from their position is this basically unmanageable (thanks to legal differences in region). And at the same time I think that the model based on IPv4 financing will not have that long a lifespan either. Maybe it will be in five years, maybe in ten - who knows. But one day you won't be able to get a visa over IPv4 and then things will start moving fast. And there're indications that some governments want to do this. And when this really happens, we'll be discussing here again how to fund RIPE, because IPv4 revenues will dry up... when we find out that there are actually no big differences between the members in terms of IPv6 allocations. It's the same story as with IPX protocol (for example) in LANs. It dominated her for a long time, but in the end it also died, forgotten. Even Linux removed it from it's kernel. A truly sustainable RIPE financing model must be independent on internet protocol version. If it's about real and long-term sustainability and not about something else motivated by short-term interests. - Daniel On 5/31/25 3:09 PM, sdy@a-n-t.ru wrote:
Pay attention to the CG NAT solutions.
I recently published such opensource code for linux, but it's in Russian language, so you'll need to work on it a little harder. Although someone cloned it without my consent in github, as if on my behalf.
Look for 'ANAT'. Or best go here:
NAT does not allow end to end connectivity. And if this discussion isn't about transitioning to IPv6, then the existence of NAT is not a valid argument either. IPv6 was created as a solution to the IPv4 shortage. NAT was created as a means to postpone the problem solved by IPv6.
Dear Dirk, A few facts from the other Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) may help frame workable options. RIR,How fees scale,How voting rights scale, Outcome
**APNIC** Seven tiers based on total IPv4/IPv6 held; base fee + “bit-factor” multiplier. 1–64 votes per member (Associate = 1, Extra-Large = 64). Operates since 2010 without corporate capture; board seats still change hands regularly.
**LACNIC** Annual fee rises from USD 600 (\</22) to > USD 20 k (≥/15). 1–11 votes per member, tied to category. No dominant company—community elections remain competitive. **ARIN** 13 fee brackets from USD 262.50 (/24) up to USD 256 000 (> /9). One vote per member; extra “weight” is only when one person represents several distinct members. Again, no takeover despite very large holders.
1. A mixed model—flat base fee plus a progressive charge on address holdings - is workable and accepted elsewhere. 2. Where voting power is proportional (APNIC, LACNIC), no evidence of corporate domination has emerged; reputation and community oversight keep behaviour in check. 3. Even ARIN’s flat-vote model demonstrates that steeply graduated fees alone do not deter large members from supporting the registry’s public- interest mission. I've heard the concern that 'corporations will take over RIPE' raised many times, over and over again. However, people seem to forget that other RIRs have successfully managed corporate participation. Could someone explain why this wouldn't work for RIPE? What makes RIPE fundamentally different or special in this regard? On Fri, 2025-05-30 at 22:05 +0200, D. Walde - Walde IT-Systemhaus wrote:
It's about fair distribution. And companies that earn millions should also understand that they have to do their share. And not just laugh and say, "Yeah, unfortunately, you came 30 years too late." You won't even be able to get started in the market.
We need to come up with a new fee structure that is fair to all members.
Yes, I'm exaggerating about the statement about millions. But it should be possible to even consider approaches to a fair model.
Everyone should openly say how we could improve the model without being immediately punished by others. Suggestions are welcome. Just because the model is 30 years old doesn't necessarily make it good or fair.
Suggestions are ideas, and they can be good, bad, or whatever. But that's what suggestions are about: the exchange of ideas and opinions.
Just because I like chocolate ice cream the most doesn't mean everyone has to share my opinion. or even like ice cream.
Greetings, Dirk
That's what the discussion should be about, alternative chargings schemes. I personally prefer the ARIN scheme as it has proven to be successful. However I don't object to large resource holders having more voting power as it will then be in their interest to make RIPE more efficient, now they just don't care because it's only 1850 EUR per year for resources that they rent for much much more. On Sat, 31 May 2025, 02:10 Denys Fedoryshchenko, <nuclearcat@nuclearcat.com> wrote:
Dear Dirk,
A few facts from the other Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) may help frame workable options.
RIR,How fees scale,How voting rights scale, Outcome
**APNIC** Seven tiers based on total IPv4/IPv6 held; base fee + “bit-factor” multiplier. 1–64 votes per member (Associate = 1, Extra-Large = 64). Operates since 2010 without corporate capture; board seats still change hands regularly.
**LACNIC** Annual fee rises from USD 600 (\</22) to > USD 20 k (≥/15). 1–11 votes per member, tied to category. No dominant company—community elections remain competitive.
**ARIN** 13 fee brackets from USD 262.50 (/24) up to USD 256 000 (> /9). One vote per member; extra “weight” is only when one person represents several distinct members. Again, no takeover despite very large holders.
1. A mixed model—flat base fee plus a progressive charge on address holdings - is workable and accepted elsewhere. 2. Where voting power is proportional (APNIC, LACNIC), no evidence of corporate domination has emerged; reputation and community oversight keep behaviour in check. 3. Even ARIN’s flat-vote model demonstrates that steeply graduated fees alone do not deter large members from supporting the registry’s public- interest mission.
I've heard the concern that 'corporations will take over RIPE' raised many times, over and over again. However, people seem to forget that other RIRs have successfully managed corporate participation. Could someone explain why this wouldn't work for RIPE? What makes RIPE fundamentally different or special in this regard?
On Fri, 2025-05-30 at 22:05 +0200, D. Walde - Walde IT-Systemhaus wrote:
It's about fair distribution. And companies that earn millions should also understand that they have to do their share. And not just laugh and say, "Yeah, unfortunately, you came 30 years too late." You won't even be able to get started in the market.
We need to come up with a new fee structure that is fair to all members.
Yes, I'm exaggerating about the statement about millions. But it should be possible to even consider approaches to a fair model.
Everyone should openly say how we could improve the model without being immediately punished by others. Suggestions are welcome. Just because the model is 30 years old doesn't necessarily make it good or fair.
Suggestions are ideas, and they can be good, bad, or whatever. But that's what suggestions are about: the exchange of ideas and opinions.
Just because I like chocolate ice cream the most doesn't mean everyone has to share my opinion. or even like ice cream.
Greetings, Dirk
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
participants (12)
-
Alex de Joode -
Alexey Berezhnev -
D. Walde - Walde IT-Systemhaus -
Daniel Suchy -
Denys Fedoryshchenko -
Gao Chenyang -
Jean Salim -
Kaj Niemi -
Matthias Brumm -
Murat Terzioglu | PREBITS -
Nick Hilliard -
sdy＠a-n-t.ru