Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
Hello, Why do we not have an option that refuses any rate increases, and forces RIPE to reduce it's budget? Option D - No change to rates, RIPE reduces budget according to fewer number of LIR! The Board MUST make tough decisions. If RIPE is serving fewer LIR then the board must adjust RIPE to be a proper size. Daniel~ On 4/10/24 4:18 AM, Simon-Jan Haytink wrote:
Dear RIPE NCC members,
We can now share three draft charging scheme models for 2025 that the Executive Board approved with the following resolution at its meeting on 25 March 2024:
The RIPE NCC Executive Board approves the submission of the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 options to the upcoming RIPE NCC General Meeting for members to vote on.
- Option A - Charging Scheme as is with 22.58% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,900) and a 0% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 50)
- Option B - Charging Scheme as is with 20.97% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,875) and a 50% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 75)
- Option C - Charging Scheme as is with 16.13% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,800), a 50% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 75) and a new AS Numbers fee of EUR 50 per assignment
*Resources falling under this charge are IPv4 and IPv6 PI assignments; Anycast assignments; IPv4 and IPv6 IXP assignments; and Legacy IPv4 resource registrations through a sponsoring LIR.
The full draft charging scheme models are available from the GM Documentation page:https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2024/documentation-... <https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2024/documentation-and-archives/supporting-documents/>
Although the proposed models are relatively simple, we provide a calculator where you can see exactly what you would pay under each of the proposed models:
https://www.ripe.net/documents/3757/CS2025_Member_Calculator.xlsx <https://www.ripe.net/documents/3757/CS2025_Member_Calculator.xlsx>
The main considerations for the Executive Board in proposing these three models are:
1. The consolidation of LIR accounts, which means the burden to generate sufficient income must be met by fewer accounts
2. Increased costs due to inflation that were previously catered for by the large number of LIR accounts
3. Following the discussions last year and again this year, there appears to be no clear consensus among members on how a category-based model would work and the Board does not wish to put another category model forward at the upcoming GM that will be rejected by the members. Rather, the Board will propose a simple model that guarantees adequate funding for 2025 and 2026 - under this proposal, we expect there would be no need for a fee increase for 2026. The Board will work with the RIPE NCC on a more in-depth consultation with the members aimed at arriving at a sustainable solution for 2027 and beyond, possibly involving a new charging scheme task force.
All three proposed models are designed to arrive at the same income of EUR 41.1 million for the RIPE NCC in 2025. This will cover all current services and activities, a 5% staff cost increase, a 2% inflation increase on all non-staff costs, and EUR 1 million for additional work relating to registry complexity and security projects aimed at ensuring the resilience of the Registry and the RIPE NCC more broadly. Any such additional work would be discussed with the membership during Activity Plan and Budget consultations and then need to be approved by the Board. This will also allow some leeway should more LIR accounts close than we expect.
It’s important to note that the RIPE NCC aims for an income budget that will provide a surplus, and this means that should we meet our budgetary targets, a surplus can be returned to members in 2026 should they so wish.
While the RIPE NCC continues to carry out cost-cutting efforts across the organisation, drastically reducing the budget at this time is not advisable due to the work that needs to be carried out, especially in relation to maintaining high-quality registry services and securing the registry and RIPE NCC systems. Cutting services or activities is not something the Board is planning to do, and such actions would take time and need full consultation with the membership. An overview of the activities and services that the membership fee covers is provided below this email.
I also urge you to see the presentation we delivered at the charging scheme open house in March so that the full context of the situation and the financial landscape we face is clear to you. The slides are available at:
https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/open-house/ripe-ncc-charging-scheme... <https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/open-house/ripe-ncc-charging-scheme-2025/>
Finally, I want to thank all those who have contributed to the consultation so far on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025. The models we present here are draft and in two weeks we will announce the final proposal that members will vote on at the GM on 22-24 May. Please discuss the draft proposal on the members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>list - any input received by 19 April can be incorporated if possible into the final models we propose. And make sure to register for the GM so that you can vote on the charging scheme that will apply for you and all members next year:
https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active <https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active>
Simon-Jan Haytink
Chief Financial Officer
RIPE NCC
Services and Activities Covered by the Member Fee
- A trusted, efficient, accurate and resilient registry that guarantees uniqueness of resources held by members
- Neutral information services uninfluenced by commercial or government interests that allow both the RIPE NCC and the community to carry out useful research into the Internet
- Engagement activities, including RIPE and regional meetings, that build an active membership and community and that contribute to the overall good of the Internet
- A voice and influence for the membership in key decision-making fora, including with governments and regulators
- Protection of the Joint Internet Number Registry as developed by the Internet community
- Learning and development activities that help to address skills shortages and contribute to an educated membership
- Support for the Policy Development Process (PDP)
- An authoritative registry of routing information provided by RPKI and the RIPE Database
- K-root and DNS services
- A dedicated staff with considerable expertise contributing to all of the above
Hi,
Why do we not have an option that refuses any rate increases, and forces RIPE to reduce it's budget?
Option D - No change to rates, RIPE reduces budget according to fewer number of LIR!
I believe that is implicit if options A, B and C are all voted down. Rob
Is it? If people are not told that they have a fourth choice, they may be led to incorrectly believe that they only have three choices. I think not explicitly stating the fact that we can still say "no" is deceptive. Daniel~ On 4/10/24 7:44 AM, Rob Evans wrote:
Hi,
Why do we not have an option that refuses any rate increases, and forces RIPE to reduce it's budget?
Option D - No change to rates, RIPE reduces budget according to fewer number of LIR! I believe that is implicit if options A, B and C are all voted down.
Rob
Dear Rob, The vote for this proposal would not allow all options to be rejected. It would be run with the instant run-off vote format in the same way as the Executive Board election is run. So members would be asked to vote for the three options in order of preference and the scheme that achieves more than 50% of preferences either on the first round or second round would be deemed to have been chosen. Hope that helps. Fergal On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 2:46 PM Rob Evans <rhe@nosc.ja.net> wrote:
Hi,
Why do we not have an option that refuses any rate increases, and forces RIPE to reduce it's budget?
Option D - No change to rates, RIPE reduces budget according to fewer number of LIR!
I believe that is implicit if options A, B and C are all voted down.
Rob
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ripencc-management%40...
Hi Fergal, Thank you for that clarification. As-such I think this entire proposal needs to be rejected and sent back to the board until a fourth option of no-change is added. Daniel~ On 4/10/24 7:54 AM, Fergal Cunningham wrote:
Dear Rob,
The vote for this proposal would not allow all options to be rejected. It would be run with the instant run-off vote format in the same way as the Executive Board election is run. So members would be asked to vote for the three options in order of preference and the scheme that achieves more than 50% of preferences either on the first round or second round would be deemed to have been chosen.
Hope that helps. Fergal
On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 2:46 PM Rob Evans <rhe@nosc.ja.net> wrote:
Hi,
> Why do we not have an option that refuses any rate increases, and forces RIPE to reduce it's budget? > > Option D - No change to rates, RIPE reduces budget according to fewer number of LIR!
I believe that is implicit if options A, B and C are all voted down.
Rob
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ripencc-management%40...
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe:https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/daniel%40privatesyste...
Hello together I agree on this, there has to be an option D “No change to rates, RIPE reduces budget” in my opinion, otherwise the proposal should be rejected. Best regards Matias Von: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> Im Auftrag von Daniel Pearson Gesendet: Mittwoch, 10. April 2024 14:58 An: members-discuss@ripe.net Betreff: Re: [members-discuss] [comms-circle] Re: [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals Hi Fergal, Thank you for that clarification. As-such I think this entire proposal needs to be rejected and sent back to the board until a fourth option of no-change is added. Daniel~ On 4/10/24 7:54 AM, Fergal Cunningham wrote: Dear Rob, The vote for this proposal would not allow all options to be rejected. It would be run with the instant run-off vote format in the same way as the Executive Board election is run. So members would be asked to vote for the three options in order of preference and the scheme that achieves more than 50% of preferences either on the first round or second round would be deemed to have been chosen. Hope that helps. Fergal On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 2:46 PM Rob Evans <rhe@nosc.ja.net<mailto:rhe@nosc.ja.net>> wrote: Hi,
Why do we not have an option that refuses any rate increases, and forces RIPE to reduce it's budget?
Option D - No change to rates, RIPE reduces budget according to fewer number of LIR!
I believe that is implicit if options A, B and C are all voted down. Rob _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ripencc-management%40... _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/daniel%40privatesyste...
+1 On 4/10/24 15:12, Matias Meier via members-discuss wrote:
Hello together
I agree on this, there has to be an option D “No change to rates, RIPE reduces budget” in my opinion, otherwise the proposal should be rejected.
Best regards
Matias
*Von:*members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> *Im Auftrag von *Daniel Pearson *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 10. April 2024 14:58 *An:* members-discuss@ripe.net *Betreff:* Re: [members-discuss] [comms-circle] Re: [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
Hi Fergal,
Thank you for that clarification.
As-such I think this entire proposal needs to be rejected and sent back to the board until a fourth option of no-change is added.
Daniel~
On 4/10/24 7:54 AM, Fergal Cunningham wrote:
Dear Rob,
The vote for this proposal would not allow all options to be rejected. It would be run with the instant run-off vote format in the same way as the Executive Board election is run. So members would be asked to vote for the three options in order of preference and the scheme that achieves more than 50% of preferences either on the first round or second round would be deemed to have been chosen.
Hope that helps. Fergal
On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 2:46 PM Rob Evans <rhe@nosc.ja.net> wrote:
Hi,
> Why do we not have an option that refuses any rate increases, and forces RIPE to reduce it's budget? > > Option D - No change to rates, RIPE reduces budget according to fewer number of LIR!
I believe that is implicit if options A, B and C are all voted down.
Rob
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ripencc-management%40...
_______________________________________________
members-discuss mailing list
members-discuss@ripe.net
https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss
Unsubscribe:https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/daniel%40privatesyste...
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe:https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/lists%40velder.li
On 10/04/2024 14:54, Fergal Cunningham wrote:
The vote for this proposal would not allow all options to be rejected. It would be run with the instant run-off vote format in the same way as the Executive Board election is run. So members would be asked to vote for the three options in order of preference and the scheme that achieves more than 50% of preferences either on the first round or second round would be deemed to have been chosen.
Hi, Is this even legal, wrt the articles of association ? Holding a vote to adopt an item, without a reject option. Best regards, Sebastien Brossier
Dear Sebastien, According to Article 18.3 of the Articles of Association, if a proposed resolution contains various options, the method of instant run-off voting is used, as described in the same article (similar to the elections of EB members). https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-818/#article-18-general-meeting-... Best regards, Fergal On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 10:52 AM Sebastien Brossier <sebastien@brossier.org> wrote:
On 10/04/2024 14:54, Fergal Cunningham wrote:
The vote for this proposal would not allow all options to be rejected. It would be run with the instant run-off vote format in the same way as the Executive Board election is run. So members would be asked to vote for the three options in order of preference and the scheme that achieves more than 50% of preferences either on the first round or second round would be deemed to have been chosen.
Hi,
Is this even legal, wrt the articles of association ? Holding a vote to adopt an item, without a reject option.
Best regards, Sebastien Brossier
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ripencc-management%40...
Correct, but the question is: is it ok for the option to reject the proposed resolution to be missing ? If it is ok, it means that the membership can be forced to adopt any resolution, just by having various similar options. This is a loophole that could be exploited for nefarious purposes. If not, the vote as proposed is invalid. To be clear: my intention is not to promote a rejection of the charging scheme. This is a more general concern. I find very suspicious to see a resolution proposal that can't be rejected, in the general meeting of a membership-based association. Sebastien Brossier On 11/04/2024 12:39, Fergal Cunningham wrote:
Dear Sebastien,
According to Article 18.3 of the Articles of Association, if a proposed resolution contains various options, the method of instant run-off voting is used, as described in the same article (similar to the elections of EB members).
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-818/#article-18-general-meeting-... <https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-818/#article-18-general-meeting-voting>
Best regards, Fergal
On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 10:52 AM Sebastien Brossier <sebastien@brossier.org <mailto:sebastien@brossier.org>> wrote:
On 10/04/2024 14:54, Fergal Cunningham wrote: > The vote for this proposal would not allow all options to be rejected. > It would be run with the instant run-off vote format in the same way as > the Executive Board election is run. So members would be asked to vote > for the three options in order of preference and the scheme that > achieves more than 50% of preferences either on the first round or > second round would be deemed to have been chosen.
Hi,
Is this even legal, wrt the articles of association ? Holding a vote to adopt an item, without a reject option.
Best regards, Sebastien Brossier
Unfortunately. It is look like select between the kind of sheets for eat... But NCC must decide how to fill up budget. So it is wrong direction to talk now about simple reduce pays. I have next Idea for what to do: It is need to divide NCC budget to 'functional' part and 'investigation' part. Functionally part is only registration and finance function NCC, which fell up by equal for all members contribution, 'investigation' part is used for all other NCC functionality and fell up by payment for deficite resources.
Correct, but the question is: is it ok for the option to reject the proposed resolution to be missing ?
If it is ok, it means that the membership can be forced to adopt any resolution, just by having various similar options. This is a loophole that could be exploited for nefarious purposes.
If not, the vote as proposed is invalid.
To be clear: my intention is not to promote a rejection of the charging scheme. This is a more general concern. I find very suspicious to see a resolution proposal that can't be rejected, in the general meeting of a membership-based association.
Sebastien Brossier
On 11/04/2024 12:39, Fergal Cunningham wrote:
Dear Sebastien,
According to Article 18.3 of the Articles of Association, if a proposed resolution contains various options, the method of instant run-off voting is used, as described in the same article (similar to the elections of EB members).
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-818/#article-18-general-meeting-... <https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-818/#article-18-general-meeting-voting>
Best regards, Fergal
On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 10:52 AM Sebastien Brossier <sebastien@brossier.org <mailto:sebastien@brossier.org>> wrote:
On 10/04/2024 14:54, Fergal Cunningham wrote: > The vote for this proposal would not allow all options to be rejected. > It would be run with the instant run-off vote format in the same way as > the Executive Board election is run. So members would be asked to vote > for the three options in order of preference and the scheme that > achieves more than 50% of preferences either on the first round or > second round would be deemed to have been chosen.
Hi,
Is this even legal, wrt the articles of association ? Holding a vote to adopt an item, without a reject option.
Best regards, Sebastien Brossier
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/sdy%40a-n-t.ru
----------------------------- С уважением Сербулов Дмитрий ООО "Альфа Нет Телеком" +7(498)785-8-000 раб. +7(495)940-92-11 доп. +7(925)518-10-69 сот.
Hi, On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 09:59:37AM +0200, Sebastien Brossier wrote:
Correct, but the question is: is it ok for the option to reject the proposed resolution to be missing ?
This option would take away the necessary resources for the NCC to do what they presented at the autumn AGM. So, yes, this would be a very poor choice. The question is not "if" this is the budget, the question is "how can the costs for this budget be distributed?". So "no!" can not be a valid choice for that question. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Ingo Lalla, Karin Schuler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
On 12/04/2024 10:56, Gert Doering wrote:
On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 09:59:37AM +0200, Sebastien Brossier wrote:
Correct, but the question is: is it ok for the option to reject the proposed resolution to be missing ?
This option would take away the necessary resources for the NCC to do what they presented at the autumn AGM. So, yes, this would be a very poor choice.
The question is not "if" this is the budget, the question is "how can the costs for this budget be distributed?". So "no!" can not be a valid choice for that question.
Hi, I agree that a rejection is not desirable and would put the NCC in a difficult situation. All voting options should result in the same budget. I'm not asking if it is desirable, but if it is *legal* to remove the choice to reject a proposal. I think it is better to ask the question now, rather than take the risk of seeing someone challenge the vote result later. Regards, Sebastien Brossier
Dear Sebastien, The charging scheme is adopted by the General Meeting upon proposal of the Executive Board. The Executive Board proposes a charging scheme and is responsible for the adoption of the budget and the activity plan of the organisation, so it is their responsibility to propose a charging scheme to collect the budget for the execution of this activity plan. For the execution of the activity plan of 2025 the board proposed multiple options for covering the estimated budget. Contrary to other years, this time the current charging scheme cannot cover the necessary expenses. It would be damaging for the organisation to propose a resolution that would result in maintaining the current charging scheme and thus a much smaller income. The board has no obligation to put forward a resolution that may result in maintaining the current charging scheme. It does have an obligation to put forward resolutions for the benefit of the organisation. So in short, the proposal would be completely valid. All the best, Fergal On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 12:09 PM Sebastien Brossier <sebastien@brossier.org> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 09:59:37AM +0200, Sebastien Brossier wrote:
Correct, but the question is: is it ok for the option to reject the
On 12/04/2024 10:56, Gert Doering wrote: proposed
resolution to be missing ?
This option would take away the necessary resources for the NCC to do what they presented at the autumn AGM. So, yes, this would be a very poor choice.
The question is not "if" this is the budget, the question is "how can the costs for this budget be distributed?". So "no!" can not be a valid choice for that question.
Hi,
I agree that a rejection is not desirable and would put the NCC in a difficult situation. All voting options should result in the same budget.
I'm not asking if it is desirable, but if it is *legal* to remove the choice to reject a proposal. I think it is better to ask the question now, rather than take the risk of seeing someone challenge the vote result later.
Regards, Sebastien Brossier
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ripencc-management%40...
Isn't this really about the all-important question of whether The Membership exists for The Organization [to exist] or The Organization exists for The Membership [to provide value]? I am rather concerned as going by your statement it sounds very much like it would be the former, that The Membership exists for The Organization to do the things it feels is the best [to exist]. Curious to see that now the pretense of doing it for the good of everyone, "membership decides" which tends to be mentioned around the AGM a lot, defending the RIR system, and all that has been put away. Poking enough reveals that The Organization doesn't really want to entertain the thought of some shrinkage, as some of its members more or less have suggested/implied/requested/pleaded, but instead wants to grow. Considering that the activity plan for 2025 will be published some time in the fall of 2024, isn't this also a case of putting the cart before the horse? What necessary expenses are or will be is, of course, determined by... The Organization. Come time for The Membership to submit - but not approve as we are sometimes reminded of - comments on the activity plan, The Organization's answer will most likely be something along the lines of "budget has been approved in the AGM, activity plan follows budget, will proceed as planned." I'm pretty sure I've seen this movie before. As for governance, one would have thought that the EB is ultimately accountable to The Membership, who voted for them, rather than The Organization as you stated. Perhaps my understanding of GRC is lacking, if so, apologies. Happy to discuss. Have a nice weekend 🙂 Kaj ________________________________ From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Fergal Cunningham <fergalc@ripe.net> Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 14:06 To: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [comms-circle] Re: Re: Re: [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals Dear Sebastien, The charging scheme is adopted by the General Meeting upon proposal of the Executive Board. The Executive Board proposes a charging scheme and is responsible for the adoption of the budget and the activity plan of the organisation, so it is their responsibility to propose a charging scheme to collect the budget for the execution of this activity plan. For the execution of the activity plan of 2025 the board proposed multiple options for covering the estimated budget. Contrary to other years, this time the current charging scheme cannot cover the necessary expenses. It would be damaging for the organisation to propose a resolution that would result in maintaining the current charging scheme and thus a much smaller income. The board has no obligation to put forward a resolution that may result in maintaining the current charging scheme. It does have an obligation to put forward resolutions for the benefit of the organisation. So in short, the proposal would be completely valid. All the best, Fergal On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 12:09 PM Sebastien Brossier <sebastien@brossier.org<mailto:sebastien@brossier.org>> wrote: On 12/04/2024 10:56, Gert Doering wrote:
On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 09:59:37AM +0200, Sebastien Brossier wrote:
Correct, but the question is: is it ok for the option to reject the proposed resolution to be missing ?
This option would take away the necessary resources for the NCC to do what they presented at the autumn AGM. So, yes, this would be a very poor choice.
The question is not "if" this is the budget, the question is "how can the costs for this budget be distributed?". So "no!" can not be a valid choice for that question.
Hi, I agree that a rejection is not desirable and would put the NCC in a difficult situation. All voting options should result in the same budget. I'm not asking if it is desirable, but if it is *legal* to remove the choice to reject a proposal. I think it is better to ask the question now, rather than take the risk of seeing someone challenge the vote result later. Regards, Sebastien Brossier _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ripencc-management%40...
Kaj The RIPE NCC Executive Board’s role is fairly well explained on the RIPE site: https://www.ripe.net/about-us/executive-board/ They *represent* the members, but they are *responsible* to/for the organisation Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 I have sent this email at a time that is convenient for me. I do not expect you to respond to it outside of your usual working hours.
Hi, Yes, it we chose to read different parts of the same page. The words "board members are fully responsible towards the RIPE NCC membership" look pretty clean cut to me. Remember, one cannot really serve two masters. One must choose one to avoid agency issues. Kaj ________________________________ From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com> Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 15:27 To: Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net>; members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [comms-circle] Re: Re: Re: [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals You don't often get email from michele@blacknight.com. Learn why this is important<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification> Kaj The RIPE NCC Executive Board’s role is fairly well explained on the RIPE site: https://www.ripe.net/about-us/executive-board/ They *represent* the members, but they are *responsible* to/for the organisation Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 I have sent this email at a time that is convenient for me. I do not expect you to respond to it outside of your usual working hours.
Kaj If you are on the Board of a company / organisation you have a fiduciary responsibility to it. That’s crystal clear to me. Yes, Board members are meant to represent our interests and we can choose to replace them if we are unhappy with their performance. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 I have sent this email at a time that is convenient for me. I do not expect you to respond to it outside of your usual working hours. From: Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> Date: Friday, 12 April 2024 at 13:44 To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com>, members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [comms-circle] Re: Re: Re: [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Please use caution when opening attachments from unrecognised sources. Hi, Yes, it we chose to read different parts of the same page. The words "board members are fully responsible towards the RIPE NCC membership" look pretty clean cut to me. Remember, one cannot really serve two masters. One must choose one to avoid agency issues. Kaj ________________________________ From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com> Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 15:27 To: Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net>; members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [comms-circle] Re: Re: Re: [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals You don't often get email from michele@blacknight.com. Learn why this is important<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification> Kaj The RIPE NCC Executive Board’s role is fairly well explained on the RIPE site: https://www.ripe.net/about-us/executive-board/ They *represent* the members, but they are *responsible* to/for the organisation Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 I have sent this email at a time that is convenient for me. I do not expect you to respond to it outside of your usual working hours.
Hi, With different types of fiduciary duty, one puts the beneficiaries' interests before one's own; yes, this is clear. The fiduciary is the individual director. The beneficiaries are the membership and the organization. To the best of my knowledge the EB members do that well; the individual members put the memberships' and organization's interests before their personal interests. As to whom the EB reports to and is responsible (= accountable) to - it is the membership, not the organization. The membership appoints a person to the EB to represent their interests as well as to manage and oversee the organization. Then, in RIPE's case the EB distributed the day-to-day management of the organization to the management team keeping oversight. Were this some kind of corporate structure (LLC, PLC, ..) rather than association, the word membership would be replaced by the word shareholders. Kaj ________________________________ From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com> Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 15:52 To: Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net>; members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [comms-circle] Re: Re: Re: [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals Kaj If you are on the Board of a company / organisation you have a fiduciary responsibility to it. That’s crystal clear to me. Yes, Board members are meant to represent our interests and we can choose to replace them if we are unhappy with their performance. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 I have sent this email at a time that is convenient for me. I do not expect you to respond to it outside of your usual working hours. From: Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> Date: Friday, 12 April 2024 at 13:44 To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com>, members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [comms-circle] Re: Re: Re: [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Please use caution when opening attachments from unrecognised sources. Hi, Yes, it we chose to read different parts of the same page. The words "board members are fully responsible towards the RIPE NCC membership" look pretty clean cut to me. Remember, one cannot really serve two masters. One must choose one to avoid agency issues. Kaj ________________________________ From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com> Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 15:27 To: Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net>; members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [comms-circle] Re: Re: Re: [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals You don't often get email from michele@blacknight.com. Learn why this is important<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification> Kaj The RIPE NCC Executive Board’s role is fairly well explained on the RIPE site: https://www.ripe.net/about-us/executive-board/ They *represent* the members, but they are *responsible* to/for the organisation Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 I have sent this email at a time that is convenient for me. I do not expect you to respond to it outside of your usual working hours.
From IANA documents signed and agreed from RIPE:
------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) Neutrality and impartiality in relation to all interested parties, and particularly the LIRs All organisations that receive service from the new RIR must be treated equally. The policies and guidelines proposed and implemented by the RIR need to ensure fair distribution of resources, and impartial treatment of the members/requestors. The new RIR should be established as an independent, not-for-profit and open membership association. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- As some of you mentioned bigger part of the members are "happy" with the current charging scheme. Also seems we can not agree for charging scheme based on resources the member hold. Then logicaly we have an other option: Let then RIPE do same with the resources ! Allocate absolutely equal number of resources to each of the LIR members ! Because there is shortage for IPV4, deallocate them from members who hold more ! For IPV6 just release new networks for simplification. For 32 bit ASNs give the current holders 1 year to free them, and then redistribute again equal number to each LIR. To avoid disruption of the internet work, during the deallocation/allocation keep the IRR and ROA object same. And then separate we LIRs will make each to each contracts. Ivaylo Josifov VarnaIX / Varteh LTD +359 52 969393 Varna, Bulgaria On Fri, 12 Apr 2024, Fergal Cunningham wrote:
Dear Sebastien,
The charging scheme is adopted by the General Meeting upon proposal of the Executive Board. The Executive Board proposes a charging scheme and is responsible for the adoption of the budget and the activity plan of the organisation, so it is their responsibility to propose a charging scheme to collect the budget for the execution of this activity plan.
For the execution of the activity plan of 2025 the board proposed multiple options for covering the estimated budget. Contrary to other years, this time the current charging scheme cannot cover the necessary expenses. It would be damaging for the organisation to propose a resolution that would result in maintaining the current charging scheme and thus a much smaller income. The board has no obligation to put forward a resolution that may result in maintaining the current charging scheme. It does have an obligation to put forward resolutions for the benefit of the organisation.
So in short, the proposal would be completely valid.
All the best,
Fergal
On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 12:09?PM Sebastien Brossier <sebastien@brossier.org> wrote: On 12/04/2024 10:56, Gert Doering wrote: > On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 09:59:37AM +0200, Sebastien Brossier wrote: >> Correct, but the question is: is it ok for the option to reject the proposed >> resolution to be missing ? > > This option would take away the necessary resources for the NCC to do > what they presented at the autumn AGM.? So, yes, this would be a very > poor choice. > > The question is not "if" this is the budget, the question is "how can > the costs for this budget be distributed?".? So "no!" can not be a valid > choice for that question.
Hi,
I agree that a rejection is not desirable and would put the NCC in a difficult situation. All voting options should result in the same budget.
I'm not asking if it is desirable, but if it is *legal* to remove the choice to reject a proposal. I think it is better to ask the question now, rather than take the risk of seeing someone challenge the vote result later.
Regards, Sebastien Brossier
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe:https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ripencc-management%4 0ripe.net
Agree! If member fee is same - then resources also must be same. On 12.04.2024 14:02, ivaylo wrote:
From IANA documents signed and agreed from RIPE:
------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) Neutrality and impartiality in relation to all interested parties, and particularly the LIRs
All organisations that receive service from the new RIR must be treated equally. The policies and guidelines proposed and implemented by the RIR need to ensure fair distribution of resources, and impartial treatment of the members/requestors.
The new RIR should be established as an independent, not-for-profit and open membership association. --------------------------------------------------------------------------
As some of you mentioned bigger part of the members are "happy" with the current charging scheme. Also seems we can not agree for charging scheme based on resources the member hold. Then logicaly we have an other option:
Let then RIPE do same with the resources ! Allocate absolutely equal number of resources to each of the LIR members ! Because there is shortage for IPV4, deallocate them from members who hold more ! For IPV6 just release new networks for simplification. For 32 bit ASNs give the current holders 1 year to free them, and then redistribute again equal number to each LIR.
To avoid disruption of the internet work, during the deallocation/allocation keep the IRR and ROA object same. And then separate we LIRs will make each to each contracts.
Ivaylo Josifov VarnaIX / Varteh LTD +359 52 969393 Varna, Bulgaria
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024, Fergal Cunningham wrote:
Dear Sebastien,
The charging scheme is adopted by the General Meeting upon proposal of the Executive Board. The Executive Board proposes a charging scheme and is responsible for the adoption of the budget and the activity plan of the organisation, so it is their responsibility to propose a charging scheme to collect the budget for the execution of this activity plan.
For the execution of the activity plan of 2025 the board proposed multiple options for covering the estimated budget. Contrary to other years, this time the current charging scheme cannot cover the necessary expenses. It would be damaging for the organisation to propose a resolution that would result in maintaining the current charging scheme and thus a much smaller income. The board has no obligation to put forward a resolution that may result in maintaining the current charging scheme. It does have an obligation to put forward resolutions for the benefit of the organisation.
So in short, the proposal would be completely valid.
All the best,
Fergal
On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 12:09?PM Sebastien Brossier <sebastien@brossier.org> wrote: On 12/04/2024 10:56, Gert Doering wrote: > On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 09:59:37AM +0200, Sebastien Brossier wrote: >> Correct, but the question is: is it ok for the option to reject the proposed >> resolution to be missing ? > > This option would take away the necessary resources for the NCC to do > what they presented at the autumn AGM.? So, yes, this would be a very > poor choice. > > The question is not "if" this is the budget, the question is "how can > the costs for this budget be distributed?".? So "no!" can not be a valid > choice for that question.
Hi,
I agree that a rejection is not desirable and would put the NCC in a difficult situation. All voting options should result in the same budget.
I'm not asking if it is desirable, but if it is *legal* to remove the choice to reject a proposal. I think it is better to ask the question now, rather than take the risk of seeing someone challenge the vote result later.
Regards, Sebastien Brossier
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss
Unsubscribe:https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ripencc-management%4
0ripe.net
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/admin%40roskomnadzor....
Confidential/Конфіденційно Each LIR has an equal right to receive any unallocated resources. The problem is that you want to take away resources that someone else is using. Why another LIR should disconnect its clients for you and deprive them of access to the Internet is completely unclear. -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 6:01 PM To: ivaylo <ivaylo@bglans.net>; Fergal Cunningham <fergalc@ripe.net> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [comms-circle] Re: Re: Re: [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals Agree! If member fee is same - then resources also must be same. On 12.04.2024 14:02, ivaylo wrote:
From IANA documents signed and agreed from RIPE:
---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- 4) Neutrality and impartiality in relation to all interested parties, and particularly the LIRs
All organisations that receive service from the new RIR must be treated equally. The policies and guidelines proposed and implemented by the RIR need to ensure fair distribution of resources, and impartial treatment of the members/requestors.
The new RIR should be established as an independent, not-for-profit and open membership association. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----
As some of you mentioned bigger part of the members are "happy" with the current charging scheme. Also seems we can not agree for charging scheme based on resources the member hold. Then logicaly we have an other option:
Let then RIPE do same with the resources ! Allocate absolutely equal number of resources to each of the LIR members ! Because there is shortage for IPV4, deallocate them from members who hold more ! For IPV6 just release new networks for simplification. For 32 bit ASNs give the current holders 1 year to free them, and then redistribute again equal number to each LIR.
To avoid disruption of the internet work, during the deallocation/allocation keep the IRR and ROA object same. And then separate we LIRs will make each to each contracts.
Ivaylo Josifov VarnaIX / Varteh LTD +359 52 969393 Varna, Bulgaria
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024, Fergal Cunningham wrote:
Dear Sebastien,
The charging scheme is adopted by the General Meeting upon proposal of the Executive Board. The Executive Board proposes a charging scheme and is responsible for the adoption of the budget and the activity plan of the organisation, so it is their responsibility to propose a charging scheme to collect the budget for the execution of this activity plan.
For the execution of the activity plan of 2025 the board proposed multiple options for covering the estimated budget. Contrary to other years, this time the current charging scheme cannot cover the necessary expenses. It would be damaging for the organisation to propose a resolution that would result in maintaining the current charging scheme and thus a much smaller income. The board has no obligation to put forward a resolution that may result in maintaining the current charging scheme. It does have an obligation to put forward resolutions for the benefit of the organisation.
So in short, the proposal would be completely valid.
All the best,
Fergal
On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 12:09?PM Sebastien Brossier <sebastien@brossier.org> wrote: On 12/04/2024 10:56, Gert Doering wrote: > On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 09:59:37AM +0200, Sebastien Brossier wrote: >> Correct, but the question is: is it ok for the option to reject the proposed >> resolution to be missing ? > > This option would take away the necessary resources for the NCC to do > what they presented at the autumn AGM.? So, yes, this would be a very > poor choice. > > The question is not "if" this is the budget, the question is "how can > the costs for this budget be distributed?".? So "no!" can not be a valid > choice for that question.
Hi,
I agree that a rejection is not desirable and would put the NCC in a difficult situation. All voting options should result in the same budget.
I'm not asking if it is desirable, but if it is *legal* to remove the choice to reject a proposal. I think it is better to ask the question now, rather than take the risk of seeing someone challenge the vote result later.
Regards, Sebastien Brossier
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net
https://lis/ ts.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvg eniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Cf0a8de7a34784444617308dc5b020df9%7Cf8f 9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638485311585894231%7CUnknown% 7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJ XVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=LGjDpiVkpy%2Be22c%2F81aLPPur%2BAJzHTXL Kb84lJZitnQ%3D&reserved=0
Unsubscribe:http://https/ %3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fripen cc-management%25254&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C f0a8de7a34784444617308dc5b020df9%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7 C0%7C0%7C638485311585904363%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwM DAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata= AFoj0tjM9koRoJw0JVV6oeDGAZzvxUKqC6XuMsuBZqY%3D&reserved=0
0ripe.net
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvgen iy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Cf0a8de7a34784444617308dc5b020df9%7Cf8f9bd 573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638485311585910766%7CUnknown%7CTW FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6 Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=cGGZ6o56Z8bJvv41fZ3hSquUIhVjKBgm7MSqJQo2Uf8% 3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fadmin%2540roskomnad zor.io&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Cf0a8de7a347844 44617308dc5b020df9%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638485 311585916842%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luM zIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Sux6kJ%2Bv9dDxPPr iP8vovAbQibXR815mpwAS4e0e6Z8%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/evgeniy.brodskiy%40ky...
Most of land ISP (like a kyivstar) doesnt provide static public IP and in most situations provide NAT. My offering was being is proportional fee by resources. All LIR must pay in RIPE budget amount proportional of share of used resources. If RIPE doesnt want proportional - they why small LIR must pay same as large ISP? On 12.04.2024 15:49, Evgeniy Brodskiy wrote:
Confidential/Конфіденційно
Each LIR has an equal right to receive any unallocated resources. The problem is that you want to take away resources that someone else is using. Why another LIR should disconnect its clients for you and deprive them of access to the Internet is completely unclear.
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 6:01 PM To: ivaylo <ivaylo@bglans.net>; Fergal Cunningham <fergalc@ripe.net> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [comms-circle] Re: Re: Re: [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
Agree!
If member fee is same - then resources also must be same.
On 12.04.2024 14:02, ivaylo wrote:
From IANA documents signed and agreed from RIPE:
---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- 4) Neutrality and impartiality in relation to all interested parties, and particularly the LIRs
All organisations that receive service from the new RIR must be treated equally. The policies and guidelines proposed and implemented by the RIR need to ensure fair distribution of resources, and impartial treatment of the members/requestors.
The new RIR should be established as an independent, not-for-profit and open membership association. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----
As some of you mentioned bigger part of the members are "happy" with the current charging scheme. Also seems we can not agree for charging scheme based on resources the member hold. Then logicaly we have an other option:
Let then RIPE do same with the resources ! Allocate absolutely equal number of resources to each of the LIR members ! Because there is shortage for IPV4, deallocate them from members who hold more ! For IPV6 just release new networks for simplification. For 32 bit ASNs give the current holders 1 year to free them, and then redistribute again equal number to each LIR.
To avoid disruption of the internet work, during the deallocation/allocation keep the IRR and ROA object same. And then separate we LIRs will make each to each contracts.
Ivaylo Josifov VarnaIX / Varteh LTD +359 52 969393 Varna, Bulgaria
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024, Fergal Cunningham wrote:
Dear Sebastien,
The charging scheme is adopted by the General Meeting upon proposal of the Executive Board. The Executive Board proposes a charging scheme and is responsible for the adoption of the budget and the activity plan of the organisation, so it is their responsibility to propose a charging scheme to collect the budget for the execution of this activity plan.
For the execution of the activity plan of 2025 the board proposed multiple options for covering the estimated budget. Contrary to other years, this time the current charging scheme cannot cover the necessary expenses. It would be damaging for the organisation to propose a resolution that would result in maintaining the current charging scheme and thus a much smaller income. The board has no obligation to put forward a resolution that may result in maintaining the current charging scheme. It does have an obligation to put forward resolutions for the benefit of the organisation.
So in short, the proposal would be completely valid.
All the best,
Fergal
On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 12:09?PM Sebastien Brossier <sebastien@brossier.org> wrote: On 12/04/2024 10:56, Gert Doering wrote: > On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 09:59:37AM +0200, Sebastien Brossier wrote: >> Correct, but the question is: is it ok for the option to reject the proposed >> resolution to be missing ? > > This option would take away the necessary resources for the NCC to do > what they presented at the autumn AGM.? So, yes, this would be a very > poor choice. > > The question is not "if" this is the budget, the question is "how can > the costs for this budget be distributed?".? So "no!" can not be a valid > choice for that question.
Hi,
I agree that a rejection is not desirable and would put the NCC in a difficult situation. All voting options should result in the same budget.
I'm not asking if it is desirable, but if it is *legal* to remove the choice to reject a proposal. I think it is better to ask the question now, rather than take the risk of seeing someone challenge the vote result later.
Regards, Sebastien Brossier
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net
https://lis/ ts.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvg eniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Cf0a8de7a34784444617308dc5b020df9%7Cf8f 9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638485311585894231%7CUnknown% 7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJ XVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=LGjDpiVkpy%2Be22c%2F81aLPPur%2BAJzHTXL Kb84lJZitnQ%3D&reserved=0
Unsubscribe:http://https/ %3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fripen cc-management%25254&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C f0a8de7a34784444617308dc5b020df9%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7 C0%7C0%7C638485311585904363%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwM DAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata= AFoj0tjM9koRoJw0JVV6oeDGAZzvxUKqC6XuMsuBZqY%3D&reserved=0
0ripe.net
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvgen iy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Cf0a8de7a34784444617308dc5b020df9%7Cf8f9bd 573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638485311585910766%7CUnknown%7CTW FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6 Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=cGGZ6o56Z8bJvv41fZ3hSquUIhVjKBgm7MSqJQo2Uf8% 3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fadmin%2540roskomnad zor.io&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Cf0a8de7a347844 44617308dc5b020df9%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638485 311585916842%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luM zIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Sux6kJ%2Bv9dDxPPr iP8vovAbQibXR815mpwAS4e0e6Z8%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/evgeniy.brodskiy%40ky...
No one LIR uses RIPE staff time in proportion to resource allocation. So it is quite strange that payment should be in proportion to resource allocation. Payment should be equivalent to the RIPE time and effort spent on some LIR. Some RIPE services like RIPE DB can be split by counting objects, other need to be optional. In worst case we can go with category model like ARIN and LACNIC. -----Original Message----- From: ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED <admin@roskomnadzor.io> Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 6:54 PM To: Evgeniy Brodskiy <Evgeniy.Brodskiy@kyivstar.net> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [comms-circle] Re: Re: Re: [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals Most of land ISP (like a kyivstar) doesnt provide static public IP and in most situations provide NAT. My offering was being is proportional fee by resources. All LIR must pay in RIPE budget amount proportional of share of used resources. If RIPE doesnt want proportional - they why small LIR must pay same as large ISP? On 12.04.2024 15:49, Evgeniy Brodskiy wrote:
Confidential/Конфіденційно
Each LIR has an equal right to receive any unallocated resources. The problem is that you want to take away resources that someone else is using. Why another LIR should disconnect its clients for you and deprive them of access to the Internet is completely unclear.
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 6:01 PM To: ivaylo <ivaylo@bglans.net>; Fergal Cunningham <fergalc@ripe.net> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [comms-circle] Re: Re: Re: [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
Agree!
If member fee is same - then resources also must be same.
On 12.04.2024 14:02, ivaylo wrote:
From IANA documents signed and agreed from RIPE:
--------------------------------------------------------------------- - --- 4) Neutrality and impartiality in relation to all interested parties, and particularly the LIRs
All organisations that receive service from the new RIR must be treated equally. The policies and guidelines proposed and implemented by the RIR need to ensure fair distribution of resources, and impartial treatment of the members/requestors.
The new RIR should be established as an independent, not-for-profit and open membership association. --------------------------------------------------------------------- - ----
As some of you mentioned bigger part of the members are "happy" with the current charging scheme. Also seems we can not agree for charging scheme based on resources the member hold. Then logicaly we have an other option:
Let then RIPE do same with the resources ! Allocate absolutely equal number of resources to each of the LIR members ! Because there is shortage for IPV4, deallocate them from members who hold more ! For IPV6 just release new networks for simplification. For 32 bit ASNs give the current holders 1 year to free them, and then redistribute again equal number to each LIR.
To avoid disruption of the internet work, during the deallocation/allocation keep the IRR and ROA object same. And then separate we LIRs will make each to each contracts.
Ivaylo Josifov VarnaIX / Varteh LTD +359 52 969393 Varna, Bulgaria
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024, Fergal Cunningham wrote:
Dear Sebastien,
The charging scheme is adopted by the General Meeting upon proposal of the Executive Board. The Executive Board proposes a charging scheme and is responsible for the adoption of the budget and the activity plan of the organisation, so it is their responsibility to propose a charging scheme to collect the budget for the execution of this activity plan.
For the execution of the activity plan of 2025 the board proposed multiple options for covering the estimated budget. Contrary to other years, this time the current charging scheme cannot cover the necessary expenses. It would be damaging for the organisation to propose a resolution that would result in maintaining the current charging scheme and thus a much smaller income. The board has no obligation to put forward a resolution that may result in maintaining the current charging scheme. It does have an obligation to put forward resolutions for the benefit of the organisation.
So in short, the proposal would be completely valid.
All the best,
Fergal
On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 12:09?PM Sebastien Brossier <sebastien@brossier.org> wrote: On 12/04/2024 10:56, Gert Doering wrote: > On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 09:59:37AM +0200, Sebastien Brossier wrote: >> Correct, but the question is: is it ok for the option to reject the proposed >> resolution to be missing ? > > This option would take away the necessary resources for the NCC to do > what they presented at the autumn AGM.? So, yes, this would be a very > poor choice. > > The question is not "if" this is the budget, the question is "how can > the costs for this budget be distributed?".? So "no!" can not be a valid > choice for that question.
Hi,
I agree that a rejection is not desirable and would put the NCC in a difficult situation. All voting options should result in the same budget.
I'm not asking if it is desirable, but if it is *legal* to remove the choice to reject a proposal. I think it is better to ask the question now, rather than take the risk of seeing someone challenge the vote result later.
Regards, Sebastien Brossier
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net
https://lis/ ts.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEv g eniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Cf0a8de7a34784444617308dc5b020df9%7Cf8 f 9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638485311585894231%7CUnknown % 7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLC J XVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=LGjDpiVkpy%2Be22c%2F81aLPPur%2BAJzHTX L Kb84lJZitnQ%3D&reserved=0
Unsubscribe:http://https/ %3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fripe n cc-management%25254&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7 C f0a8de7a34784444617308dc5b020df9%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986% 7 C0%7C0%7C638485311585904363%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAw M DAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata = AFoj0tjM9koRoJw0JVV6oeDGAZzvxUKqC6XuMsuBZqY%3D&reserved=0
0ripe.net
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvge n iy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Cf0a8de7a34784444617308dc5b020df9%7Cf8f9b d 573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638485311585910766%7CUnknown%7CT W FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI 6 Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=cGGZ6o56Z8bJvv41fZ3hSquUIhVjKBgm7MSqJQo2Uf8 % 3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fadmin%2540roskomna d zor.io&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Cf0a8de7a34784 4 44617308dc5b020df9%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C63848 5 311585916842%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2lu M zIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Sux6kJ%2Bv9dDxPP r iP8vovAbQibXR815mpwAS4e0e6Z8%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvgen iy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C5165f4aa682f40d5d78308dc5b08d475%7Cf8f9bd 573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638485340692900870%7CUnknown%7CTW FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6 Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=BHrHci2Z0CcrPa%2FTpVjKd9XT56CEnvZQfFjv4jPbg0 U%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fevgeniy.brodskiy%25 40kyivstar.net&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C5165f4 aa682f40d5d78308dc5b08d475%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0% 7C638485340692910358%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQI joiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=1bfRjazZ4 5wCRNV%2BcYM2RMNhTnnpxp%2BVYlAttlnrgHA%3D&reserved=0
Flat equal fee for all members = Flat equal resource for all members And that is duty of RIPE to ensure fair resource spread (In case of accepting options A,B,C in the proposed charging schemes, FAIR = EQUAL), no matter of any one member (LIR) request/wish. If we go with flat fee I/We (hope many of the other members too) will insist RIPE to do their RIR obligations. The LIRs wich holds resources more than the limit of equal spreading, will have time to the 01.01.2025 to mark which of their resources are critical and to keep them for sure, if they do not inform RIPE in time, their most deagregated blocks to be transfered (preventing future deaggregation). The criteria of selecting donor and receiving LIRs _should_ be 1. Same country 2. Same region (two neighbor countries) 3. Wilder area but as much as close geographicaly one to other. Because IRR and ROA records will be keep unchanged, the only IPV4 block[s] will be transfered from one LIR account to another and change in "mnt-by" attribute, internet connectivity of the donor LIR will not be disrupted. The two involved LIRs then can get in touch and make agreement/contract as they like. Because the equal resource spreading princip, receiving LIR can give to donating LIR the resources for temporary use (for rent or not - LIRs agreement), or up to a moment where one or two of the LIRs terminate the contract with RIPE NCC. Of course if a company who wish to be 100% sure will safe its current resources, can open X new LIR account, pay sign up fee, and the Flat anual fee to cover RIPE NCC budget needs. And to transfer needed resources from its current LIR to the new one, without exceeded the current limits of equal resource spreading.
especially as the NCC would need to reshuffle each time a new LIR opens or an old one closes.
That is problem of RIPE staffs, or RIPE can hold in the pool resrouces for 100 new requests for membership. And every 3/6 months ASK all LIRs to free apropriate resource for the new members (If the pool is empty)
As there's basically no use case anymore to *need* a *16* bit ASN, and the distinction was already removed by the NCC, what's the purpose here? Furthermore, what's the reason to force people with a 32 bit ASN to switch to a redistributed 16 bit one besides just causing a lot of work? Especially if this would hit an IXP ...
My mistake I meant *16* bit ASNs, We must do it equal to all on 100%. with 21570 LIRs and 25029 ASN delegated to RIPE from IANA, we will be fine, each member can hold 1 x 16bit ASN , Also there is enough for the IXPs I hope. Finally If you dont like such fair/equal scenario (RIPE NCC will be obliged to apply it with flat equal fee for all LIRs = flat equal resource spread to all LIRs), forget your momentary personal interests and "happiness", and lets we all constructively work out and reach a consnsus and _VOTE_ to use a fair and long term sustainable fee scheme for at least the next 10 years wich will cover the RIPE NCC budget and guarantee predictable and stable bussiness climate to ALL ! Ivaylo Josifov VarnaIX / Varteh LTD +359 52 969393 Varna, Bulgaria
-----Original Message----- Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [comms-circle] Re: Re: Re: [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
On 12.04.2024 14:02, ivaylo wrote:
From IANA documents signed and agreed from RIPE:
---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- 4) Neutrality and impartiality in relation to all interested parties, and particularly the LIRs
All organisations that receive service from the new RIR must be treated equally. The policies and guidelines proposed and implemented by the RIR need to ensure fair distribution of resources, and impartial treatment of the members/requestors.
The new RIR should be established as an independent, not-for-profit and open membership association. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----
As some of you mentioned bigger part of the members are "happy" with the current charging scheme. Also seems we can not agree for charging scheme based on resources the member hold. Then logicaly we have an other option:
Let then RIPE do same with the resources ! Allocate absolutely equal number of resources to each of the LIR members ! Because there is shortage for IPV4, deallocate them from members who hold more ! For IPV6 just release new networks for simplification. For 32 bit ASNs give the current holders 1 year to free them, and then redistribute again equal number to each LIR.
To avoid disruption of the internet work, during the deallocation/allocation keep the IRR and ROA object same. And then separate we LIRs will make each to each contracts.
Ivaylo Josifov VarnaIX / Varteh LTD +359 52 969393 Varna, Bulgaria
Moin, am 12.04.24 um 20:17 schrieb ivaylo:
Flat equal fee for all members = Flat equal resource for all members
Says who?
Because IRR and ROA records will be keep unchanged,
How/why that?
We must do it equal to all on 100%. with 21570 LIRs and 25029 ASN delegated to RIPE from IANA, we will be fine, each member can hold 1 x 16bit ASN , Also there is enough for the IXPs I hope.
There are 21570 16 bit ASNs delegated to the NCC?
Finally If you dont like such fair/equal scenario (RIPE NCC will be obliged to apply it with flat equal fee for all LIRs = flat equal resource spread to all LIRs),
First of all, I see no legal reason for your claim, the NCC would have to distribute the it's available resources equally among its members. Other RIRs don't either, and it makes no sense to e. g. force an /16 v4 on us if we're happy with an /22. Needs-based distribution, the current modus operandi, does make much more sense.
a fair and long term sustainable fee scheme for at least the next 10 years wich will cover the RIPE NCC budget and guarantee predictable and stable bussiness climate to ALL !
I voiced for a simple resource based fee scheme – bill any /24 equivalent, any /48 equivalent, and any ASN that is managed by RIPE NCC to the holding LIR – in 2023. And I still don't think the RIPE NCC should continue all current activities unchanged. Having looked at the schemes of other RIRs, maybe some inverse exponential function makes more sense than simply count an /8 equivalent as 65536 times /24. But I'd still prefer a straight formula instead of categories. And a member's vote on any and all activity starting with FY 2025. Regards, -kai -- Kai Siering Senior System Engineer mail.de GmbH Münsterstraße 3 D-33330 Gütersloh Tel.: +49 (0) 5241 / 74 34 986 Fax: +49 (0) 5241 / 74 34 987 E-Mail: k.siering@team.mail.de Web: https://mail.de/ Geschäftsführender Gesellschafter: Fabian Bock Sitz der Gesellschaft Nordhastedt Handelsregister Pinneberg HRB 8007 PI Steuernummer 18 293 20020
Hello.
On 12 Apr 2024, at 23:58, Kai Siering via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> wrote:
Moin,
am 12.04.24 um 20:17 schrieb ivaylo:
Flat equal fee for all members = Flat equal resource for all members
Says who?
Because IRR and ROA records will be keep unchanged,
How/why that?
We must do it equal to all on 100%. with 21570 LIRs and 25029 ASN delegated to RIPE from IANA, we will be fine, each member can hold 1 x 16bit ASN , Also there is enough for the IXPs I hope.
There are 21570 16 bit ASNs delegated to the NCC?
Finally If you dont like such fair/equal scenario (RIPE NCC will be obliged to apply it with flat equal fee for all LIRs = flat equal resource spread to all LIRs),
First of all, I see no legal reason for your claim, the NCC would have to distribute the it's available resources equally among its members. Other RIRs don't either, and it makes no sense to e. g. force an /16 v4 on us if we're happy with an /22. Needs-based distribution, the current modus operandi, does make much more sense.
a fair and long term sustainable fee scheme for at least the next 10 years wich will cover the RIPE NCC budget and guarantee predictable and stable bussiness climate to ALL !
I voiced for a simple resource based fee scheme – bill any /24 equivalent, any /48 equivalent, and any ASN that is managed by RIPE NCC to the holding LIR – in 2023. And I still don't think the RIPE NCC should continue all current activities unchanged.
Correction 1: you can not base fee on IPv6 /48. Every LIR now is free to get (and gets) /29, which is equivalent of 524000 /48 subnets. Making them with cost will create absolutely unnessary motivation to replan and shrink IPv6 allocations and return some of them. Unlike with v4 this is not needed to anyone.
Having looked at the schemes of other RIRs, maybe some inverse exponential function makes more sense than simply count an /8 equivalent as 65536 times /24. But I'd still prefer a straight formula instead of categories. And a member's vote on any and all activity starting with FY 2025.
Any exponential or ”levels” based fee distribution will only create more motivation into cheating, splitting or consolidating multiple LIRs or other complex “schemes”, what was actively done in the past, mostly for the purpose of /24 waiting list. Flat IPv4 /32 fee avoids any need for this - makes everything clean, simple and fair.
Regards, -kai
-- Kai Siering Senior System Engineer
mail.de GmbH Münsterstraße 3 D-33330 Gütersloh
Tel.: +49 (0) 5241 / 74 34 986 Fax: +49 (0) 5241 / 74 34 987 E-Mail: k.siering@team.mail.de Web: https://mail.de/
Geschäftsführender Gesellschafter: Fabian Bock
Sitz der Gesellschaft Nordhastedt Handelsregister Pinneberg HRB 8007 PI Steuernummer 18 293 20020
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/mihail%40fedorov.net
Hello Kai
Flat equal fee for all members = Flat equal resource for all members
Says who?
From IANA documents signed and agreed from RIPE:
4) Neutrality and impartiality in relation to all interested parties, and particularly the LIRs All organisations that receive service from the new RIR must be treated equally. The policies and guidelines proposed and implemented by the RIR need to ensure fair distribution of resources, and impartial treatment of the members/requestors. The new RIR should be established as an independent, not-for-profit and open membership association. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- This pont 4. is a constitution about the RIRs. In the light of equal membership fees and equal rights leads to equal (fair) resource distribution to _ALL_ members/requestors no matter their wish or interests ! All RIPE policies and guidelines contrary to this point 4 implemented during the years can be treated as invalid. I am prety sure the RIPE NCC board are inteligent, respectable , with high sense of responsibility people and will agree with me. They offer flat charging scheme because we (members) want such, so we go with it and with all consequences wich it will lead. If we (members) agree on something else they (The NCC board) will offer it to vote, and if is accepted we go with it and with all its consequences again.
Because IRR and ROA records will be keep unchanged,
How/why that?
How: Automatic, IRR+ROA of the moved block will not be keep same. Login in your LIR panel account and search the functions you have. Why: To prevent disruption in the work of the donor LIR until/if agreement between 2 LIRs is reached. Even in the first 3 months after the redistribution, delete/change of these object should be disabled, after that period the Receiving LIR have rights to modify the objects.
We must do it equal to all on 100%. with 21570 LIRs and 25029 ASN delegated to RIPE from IANA, we will be fine, each member can hold 1 x 16bit ASN , Also there is enough for the IXPs I hope.
There are 21570 16 bit ASNs delegated to the NCC?
No ! Delegated 16 bit ASNs to RIPE NCC are 25029 source: https://www.iana.org/assignments/as-numbers/as-numbers.xhtml
I voiced for a simple resource based fee scheme ? bill any /24 equivalent, any /48 equivalent, and any ASN that is managed by RIPE NCC to the holding LIR ? in 2023. And I still don't think the RIPE NCC should continue all current activities unchanged.
I Partitialy agree. /48 IPV6 do not match /24 IPV4 equivalent in many cases (access operators), There are no exact equivalent, but more close, comfort to work and scalable network logic with current technical documents and solutions is /32 IPV6 to /24 IPV4 (if you need deeper technical explain write me outside of the mail list). I agree the charging scheme base on /24 IPV4 block, but to prevent GRT (Global Routing Table) prefixes increase and big deagregation, better is on /22 to /18 IPV4 blocks. The results will be same in case of flat ladder up scheme (most fair to all). If we go exponential decreasing up, then we should choise smaller block size as a base. Again from the IANA documents: https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xhtml To RIPE NCC are allocated 35 x /8 IPV4 BLOCKs and 7 x /8 legacy . Some of this space is transfered outside of RIPE / returned to IANA, but to know exact numbers must do querries (2752512) for each /24 or somebody of the RIPE staff to give exact number. When we have this information and with target budget of 42M (I prefer the budget to be 60M-65M, with standart method of over colleted redistribution for the next year. Also we can push for budget reduction and to vote wich projects to support and wich not) we will be able to do much more precise calculations. Ivaylo Josifov VarnaIX / Varteh LTD +359 52 969393 Varna, Bulgaria On Fri, 12 Apr 2024, Kai Siering via members-discuss wrote:
Moin,
am 12.04.24 um 20:17 schrieb ivaylo:
Flat equal fee for all members = Flat equal resource for all members
Says who?
Because IRR and ROA records will be keep unchanged,
How/why that?
We must do it equal to all on 100%. with 21570 LIRs and 25029 ASN delegated to RIPE from IANA, we will be fine, each member can hold 1 x 16bit ASN , Also there is enough for the IXPs I hope.
There are 21570 16 bit ASNs delegated to the NCC?
Finally If you dont like such fair/equal scenario (RIPE NCC will be obliged to apply it with flat equal fee for all LIRs = flat equal resource spread to all LIRs),
First of all, I see no legal reason for your claim, the NCC would have to distribute the it's available resources equally among its members. Other RIRs don't either, and it makes no sense to e. g. force an /16 v4 on us if we're happy with an /22. Needs-based distribution, the current modus operandi, does make much more sense.
a fair and long term sustainable fee scheme for at least the next 10 years wich will cover the RIPE NCC budget and guarantee predictable and stable bussiness climate to ALL !
I voiced for a simple resource based fee scheme ? bill any /24 equivalent, any /48 equivalent, and any ASN that is managed by RIPE NCC to the holding LIR ? in 2023. And I still don't think the RIPE NCC should continue all current activities unchanged.
Having looked at the schemes of other RIRs, maybe some inverse exponential function makes more sense than simply count an /8 equivalent as 65536 times /24. But I'd still prefer a straight formula instead of categories. And a member's vote on any and all activity starting with FY 2025.
Regards, -kai
-- Kai Siering Senior System Engineer
mail.de GmbH M?nsterstra?e 3 D-33330 G?tersloh
Tel.: +49 (0) 5241 / 74 34 986 Fax: +49 (0) 5241 / 74 34 987 E-Mail: k.siering@team.mail.de Web: https://mail.de/
Gesch?ftsf?hrender Gesellschafter: Fabian Bock
Sitz der Gesellschaft Nordhastedt Handelsregister Pinneberg HRB 8007 PI Steuernummer 18 293 20020
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ivaylo%40bglans.net
And training credits to be given in a form redeemable for cash if not used .... On Sat, 13 Apr 2024, 12:23 ivaylo, <ivaylo@bglans.net> wrote:
Hello Kai
Flat equal fee for all members = Flat equal resource for all members
Says who?
From IANA documents signed and agreed from RIPE: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) Neutrality and impartiality in relation to all interested parties, and particularly the LIRs
All organisations that receive service from the new RIR must be treated equally. The policies and guidelines proposed and implemented by the RIR need to ensure fair distribution of resources, and impartial treatment of the members/requestors.
The new RIR should be established as an independent, not-for-profit and open membership association. --------------------------------------------------------------------------
This pont 4. is a constitution about the RIRs. In the light of equal membership fees and equal rights leads to equal (fair) resource distribution to _ALL_ members/requestors no matter their wish or interests ! All RIPE policies and guidelines contrary to this point 4 implemented during the years can be treated as invalid. I am prety sure the RIPE NCC board are inteligent, respectable , with high sense of responsibility people and will agree with me. They offer flat charging scheme because we (members) want such, so we go with it and with all consequences wich it will lead. If we (members) agree on something else they (The NCC board) will offer it to vote, and if is accepted we go with it and with all its consequences again.
Because IRR and ROA records will be keep unchanged,
How/why that?
How: Automatic, IRR+ROA of the moved block will not be keep same. Login in your LIR panel account and search the functions you have. Why: To prevent disruption in the work of the donor LIR until/if agreement between 2 LIRs is reached. Even in the first 3 months after the redistribution, delete/change of these object should be disabled, after that period the Receiving LIR have rights to modify the objects.
We must do it equal to all on 100%. with 21570 LIRs and 25029 ASN delegated to RIPE from IANA, we will be fine, each member can hold 1 x 16bit ASN , Also there is enough for the IXPs I hope.
There are 21570 16 bit ASNs delegated to the NCC?
No ! Delegated 16 bit ASNs to RIPE NCC are 25029 source: https://www.iana.org/assignments/as-numbers/as-numbers.xhtml
I voiced for a simple resource based fee scheme ? bill any /24 equivalent, any /48 equivalent, and any ASN that is managed by RIPE NCC to the holding LIR ? in 2023. And I still don't think the RIPE NCC should continue all current activities unchanged.
I Partitialy agree. /48 IPV6 do not match /24 IPV4 equivalent in many cases (access operators), There are no exact equivalent, but more close, comfort to work and scalable network logic with current technical documents and solutions is /32 IPV6 to /24 IPV4 (if you need deeper technical explain write me outside of the mail list).
I agree the charging scheme base on /24 IPV4 block, but to prevent GRT (Global Routing Table) prefixes increase and big deagregation, better is on /22 to /18 IPV4 blocks. The results will be same in case of flat ladder up scheme (most fair to all). If we go exponential decreasing up, then we should choise smaller block size as a base.
Again from the IANA documents:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xhtml
To RIPE NCC are allocated 35 x /8 IPV4 BLOCKs and 7 x /8 legacy . Some of this space is transfered outside of RIPE / returned to IANA, but to know exact numbers must do querries (2752512) for each /24 or somebody of the RIPE staff to give exact number. When we have this information and with target budget of 42M (I prefer the budget to be 60M-65M, with standart method of over colleted redistribution for the next year. Also we can push for budget reduction and to vote wich projects to support and wich not) we will be able to do much more precise calculations.
Ivaylo Josifov VarnaIX / Varteh LTD +359 52 969393 Varna, Bulgaria
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024, Kai Siering via members-discuss wrote:
Moin,
am 12.04.24 um 20:17 schrieb ivaylo:
Flat equal fee for all members = Flat equal resource for all members
Says who?
Because IRR and ROA records will be keep unchanged,
How/why that?
We must do it equal to all on 100%. with 21570 LIRs and 25029 ASN delegated to RIPE from IANA, we will be fine, each member can hold 1 x 16bit ASN , Also there is enough for the IXPs I hope.
There are 21570 16 bit ASNs delegated to the NCC?
Finally If you dont like such fair/equal scenario (RIPE NCC will be obliged to apply it with flat equal fee for all LIRs = flat equal resource spread to all LIRs),
First of all, I see no legal reason for your claim, the NCC would have to distribute the it's available resources equally among its members. Other RIRs don't either, and it makes no sense to e. g. force an /16 v4 on us if we're happy with an /22. Needs-based distribution, the current modus operandi, does make much more sense.
a fair and long term sustainable fee scheme for at least the next 10 years wich will cover the RIPE NCC budget and guarantee predictable and stable bussiness climate to ALL !
I voiced for a simple resource based fee scheme ? bill any /24 equivalent, any /48 equivalent, and any ASN that is managed by RIPE NCC to the holding LIR ? in 2023. And I still don't think the RIPE NCC should continue all current activities unchanged.
Having looked at the schemes of other RIRs, maybe some inverse exponential function makes more sense than simply count an /8 equivalent as 65536 times /24. But I'd still prefer a straight formula instead of categories. And a member's vote on any and all activity starting with FY 2025.
Regards, -kai
-- Kai Siering Senior System Engineer
mail.de GmbH M?nsterstra?e 3 D-33330 G?tersloh
Tel.: +49 (0) 5241 / 74 34 986 Fax: +49 (0) 5241 / 74 34 987 E-Mail: k.siering@team.mail.de Web: https://mail.de/
Gesch?ftsf?hrender Gesellschafter: Fabian Bock
Sitz der Gesellschaft Nordhastedt Handelsregister Pinneberg HRB 8007 PI Steuernummer 18 293 20020
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe:
https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ivaylo%40bglans.net
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/paul.newton%40f4rn.or...
Hello, Please can you tell me how this company and alot of others. https://bgp.tools/rir-owner/uk.btent https://bgp.tools/rir-owner/uk.btgia Pays the same as me please show me how ripe is equal or fair please do something and add a fee per ipv4 and ipv6 it's not hard to make it fair. Thanks Sent from Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg> ________________________________ From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Paul Newton <paul.newton@f4rn.org.uk> Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2024 1:26:20 PM To: ivaylo <ivaylo@bglans.net> Cc: <members-discuss@ripe.net> <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals And training credits to be given in a form redeemable for cash if not used .... On Sat, 13 Apr 2024, 12:23 ivaylo, <ivaylo@bglans.net<mailto:ivaylo@bglans.net>> wrote: Hello Kai
Flat equal fee for all members = Flat equal resource for all members
Says who?
From IANA documents signed and agreed from RIPE:
4) Neutrality and impartiality in relation to all interested parties, and particularly the LIRs All organisations that receive service from the new RIR must be treated equally. The policies and guidelines proposed and implemented by the RIR need to ensure fair distribution of resources, and impartial treatment of the members/requestors. The new RIR should be established as an independent, not-for-profit and open membership association. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- This pont 4. is a constitution about the RIRs. In the light of equal membership fees and equal rights leads to equal (fair) resource distribution to _ALL_ members/requestors no matter their wish or interests ! All RIPE policies and guidelines contrary to this point 4 implemented during the years can be treated as invalid. I am prety sure the RIPE NCC board are inteligent, respectable , with high sense of responsibility people and will agree with me. They offer flat charging scheme because we (members) want such, so we go with it and with all consequences wich it will lead. If we (members) agree on something else they (The NCC board) will offer it to vote, and if is accepted we go with it and with all its consequences again.
Because IRR and ROA records will be keep unchanged,
How/why that?
How: Automatic, IRR+ROA of the moved block will not be keep same. Login in your LIR panel account and search the functions you have. Why: To prevent disruption in the work of the donor LIR until/if agreement between 2 LIRs is reached. Even in the first 3 months after the redistribution, delete/change of these object should be disabled, after that period the Receiving LIR have rights to modify the objects.
We must do it equal to all on 100%. with 21570 LIRs and 25029 ASN delegated to RIPE from IANA, we will be fine, each member can hold 1 x 16bit ASN , Also there is enough for the IXPs I hope.
There are 21570 16 bit ASNs delegated to the NCC?
No ! Delegated 16 bit ASNs to RIPE NCC are 25029 source: https://www.iana.org/assignments/as-numbers/as-numbers.xhtml
I voiced for a simple resource based fee scheme ? bill any /24 equivalent, any /48 equivalent, and any ASN that is managed by RIPE NCC to the holding LIR ? in 2023. And I still don't think the RIPE NCC should continue all current activities unchanged.
I Partitialy agree. /48 IPV6 do not match /24 IPV4 equivalent in many cases (access operators), There are no exact equivalent, but more close, comfort to work and scalable network logic with current technical documents and solutions is /32 IPV6 to /24 IPV4 (if you need deeper technical explain write me outside of the mail list). I agree the charging scheme base on /24 IPV4 block, but to prevent GRT (Global Routing Table) prefixes increase and big deagregation, better is on /22 to /18 IPV4 blocks. The results will be same in case of flat ladder up scheme (most fair to all). If we go exponential decreasing up, then we should choise smaller block size as a base. Again from the IANA documents: https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xhtml To RIPE NCC are allocated 35 x /8 IPV4 BLOCKs and 7 x /8 legacy . Some of this space is transfered outside of RIPE / returned to IANA, but to know exact numbers must do querries (2752512) for each /24 or somebody of the RIPE staff to give exact number. When we have this information and with target budget of 42M (I prefer the budget to be 60M-65M, with standart method of over colleted redistribution for the next year. Also we can push for budget reduction and to vote wich projects to support and wich not) we will be able to do much more precise calculations. Ivaylo Josifov VarnaIX / Varteh LTD +359 52 969393 Varna, Bulgaria On Fri, 12 Apr 2024, Kai Siering via members-discuss wrote:
Moin,
am 12.04.24 um 20:17 schrieb ivaylo:
Flat equal fee for all members = Flat equal resource for all members
Says who?
Because IRR and ROA records will be keep unchanged,
How/why that?
We must do it equal to all on 100%. with 21570 LIRs and 25029 ASN delegated to RIPE from IANA, we will be fine, each member can hold 1 x 16bit ASN , Also there is enough for the IXPs I hope.
There are 21570 16 bit ASNs delegated to the NCC?
Finally If you dont like such fair/equal scenario (RIPE NCC will be obliged to apply it with flat equal fee for all LIRs = flat equal resource spread to all LIRs),
First of all, I see no legal reason for your claim, the NCC would have to distribute the it's available resources equally among its members. Other RIRs don't either, and it makes no sense to e. g. force an /16 v4 on us if we're happy with an /22. Needs-based distribution, the current modus operandi, does make much more sense.
a fair and long term sustainable fee scheme for at least the next 10 years wich will cover the RIPE NCC budget and guarantee predictable and stable bussiness climate to ALL !
I voiced for a simple resource based fee scheme ? bill any /24 equivalent, any /48 equivalent, and any ASN that is managed by RIPE NCC to the holding LIR ? in 2023. And I still don't think the RIPE NCC should continue all current activities unchanged.
Having looked at the schemes of other RIRs, maybe some inverse exponential function makes more sense than simply count an /8 equivalent as 65536 times /24. But I'd still prefer a straight formula instead of categories. And a member's vote on any and all activity starting with FY 2025.
Regards, -kai
-- Kai Siering Senior System Engineer
mail.de<http://mail.de> GmbH M?nsterstra?e 3 D-33330 G?tersloh
Tel.: +49 (0) 5241 / 74 34 986 Fax: +49 (0) 5241 / 74 34 987 E-Mail: k.siering@team.mail.de<mailto:k.siering@team.mail.de> Web: https://mail.de/
Gesch?ftsf?hrender Gesellschafter: Fabian Bock
Sitz der Gesellschaft Nordhastedt Handelsregister Pinneberg HRB 8007 PI Steuernummer 18 293 20020
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ivaylo%40bglans.net
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/paul.newton%40f4rn.or...
On 13 Apr 2024, at 18:35, Blake Shepherd <blake66@live.co.uk> wrote:
Please can you tell me how this company and alot of others.
https://bgp.tools/rir-owner/uk.btent
https://bgp.tools/rir-owner/uk.btgia
Pays the same as me please show me how ripe is equal or fair please do something and add a fee per ipv4 and ipv6 it's not hard to make it fair.
Because RIPE is a MEMBERSHIP organisation. It’s not a commercial company selling something. If I’m asked to pay more I also want more voting rights. Consequence: the few big ones will dominate and steer RIPE in the direction THEY want. I don’t think that’s in the interest of those who yell at the unfair membership rate. RIPE is fair because every member has the same right and the same one vote. Michel LANNERS CIO at LU-CIX Management G.I.E. -- <https://www.luxchat.lu/> Mail: michel.lanners@lu-cix.lu <mailto:michel.lanners@lu-cix.lu> Luxchat: @3eb2pdflrq57:01.lu-cix.luxchat.lu Phone: (+352) 28 99 29 92-81 LU-CIX Management G.I.E. 202, Z.A.E. Wolser F L-3290 Bettembourg lu-cix.lu <https://www.lu-cix.lu/> luxchat.lu <https://www.luxchat.lu/> luxembourg-internet-days.com <https://luxembourg-internet-days.com/> lunog.lu <https://www.lunog.lu/>
Holders of IPv4 are same as holders of land. Being member of RIPE mean you have ability to have resources (aka land) and vote. (like a being citizenship give only 1 (ONE) vote - doesnt matter how much taxes you pay per year!) But in addition you must pay per resources what you have/own - like a land tax. RIPE NCC is registered in NL, NL is part of EU, so - EU principes must be also apply in same way! So, in EU land taxes usually payed per (sq.m in own OR market price), nor per registered object in own. Moreover, in EU also present tax on selling operations - i.e. if someone sell resources (aka land) - its must also pay some fee as % of deal price, but RIPE didnt charge for that (what are also unfair). P.S. Michael, Im also want to remember you about that - https://www.lu-cix.lu/app/uploads/2024/01/LU-CIX-ASBL-new-price-list-2024.pd... LU-CIX non-profit organization, but your pricing different from port bandwidth (why not same price for all?) - but you calling people about "same price" is good for RIPE. Im really doesnt understand you. Sorry. On 15.04.2024 7:22, Michel Lanners wrote:
On 13 Apr 2024, at 18:35, Blake Shepherd <blake66@live.co.uk> wrote:
Please can you tell me how this company and alot of others.
https://bgp.tools/rir-owner/uk.btent
https://bgp.tools/rir-owner/uk.btgia
Pays the same as me please show me how ripe is equal or fair please do something and add a fee per ipv4 and ipv6 it's not hard to make it fair.
Because RIPE is a MEMBERSHIP organisation. It’s not a commercial company selling something.
If I’m asked to pay more I also want more voting rights. Consequence: the few big ones will dominate and steer RIPE in the direction THEY want. I don’t think that’s in the interest of those who yell at the unfair membership rate.
RIPE is fair because every member has the same right and the same one vote.
*Michel LANNERS* CIO at LU-CIX Management G.I.E. -- <https://www.luxchat.lu/> Mail: michel.lanners@lu-cix.lu <mailto:michel.lanners@lu-cix.lu> Luxchat: @3eb2pdflrq57:01.lu-cix.luxchat.lu Phone: (+352) 28 99 29 92-81 *LU-CIX Management G.I.E.* 202, Z.A.E. Wolser F L-3290 Bettembourg lu-cix.lu <https://www.lu-cix.lu> luxchat.lu <https://www.luxchat.lu> luxembourg-internet-days.com <https://luxembourg-internet-days.com> lunog.lu <https://www.lunog.lu>
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/admin%40roskomnadzor....
Hi, is this discussion list here to cool the people down by talking only, or is there a possibility here to change something? The offered charging scheme proposal will be the same and wont change. So my question, what to do to change this? If can be done something, please lets talk goal oriented and do something. -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards Murat TERZIOGLU PREBITS Bochumer Str. 20 44866 Bochum Deutschland Telefon: 0234/58825994 Telefax: 0234/58825995 www.prebits.de info@prebits.de USt-ID: DE315418902
Hi, As Fergal previously mentioned, section 15.6 of the Articles of Association allows members to propose agenda topics with resolutions for voting. They are currently investigating the process for doing this (need to find a way to get confirmation from at least 400 members by May 8th). We await Fergal's update, which will provide further details and next steps. Regards, Arash On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 at 23:17, <m.terzioglu@prebits.de> wrote:
Hi,
is this discussion list here to cool the people down by talking only, or is there a possibility here to change something?
The offered charging scheme proposal will be the same and wont change.
So my question, what to do to change this? If can be done something, please lets talk goal oriented and do something.
-- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards
Murat TERZIOGLU PREBITS
Bochumer Str. 20 44866 Bochum Deutschland
Telefon: 0234/58825994 Telefax: 0234/58825995
www.prebits.de info@prebits.de
USt-ID: DE315418902
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/arash_mpc%40parsun.co...
Confidential/Конфіденційно An interesting approach is to treat to IPs like a land, take taxes, fee as % of deal price, etc. And if we don't stop a halfway. Since land is property with all the attendant rights and limits of ownership, the IPs will also become a property. This appears to be the ultimate goal of such proposals. Not sure that thing like this is what the community really needs. -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 10:49 AM To: Michel Lanners <michel.lanners@lu-cix.lu>; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals Holders of IPv4 are same as holders of land. Being member of RIPE mean you have ability to have resources (aka land) and vote. (like a being citizenship give only 1 (ONE) vote - doesnt matter how much taxes you pay per year!) But in addition you must pay per resources what you have/own - like a land tax. RIPE NCC is registered in NL, NL is part of EU, so - EU principes must be also apply in same way! So, in EU land taxes usually payed per (sq.m in own OR market price), nor per registered object in own. Moreover, in EU also present tax on selling operations - i.e. if someone sell resources (aka land) - its must also pay some fee as % of deal price, but RIPE didnt charge for that (what are also unfair). P.S. Michael, Im also want to remember you about that - https://www.lu-cix.lu/app/uploads/2024/01/LU-CIX-ASBL-new-price-list-2024.pd... LU-CIX non-profit organization, but your pricing different from port bandwidth (why not same price for all?) - but you calling people about "same price" is good for RIPE. Im really doesnt understand you. Sorry. On 15.04.2024 7:22, Michel Lanners wrote:
On 13 Apr 2024, at 18:35, Blake Shepherd <blake66@live.co.uk> wrote:
Please can you tell me how this company and alot of others.
https://bgp/ .tools%2Frir-owner%2Fuk.btent&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivs tar.net%7Ce4e8a4332c5d49e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e 70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638487645323443698%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjo iMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7 C%7C%7C&sdata=Lu7Kf9N5olxNSkGwrc0wVdjKyafXx9P%2F2zBqy%2FIVzsU%3D&rese rved=0
https://bgp/ .tools%2Frir-owner%2Fuk.btgia&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivs tar.net%7Ce4e8a4332c5d49e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e 70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638487645323451250%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjo iMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7 C%7C%7C&sdata=z7yGYhxpJQfmVlH9w6WNUQybDNsnpoLzuhacZZs%2BHEo%3D&reserv ed=0
Pays the same as me please show me how ripe is equal or fair please do something and add a fee per ipv4 and ipv6 it's not hard to make it fair.
Because RIPE is a MEMBERSHIP organisation. It’s not a commercial company selling something.
If I’m asked to pay more I also want more voting rights. Consequence: the few big ones will dominate and steer RIPE in the direction THEY want. I don’t think that’s in the interest of those who yell at the unfair membership rate.
RIPE is fair because every member has the same right and the same one vote.
*Michel LANNERS* CIO at LU-CIX Management G.I.E. -- <https://www/ .luxchat.lu%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Ce4e8a4 332c5d49e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0% 7C638487645323458125%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQI joiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=E12fX iforWLy60FfnZNuygnWOsfcJjPi81tmFuSReRI%3D&reserved=0> Mail: michel.lanners@lu-cix.lu <mailto:michel.lanners@lu-cix.lu> Luxchat: @3eb2pdflrq57:01.lu-cix.luxchat.lu Phone: (+352) 28 99 29 92-81 *LU-CIX Management G.I.E.* 202, Z.A.E. Wolser F L-3290 Bettembourg lu-cix.lu <https://www/ .lu-cix.lu%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Ce4e8a43 32c5d49e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7 C638487645323463707%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIj oiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=gOIpCk Q%2Fs02jD74QdFTvgD0oN6%2B8TRb211MlXgm03Hs%3D&reserved=0> luxchat.lu <https://www/ .luxchat.lu%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Ce4e8a4 332c5d49e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0% 7C638487645323470030%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQI joiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=dLxja cs%2FE%2FLVtOT1c6Ub9PJ5WWM0yY1v09o4JdnVdw0%3D&reserved=0> luxembourg-internet-days.com <https://lux/ embourg-internet-days.com%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivsta r.net%7Ce4e8a4332c5d49e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a 30986%7C0%7C0%7C638487645323475953%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4 wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C% 7C&sdata=LzeyrIIrJDEasmZcC6WdtegokZy%2B%2BUEyotsu%2BloT%2BeE%3D&reserv ed=0> lunog.lu <https://www/ .lunog.lu%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Ce4e8a433 2c5d49e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C 638487645323483181%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjo iV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xygqD%2 BQOYtONm779kP97U%2Bd6POUAG0XXjXeXWe3QCQE%3D&reserved=0>
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvgen iy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Ce4e8a4332c5d49e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9bd 573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638487645323488581%7CUnknown%7CTW FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6 Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=2H1dCEGdeJO6n9YQJXZKXUna3dLhYpWCeCZFhgxy AHU%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fadmin%2540roskomnad zor.io&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Ce4e8a4332c5d49 e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638487 645323494790%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luM zIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=K%2BYfGnyeQ3c gBXp6a9M%2FAvEqDPJhsOzQ5rOb1EZTKbE%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/registry%40kyivstar.n...
1) Land is end limited resource - like a IP pool 2) Managed by single legacy monopoly - like a RIR in region 3) Have market price - like a current IP on market 4) Can be only holded by specific time - like a IP PA addresses IP already a some sort of property what are you can rent/lease/sell/buy. Big holders making a lobby for pay minimal amount for himself. And current RIPE policy doing one main thing - making small LIRs for paying same amount as large holders. Im make a list of top 88 most bigger holders in RIPE region and... IF any of this 88 Extra Large LIRs pay for 500.000 EUR - budget of RIPE will be instantly fullfilled, and for this companies this amount will not be a high! 1) UK MoD 2) Mersedes-Benz 3) Orange 4) Free SAS 5) WIND TRE S.P.A. (Italia) 6) Telecom Italia S.p.A. 7) Deutsche Telekom AG 8) British Telecommunications PLC ... and more, and more This companies have a super high budgets and can pay that even without trouble... BUT this companies will NOT be do that! Because prefer to send all spending on someone else - i.e. small LIRs. RIPE is important for all, but why take RIPE take fee preferred from small LIRs? Huh? Why LIR with 0 IPv4, 1 ASN and 1 IPv4 /48, must pay same as Orange, Deutsche Telekom AG, British Telecommunications PLC, KYIVSTAR and other big telecoms? On 15.04.2024 21:05, Evgeniy Brodskiy wrote:
Confidential/Конфіденційно
An interesting approach is to treat to IPs like a land, take taxes, fee as % of deal price, etc. And if we don't stop a halfway. Since land is property with all the attendant rights and limits of ownership, the IPs will also become a property. This appears to be the ultimate goal of such proposals.
Not sure that thing like this is what the community really needs.
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 10:49 AM To: Michel Lanners <michel.lanners@lu-cix.lu>; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
Holders of IPv4 are same as holders of land.
Being member of RIPE mean you have ability to have resources (aka land) and vote. (like a being citizenship give only 1 (ONE) vote - doesnt matter how much taxes you pay per year!)
But in addition you must pay per resources what you have/own - like a land tax.
RIPE NCC is registered in NL, NL is part of EU, so - EU principes must be also apply in same way!
So, in EU land taxes usually payed per (sq.m in own OR market price), nor per registered object in own.
Moreover, in EU also present tax on selling operations - i.e. if someone sell resources (aka land) - its must also pay some fee as % of deal price, but RIPE didnt charge for that (what are also unfair).
P.S. Michael, Im also want to remember you about that - https://www.lu-cix.lu/app/uploads/2024/01/LU-CIX-ASBL-new-price-list-2024.pd... LU-CIX non-profit organization, but your pricing different from port bandwidth (why not same price for all?) - but you calling people about "same price" is good for RIPE. Im really doesnt understand you. Sorry.
On 15.04.2024 7:22, Michel Lanners wrote:
On 13 Apr 2024, at 18:35, Blake Shepherd <blake66@live.co.uk> wrote:
Please can you tell me how this company and alot of others.
https://bgp/ .tools%2Frir-owner%2Fuk.btent&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivs tar.net%7Ce4e8a4332c5d49e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e 70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638487645323443698%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjo iMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7 C%7C%7C&sdata=Lu7Kf9N5olxNSkGwrc0wVdjKyafXx9P%2F2zBqy%2FIVzsU%3D&rese rved=0
https://bgp/ .tools%2Frir-owner%2Fuk.btgia&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivs tar.net%7Ce4e8a4332c5d49e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e 70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638487645323451250%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjo iMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7 C%7C%7C&sdata=z7yGYhxpJQfmVlH9w6WNUQybDNsnpoLzuhacZZs%2BHEo%3D&reserv ed=0
Pays the same as me please show me how ripe is equal or fair please do something and add a fee per ipv4 and ipv6 it's not hard to make it fair.
Because RIPE is a MEMBERSHIP organisation. It’s not a commercial company selling something.
If I’m asked to pay more I also want more voting rights. Consequence: the few big ones will dominate and steer RIPE in the direction THEY want. I don’t think that’s in the interest of those who yell at the unfair membership rate.
RIPE is fair because every member has the same right and the same one vote.
*Michel LANNERS* CIO at LU-CIX Management G.I.E. -- <https://www/ .luxchat.lu%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Ce4e8a4 332c5d49e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0% 7C638487645323458125%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQI joiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=E12fX iforWLy60FfnZNuygnWOsfcJjPi81tmFuSReRI%3D&reserved=0> Mail: michel.lanners@lu-cix.lu <mailto:michel.lanners@lu-cix.lu> Luxchat: @3eb2pdflrq57:01.lu-cix.luxchat.lu Phone: (+352) 28 99 29 92-81 *LU-CIX Management G.I.E.* 202, Z.A.E. Wolser F L-3290 Bettembourg lu-cix.lu <https://www/ .lu-cix.lu%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Ce4e8a43 32c5d49e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7 C638487645323463707%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIj oiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=gOIpCk Q%2Fs02jD74QdFTvgD0oN6%2B8TRb211MlXgm03Hs%3D&reserved=0> luxchat.lu <https://www/ .luxchat.lu%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Ce4e8a4 332c5d49e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0% 7C638487645323470030%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQI joiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=dLxja cs%2FE%2FLVtOT1c6Ub9PJ5WWM0yY1v09o4JdnVdw0%3D&reserved=0> luxembourg-internet-days.com <https://lux/ embourg-internet-days.com%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivsta r.net%7Ce4e8a4332c5d49e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a 30986%7C0%7C0%7C638487645323475953%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4 wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C% 7C&sdata=LzeyrIIrJDEasmZcC6WdtegokZy%2B%2BUEyotsu%2BloT%2BeE%3D&reserv ed=0> lunog.lu <https://www/ .lunog.lu%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Ce4e8a433 2c5d49e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C 638487645323483181%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjo iV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xygqD%2 BQOYtONm779kP97U%2Bd6POUAG0XXjXeXWe3QCQE%3D&reserved=0>
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvgen iy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Ce4e8a4332c5d49e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9bd 573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638487645323488581%7CUnknown%7CTW FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6 Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=2H1dCEGdeJO6n9YQJXZKXUna3dLhYpWCeCZFhgxy AHU%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fadmin%2540roskomnad zor.io&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Ce4e8a4332c5d49 e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638487 645323494790%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luM zIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=K%2BYfGnyeQ3c gBXp6a9M%2FAvEqDPJhsOzQ5rOb1EZTKbE%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/registry%40kyivstar.n...
Interesting... Mercedes-Benz has 16 x IPv4 allocations: 1 x /8 13 x /21 2 x /22 will pay in new scheme (one option) 2650€ / year Another LIR, has 16 x IPv4 allocations: 16 x /24 will pay in new scheme also (one option) 2650€ / year Yes, i know, it wasnt different before. But i am new and i am asking general questions... RIPE is non-profit organisation but the small LIRs are paying for the bigger LIRs. Because they are older than many players in world, they use the resources on shoulders of the smaller players. YES, THESE RESOURCES ARE PUBLIC!!! Dear RIPE community, would you please pay my launch today, and always? Because this is only available here :) -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards Murat TERZIOGLU PREBITS Bochumer Str. 20 44866 Bochum Deutschland Telefon: 0234/58825994 Telefax: 0234/58825995 www.prebits.de info@prebits.de USt-ID: DE315418902 -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> Im Auftrag von ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED Gesendet: Montag, 15. April 2024 23:24 An: Evgeniy Brodskiy <Evgeniy.Brodskiy@kyivstar.net> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Betreff: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals 1) Land is end limited resource - like a IP pool 2) Managed by single legacy monopoly - like a RIR in region 3) Have market price - like a current IP on market 4) Can be only holded by specific time - like a IP PA addresses IP already a some sort of property what are you can rent/lease/sell/buy. Big holders making a lobby for pay minimal amount for himself. And current RIPE policy doing one main thing - making small LIRs for paying same amount as large holders. Im make a list of top 88 most bigger holders in RIPE region and... IF any of this 88 Extra Large LIRs pay for 500.000 EUR - budget of RIPE will be instantly fullfilled, and for this companies this amount will not be a high! 1) UK MoD 2) Mersedes-Benz 3) Orange 4) Free SAS 5) WIND TRE S.P.A. (Italia) 6) Telecom Italia S.p.A. 7) Deutsche Telekom AG 8) British Telecommunications PLC ... and more, and more This companies have a super high budgets and can pay that even without trouble... BUT this companies will NOT be do that! Because prefer to send all spending on someone else - i.e. small LIRs. RIPE is important for all, but why take RIPE take fee preferred from small LIRs? Huh? Why LIR with 0 IPv4, 1 ASN and 1 IPv4 /48, must pay same as Orange, Deutsche Telekom AG, British Telecommunications PLC, KYIVSTAR and other big telecoms? On 15.04.2024 21:05, Evgeniy Brodskiy wrote:
Confidential/Конфіденційно
An interesting approach is to treat to IPs like a land, take taxes, fee as % of deal price, etc. And if we don't stop a halfway. Since land is property with all the attendant rights and limits of ownership, the IPs will also become a property. This appears to be the ultimate goal of such proposals.
Not sure that thing like this is what the community really needs.
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 10:49 AM To: Michel Lanners <michel.lanners@lu-cix.lu>; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
Holders of IPv4 are same as holders of land.
Being member of RIPE mean you have ability to have resources (aka land) and vote. (like a being citizenship give only 1 (ONE) vote - doesnt matter how much taxes you pay per year!)
But in addition you must pay per resources what you have/own - like a land tax.
RIPE NCC is registered in NL, NL is part of EU, so - EU principes must be also apply in same way!
So, in EU land taxes usually payed per (sq.m in own OR market price), nor per registered object in own.
Moreover, in EU also present tax on selling operations - i.e. if someone sell resources (aka land) - its must also pay some fee as % of deal price, but RIPE didnt charge for that (what are also unfair).
P.S. Michael, Im also want to remember you about that - https://www.lu-cix.lu/app/uploads/2024/01/LU-CIX-ASBL-new-price-list-2 024.pdf LU-CIX non-profit organization, but your pricing different from port bandwidth (why not same price for all?) - but you calling people about "same price" is good for RIPE. Im really doesnt understand you. Sorry.
On 15.04.2024 7:22, Michel Lanners wrote:
On 13 Apr 2024, at 18:35, Blake Shepherd <blake66@live.co.uk> wrote:
Please can you tell me how this company and alot of others.
https://bgp/ .tools%2Frir-owner%2Fuk.btent&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyiv s tar.net%7Ce4e8a4332c5d49e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8 e 70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638487645323443698%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIj o iMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000% 7 C%7C%7C&sdata=Lu7Kf9N5olxNSkGwrc0wVdjKyafXx9P%2F2zBqy%2FIVzsU%3D&res e rved=0
https://bgp/ .tools%2Frir-owner%2Fuk.btgia&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyiv s tar.net%7Ce4e8a4332c5d49e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8 e 70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638487645323451250%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIj o iMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000% 7 C%7C%7C&sdata=z7yGYhxpJQfmVlH9w6WNUQybDNsnpoLzuhacZZs%2BHEo%3D&reser v ed=0
Pays the same as me please show me how ripe is equal or fair please do something and add a fee per ipv4 and ipv6 it's not hard to make it fair.
Because RIPE is a MEMBERSHIP organisation. It’s not a commercial company selling something.
If I’m asked to pay more I also want more voting rights. Consequence: the few big ones will dominate and steer RIPE in the direction THEY want. I don’t think that’s in the interest of those who yell at the unfair membership rate.
RIPE is fair because every member has the same right and the same one vote.
*Michel LANNERS* CIO at LU-CIX Management G.I.E. -- <https://www/ .luxchat.lu%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Ce4e8a 4 332c5d49e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0 % 7C638487645323458125%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQ I joiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=E12f X iforWLy60FfnZNuygnWOsfcJjPi81tmFuSReRI%3D&reserved=0> Mail: michel.lanners@lu-cix.lu <mailto:michel.lanners@lu-cix.lu> Luxchat: @3eb2pdflrq57:01.lu-cix.luxchat.lu Phone: (+352) 28 99 29 92-81 *LU-CIX Management G.I.E.* 202, Z.A.E. Wolser F L-3290 Bettembourg lu-cix.lu <https://www/ .lu-cix.lu%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Ce4e8a4 3 32c5d49e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0% 7 C638487645323463707%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQI j oiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=gOIpC k Q%2Fs02jD74QdFTvgD0oN6%2B8TRb211MlXgm03Hs%3D&reserved=0> luxchat.lu <https://www/ .luxchat.lu%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Ce4e8a 4 332c5d49e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0 % 7C638487645323470030%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQ I joiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=dLxj a cs%2FE%2FLVtOT1c6Ub9PJ5WWM0yY1v09o4JdnVdw0%3D&reserved=0> luxembourg-internet-days.com <https://lux/ embourg-internet-days.com%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivst a r.net%7Ce4e8a4332c5d49e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70 a 30986%7C0%7C0%7C638487645323475953%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC 4 wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C % 7C&sdata=LzeyrIIrJDEasmZcC6WdtegokZy%2B%2BUEyotsu%2BloT%2BeE%3D&reser v ed=0> lunog.lu <https://www/ .lunog.lu%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Ce4e8a43 3 2c5d49e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7 C 638487645323483181%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIj o iV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xygqD% 2 BQOYtONm779kP97U%2Bd6POUAG0XXjXeXWe3QCQE%3D&reserved=0>
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvge n iy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Ce4e8a4332c5d49e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9b d 573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638487645323488581%7CUnknown%7CT W FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI 6 Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=2H1dCEGdeJO6n9YQJXZKXUna3dLhYpWCeCZFhgx y AHU%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fadmin%2540roskomna d zor.io&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Ce4e8a4332c5d4 9 e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C63848 7 645323494790%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2lu M zIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=K%2BYfGnyeQ3 c gBXp6a9M%2FAvEqDPJhsOzQ5rOb1EZTKbE%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/registry%40kyiv star.net
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/m.terzioglu%40prebits...
Confidential/Конфіденційно Dear Murat TERZIOGLU, Why you make a decision that Mercedes-Benz need more RIPE staff time and spends comparing to your another LIR ?? Because we are talking about RIPE budget which convert in RIPE spends. And if both LIRs consume equivale spends from RIPE budget why they have to pay different fee ? -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of m.terzioglu@prebits.de Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 10:51 AM To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals Interesting... Mercedes-Benz has 16 x IPv4 allocations: 1 x /8 13 x /21 2 x /22 will pay in new scheme (one option) 2650€ / year Another LIR, has 16 x IPv4 allocations: 16 x /24 will pay in new scheme also (one option) 2650€ / year Yes, i know, it wasnt different before. But i am new and i am asking general questions... RIPE is non-profit organisation but the small LIRs are paying for the bigger LIRs. Because they are older than many players in world, they use the resources on shoulders of the smaller players. YES, THESE RESOURCES ARE PUBLIC!!! Dear RIPE community, would you please pay my launch today, and always? Because this is only available here :) -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards Murat TERZIOGLU PREBITS Bochumer Str. 20 44866 Bochum Deutschland Telefon: 0234/58825994 Telefax: 0234/58825995 http://www.prebits.de/ info@prebits.de USt-ID: DE315418902 -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> Im Auftrag von ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED Gesendet: Montag, 15. April 2024 23:24 An: Evgeniy Brodskiy <Evgeniy.Brodskiy@kyivstar.net> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Betreff: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals 1) Land is end limited resource - like a IP pool 2) Managed by single legacy monopoly - like a RIR in region 3) Have market price - like a current IP on market 4) Can be only holded by specific time - like a IP PA addresses IP already a some sort of property what are you can rent/lease/sell/buy. Big holders making a lobby for pay minimal amount for himself. And current RIPE policy doing one main thing - making small LIRs for paying same amount as large holders. Im make a list of top 88 most bigger holders in RIPE region and... IF any of this 88 Extra Large LIRs pay for 500.000 EUR - budget of RIPE will be instantly fullfilled, and for this companies this amount will not be a high! 1) UK MoD 2) Mersedes-Benz 3) Orange 4) Free SAS 5) WIND TRE S.P.A. (Italia) 6) Telecom Italia S.p.A. 7) Deutsche Telekom AG 8) British Telecommunications PLC ... and more, and more This companies have a super high budgets and can pay that even without trouble... BUT this companies will NOT be do that! Because prefer to send all spending on someone else - i.e. small LIRs. RIPE is important for all, but why take RIPE take fee preferred from small LIRs? Huh? Why LIR with 0 IPv4, 1 ASN and 1 IPv4 /48, must pay same as Orange, Deutsche Telekom AG, British Telecommunications PLC, KYIVSTAR and other big telecoms? On 15.04.2024 21:05, Evgeniy Brodskiy wrote:
Confidential/Конфіденційно
An interesting approach is to treat to IPs like a land, take taxes, fee as % of deal price, etc. And if we don't stop a halfway. Since land is property with all the attendant rights and limits of ownership, the IPs will also become a property. This appears to be the ultimate goal of such proposals.
Not sure that thing like this is what the community really needs.
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 10:49 AM To: Michel Lanners <michel.lanners@lu-cix.lu>; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
Holders of IPv4 are same as holders of land.
Being member of RIPE mean you have ability to have resources (aka land) and vote. (like a being citizenship give only 1 (ONE) vote - doesnt matter how much taxes you pay per year!)
But in addition you must pay per resources what you have/own - like a land tax.
RIPE NCC is registered in NL, NL is part of EU, so - EU principes must be also apply in same way!
So, in EU land taxes usually payed per (sq.m in own OR market price), nor per registered object in own.
Moreover, in EU also present tax on selling operations - i.e. if someone sell resources (aka land) - its must also pay some fee as % of deal price, but RIPE didnt charge for that (what are also unfair).
P.S. Michael, Im also want to remember you about that - https://www/. lu-cix.lu%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2024%2F01%2FLU-CIX-ASBL-new-price-list-2&d ata=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C860a06771bd946d991ab08 dc5dea2f7d%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C63848850762336 3489%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBT iI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=IGEldOP%2FLElKUMIkuwH7ER8 izGZ6FYFg1GeY4Df0LEo%3D&reserved=0 024.pdf LU-CIX non-profit organization, but your pricing different from port bandwidth (why not same price for all?) - but you calling people about "same price" is good for RIPE. Im really doesnt understand you. Sorry.
On 15.04.2024 7:22, Michel Lanners wrote:
On 13 Apr 2024, at 18:35, Blake Shepherd <blake66@live.co.uk> wrote:
Please can you tell me how this company and alot of others.
https://bgp/ .tools%2Frir-owner%2Fuk.btent&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyiv s tar.net%7Ce4e8a4332c5d49e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8 e 70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638487645323443698%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIj o iMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000% 7 C%7C%7C&sdata=Lu7Kf9N5olxNSkGwrc0wVdjKyafXx9P%2F2zBqy%2FIVzsU%3D&res e rved=0
https://bgp/ .tools%2Frir-owner%2Fuk.btgia&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyiv s tar.net%7Ce4e8a4332c5d49e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8 e 70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638487645323451250%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIj o iMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000% 7 C%7C%7C&sdata=z7yGYhxpJQfmVlH9w6WNUQybDNsnpoLzuhacZZs%2BHEo%3D&reser v ed=0
Pays the same as me please show me how ripe is equal or fair please do something and add a fee per ipv4 and ipv6 it's not hard to make it fair.
Because RIPE is a MEMBERSHIP organisation. It’s not a commercial company selling something.
If I’m asked to pay more I also want more voting rights. Consequence: the few big ones will dominate and steer RIPE in the direction THEY want. I don’t think that’s in the interest of those who yell at the unfair membership rate.
RIPE is fair because every member has the same right and the same one vote.
*Michel LANNERS* CIO at LU-CIX Management G.I.E. -- <https://www/ .luxchat.lu%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Ce4e8a 4 332c5d49e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0 % 7C638487645323458125%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQ I joiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=E12f X iforWLy60FfnZNuygnWOsfcJjPi81tmFuSReRI%3D&reserved=0> Mail: michel.lanners@lu-cix.lu <mailto:michel.lanners@lu-cix.lu> Luxchat: @3eb2pdflrq57:01.lu-cix.luxchat.lu Phone: (+352) 28 99 29 92-81 *LU-CIX Management G.I.E.* 202, Z.A.E. Wolser F L-3290 Bettembourg lu-cix.lu <https://www/ .lu-cix.lu%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Ce4e8a4 3 32c5d49e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0% 7 C638487645323463707%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQI j oiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=gOIpC k Q%2Fs02jD74QdFTvgD0oN6%2B8TRb211MlXgm03Hs%3D&reserved=0> luxchat.lu <https://www/ .luxchat.lu%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Ce4e8a 4 332c5d49e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0 % 7C638487645323470030%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQ I joiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=dLxj a cs%2FE%2FLVtOT1c6Ub9PJ5WWM0yY1v09o4JdnVdw0%3D&reserved=0> luxembourg-internet-days.com <https://lux/ embourg-internet-days.com%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivst a r.net%7Ce4e8a4332c5d49e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70 a 30986%7C0%7C0%7C638487645323475953%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC 4 wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C % 7C&sdata=LzeyrIIrJDEasmZcC6WdtegokZy%2B%2BUEyotsu%2BloT%2BeE%3D&reser v ed=0> lunog.lu <https://www/ .lunog.lu%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Ce4e8a43 3 2c5d49e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7 C 638487645323483181%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIj o iV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xygqD% 2 BQOYtONm779kP97U%2Bd6POUAG0XXjXeXWe3QCQE%3D&reserved=0>
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvge n iy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Ce4e8a4332c5d49e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9b d 573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638487645323488581%7CUnknown%7CT W FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI 6 Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=2H1dCEGdeJO6n9YQJXZKXUna3dLhYpWCeCZFhgx y AHU%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fadmin%2540roskomna d zor.io&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Ce4e8a4332c5d4 9 e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C63848 7 645323494790%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2lu M zIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=K%2BYfGnyeQ3 c gBXp6a9M%2FAvEqDPJhsOzQ5rOb1EZTKbE%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvgen iy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C860a06771bd946d991ab08dc5dea2f7d%7Cf8f9bd 573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638488507623370371%7CUnknown%7CTW FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6 Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Pzu1szVFpRbqJMsRLW7UWN1Xq108vbkUlr2iG7PYT%2B M%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fregistry%2540kyiv&d ata=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C860a06771bd946d991ab08 dc5dea2f7d%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C63848850762337 6607%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBT iI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=8K3kQkj2dE4O8GTGnsDIFX2kh ssCWo0Kpy1eyKqLr7w%3D&reserved=0 star.net
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/m.terzioglu%40prebits... _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/registry%40kyivstar.n...
Please correct me, if i am mistaken. There is a limited public resource. There are stuff who tries to hold up to date this resource and organize, manages etc.. There are also services.. How would you pay the cost of the stuff? Or finance the costs? Depending on the used resource of the members i think. It should be the correct way i think in these century.. To let Luxemburg pays the same CO2 TAX as Germany is the correct way, in your opinion, i understand from your context? May be not the correct comparison, but i want to understand and show that there is a limited public resource, there are providers, who hold much of them in their usage, because of outage pay many new providers to have these resource money. And they pay same member fees, for what they dont use... If you say the same service, i tell the cost of a IPv4 Allocation in market, about 9000€... If the big holders cause this, they must pay also for the resource they use, in my opinion.. What are the organisational costs of the RIPE, what are the costs of stuff, what services does RIPE offers, which of them in which proportion use the members? Without calculating of this, how can be said, that the mercedes and the small lir has the same cost to RIPE... -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards Murat TERZIOGLU PREBITS Bochumer Str. 20 44866 Bochum Deutschland Telefon: 0234/58825994 Telefax: 0234/58825995 www.prebits.de info@prebits.de USt-ID: DE315418902 -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Evgeniy Brodskiy <Evgeniy.Brodskiy@kyivstar.net> Gesendet: Dienstag, 16. April 2024 10:37 An: m.terzioglu@prebits.de Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Betreff: RE: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals Confidential/Конфіденційно Dear Murat TERZIOGLU, Why you make a decision that Mercedes-Benz need more RIPE staff time and spends comparing to your another LIR ?? Because we are talking about RIPE budget which convert in RIPE spends. And if both LIRs consume equivale spends from RIPE budget why they have to pay different fee ? -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of m.terzioglu@prebits.de Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 10:51 AM To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals Interesting... Mercedes-Benz has 16 x IPv4 allocations: 1 x /8 13 x /21 2 x /22 will pay in new scheme (one option) 2650€ / year Another LIR, has 16 x IPv4 allocations: 16 x /24 will pay in new scheme also (one option) 2650€ / year Yes, i know, it wasnt different before. But i am new and i am asking general questions... RIPE is non-profit organisation but the small LIRs are paying for the bigger LIRs. Because they are older than many players in world, they use the resources on shoulders of the smaller players. YES, THESE RESOURCES ARE PUBLIC!!! Dear RIPE community, would you please pay my launch today, and always? Because this is only available here :) -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards Murat TERZIOGLU PREBITS Bochumer Str. 20 44866 Bochum Deutschland Telefon: 0234/58825994 Telefax: 0234/58825995 http://www.prebits.de/ info@prebits.de USt-ID: DE315418902 -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> Im Auftrag von ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED Gesendet: Montag, 15. April 2024 23:24 An: Evgeniy Brodskiy <Evgeniy.Brodskiy@kyivstar.net> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Betreff: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals 1) Land is end limited resource - like a IP pool 2) Managed by single legacy monopoly - like a RIR in region 3) Have market price - like a current IP on market 4) Can be only holded by specific time - like a IP PA addresses IP already a some sort of property what are you can rent/lease/sell/buy. Big holders making a lobby for pay minimal amount for himself. And current RIPE policy doing one main thing - making small LIRs for paying same amount as large holders. Im make a list of top 88 most bigger holders in RIPE region and... IF any of this 88 Extra Large LIRs pay for 500.000 EUR - budget of RIPE will be instantly fullfilled, and for this companies this amount will not be a high! 1) UK MoD 2) Mersedes-Benz 3) Orange 4) Free SAS 5) WIND TRE S.P.A. (Italia) 6) Telecom Italia S.p.A. 7) Deutsche Telekom AG 8) British Telecommunications PLC ... and more, and more This companies have a super high budgets and can pay that even without trouble... BUT this companies will NOT be do that! Because prefer to send all spending on someone else - i.e. small LIRs. RIPE is important for all, but why take RIPE take fee preferred from small LIRs? Huh? Why LIR with 0 IPv4, 1 ASN and 1 IPv4 /48, must pay same as Orange, Deutsche Telekom AG, British Telecommunications PLC, KYIVSTAR and other big telecoms? On 15.04.2024 21:05, Evgeniy Brodskiy wrote:
Confidential/Конфіденційно
An interesting approach is to treat to IPs like a land, take taxes, fee as % of deal price, etc. And if we don't stop a halfway. Since land is property with all the attendant rights and limits of ownership, the IPs will also become a property. This appears to be the ultimate goal of such proposals.
Not sure that thing like this is what the community really needs.
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 10:49 AM To: Michel Lanners <michel.lanners@lu-cix.lu>; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
Holders of IPv4 are same as holders of land.
Being member of RIPE mean you have ability to have resources (aka land) and vote. (like a being citizenship give only 1 (ONE) vote - doesnt matter how much taxes you pay per year!)
But in addition you must pay per resources what you have/own - like a land tax.
RIPE NCC is registered in NL, NL is part of EU, so - EU principes must be also apply in same way!
So, in EU land taxes usually payed per (sq.m in own OR market price), nor per registered object in own.
Moreover, in EU also present tax on selling operations - i.e. if someone sell resources (aka land) - its must also pay some fee as % of deal price, but RIPE didnt charge for that (what are also unfair).
P.S. Michael, Im also want to remember you about that - https://www/. lu-cix.lu%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2024%2F01%2FLU-CIX-ASBL-new-price-list-2&d ata=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C860a06771bd946d991ab08 dc5dea2f7d%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C63848850762336 3489%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBT iI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=IGEldOP%2FLElKUMIkuwH7ER8 izGZ6FYFg1GeY4Df0LEo%3D&reserved=0 024.pdf LU-CIX non-profit organization, but your pricing different from port bandwidth (why not same price for all?) - but you calling people about "same price" is good for RIPE. Im really doesnt understand you. Sorry.
On 15.04.2024 7:22, Michel Lanners wrote:
On 13 Apr 2024, at 18:35, Blake Shepherd <blake66@live.co.uk> wrote:
Please can you tell me how this company and alot of others.
https://bgp/ .tools%2Frir-owner%2Fuk.btent&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyiv s tar.net%7Ce4e8a4332c5d49e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8 e 70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638487645323443698%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIj o iMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000% 7 C%7C%7C&sdata=Lu7Kf9N5olxNSkGwrc0wVdjKyafXx9P%2F2zBqy%2FIVzsU%3D&res e rved=0
https://bgp/ .tools%2Frir-owner%2Fuk.btgia&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyiv s tar.net%7Ce4e8a4332c5d49e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8 e 70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638487645323451250%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIj o iMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000% 7 C%7C%7C&sdata=z7yGYhxpJQfmVlH9w6WNUQybDNsnpoLzuhacZZs%2BHEo%3D&reser v ed=0
Pays the same as me please show me how ripe is equal or fair please do something and add a fee per ipv4 and ipv6 it's not hard to make it fair.
Because RIPE is a MEMBERSHIP organisation. It’s not a commercial company selling something.
If I’m asked to pay more I also want more voting rights. Consequence: the few big ones will dominate and steer RIPE in the direction THEY want. I don’t think that’s in the interest of those who yell at the unfair membership rate.
RIPE is fair because every member has the same right and the same one vote.
*Michel LANNERS* CIO at LU-CIX Management G.I.E. -- <https://www/ .luxchat.lu%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Ce4e8a 4 332c5d49e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0 % 7C638487645323458125%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQ I joiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=E12f X iforWLy60FfnZNuygnWOsfcJjPi81tmFuSReRI%3D&reserved=0> Mail: michel.lanners@lu-cix.lu <mailto:michel.lanners@lu-cix.lu> Luxchat: @3eb2pdflrq57:01.lu-cix.luxchat.lu Phone: (+352) 28 99 29 92-81 *LU-CIX Management G.I.E.* 202, Z.A.E. Wolser F L-3290 Bettembourg lu-cix.lu <https://www/ .lu-cix.lu%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Ce4e8a4 3 32c5d49e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0% 7 C638487645323463707%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQI j oiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=gOIpC k Q%2Fs02jD74QdFTvgD0oN6%2B8TRb211MlXgm03Hs%3D&reserved=0> luxchat.lu <https://www/ .luxchat.lu%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Ce4e8a 4 332c5d49e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0 % 7C638487645323470030%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQ I joiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=dLxj a cs%2FE%2FLVtOT1c6Ub9PJ5WWM0yY1v09o4JdnVdw0%3D&reserved=0> luxembourg-internet-days.com <https://lux/ embourg-internet-days.com%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivst a r.net%7Ce4e8a4332c5d49e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70 a 30986%7C0%7C0%7C638487645323475953%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC 4 wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C % 7C&sdata=LzeyrIIrJDEasmZcC6WdtegokZy%2B%2BUEyotsu%2BloT%2BeE%3D&reser v ed=0> lunog.lu <https://www/ .lunog.lu%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Ce4e8a43 3 2c5d49e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7 C 638487645323483181%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIj o iV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xygqD% 2 BQOYtONm779kP97U%2Bd6POUAG0XXjXeXWe3QCQE%3D&reserved=0>
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvge n iy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Ce4e8a4332c5d49e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9b d 573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638487645323488581%7CUnknown%7CT W FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI 6 Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=2H1dCEGdeJO6n9YQJXZKXUna3dLhYpWCeCZFhgx y AHU%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fadmin%2540roskomna d zor.io&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Ce4e8a4332c5d4 9 e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C63848 7 645323494790%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2lu M zIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=K%2BYfGnyeQ3 c gBXp6a9M%2FAvEqDPJhsOzQ5rOb1EZTKbE%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvgen iy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C860a06771bd946d991ab08dc5dea2f7d%7Cf8f9bd 573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638488507623370371%7CUnknown%7CTW FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6 Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Pzu1szVFpRbqJMsRLW7UWN1Xq108vbkUlr2iG7PYT%2B M%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fregistry%2540kyiv&d ata=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C860a06771bd946d991ab08 dc5dea2f7d%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C63848850762337 6607%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBT iI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=8K3kQkj2dE4O8GTGnsDIFX2kh ssCWo0Kpy1eyKqLr7w%3D&reserved=0 star.net
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/m.terzioglu%40prebits... _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/registry%40kyivstar.n...
Hello. Because RIPE budget includes many different things - financing research, Atlas and other very important and useful things, not only cost of registry operating. You can not assume that this two LIRs in example should finance that equally without aim to kill second LIR. This example is missing one important thing - really small LIRs with single subnet or without any - hobbynet LIRs or small companies who decided to be independent or just starting LIR business. There are also lots of LIRs who are natural persons. Regardless of their consumption assuming they should sponsor research or Atlas equally is terrible. That’s why all other RIRs have different level based charging scheme. RIPE is the only one who constantly refuses to apply it.
On 16 Apr 2024, at 11:36, Evgeniy Brodskiy via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> wrote:
Confidential/Конфіденційно
Dear Murat TERZIOGLU,
Why you make a decision that Mercedes-Benz need more RIPE staff time and spends comparing to your another LIR ?? Because we are talking about RIPE budget which convert in RIPE spends. And if both LIRs consume equivale spends from RIPE budget why they have to pay different fee ?
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> On Behalf Of m.terzioglu@prebits.de <mailto:m.terzioglu@prebits.de> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 10:51 AM To: members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
Interesting...
Mercedes-Benz has 16 x IPv4 allocations: 1 x /8 13 x /21 2 x /22 will pay in new scheme (one option) 2650€ / year
Another LIR, has 16 x IPv4 allocations: 16 x /24 will pay in new scheme also (one option) 2650€ / year
Yes, i know, it wasnt different before. But i am new and i am asking general questions...
RIPE is non-profit organisation but the small LIRs are paying for the bigger LIRs.
Because they are older than many players in world, they use the resources on shoulders of the smaller players.
YES, THESE RESOURCES ARE PUBLIC!!!
Dear RIPE community, would you please pay my launch today, and always? Because this is only available here :)
-- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards
Murat TERZIOGLU PREBITS
Bochumer Str. 20 44866 Bochum Deutschland
Telefon: 0234/58825994 Telefax: 0234/58825995
http://www.prebits.de/ info@prebits.de <mailto:info@prebits.de>
USt-ID: DE315418902
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> Im Auftrag von ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED Gesendet: Montag, 15. April 2024 23:24 An: Evgeniy Brodskiy <Evgeniy.Brodskiy@kyivstar.net <mailto:Evgeniy.Brodskiy@kyivstar.net>> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Betreff: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
1) Land is end limited resource - like a IP pool 2) Managed by single legacy monopoly - like a RIR in region 3) Have market price - like a current IP on market 4) Can be only holded by specific time - like a IP PA addresses
IP already a some sort of property what are you can rent/lease/sell/buy. Big holders making a lobby for pay minimal amount for himself. And current RIPE policy doing one main thing - making small LIRs for paying same amount as large holders.
Im make a list of top 88 most bigger holders in RIPE region and...
IF any of this 88 Extra Large LIRs pay for 500.000 EUR - budget of RIPE will be instantly fullfilled, and for this companies this amount will not be a high!
1) UK MoD 2) Mersedes-Benz 3) Orange 4) Free SAS 5) WIND TRE S.P.A. (Italia) 6) Telecom Italia S.p.A. 7) Deutsche Telekom AG 8) British Telecommunications PLC ... and more, and more
This companies have a super high budgets and can pay that even without trouble...
BUT this companies will NOT be do that! Because prefer to send all spending on someone else - i.e. small LIRs.
RIPE is important for all, but why take RIPE take fee preferred from small LIRs? Huh?
Why LIR with 0 IPv4, 1 ASN and 1 IPv4 /48, must pay same as Orange, Deutsche Telekom AG, British Telecommunications PLC, KYIVSTAR and other big telecoms?
On 15.04.2024 21:05, Evgeniy Brodskiy wrote:
Confidential/Конфіденційно
An interesting approach is to treat to IPs like a land, take taxes, fee as % of deal price, etc. And if we don't stop a halfway. Since land is property with all the attendant rights and limits of ownership, the IPs will also become a property. This appears to be the ultimate goal of such proposals.
Not sure that thing like this is what the community really needs.
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> On Behalf Of ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 10:49 AM To: Michel Lanners <michel.lanners@lu-cix.lu <mailto:michel.lanners@lu-cix.lu>>; members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
Holders of IPv4 are same as holders of land.
Being member of RIPE mean you have ability to have resources (aka land) and vote. (like a being citizenship give only 1 (ONE) vote - doesnt matter how much taxes you pay per year!)
But in addition you must pay per resources what you have/own - like a land tax.
RIPE NCC is registered in NL, NL is part of EU, so - EU principes must be also apply in same way!
So, in EU land taxes usually payed per (sq.m in own OR market price), nor per registered object in own.
Moreover, in EU also present tax on selling operations - i.e. if someone sell resources (aka land) - its must also pay some fee as % of deal price, but RIPE didnt charge for that (what are also unfair).
P.S. Michael, Im also want to remember you about that - https://www/. lu-cix.lu <http://lu-cix.lu/>%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2024%2F01%2FLU-CIX-ASBL-new-price-list-2&d ata=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net <http://40kyivstar.net/>%7C860a06771bd946d991ab08 dc5dea2f7d%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C63848850762336 3489%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBT iI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=IGEldOP%2FLElKUMIkuwH7ER8 izGZ6FYFg1GeY4Df0LEo%3D&reserved=0 024.pdf LU-CIX non-profit organization, but your pricing different from port bandwidth (why not same price for all?) - but you calling people about "same price" is good for RIPE. Im really doesnt understand you. Sorry.
On 15.04.2024 7:22, Michel Lanners wrote:
On 13 Apr 2024, at 18:35, Blake Shepherd <blake66@live.co.uk <mailto:blake66@live.co.uk>> wrote:
Please can you tell me how this company and alot of others.
https://bgp/ .tools%2Frir-owner%2Fuk.btent&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyiv s tar.net <http://tar.net/>%7Ce4e8a4332c5d49e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8 e 70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638487645323443698%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIj o iMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000% 7 C%7C%7C&sdata=Lu7Kf9N5olxNSkGwrc0wVdjKyafXx9P%2F2zBqy%2FIVzsU%3D&res e rved=0
https://bgp/ .tools%2Frir-owner%2Fuk.btgia&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyiv s tar.net <http://tar.net/>%7Ce4e8a4332c5d49e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8 e 70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638487645323451250%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIj o iMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000% 7 C%7C%7C&sdata=z7yGYhxpJQfmVlH9w6WNUQybDNsnpoLzuhacZZs%2BHEo%3D&reser v ed=0
Pays the same as me please show me how ripe is equal or fair please do something and add a fee per ipv4 and ipv6 it's not hard to make it fair.
Because RIPE is a MEMBERSHIP organisation. It’s not a commercial company selling something.
If I’m asked to pay more I also want more voting rights. Consequence: the few big ones will dominate and steer RIPE in the direction THEY want. I don’t think that’s in the interest of those who yell at the unfair membership rate.
RIPE is fair because every member has the same right and the same one vote.
*Michel LANNERS* CIO at LU-CIX Management G.I.E. -- <https://www/ .luxchat.lu <http://luxchat.lu/>%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net <http://40kyivstar.net/>%7Ce4e8a 4 332c5d49e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0 % 7C638487645323458125%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQ I joiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=E12f X iforWLy60FfnZNuygnWOsfcJjPi81tmFuSReRI%3D&reserved=0> Mail: michel.lanners@lu-cix.lu <mailto:michel.lanners@lu-cix.lu> <mailto:michel.lanners@lu-cix.lu> Luxchat: @3eb2pdflrq57:01.lu-cix.luxchat.lu <http://01.lu-cix.luxchat.lu/> Phone: (+352) 28 99 29 92-81 *LU-CIX Management G.I.E.* 202, Z.A.E. Wolser F L-3290 Bettembourg lu-cix.lu <http://lu-cix.lu/> <https://www/ .lu-cix.lu <http://lu-cix.lu/>%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net <http://40kyivstar.net/>%7Ce4e8a4 3 32c5d49e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0% 7 C638487645323463707%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQI j oiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=gOIpC k Q%2Fs02jD74QdFTvgD0oN6%2B8TRb211MlXgm03Hs%3D&reserved=0> luxchat.lu <http://luxchat.lu/> <https://www/ .luxchat.lu <http://luxchat.lu/>%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net <http://40kyivstar.net/>%7Ce4e8a 4 332c5d49e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0 % 7C638487645323470030%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQ I joiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=dLxj a cs%2FE%2FLVtOT1c6Ub9PJ5WWM0yY1v09o4JdnVdw0%3D&reserved=0> luxembourg-internet-days.com <http://luxembourg-internet-days.com/> <https://lux/ embourg-internet-days.com <http://embourg-internet-days.com/>%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivst a r.net <http://r.net/>%7Ce4e8a4332c5d49e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70 a 30986%7C0%7C0%7C638487645323475953%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC 4 wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C % 7C&sdata=LzeyrIIrJDEasmZcC6WdtegokZy%2B%2BUEyotsu%2BloT%2BeE%3D&reser v ed=0> lunog.lu <http://lunog.lu/> <https://www/ .lunog.lu <http://lunog.lu/>%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net <http://40kyivstar.net/>%7Ce4e8a43 3 2c5d49e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7 C 638487645323483181%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIj o iV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xygqD% 2 BQOYtONm779kP97U%2Bd6POUAG0XXjXeXWe3QCQE%3D&reserved=0>
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://list/ s.ripe.net <http://s.ripe.net/>%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvge n iy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net <http://40kyivstar.net/>%7Ce4e8a4332c5d49e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9b d 573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638487645323488581%7CUnknown%7CT W FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI 6 Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=2H1dCEGdeJO6n9YQJXZKXUna3dLhYpWCeCZFhgx y AHU%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://list/ s.ripe.net <http://s.ripe.net/>%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fadmin%2540roskomna d zor.io <http://zor.io/>&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net <http://40kyivstar.net/>%7Ce4e8a4332c5d4 9 e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C63848 7 645323494790%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2lu M zIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=K%2BYfGnyeQ3 c gBXp6a9M%2FAvEqDPJhsOzQ5rOb1EZTKbE%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://list/ s.ripe.net <http://s.ripe.net/>%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvgen iy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net <http://40kyivstar.net/>%7C860a06771bd946d991ab08dc5dea2f7d%7Cf8f9bd 573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638488507623370371%7CUnknown%7CTW FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6 Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Pzu1szVFpRbqJMsRLW7UWN1Xq108vbkUlr2iG7PYT%2B M%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://list/ s.ripe.net <http://s.ripe.net/>%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fregistry%2540kyiv&d ata=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net <http://40kyivstar.net/>%7C860a06771bd946d991ab08 dc5dea2f7d%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C63848850762337 6607%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBT iI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=8K3kQkj2dE4O8GTGnsDIFX2kh ssCWo0Kpy1eyKqLr7w%3D&reserved=0 star.net <http://star.net/>
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/m.terzioglu%40prebits...
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/registry%40kyivstar.n... _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/mihail%40fedorov.net
Le Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 03:09:50PM +0300, Mihail Fedorov a écrit :
This example is missing one important thing - really small LIRs with single subnet or without any - hobbynet LIRs or small companies who decided to be independent or just starting LIR business. There are also lots of LIRs who are natural persons.
If you just need minimal resources, you can also get sponsored by a friendly LIR, it is usually cheaper. Becoming a LIR is not something I would do for fun or hobby. If you want to be really "independent" then there is cost you should be ready to assume. And everyone in the RIPE region is at the same table.` -- Denis Fondras / Liopen
"Because RIPE budget includes many different things - financing research, Atlas and other very important and useful things, not only cost of registry operating." Should they though, that is my question? These are not core functions for a RIR. Maintaining internet resource registry is. To me this looks more like organisational bloat. For my organisation RIPE atlas is useless for instance, we have never used any of the "free" training and never attended any of the events. We still pay that member fee though for that core function. But in your example we should pay more to support these "important" services because we happen to mentain more IPv4 address space. -- Mediasat ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Doru Serdin* Network Manager Office: +4 031 82 52 657 E-mail: doru.serdin@mediasat.ro www.mediasat.ro <https://www.mediasat.ro> www.alonia.ro <https://www.alonia.ro> Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer does not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it. On 16.04.2024 3:09 PM, Mihail Fedorov wrote:
Hello.
Because RIPE budget includes many different things - financing research, Atlas and other very important and useful things, not only cost of registry operating. You can not assume that this two LIRs in example should finance that equally without aim to kill second LIR.
This example is missing one important thing - really small LIRs with single subnet or without any - hobbynet LIRs or small companies who decided to be independent or just starting LIR business. There are also lots of LIRs who are natural persons. Regardless of their consumption assuming they should sponsor research or Atlas equally is terrible.
That’s why all other RIRs have different level based charging scheme. RIPE is the only one who constantly refuses to apply it.
On 16 Apr 2024, at 11:36, Evgeniy Brodskiy via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> wrote:
Confidential/Конфіденційно
Dear Murat TERZIOGLU,
Why you make a decision that Mercedes-Benz need more RIPE staff time and spends comparing to your another LIR ?? Because we are talking about RIPE budget which convert in RIPE spends. And if both LIRs consume equivale spends from RIPE budget why they have to pay different fee ?
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Ofm.terzioglu@prebits.de Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 10:51 AM To:members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
Interesting...
Mercedes-Benz has 16 x IPv4 allocations: 1 x /8 13 x /21 2 x /22 will pay in new scheme (one option) 2650€ / year
Another LIR, has 16 x IPv4 allocations: 16 x /24 will pay in new scheme also (one option) 2650€ / year
Yes, i know, it wasnt different before. But i am new and i am asking general questions...
RIPE is non-profit organisation but the small LIRs are paying for the bigger LIRs.
Because they are older than many players in world, they use the resources on shoulders of the smaller players.
YES, THESE RESOURCES ARE PUBLIC!!!
Dear RIPE community, would you please pay my launch today, and always? Because this is only available here :)
-- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards
Murat TERZIOGLU PREBITS
Bochumer Str. 20 44866 Bochum Deutschland
Telefon: 0234/58825994 Telefax: 0234/58825995
http://www.prebits.de/ info@prebits.de
USt-ID: DE315418902
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> Im Auftrag von ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED Gesendet: Montag, 15. April 2024 23:24 An: Evgeniy Brodskiy <Evgeniy.Brodskiy@kyivstar.net> Cc:members-discuss@ripe.net Betreff: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
1) Land is end limited resource - like a IP pool 2) Managed by single legacy monopoly - like a RIR in region 3) Have market price - like a current IP on market 4) Can be only holded by specific time - like a IP PA addresses
IP already a some sort of property what are you can rent/lease/sell/buy. Big holders making a lobby for pay minimal amount for himself. And current RIPE policy doing one main thing - making small LIRs for paying same amount as large holders.
Im make a list of top 88 most bigger holders in RIPE region and...
IF any of this 88 Extra Large LIRs pay for 500.000 EUR - budget of RIPE will be instantly fullfilled, and for this companies this amount will not be a high!
1) UK MoD 2) Mersedes-Benz 3) Orange 4) Free SAS 5) WIND TRE S.P.A. (Italia) 6) Telecom Italia S.p.A. 7) Deutsche Telekom AG 8) British Telecommunications PLC ... and more, and more
This companies have a super high budgets and can pay that even without trouble...
BUT this companies will NOT be do that! Because prefer to send all spending on someone else - i.e. small LIRs.
RIPE is important for all, but why take RIPE take fee preferred from small LIRs? Huh?
Why LIR with 0 IPv4, 1 ASN and 1 IPv4 /48, must pay same as Orange, Deutsche Telekom AG, British Telecommunications PLC, KYIVSTAR and other big telecoms?
On 15.04.2024 21:05, Evgeniy Brodskiy wrote:
Confidential/Конфіденційно
An interesting approach is to treat to IPs like a land, take taxes, fee as % of deal price, etc. And if we don't stop a halfway. Since land is property with all the attendant rights and limits of ownership, the IPs will also become a property. This appears to be the ultimate goal of such proposals.
Not sure that thing like this is what the community really needs.
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 10:49 AM To: Michel Lanners <michel.lanners@lu-cix.lu>; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
Holders of IPv4 are same as holders of land.
Being member of RIPE mean you have ability to have resources (aka land) and vote. (like a being citizenship give only 1 (ONE) vote - doesnt matter how much taxes you pay per year!)
But in addition you must pay per resources what you have/own - like a land tax.
RIPE NCC is registered in NL, NL is part of EU, so - EU principes must be also apply in same way!
So, in EU land taxes usually payed per (sq.m in own OR market price), nor per registered object in own.
Moreover, in EU also present tax on selling operations - i.e. if someone sell resources (aka land) - its must also pay some fee as % of deal price, but RIPE didnt charge for that (what are also unfair).
P.S. Michael, Im also want to remember you about that - https://www/. lu-cix.lu <http://lu-cix.lu/>%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2024%2F01%2FLU-CIX-ASBL-new-price-list-2&d ata=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net <http://40kyivstar.net/>%7C860a06771bd946d991ab08 dc5dea2f7d%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C63848850762336 3489%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBT iI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=IGEldOP%2FLElKUMIkuwH7ER8 izGZ6FYFg1GeY4Df0LEo%3D&reserved=0 024.pdf LU-CIX non-profit organization, but your pricing different from port bandwidth (why not same price for all?) - but you calling people about "same price" is good for RIPE. Im really doesnt understand you. Sorry.
On 15.04.2024 7:22, Michel Lanners wrote:
On 13 Apr 2024, at 18:35, Blake Shepherd <blake66@live.co.uk> wrote:
Please can you tell me how this company and alot of others.
https://bgp/ .tools%2Frir-owner%2Fuk.btent&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyiv s tar.net <http://tar.net/>%7Ce4e8a4332c5d49e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8 e 70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638487645323443698%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIj o iMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000% 7 C%7C%7C&sdata=Lu7Kf9N5olxNSkGwrc0wVdjKyafXx9P%2F2zBqy%2FIVzsU%3D&res e rved=0
https://bgp/ .tools%2Frir-owner%2Fuk.btgia&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyiv s tar.net <http://tar.net/>%7Ce4e8a4332c5d49e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8 e 70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638487645323451250%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIj o iMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000% 7 C%7C%7C&sdata=z7yGYhxpJQfmVlH9w6WNUQybDNsnpoLzuhacZZs%2BHEo%3D&reser v ed=0
Pays the same as me please show me how ripe is equal or fair please do something and add a fee per ipv4 and ipv6 it's not hard to make it fair.
Because RIPE is a MEMBERSHIP organisation. It’s not a commercial company selling something.
If I’m asked to pay more I also want more voting rights. Consequence: the few big ones will dominate and steer RIPE in the direction THEY want. I don’t think that’s in the interest of those who yell at the unfair membership rate.
RIPE is fair because every member has the same right and the same one vote.
*Michel LANNERS* CIO at LU-CIX Management G.I.E. -- <https://www/ .luxchat.lu <http://luxchat.lu/>%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net <http://40kyivstar.net/>%7Ce4e8a 4 332c5d49e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0 % 7C638487645323458125%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQ I joiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=E12f X iforWLy60FfnZNuygnWOsfcJjPi81tmFuSReRI%3D&reserved=0> Mail:michel.lanners@lu-cix.lu<mailto:michel.lanners@lu-cix.lu <mailto:michel.lanners@lu-cix.lu>> Luxchat: @3eb2pdflrq57:01.lu-cix.luxchat.lu <http://01.lu-cix.luxchat.lu/> Phone: (+352) 28 99 29 92-81 *LU-CIX Management G.I.E.* 202, Z.A.E. Wolser F L-3290 Bettembourg lu-cix.lu <http://lu-cix.lu/> <https://www/ .lu-cix.lu <http://lu-cix.lu/>%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net <http://40kyivstar.net/>%7Ce4e8a4 3 32c5d49e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0% 7 C638487645323463707%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQI j oiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=gOIpC k Q%2Fs02jD74QdFTvgD0oN6%2B8TRb211MlXgm03Hs%3D&reserved=0> luxchat.lu <http://luxchat.lu/> <https://www/ .luxchat.lu <http://luxchat.lu/>%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net <http://40kyivstar.net/>%7Ce4e8a 4 332c5d49e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0 % 7C638487645323470030%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQ I joiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=dLxj a cs%2FE%2FLVtOT1c6Ub9PJ5WWM0yY1v09o4JdnVdw0%3D&reserved=0> luxembourg-internet-days.com <http://luxembourg-internet-days.com/> <https://lux/ embourg-internet-days.com <http://embourg-internet-days.com/>%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivst a r.net <http://r.net/>%7Ce4e8a4332c5d49e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70 a 30986%7C0%7C0%7C638487645323475953%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC 4 wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C % 7C&sdata=LzeyrIIrJDEasmZcC6WdtegokZy%2B%2BUEyotsu%2BloT%2BeE%3D&reser v ed=0>lunog.lu <http://lunog.lu/> <https://www/ .lunog.lu <http://lunog.lu/>%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net <http://40kyivstar.net/>%7Ce4e8a43 3 2c5d49e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7 C 638487645323483181%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIj o iV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xygqD% 2 BQOYtONm779kP97U%2Bd6POUAG0XXjXeXWe3QCQE%3D&reserved=0>
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://list/ s.ripe.net <http://s.ripe.net/>%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvge n iy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net <http://40kyivstar.net/>%7Ce4e8a4332c5d49e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9b d 573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638487645323488581%7CUnknown%7CT W FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI 6 Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=2H1dCEGdeJO6n9YQJXZKXUna3dLhYpWCeCZFhgx y AHU%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://list/ s.ripe.net <http://s.ripe.net/>%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fadmin%2540roskomna d zor.io <http://zor.io/>&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net <http://40kyivstar.net/>%7Ce4e8a4332c5d4 9 e6cde908dc5d215a63%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C63848 7 645323494790%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2lu M zIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=K%2BYfGnyeQ3 c gBXp6a9M%2FAvEqDPJhsOzQ5rOb1EZTKbE%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://list/ s.ripe.net <http://s.ripe.net/>%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvgen iy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net <http://40kyivstar.net/>%7C860a06771bd946d991ab08dc5dea2f7d%7Cf8f9bd 573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638488507623370371%7CUnknown%7CTW FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6 Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Pzu1szVFpRbqJMsRLW7UWN1Xq108vbkUlr2iG7PYT%2B M%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://list/ s.ripe.net <http://s.ripe.net/>%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fregistry%2540kyiv&d ata=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net <http://40kyivstar.net/>%7C860a06771bd946d991ab08 dc5dea2f7d%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C63848850762337 6607%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBT iI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=8K3kQkj2dE4O8GTGnsDIFX2kh ssCWo0Kpy1eyKqLr7w%3D&reserved=0 star.net <http://star.net/>
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe:https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/m.terzioglu%40prebits...
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe:https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/registry%40kyivstar.n... _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe:https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/mihail%40fedorov.net
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe:https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/doru.serdin%40mediasa...
On Tue Apr 16, 2024 at 09:51:13AM +0200, m.terzioglu@prebits.de wrote:
RIPE is non-profit organisation but the small LIRs are paying for the bigger LIRs.
No - everyone is paying an equal share of the costs of running an Internet *Registry*. Long gone are the days where you can get IP addresses from RIPE (in any sensibly usable quantities). RIPE is a Regional Internet *Registry*, not an IP shop or IP broker. Using the land analogy, you don't go to RIPE to buy land, you go to RIPE to register your (ownership/claim on) land. I don't know about other countries, but in the UK we have the UK Land Registry where you register your land. If you want to buy land, you go to an estate agent. Whilst the UK Land Registry has a scale of registration costs based on the value (note, value not size) of land, it's not a very wide scale. If you want more IPv4 space, you don't go to RIPE, you go to an IP broker (or purchase it privately). Once you've done that, you register your claim to those IPv4 addresses with RIPE. I cannot think of any pricing model for RIPE which would result in RIPE suddenly having lots of IPv4 addresses which can be re-distributed to LIRs. Pretty much every proposal that has been posted over the last few weeks seem to have an undertone of "Look, here's some LIRs who have lots of IPv4 space. Wah, it's not fair, and I want some of it for cheap from RIPE". Simon
we still don't understand each other. European Union = equality and access to value for all on the same terms. IP addresses were wrongly issued. This is a fact. RIPE was not well run from its inception. Addresses at the beginning of the uprising were distributed without thought and by the wrong people who made mistakes. Addresses are a social good. There can be no question of who should pay how much and how to pay LIR fees. it should be fixed. IP Addresses access policies must be regulated. because they have run out. Lack of changes that will release frozen IPs and unused IP addresses will end up with statutory regulations and the creation of a law that will impose this on us if we do not regulate it ourselves. The current IP address management policy is unethical. It is discriminatory to both the currently emerging companies and their users. if there is discrimination, and in this case 100% there is, then this should be equalized immediately. Best Regard's/ Pozdrawiam Gabriel Sulka ------------------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Simon Lockhart Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 11:17 AM To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals On Tue Apr 16, 2024 at 09:51:13AM +0200, m.terzioglu@prebits.de wrote:
RIPE is non-profit organisation but the small LIRs are paying for the bigger LIRs.
No - everyone is paying an equal share of the costs of running an Internet *Registry*. Long gone are the days where you can get IP addresses from RIPE (in any sensibly usable quantities). RIPE is a Regional Internet *Registry*, not an IP shop or IP broker. Using the land analogy, you don't go to RIPE to buy land, you go to RIPE to register your (ownership/claim on) land. I don't know about other countries, but in the UK we have the UK Land Registry where you register your land. If you want to buy land, you go to an estate agent. Whilst the UK Land Registry has a scale of registration costs based on the value (note, value not size) of land, it's not a very wide scale. If you want more IPv4 space, you don't go to RIPE, you go to an IP broker (or purchase it privately). Once you've done that, you register your claim to those IPv4 addresses with RIPE. I cannot think of any pricing model for RIPE which would result in RIPE suddenly having lots of IPv4 addresses which can be re-distributed to LIRs. Pretty much every proposal that has been posted over the last few weeks seem to have an undertone of "Look, here's some LIRs who have lots of IPv4 space. Wah, it's not fair, and I want some of it for cheap from RIPE". Simon _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/gabi%40kompex.pl
Hey, Fair fees would probably be something along the lines of: RIPE Annual operating costs collected in fees per resources; 5% from LIR memberships 2.5% per ASN registration 5% per IPv6 subnet (say per starting /56 or something like that) ??% per other resources utilized REST% per IPv4 subnet (say per /24) Given this kind of power however, there needs to be checks and balances RIPE just doesn't keep intentionally increasing annual operating costs (like govts do), so perhaps set a steady state annual budget increase of +5% (just slightly above inflation), and starting point based on last 3 year average. IPv4 should account for at least 67% of the budget being the most scarce and limited resource, ensuring efficient allocation of IPv4 addresses. Some big holder has issue with this and too tight budget to pay it? They are not using the IPv4 addresses in valuable enough use case to justify having them in that case. (Like those who hoard IPs in gigantic numbers, and don't use them at all, or maybe sell SEO spamming services, DOS services or proxies for like 1€/IP/Year ...) IPv6 should have fees as well, otherwise it will just become similarly scarce as IPv4 given enough time. Set like this it would not set European/RIPE Region Members at significant disadvantage compared to other regions. Total fees collected would be the same, but who pays how much and for what would differ significantly. Infact, it would probably curb some forms of abuse in the RIPE region (aforementioned example is actually a real world case) Just food for thought // my 2cents. Br, Aleksi Magna Capax Finland Oy On 16/04/2024 12.33, Firma KOMPEX wrote:
we still don't understand each other.
European Union = equality and access to value for all on the same terms.
IP addresses were wrongly issued. This is a fact. RIPE was not well run from its inception. Addresses at the beginning of the uprising were distributed without thought and by the wrong people who made mistakes.
Addresses are a social good. There can be no question of who should pay how much and how to pay LIR fees. it should be fixed. IP Addresses access policies must be regulated. because they have run out.
Lack of changes that will release frozen IPs and unused IP addresses will end up with statutory regulations and the creation of a law that will impose this on us if we do not regulate it ourselves.
The current IP address management policy is unethical. It is discriminatory to both the currently emerging companies and their users.
if there is discrimination, and in this case 100% there is, then this should be equalized immediately.
Best Regard's/ Pozdrawiam Gabriel Sulka
-------------------------------------------------------------
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Simon Lockhart Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 11:17 AM To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
On Tue Apr 16, 2024 at 09:51:13AM +0200, m.terzioglu@prebits.de wrote:
RIPE is non-profit organisation but the small LIRs are paying for the bigger LIRs. No - everyone is paying an equal share of the costs of running an Internet *Registry*.
Long gone are the days where you can get IP addresses from RIPE (in any sensibly usable quantities).
RIPE is a Regional Internet *Registry*, not an IP shop or IP broker.
Using the land analogy, you don't go to RIPE to buy land, you go to RIPE to register your (ownership/claim on) land. I don't know about other countries, but in the UK we have the UK Land Registry where you register your land. If you want to buy land, you go to an estate agent. Whilst the UK Land Registry has a scale of registration costs based on the value (note, value not size) of land, it's not a very wide scale.
If you want more IPv4 space, you don't go to RIPE, you go to an IP broker (or purchase it privately). Once you've done that, you register your claim to those IPv4 addresses with RIPE.
I cannot think of any pricing model for RIPE which would result in RIPE suddenly having lots of IPv4 addresses which can be re-distributed to LIRs.
Pretty much every proposal that has been posted over the last few weeks seem to have an undertone of "Look, here's some LIRs who have lots of IPv4 space. Wah, it's not fair, and I want some of it for cheap from RIPE".
Simon
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/gabi%40kompex.pl
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/aleksi%40magnacapax.f...
Confidential/Конфіденційно Hi Gabriel, Strange to hear that IP addresses were wrongly issued. This is a fact. it could be partially true in some cases if somebody sell, rent or just hold and don’t use IPv4 at all. But it LIRs using IPs right by their meaning to provide access to Internet, how it could be wrongly issued ? You may say that for some LIRs the Internet access model is not optimal. That should be used dynamic address assignment or NAT44 or IPv6, etc. But each LIR has its own network and nobody can declare who and how have to build their networks. Trying to take away addresses from companies that use them to provide Internet access is also unethical, because this denies Internet access rights to users of these companies. I think you will agree with me that free access to information and to Internet is a crucial for human rights. -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Firma KOMPEX Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 12:34 PM To: 'Simon Lockhart' <simon@slimey.org>; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals we still don't understand each other. European Union = equality and access to value for all on the same terms. IP addresses were wrongly issued. This is a fact. RIPE was not well run from its inception. Addresses at the beginning of the uprising were distributed without thought and by the wrong people who made mistakes. Addresses are a social good. There can be no question of who should pay how much and how to pay LIR fees. it should be fixed. IP Addresses access policies must be regulated. because they have run out. Lack of changes that will release frozen IPs and unused IP addresses will end up with statutory regulations and the creation of a law that will impose this on us if we do not regulate it ourselves. The current IP address management policy is unethical. It is discriminatory to both the currently emerging companies and their users. if there is discrimination, and in this case 100% there is, then this should be equalized immediately. Best Regard's/ Pozdrawiam Gabriel Sulka ------------------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> On Behalf Of Simon Lockhart Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 11:17 AM To: members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals On Tue Apr 16, 2024 at 09:51:13AM +0200, m.terzioglu@prebits.de<mailto:m.terzioglu@prebits.de> wrote:
RIPE is non-profit organisation but the small LIRs are paying for the
bigger LIRs.
No - everyone is paying an equal share of the costs of running an Internet *Registry*. Long gone are the days where you can get IP addresses from RIPE (in any sensibly usable quantities). RIPE is a Regional Internet *Registry*, not an IP shop or IP broker. Using the land analogy, you don't go to RIPE to buy land, you go to RIPE to register your (ownership/claim on) land. I don't know about other countries, but in the UK we have the UK Land Registry where you register your land. If you want to buy land, you go to an estate agent. Whilst the UK Land Registry has a scale of registration costs based on the value (note, value not size) of land, it's not a very wide scale. If you want more IPv4 space, you don't go to RIPE, you go to an IP broker (or purchase it privately). Once you've done that, you register your claim to those IPv4 addresses with RIPE. I cannot think of any pricing model for RIPE which would result in RIPE suddenly having lots of IPv4 addresses which can be re-distributed to LIRs. Pretty much every proposal that has been posted over the last few weeks seem to have an undertone of "Look, here's some LIRs who have lots of IPv4 space. Wah, it's not fair, and I want some of it for cheap from RIPE". Simon _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C80bb2189ba9249353b5c08dc5df86f62%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638488568803458415%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=1c3s%2FyAqbkYN%2BQ1yfeMElxulb3NWdtEPZqfpqFimd3w%3D&reserved=0<https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss> Unsubscribe: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fgabi%2540kompex.pl&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C80bb2189ba9249353b5c08dc5df86f62%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638488568803468977%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=6vLwWDeugdfRB2pICA8wkeQD4AP4QBGmUzY54Wyd468%3D&reserved=0<https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/gabi%40kompex.pl> _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C80bb2189ba9249353b5c08dc5df86f62%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638488568803475982%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=NXyJ7gHu%2F%2FrvEX9qufFcqzxhoFtxbZyhCMqTgT2r0%2BQ%3D&reserved=0<https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss> Unsubscribe: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fevgeniy.brodskiy%2540kyivstar.net&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C80bb2189ba9249353b5c08dc5df86f62%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638488568803482635%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=y1a%2FYBkiLi3J6E9%2BiLENc%2BcaI32D4%2BYOIlLyhRDwxWk%3D&reserved=0<https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/evgeniy.brodskiy%40kyivstar.net>
Hello Of course the people at RIPE made mistakes. In the old days they issued /8, /12, /14, /16, /18, /20 without any justification and demand for IP addresses. At that time it seemed to them that the addresses would not run out. at a later stage began to issue /22 to new members to ask about the need if they need it and for what. it was also necessary to document the needs in order to get a larger network and mask. as a result, the last years were granted /24 so we see a lot of discrimination due to time. therefore, changes are needed to fix this. Bringing in IP fees in the form of 50 Euro cents per year or 1 Euro. will free up addresses. will appear in brokers, cheap address rental and access for all. their use and price of maintenance will normalize. in large corporations are wasting a lot of addresses and no one there will make any decision to change this. As long as it is free, nobody will change it. and everyone who uses the Internet loses. Pozdrawiam Gabriel Sulka From: Evgeniy Brodskiy <Evgeniy.Brodskiy@kyivstar.net> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 12:49 PM To: Firma KOMPEX <gabi@kompex.pl> Cc: 'Simon Lockhart' <simon@slimey.org>; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: RE: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals Confidential/Конфіденційно Hi Gabriel, Strange to hear that IP addresses were wrongly issued. This is a fact. it could be partially true in some cases if somebody sell, rent or just hold and don’t use IPv4 at all. But it LIRs using IPs right by their meaning to provide access to Internet, how it could be wrongly issued ? You may say that for some LIRs the Internet access model is not optimal. That should be used dynamic address assignment or NAT44 or IPv6, etc. But each LIR has its own network and nobody can declare who and how have to build their networks. Trying to take away addresses from companies that use them to provide Internet access is also unethical, because this denies Internet access rights to users of these companies. I think you will agree with me that free access to information and to Internet is a crucial for human rights. -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> > On Behalf Of Firma KOMPEX Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 12:34 PM To: 'Simon Lockhart' <simon@slimey.org <mailto:simon@slimey.org> >; members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals we still don't understand each other. European Union = equality and access to value for all on the same terms. IP addresses were wrongly issued. This is a fact. RIPE was not well run from its inception. Addresses at the beginning of the uprising were distributed without thought and by the wrong people who made mistakes. Addresses are a social good. There can be no question of who should pay how much and how to pay LIR fees. it should be fixed. IP Addresses access policies must be regulated. because they have run out. Lack of changes that will release frozen IPs and unused IP addresses will end up with statutory regulations and the creation of a law that will impose this on us if we do not regulate it ourselves. The current IP address management policy is unethical. It is discriminatory to both the currently emerging companies and their users. if there is discrimination, and in this case 100% there is, then this should be equalized immediately. Best Regard's/ Pozdrawiam Gabriel Sulka ------------------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss < <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Simon Lockhart Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 11:17 AM To: <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals On Tue Apr 16, 2024 at 09:51:13AM +0200, <mailto:m.terzioglu@prebits.de> m.terzioglu@prebits.de wrote:
RIPE is non-profit organisation but the small LIRs are paying for the
bigger LIRs.
No - everyone is paying an equal share of the costs of running an Internet *Registry*. Long gone are the days where you can get IP addresses from RIPE (in any sensibly usable quantities). RIPE is a Regional Internet *Registry*, not an IP shop or IP broker. Using the land analogy, you don't go to RIPE to buy land, you go to RIPE to register your (ownership/claim on) land. I don't know about other countries, but in the UK we have the UK Land Registry where you register your land. If you want to buy land, you go to an estate agent. Whilst the UK Land Registry has a scale of registration costs based on the value (note, value not size) of land, it's not a very wide scale. If you want more IPv4 space, you don't go to RIPE, you go to an IP broker (or purchase it privately). Once you've done that, you register your claim to those IPv4 addresses with RIPE. I cannot think of any pricing model for RIPE which would result in RIPE suddenly having lots of IPv4 addresses which can be re-distributed to LIRs. Pretty much every proposal that has been posted over the last few weeks seem to have an undertone of "Look, here's some LIRs who have lots of IPv4 space. Wah, it's not fair, and I want some of it for cheap from RIPE". Simon _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> members-discuss@ripe.net <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C80bb2189ba9249353b5c08dc5df86f62%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638488568803458415%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=1c3s%2FyAqbkYN%2BQ1yfeMElxulb3NWdtEPZqfpqFimd3w%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/gabi%40kompex.pl> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fgabi%2540kompex.pl&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C80bb2189ba9249353b5c08dc5df86f62%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638488568803468977%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=6vLwWDeugdfRB2pICA8wkeQD4AP4QBGmUzY54Wyd468%3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> members-discuss@ripe.net <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C80bb2189ba9249353b5c08dc5df86f62%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638488568803475982%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=NXyJ7gHu%2F%2FrvEX9qufFcqzxhoFtxbZyhCMqTgT2r0%2BQ%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/evgeniy.brodskiy%40kyivstar.net> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fevgeniy.brodskiy%2540kyivstar.net&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C80bb2189ba9249353b5c08dc5df86f62%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638488568803482635%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=y1a%2FYBkiLi3J6E9%2BiLENc%2BcaI32D4%2BYOIlLyhRDwxWk%3D&reserved=0
On 16 Apr 2024, at 13:04, Firma KOMPEX <gabi@kompex.pl> wrote:
Of course the people at RIPE made mistakes.
May I remind you that address policy is decided in the working group of the same name, by the RIPE Community and not the RIPE NCC? RIPE Community is all of us, you included. RIPE NCC implements the policies the Community decides.
In the old days they issued /8, /12, /14, /16, /18, /20 without any justification and demand for IP addresses.
If you refer to the days before RIPE policies, then looking back from today, yes some assignments were quite generous, because it wasn’t envisioned that the Internet would become what it is today. But as long as I can remember (and I’m not the youngest anymore!), policies were always there, and no, getting IP addresses was _not_ free beer for all. Michel LANNERS CIO at LU-CIX Management G.I.E. -- <https://www.luxchat.lu/> Mail: michel.lanners@lu-cix.lu <mailto:michel.lanners@lu-cix.lu> Luxchat: @3eb2pdflrq57:01.lu-cix.luxchat.lu Phone: (+352) 28 99 29 92-81 LU-CIX Management G.I.E. 202, Z.A.E. Wolser F L-3290 Bettembourg lu-cix.lu <https://www.lu-cix.lu/> luxchat.lu <https://www.luxchat.lu/> luxembourg-internet-days.com <https://luxembourg-internet-days.com/> lunog.lu <https://www.lunog.lu/>
Hi, does it mean, that everything decided before, should be correct and legitim? Either science is not so. They thought the world was flat and so on… So you can not take everything as non changeable facts.. And here there many things, that they are from stone age. And i am free not to accept the applicable and proposed charging schemes. I find that it is not fair. If RIPE is a organisation, which affects our freedom of our internet usage, than they should handle fair Many people dont and can not contribute. Because of many aspecsts, like language barriers of them etc. The desicions will be done often from very small part of the community, often as i see in the last years, for their own interests (i realize this is a generalization, but generally).. -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards Murat TERZIOGLU PREBITS Bochumer Str. 20 44866 Bochum Deutschland Telefon: 0234/58825994 Telefax: 0234/58825995 <http://www.prebits.de/> www.prebits.de <mailto:info@prebits.de> info@prebits.de USt-ID: DE315418902 Von: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> Im Auftrag von Michel Lanners Gesendet: Dienstag, 16. April 2024 13:22 An: members-discuss@ripe.net Betreff: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals On 16 Apr 2024, at 13:04, Firma KOMPEX <gabi@kompex.pl <mailto:gabi@kompex.pl> > wrote: Of course the people at RIPE made mistakes. May I remind you that address policy is decided in the working group of the same name, by the RIPE Community and not the RIPE NCC? RIPE Community is all of us, you included. RIPE NCC implements the policies the Community decides. In the old days they issued /8, /12, /14, /16, /18, /20 without any justification and demand for IP addresses. If you refer to the days before RIPE policies, then looking back from today, yes some assignments were quite generous, because it wasn’t envisioned that the Internet would become what it is today. But as long as I can remember (and I’m not the youngest anymore!), policies were always there, and no, getting IP addresses was _not_ free beer for all. Michel LANNERS CIO at LU-CIX Management G.I.E. -- <https://www.luxchat.lu/> Mail: michel.lanners@lu-cix.lu <mailto:michel.lanners@lu-cix.lu> Luxchat: @3eb2pdflrq57:01.lu-cix.luxchat.lu Phone: (+352) 28 99 29 92-81 LU-CIX Management G.I.E. 202, Z.A.E. Wolser F L-3290 Bettembourg lu-cix.lu <https://www.lu-cix.lu/> luxchat.lu <https://www.luxchat.lu/> luxembourg-internet-days.com <https://luxembourg-internet-days.com/> lunog.lu <https://www.lunog.lu/>
"I find that it is not fair. If RIPE is a organisation, which affects our freedom of our internet usage, than they should handle fair" What is "fair" is fat too subjective, we should focus this discussion more on a workable solution that is agreeable for the majority of (voting) members. -- Mediasat ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Doru Serdin* Network Manager Office: +4 031 82 52 657 E-mail: doru.serdin@mediasat.ro www.mediasat.ro <https://www.mediasat.ro> www.alonia.ro <https://www.alonia.ro> Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer does not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it. On 16.04.2024 4:07 PM, m.terzioglu@prebits.de wrote:
Hi,
does it mean, that everything decided before, should be correct and legitim? Either science is not so. They thought the world was flat and so on…
So you can not take everything as non changeable facts.. And here there many things, that they are from stone age.
And i am free not to accept the applicable and proposed charging schemes.
I find that it is not fair. If RIPE is a organisation, which affects our freedom of our internet usage, than they should handle fair
Many people dont and can not contribute. Because of many aspecsts, like language barriers of them etc. The desicions will be done often from very small part of the community, often as i see in the last years, for their own interests (i realize this is a generalization, but generally)..
-- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards
*Murat TERZIOGLU* *PREB**IT**S***
Bochumer Str. 20
44866 Bochum
Deutschland
Telefon: 0234/58825994
Telefax: 0234/58825995
www.prebits.de <http://www.prebits.de/>
info@prebits.de <mailto:info@prebits.de>
USt-ID: DE315418902
*Von:*members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> *Im Auftrag von *Michel Lanners *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 16. April 2024 13:22 *An:* members-discuss@ripe.net *Betreff:* Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
On 16 Apr 2024, at 13:04, Firma KOMPEX <gabi@kompex.pl> wrote:
Of course the people at RIPE made mistakes.
May I remind you that address policy is decided in the working group of the same name, by the RIPE Community and not the RIPE NCC? RIPE Community is all of us, you included.
RIPE NCC implements the policies the Community decides.
In the old days they issued /8, /12, /14, /16, /18, /20 without any justification and demand for IP addresses.
If you refer to the days before RIPE policies, then looking back from today, yes some assignments were quite generous, because it wasn’t envisioned that the Internet would become what it is today.
But as long as I can remember (and I’m not the youngest anymore!), policies were always there, and no, getting IP addresses was _not_ free beer for all.
*Michel LANNERS*
CIO at LU-CIX Management G.I.E.
--
Mail: michel.lanners@lu-cix.lu
Luxchat: @3eb2pdflrq57:01.lu-cix.luxchat.lu
Phone: (+352) 28 99 29 92-81
*LU-CIX Management G.I.E.*
202, Z.A.E. Wolser F
L-3290 Bettembourg
lu-cix.lu <https://www.lu-cix.lu/>
luxchat.lu <https://www.luxchat.lu/>
luxembourg-internet-days.com <https://luxembourg-internet-days.com/>
lunog.lu <https://www.lunog.lu/>
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe:https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/doru.serdin%40mediasa...
You are right, i am with you. But i am not sure, here in discussion, many of the members are sharing some ideas, some proposals, how will they be collected or worked out? Is there system for this? -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards Murat TERZIOGLU PREBITS Bochumer Str. 20 44866 Bochum Deutschland Telefon: 0234/58825994 Telefax: 0234/58825995 <http://www.prebits.de/> www.prebits.de <mailto:info@prebits.de> info@prebits.de USt-ID: DE315418902 Von: Doru Serdin <doru.serdin@mediasat.ro> Gesendet: Dienstag, 16. April 2024 15:20 An: m.terzioglu@prebits.de; members-discuss@ripe.net Betreff: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals "I find that it is not fair. If RIPE is a organisation, which affects our freedom of our internet usage, than they should handle fair" What is "fair" is fat too subjective, we should focus this discussion more on a workable solution that is agreeable for the majority of (voting) members. -- _____ Doru Serdin Network Manager Office: +4 031 82 52 657 E-mail: doru.serdin@mediasat.ro <mailto:doru.serdin@mediasat.ro> <https://www.mediasat.ro/> <https://www.alonia.ro/> Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer does not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it. On 16.04.2024 4:07 PM, m.terzioglu@prebits.de <mailto:m.terzioglu@prebits.de> wrote: Hi, does it mean, that everything decided before, should be correct and legitim? Either science is not so. They thought the world was flat and so on… So you can not take everything as non changeable facts.. And here there many things, that they are from stone age. And i am free not to accept the applicable and proposed charging schemes. I find that it is not fair. If RIPE is a organisation, which affects our freedom of our internet usage, than they should handle fair Many people dont and can not contribute. Because of many aspecsts, like language barriers of them etc. The desicions will be done often from very small part of the community, often as i see in the last years, for their own interests (i realize this is a generalization, but generally).. -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards Murat TERZIOGLU PREBITS Bochumer Str. 20 44866 Bochum Deutschland Telefon: 0234/58825994 Telefax: 0234/58825995 <http://www.prebits.de/> www.prebits.de <mailto:info@prebits.de> info@prebits.de USt-ID: DE315418902 Von: members-discuss <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> Im Auftrag von Michel Lanners Gesendet: Dienstag, 16. April 2024 13:22 An: members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Betreff: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals On 16 Apr 2024, at 13:04, Firma KOMPEX <gabi@kompex.pl <mailto:gabi@kompex.pl> > wrote: Of course the people at RIPE made mistakes. May I remind you that address policy is decided in the working group of the same name, by the RIPE Community and not the RIPE NCC? RIPE Community is all of us, you included. RIPE NCC implements the policies the Community decides. In the old days they issued /8, /12, /14, /16, /18, /20 without any justification and demand for IP addresses. If you refer to the days before RIPE policies, then looking back from today, yes some assignments were quite generous, because it wasn’t envisioned that the Internet would become what it is today. But as long as I can remember (and I’m not the youngest anymore!), policies were always there, and no, getting IP addresses was _not_ free beer for all. Michel LANNERS CIO at LU-CIX Management G.I.E. -- <https://www.luxchat.lu/> Mail: michel.lanners@lu-cix.lu <mailto:michel.lanners@lu-cix.lu> Luxchat: @3eb2pdflrq57:01.lu-cix.luxchat.lu Phone: (+352) 28 99 29 92-81 LU-CIX Management G.I.E. 202, Z.A.E. Wolser F L-3290 Bettembourg lu-cix.lu <https://www.lu-cix.lu/> luxchat.lu <https://www.luxchat.lu/> luxembourg-internet-days.com <https://luxembourg-internet-days.com/> lunog.lu <https://www.lunog.lu/> _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/doru.serdin%40mediasa...
Confidential/Конфіденційно Sorry if I am wrong but from your last e-mail look like you doesn't care about RIPE budget at all. You just want to increase cost of ownership for IPv4 address space. Just to clarify. Why do you think brokers will free IPv4 address space in case of you solution ? Why they not just relocate this cost to their clients making rent more costly ? From: Firma KOMPEX <gabi@kompex.pl> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 2:04 PM To: Evgeniy Brodskiy <Evgeniy.Brodskiy@kyivstar.net> Cc: 'Simon Lockhart' <simon@slimey.org>; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: RE: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals Hello Of course the people at RIPE made mistakes. In the old days they issued /8, /12, /14, /16, /18, /20 without any justification and demand for IP addresses. At that time it seemed to them that the addresses would not run out. at a later stage began to issue /22 to new members to ask about the need if they need it and for what. it was also necessary to document the needs in order to get a larger network and mask. as a result, the last years were granted /24 so we see a lot of discrimination due to time. therefore, changes are needed to fix this. Bringing in IP fees in the form of 50 Euro cents per year or 1 Euro. will free up addresses. will appear in brokers, cheap address rental and access for all. their use and price of maintenance will normalize. in large corporations are wasting a lot of addresses and no one there will make any decision to change this. As long as it is free, nobody will change it. and everyone who uses the Internet loses. Pozdrawiam Gabriel Sulka From: Evgeniy Brodskiy <Evgeniy.Brodskiy@kyivstar.net<mailto:Evgeniy.Brodskiy@kyivstar.net>> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 12:49 PM To: Firma KOMPEX <gabi@kompex.pl<mailto:gabi@kompex.pl>> Cc: 'Simon Lockhart' <simon@slimey.org<mailto:simon@slimey.org>>; members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: RE: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals Confidential/Конфіденційно Hi Gabriel, Strange to hear that IP addresses were wrongly issued. This is a fact. it could be partially true in some cases if somebody sell, rent or just hold and don’t use IPv4 at all. But it LIRs using IPs right by their meaning to provide access to Internet, how it could be wrongly issued ? You may say that for some LIRs the Internet access model is not optimal. That should be used dynamic address assignment or NAT44 or IPv6, etc. But each LIR has its own network and nobody can declare who and how have to build their networks. Trying to take away addresses from companies that use them to provide Internet access is also unethical, because this denies Internet access rights to users of these companies. I think you will agree with me that free access to information and to Internet is a crucial for human rights. -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> On Behalf Of Firma KOMPEX Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 12:34 PM To: 'Simon Lockhart' <simon@slimey.org<mailto:simon@slimey.org>>; members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals we still don't understand each other. European Union = equality and access to value for all on the same terms. IP addresses were wrongly issued. This is a fact. RIPE was not well run from its inception. Addresses at the beginning of the uprising were distributed without thought and by the wrong people who made mistakes. Addresses are a social good. There can be no question of who should pay how much and how to pay LIR fees. it should be fixed. IP Addresses access policies must be regulated. because they have run out. Lack of changes that will release frozen IPs and unused IP addresses will end up with statutory regulations and the creation of a law that will impose this on us if we do not regulate it ourselves. The current IP address management policy is unethical. It is discriminatory to both the currently emerging companies and their users. if there is discrimination, and in this case 100% there is, then this should be equalized immediately. Best Regard's/ Pozdrawiam Gabriel Sulka ------------------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> On Behalf Of Simon Lockhart Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 11:17 AM To: members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals On Tue Apr 16, 2024 at 09:51:13AM +0200, m.terzioglu@prebits.de<mailto:m.terzioglu@prebits.de> wrote:
RIPE is non-profit organisation but the small LIRs are paying for the
bigger LIRs.
No - everyone is paying an equal share of the costs of running an Internet *Registry*. Long gone are the days where you can get IP addresses from RIPE (in any sensibly usable quantities). RIPE is a Regional Internet *Registry*, not an IP shop or IP broker. Using the land analogy, you don't go to RIPE to buy land, you go to RIPE to register your (ownership/claim on) land. I don't know about other countries, but in the UK we have the UK Land Registry where you register your land. If you want to buy land, you go to an estate agent. Whilst the UK Land Registry has a scale of registration costs based on the value (note, value not size) of land, it's not a very wide scale. If you want more IPv4 space, you don't go to RIPE, you go to an IP broker (or purchase it privately). Once you've done that, you register your claim to those IPv4 addresses with RIPE. I cannot think of any pricing model for RIPE which would result in RIPE suddenly having lots of IPv4 addresses which can be re-distributed to LIRs. Pretty much every proposal that has been posted over the last few weeks seem to have an undertone of "Look, here's some LIRs who have lots of IPv4 space. Wah, it's not fair, and I want some of it for cheap from RIPE". Simon _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C80bb2189ba9249353b5c08dc5df86f62%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638488568803458415%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=1c3s%2FyAqbkYN%2BQ1yfeMElxulb3NWdtEPZqfpqFimd3w%3D&reserved=0<https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss> Unsubscribe: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fgabi%2540kompex.pl&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C80bb2189ba9249353b5c08dc5df86f62%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638488568803468977%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=6vLwWDeugdfRB2pICA8wkeQD4AP4QBGmUzY54Wyd468%3D&reserved=0<https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/gabi%40kompex.pl> _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C80bb2189ba9249353b5c08dc5df86f62%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638488568803475982%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=NXyJ7gHu%2F%2FrvEX9qufFcqzxhoFtxbZyhCMqTgT2r0%2BQ%3D&reserved=0<https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss> Unsubscribe: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fevgeniy.brodskiy%2540kyivstar.net&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C80bb2189ba9249353b5c08dc5df86f62%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638488568803482635%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=y1a%2FYBkiLi3J6E9%2BiLENc%2BcaI32D4%2BYOIlLyhRDwxWk%3D&reserved=0<https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/evgeniy.brodskiy%40kyivstar.net>
Hi, On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 01:04:24PM +0200, Firma KOMPEX wrote:
Of course the people at RIPE made mistakes. In the old days they issued /8, /12, /14, /16, /18, /20 without any justification and demand for IP addresses.
This is blatantly wrong. There was NEVER a time when you could get addresses from the RIPE NCC without justification and proven demand. Especially when coming back and asking for more, the NCC was very thoroughly asking for documentation that all(!) existing allocations were filled to 90% (which was only much later lowered to 80%). Please stop spreading incorrect claims. Gert Doering -- I was there, back then -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Ingo Lalla, Karin Schuler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Moin, am 17.04.24 um 13:35 schrieb Gert Doering:
On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 01:04:24PM +0200, Firma KOMPEX wrote:
Of course the people at RIPE made mistakes. In the old days they issued /8, /12, /14, /16, /18, /20 without any justification and demand for IP addresses. This is blatantly wrong. There was NEVER a time when you could get addresses from the RIPE NCC without justification and proven demand.
Especially when coming back and asking for more, the NCC was very thoroughly asking for documentation that all(!) existing allocations were filled to 90% (which was only much later lowered to 80%).
Second this; been there, done that as Hostmaster in the late 90's — while you could get another /16 e. g. for your growing dial up or hosting business, you had to present proper documentation on how you are using your already allocated space. And there were audits, especially if you did foobar your documentation in the past. And THAT was a PITA ;-) </memorylane> Anyway, IPv4 is gone now. It was clear from the beginning of the RIR system that IPv4 suppy will run out sooner or later; with CIDR the inflexible Class A/B/C system was removed (so with a need for 1000 addresses you didn't justify to receive a whoppy /16 directly anymore), but IPv4 would run out nonetheless. Let's focus on the future: IPv6 ... Regards, -kai -- Kai Siering Senior System Engineer mail.de GmbH Münsterstraße 3 D-33330 Gütersloh Tel.: +49 (0) 5241 / 74 34 986 Fax: +49 (0) 5241 / 74 34 987 E-Mail:k.siering@team.mail.de Web:https://mail.de/ Geschäftsführender Gesellschafter: Fabian Bock Sitz der Gesellschaft Nordhastedt Handelsregister Pinneberg HRB 8007 PI Steuernummer 18 293 20020
Gabriel You’ve made multiple highly inflammatory and factually inaccurate statements about: * RIPE policies and how they are created * About RIPE staff * About other people’s businesses * About other people’s networks * The European Union I’m not sure what you are trying to do, but it’s not particularly constructive. Apart from anything else I’d respectfully ask you to tone it down, as I cannot imagine that this kind of commentary is particularly welcome by RIPE employees reading this list. While you may take issue with the proposed budget and want to vent your ire, the way you’ve worded some emails read to me like attacks on RIPE staff, which I do not think is “fair” either. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 I have sent this email at a time that is convenient for me. I do not expect you to respond to it outside of your usual working hours. From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Firma KOMPEX <gabi@kompex.pl> Date: Tuesday, 16 April 2024 at 10:35 To: 'Simon Lockhart' <simon@slimey.org>, members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Please use caution when opening attachments from unrecognised sources. we still don't understand each other. European Union = equality and access to value for all on the same terms. IP addresses were wrongly issued. This is a fact. RIPE was not well run from its inception. Addresses at the beginning of the uprising were distributed without thought and by the wrong people who made mistakes. Addresses are a social good. There can be no question of who should pay how much and how to pay LIR fees. it should be fixed. IP Addresses access policies must be regulated. because they have run out. Lack of changes that will release frozen IPs and unused IP addresses will end up with statutory regulations and the creation of a law that will impose this on us if we do not regulate it ourselves. The current IP address management policy is unethical. It is discriminatory to both the currently emerging companies and their users. if there is discrimination, and in this case 100% there is, then this should be equalized immediately. Best Regard's/ Pozdrawiam Gabriel Sulka ------------------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Simon Lockhart Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 11:17 AM To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals On Tue Apr 16, 2024 at 09:51:13AM +0200, m.terzioglu@prebits.de wrote:
RIPE is non-profit organisation but the small LIRs are paying for the bigger LIRs.
No - everyone is paying an equal share of the costs of running an Internet *Registry*. Long gone are the days where you can get IP addresses from RIPE (in any sensibly usable quantities). RIPE is a Regional Internet *Registry*, not an IP shop or IP broker. Using the land analogy, you don't go to RIPE to buy land, you go to RIPE to register your (ownership/claim on) land. I don't know about other countries, but in the UK we have the UK Land Registry where you register your land. If you want to buy land, you go to an estate agent. Whilst the UK Land Registry has a scale of registration costs based on the value (note, value not size) of land, it's not a very wide scale. If you want more IPv4 space, you don't go to RIPE, you go to an IP broker (or purchase it privately). Once you've done that, you register your claim to those IPv4 addresses with RIPE. I cannot think of any pricing model for RIPE which would result in RIPE suddenly having lots of IPv4 addresses which can be re-distributed to LIRs. Pretty much every proposal that has been posted over the last few weeks seem to have an undertone of "Look, here's some LIRs who have lots of IPv4 space. Wah, it's not fair, and I want some of it for cheap from RIPE". Simon _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/gabi%40kompex.pl _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/michele%40blacknight....
Hi, On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 11:33:45AM +0200, Firma KOMPEX wrote:
RIPE was not well run from its inception. Addresses at the beginning of the uprising were distributed without thought and by the wrong people who made mistakes.
I take a bit of offense at this statement. We've tried *since 1998* to make sure everyone has access to IPv6 blocks, to IPv6 trainings, to raise awareness about IPv6, so we'd never even hit the "IPv4 exhaustion" problem. People didn't care, and stuck to IPv4. We warned, and reduced the address blocks, to ensure late-comers would still have IPv4 (and repeated the "go to IPv6" part). People didn't care, and stuck to IPv4. So, how exactly should RIPE have known in 1998 how ... shortsighted ... the Internet community would act, over the next 26 years? Gert Doering -- former address policy WG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Ingo Lalla, Karin Schuler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
On 17. Apr 2024, at 13:31, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 11:33:45AM +0200, Firma KOMPEX wrote:
RIPE was not well run from its inception. Addresses at the beginning of the uprising were distributed without thought and by the wrong people who made mistakes.
I take a bit of offense at this statement.
We've tried *since 1998* to make sure everyone has access to IPv6 blocks, to IPv6 trainings, to raise awareness about IPv6, so we'd never even hit the "IPv4 exhaustion" problem.
People didn't care, and stuck to IPv4.
We warned, and reduced the address blocks, to ensure late-comers would still have IPv4 (and repeated the "go to IPv6" part).
Exactly that. Back then the “big old evil LIRs” voted to give themselves smaller blocks even though they could justify larger ones for their demand. Everything was done to stretch out IPv4 just a little bit longer so that people could still get addresses and might get the idea that they SHOULD use IPv6. Didn’t happen. What happened was that people tried to game the system to get more IPv4 so they could sell it later on. The RIPE NCC and RIPE community did their best to guarantee a fair distribution with the limited resources they had. And the people that took advantage of that didn’t do that by mistake, they did that because of greed. So please keep your alternate history out of this discussion. Best Regards Sebastian -- Sebastian Wiesinger Senior Principal Network Architect Service Integration noris network AG Thomas-Mann-Straße 16-20 90471 Nürnberg Deutschland Tel +49 911 9352 1459 Fax +49 911 9352 100 Email sebastian.wiesinger@noris.de noris network AG - Mehr Leistung als Standard Vorstand: Ingo Kraupa (Vorsitzender), Joachim Astel, Florian Sippel Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Stefan Schnabel - AG Nürnberg HRB 17689
Sorry, but... your connection isnt correct. 1) UK Land Registry doesnt provide land to anyone! But RIPE doest! 2) UK Land Registry take fee only per registration action and no more, but RIPE take membership fee year by year. Most of offering says about if RIPE take fee year-by-year like a land tax, then and fee must be same as land tax - based upon amount of land OR land market price! On 16.04.2024 9:17, Simon Lockhart wrote:
On Tue Apr 16, 2024 at 09:51:13AM +0200, m.terzioglu@prebits.de wrote:
RIPE is non-profit organisation but the small LIRs are paying for the bigger LIRs.
No - everyone is paying an equal share of the costs of running an Internet *Registry*.
Long gone are the days where you can get IP addresses from RIPE (in any sensibly usable quantities).
RIPE is a Regional Internet *Registry*, not an IP shop or IP broker.
Using the land analogy, you don't go to RIPE to buy land, you go to RIPE to register your (ownership/claim on) land. I don't know about other countries, but in the UK we have the UK Land Registry where you register your land. If you want to buy land, you go to an estate agent. Whilst the UK Land Registry has a scale of registration costs based on the value (note, value not size) of land, it's not a very wide scale.
If you want more IPv4 space, you don't go to RIPE, you go to an IP broker (or purchase it privately). Once you've done that, you register your claim to those IPv4 addresses with RIPE.
I cannot think of any pricing model for RIPE which would result in RIPE suddenly having lots of IPv4 addresses which can be re-distributed to LIRs.
Pretty much every proposal that has been posted over the last few weeks seem to have an undertone of "Look, here's some LIRs who have lots of IPv4 space. Wah, it's not fair, and I want some of it for cheap from RIPE".
Simon
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/admin%40roskomnadzor....
No, you dont pay only tax for what you paid, you also pay tax for your lands, not on purchase, while you use it, while you use the public ways, canals etc. And it depends on the usage. One house with one apartment doesnt pay the same as a tower with 200 apartments. Land registration costs are the sign-up fee on RIPE side. And the taxes are the same here as Annual contribution (service fee) on RIPE side. We dont talk about the sign-up fee. We are talking about the service fee.. IPv4 are public resources also. You pay on purchasing at these time money, yes. But LIRs use services, which cause RIPE costs. They provide for us services, like communes. We pay for this. For the stuff, for the offered services, for the resources, for the new technologies etc. But small LIRs cause in your opinion the same as the big LIRs to RIPE. And they each take the same services.. I dont think so.. -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards Murat TERZIOGLU PREBITS Bochumer Str. 20 44866 Bochum Deutschland Telefon: 0234/58825994 Telefax: 0234/58825995 www.prebits.de info@prebits.de USt-ID: DE315418902 -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> Im Auftrag von Simon Lockhart Gesendet: Dienstag, 16. April 2024 11:17 An: members-discuss@ripe.net Betreff: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals On Tue Apr 16, 2024 at 09:51:13AM +0200, m.terzioglu@prebits.de wrote:
RIPE is non-profit organisation but the small LIRs are paying for the bigger LIRs.
No - everyone is paying an equal share of the costs of running an Internet *Registry*. Long gone are the days where you can get IP addresses from RIPE (in any sensibly usable quantities). RIPE is a Regional Internet *Registry*, not an IP shop or IP broker. Using the land analogy, you don't go to RIPE to buy land, you go to RIPE to register your (ownership/claim on) land. I don't know about other countries, but in the UK we have the UK Land Registry where you register your land. If you want to buy land, you go to an estate agent. Whilst the UK Land Registry has a scale of registration costs based on the value (note, value not size) of land, it's not a very wide scale. If you want more IPv4 space, you don't go to RIPE, you go to an IP broker (or purchase it privately). Once you've done that, you register your claim to those IPv4 addresses with RIPE. I cannot think of any pricing model for RIPE which would result in RIPE suddenly having lots of IPv4 addresses which can be re-distributed to LIRs. Pretty much every proposal that has been posted over the last few weeks seem to have an undertone of "Look, here's some LIRs who have lots of IPv4 space. Wah, it's not fair, and I want some of it for cheap from RIPE". Simon _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/m.terzioglu%40prebits .de
On 15/04/2024 09:22, Michel Lanners wrote:
Because RIPE is a MEMBERSHIP organisation. It’s not a commercial company selling something.
If I’m asked to pay more I also want more voting rights. Consequence: the few big ones will dominate and steer RIPE in the direction THEY want. I don’t think that’s in the interest of those who yell at the unfair membership rate.
RIPE is fair because every member has the same right and the same one vote.
No, you're not getting more voting rights by paying more. It is common practice in membership orgs to charge members according to their category or size, and it's still 1 member = 1 vote. Sebastien Brossier
Paul agree. Somebody need just register and that’s all. Should be a way to split basic registry service from all other additions. Who need additions can pay for them separately. Another thing Member Fee. If we discuss how may bill each IPv4 subnet, IPv6 subnet, ASN then must be some Member Fee separately from resource fee. And after we cut all additions like Learning, Kroot, RPKI, Atlas, etc., one-time operations like transfer, ASN registering etc. and Member Fee. All is left can be spitted between LIRs on some proportion based (or category model based which is more preferable for me) on consumed resources. Not as some people suggest just take 44M EUR and split it on 159142 pieces. Not just using more resources = pay more, but also consume more RIPE time also = pay more. Btw Ivaylo. There's a tried from RIPE NCC to shift on categories which is rejected by community. https://www.ripe.net/media/documents/RIPE_NCC_Charging_Scheme_Models.pdf You can see by yourself result of voting. So when you demand even more radical approach, how much chance it has to pass voting ?? P.S. Member Fee from other RIRs: APNIC Sign-Up Fee - AUD 500 (~325$ ) https://www.apnic.net/get-ip/apnic-membership/how-much-does-it-cost/ ARIN (categories) smallest category - 250$ https://www.arin.net/resources/fees/fee_schedule/ AFRINIC (categories) smallest category - 300$ https://afrinic.net/membership/cost#associate LACNIC (categories) smallest category - 600$ https://www.lacnic.net/5448/2/lacnic/ipv4-fees-for-isps From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Paul Newton Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2024 3:26 PM To: ivaylo <ivaylo@bglans.net> Cc: <members-discuss@ripe.net> <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals And training credits to be given in a form redeemable for cash if not used .... On Sat, 13 Apr 2024, 12:23 ivaylo, <ivaylo@bglans.net<mailto:ivaylo@bglans.net>> wrote: Hello Kai
Flat equal fee for all members = Flat equal resource for all members
Says who?
From IANA documents signed and agreed from RIPE: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) Neutrality and impartiality in relation to all interested parties, and particularly the LIRs All organisations that receive service from the new RIR must be treated equally. The policies and guidelines proposed and implemented by the RIR need to ensure fair distribution of resources, and impartial treatment of the members/requestors. The new RIR should be established as an independent, not-for-profit and open membership association. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- This pont 4. is a constitution about the RIRs. In the light of equal membership fees and equal rights leads to equal (fair) resource distribution to _ALL_ members/requestors no matter their wish or interests ! All RIPE policies and guidelines contrary to this point 4 implemented during the years can be treated as invalid. I am prety sure the RIPE NCC board are inteligent, respectable , with high sense of responsibility people and will agree with me. They offer flat charging scheme because we (members) want such, so we go with it and with all consequences wich it will lead. If we (members) agree on something else they (The NCC board) will offer it to vote, and if is accepted we go with it and with all its consequences again.
Because IRR and ROA records will be keep unchanged,
How/why that?
How: Automatic, IRR+ROA of the moved block will not be keep same. Login in your LIR panel account and search the functions you have. Why: To prevent disruption in the work of the donor LIR until/if agreement between 2 LIRs is reached. Even in the first 3 months after the redistribution, delete/change of these object should be disabled, after that period the Receiving LIR have rights to modify the objects.
We must do it equal to all on 100%. with 21570 LIRs and 25029 ASN delegated to RIPE from IANA, we will be fine, each member can hold 1 x 16bit ASN , Also there is enough for the IXPs I hope.
There are 21570 16 bit ASNs delegated to the NCC?
No ! Delegated 16 bit ASNs to RIPE NCC are 25029 source: https://www.iana.org/assignments/as-numbers/as-numbers.xhtml
I voiced for a simple resource based fee scheme ? bill any /24 equivalent, any /48 equivalent, and any ASN that is managed by RIPE NCC to the holding LIR ? in 2023. And I still don't think the RIPE NCC should continue all current activities unchanged.
I Partitialy agree. /48 IPV6 do not match /24 IPV4 equivalent in many cases (access operators), There are no exact equivalent, but more close, comfort to work and scalable network logic with current technical documents and solutions is /32 IPV6 to /24 IPV4 (if you need deeper technical explain write me outside of the mail list). I agree the charging scheme base on /24 IPV4 block, but to prevent GRT (Global Routing Table) prefixes increase and big deagregation, better is on /22 to /18 IPV4 blocks. The results will be same in case of flat ladder up scheme (most fair to all). If we go exponential decreasing up, then we should choise smaller block size as a base. Again from the IANA documents: https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xhtml To RIPE NCC are allocated 35 x /8 IPV4 BLOCKs and 7 x /8 legacy . Some of this space is transfered outside of RIPE / returned to IANA, but to know exact numbers must do querries (2752512) for each /24 or somebody of the RIPE staff to give exact number. When we have this information and with target budget of 42M (I prefer the budget to be 60M-65M, with standart method of over colleted redistribution for the next year. Also we can push for budget reduction and to vote wich projects to support and wich not) we will be able to do much more precise calculations. Ivaylo Josifov VarnaIX / Varteh LTD +359 52 969393 Varna, Bulgaria On Fri, 12 Apr 2024, Kai Siering via members-discuss wrote:
Moin,
am 12.04.24 um 20:17 schrieb ivaylo:
Flat equal fee for all members = Flat equal resource for all members
Says who?
Because IRR and ROA records will be keep unchanged,
How/why that?
We must do it equal to all on 100%. with 21570 LIRs and 25029 ASN delegated to RIPE from IANA, we will be fine, each member can hold 1 x 16bit ASN , Also there is enough for the IXPs I hope.
There are 21570 16 bit ASNs delegated to the NCC?
Finally If you dont like such fair/equal scenario (RIPE NCC will be obliged to apply it with flat equal fee for all LIRs = flat equal resource spread to all LIRs),
First of all, I see no legal reason for your claim, the NCC would have to distribute the it's available resources equally among its members. Other RIRs don't either, and it makes no sense to e. g. force an /16 v4 on us if we're happy with an /22. Needs-based distribution, the current modus operandi, does make much more sense.
a fair and long term sustainable fee scheme for at least the next 10 years wich will cover the RIPE NCC budget and guarantee predictable and stable bussiness climate to ALL !
I voiced for a simple resource based fee scheme ? bill any /24 equivalent, any /48 equivalent, and any ASN that is managed by RIPE NCC to the holding LIR ? in 2023. And I still don't think the RIPE NCC should continue all current activities unchanged.
Having looked at the schemes of other RIRs, maybe some inverse exponential function makes more sense than simply count an /8 equivalent as 65536 times /24. But I'd still prefer a straight formula instead of categories. And a member's vote on any and all activity starting with FY 2025.
Regards, -kai
-- Kai Siering Senior System Engineer
mail.de<http://mail.de/> GmbH M?nsterstra?e 3 D-33330 G?tersloh
Tel.: +49 (0) 5241 / 74 34 986 Fax: +49 (0) 5241 / 74 34 987 E-Mail: k.siering@team.mail.de<mailto:k.siering@team.mail.de> Web: https://mail.de/
Gesch?ftsf?hrender Gesellschafter: Fabian Bock
Sitz der Gesellschaft Nordhastedt Handelsregister Pinneberg HRB 8007 PI Steuernummer 18 293 20020
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ivaylo%40bglans.net
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/paul.newton%40f4rn.or...
Hello and great week to everyone, Thoughts Member 1: 1 x ASN 4 x /16 IPv4 allocation (used allocations) Member 2: 1 x ASN 4 x /24 IPv4 allocation (used allocations) What is the difference of these members in terms of organizational costs/effort for RIPE, RIPE Stuff or RIPE resources? They pay the same in every proposed models. -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards Murat TERZIOGLU PREBITS Bochumer Str. 20 44866 Bochum Deutschland Telefon: 0234/58825994 Telefax: 0234/58825995 <http://www.prebits.de/> www.prebits.de <mailto:info@prebits.de> info@prebits.de USt-ID: DE315418902
Moreover, its doesnt mean if someone have a large amount of resources - then it must return it. No. Large ISP as LIR can split resources across multiple LIR and not overflow limit. As result - 1 LIR account can handle up to fixed amount of resources. If you need more - pay for additonal LIR account. On 12.04.2024 15:49, Evgeniy Brodskiy wrote:
Confidential/Конфіденційно
Each LIR has an equal right to receive any unallocated resources. The problem is that you want to take away resources that someone else is using. Why another LIR should disconnect its clients for you and deprive them of access to the Internet is completely unclear.
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 6:01 PM To: ivaylo <ivaylo@bglans.net>; Fergal Cunningham <fergalc@ripe.net> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [comms-circle] Re: Re: Re: [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
Agree!
If member fee is same - then resources also must be same.
On 12.04.2024 14:02, ivaylo wrote:
From IANA documents signed and agreed from RIPE:
---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- 4) Neutrality and impartiality in relation to all interested parties, and particularly the LIRs
All organisations that receive service from the new RIR must be treated equally. The policies and guidelines proposed and implemented by the RIR need to ensure fair distribution of resources, and impartial treatment of the members/requestors.
The new RIR should be established as an independent, not-for-profit and open membership association. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----
As some of you mentioned bigger part of the members are "happy" with the current charging scheme. Also seems we can not agree for charging scheme based on resources the member hold. Then logicaly we have an other option:
Let then RIPE do same with the resources ! Allocate absolutely equal number of resources to each of the LIR members ! Because there is shortage for IPV4, deallocate them from members who hold more ! For IPV6 just release new networks for simplification. For 32 bit ASNs give the current holders 1 year to free them, and then redistribute again equal number to each LIR.
To avoid disruption of the internet work, during the deallocation/allocation keep the IRR and ROA object same. And then separate we LIRs will make each to each contracts.
Ivaylo Josifov VarnaIX / Varteh LTD +359 52 969393 Varna, Bulgaria
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024, Fergal Cunningham wrote:
Dear Sebastien,
The charging scheme is adopted by the General Meeting upon proposal of the Executive Board. The Executive Board proposes a charging scheme and is responsible for the adoption of the budget and the activity plan of the organisation, so it is their responsibility to propose a charging scheme to collect the budget for the execution of this activity plan.
For the execution of the activity plan of 2025 the board proposed multiple options for covering the estimated budget. Contrary to other years, this time the current charging scheme cannot cover the necessary expenses. It would be damaging for the organisation to propose a resolution that would result in maintaining the current charging scheme and thus a much smaller income. The board has no obligation to put forward a resolution that may result in maintaining the current charging scheme. It does have an obligation to put forward resolutions for the benefit of the organisation.
So in short, the proposal would be completely valid.
All the best,
Fergal
On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 12:09?PM Sebastien Brossier <sebastien@brossier.org> wrote: On 12/04/2024 10:56, Gert Doering wrote: > On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 09:59:37AM +0200, Sebastien Brossier wrote: >> Correct, but the question is: is it ok for the option to reject the proposed >> resolution to be missing ? > > This option would take away the necessary resources for the NCC to do > what they presented at the autumn AGM.? So, yes, this would be a very > poor choice. > > The question is not "if" this is the budget, the question is "how can > the costs for this budget be distributed?".? So "no!" can not be a valid > choice for that question.
Hi,
I agree that a rejection is not desirable and would put the NCC in a difficult situation. All voting options should result in the same budget.
I'm not asking if it is desirable, but if it is *legal* to remove the choice to reject a proposal. I think it is better to ask the question now, rather than take the risk of seeing someone challenge the vote result later.
Regards, Sebastien Brossier
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net
https://lis/ ts.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvg eniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Cf0a8de7a34784444617308dc5b020df9%7Cf8f 9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638485311585894231%7CUnknown% 7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJ XVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=LGjDpiVkpy%2Be22c%2F81aLPPur%2BAJzHTXL Kb84lJZitnQ%3D&reserved=0
Unsubscribe:http://https/ %3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fripen cc-management%25254&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C f0a8de7a34784444617308dc5b020df9%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7 C0%7C0%7C638485311585904363%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwM DAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata= AFoj0tjM9koRoJw0JVV6oeDGAZzvxUKqC6XuMsuBZqY%3D&reserved=0
0ripe.net
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvgen iy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Cf0a8de7a34784444617308dc5b020df9%7Cf8f9bd 573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638485311585910766%7CUnknown%7CTW FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6 Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=cGGZ6o56Z8bJvv41fZ3hSquUIhVjKBgm7MSqJQo2Uf8% 3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fadmin%2540roskomnad zor.io&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Cf0a8de7a347844 44617308dc5b020df9%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638485 311585916842%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luM zIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Sux6kJ%2Bv9dDxPPr iP8vovAbQibXR815mpwAS4e0e6Z8%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/evgeniy.brodskiy%40ky...
On Fri, 2024-04-12 at 15:49 +0000, Evgeniy Brodskiy via members-discuss wrote:
Confidential/Конфіденційно
Each LIR has an equal right to receive any unallocated resources. The problem is that you want to take away resources that someone else is using. Why another LIR should disconnect its clients for you and deprive them of access to the Internet is completely unclear. That's not correct. Consider these charges as an "idle land tax" or "property tax".
If someone owns multiple IPs and proportionally has a large user base using them, it is trivial for them to spread the payment across each user. Let's say 256 addresses NAT pool per 10,000 users. This will be a slightly overloaded NAT pool, and some applications will complain about auto-blocking, but this, in turn, motivates the owner to do two things. Firstly, they can sell individual IPv4 addresses as a premium resource or create separate premium pools and sell as well. Secondly, this situation encourages users to adopt IPv6. Win-win. If the owner of such addresses is simply hoarding them and using them ineffectively, yes, it will be painful for them. This is precisely why such a "tax" was created.
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 6:01 PM To: ivaylo <ivaylo@bglans.net>; Fergal Cunningham <fergalc@ripe.net> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [comms-circle] Re: Re: Re: [ncc- announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
Agree!
If member fee is same - then resources also must be same.
On 12.04.2024 14:02, ivaylo wrote:
From IANA documents signed and agreed from RIPE:
------------------------------------------------------------------- --- --- 4) Neutrality and impartiality in relation to all interested parties, and particularly the LIRs
All organisations that receive service from the new RIR must be treated equally. The policies and guidelines proposed and implemented by the RIR need to ensure fair distribution of resources, and impartial treatment of the members/requestors.
The new RIR should be established as an independent, not-for-profit and open membership association. ------------------------------------------------------------------- --- ----
As some of you mentioned bigger part of the members are "happy" with the current charging scheme. Also seems we can not agree for charging scheme based on resources the member hold. Then logicaly we have an other option:
Let then RIPE do same with the resources ! Allocate absolutely equal number of resources to each of the LIR members ! Because there is shortage for IPV4, deallocate them from members who hold more ! For IPV6 just release new networks for simplification. For 32 bit ASNs give the current holders 1 year to free them, and then redistribute again equal number to each LIR.
To avoid disruption of the internet work, during the deallocation/allocation keep the IRR and ROA object same. And then separate we LIRs will make each to each contracts.
Ivaylo Josifov VarnaIX / Varteh LTD +359 52 969393 Varna, Bulgaria
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024, Fergal Cunningham wrote:
Dear Sebastien,
The charging scheme is adopted by the General Meeting upon proposal of the Executive Board. The Executive Board proposes a charging scheme and is responsible for the adoption of the budget and the activity plan of the organisation, so it is their responsibility to propose a charging scheme to collect the budget for the execution of this activity plan.
For the execution of the activity plan of 2025 the board proposed multiple options for covering the estimated budget. Contrary to other years, this time the current charging scheme cannot cover the necessary expenses. It would be damaging for the organisation to propose a resolution that would result in maintaining the current charging scheme and thus a much smaller income. The board has no obligation to put forward a resolution that may result in maintaining the current charging scheme. It does have an obligation to put forward resolutions for the benefit of the organisation.
So in short, the proposal would be completely valid.
All the best,
Fergal
On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 12:09?PM Sebastien Brossier <sebastien@brossier.org> wrote: On 12/04/2024 10:56, Gert Doering wrote: > On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 09:59:37AM +0200, Sebastien Brossier wrote: >> Correct, but the question is: is it ok for the option to reject the proposed >> resolution to be missing ? > > This option would take away the necessary resources for the NCC to do > what they presented at the autumn AGM.? So, yes, this would be a very > poor choice. > > The question is not "if" this is the budget, the question is "how can > the costs for this budget be distributed?".? So "no!" can not be a valid > choice for that question.
Hi,
I agree that a rejection is not desirable and would put the NCC in a difficult situation. All voting options should result in the same budget.
I'm not asking if it is desirable, but if it is *legal* to remove the choice to reject a proposal. I think it is better to ask the question now, rather than take the risk of seeing someone challenge the vote result later.
Regards, Sebastien Brossier
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net
https://lis/ ts.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers- discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvg eniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Cf0a8de7a34784444617308dc5b020df9%7 Cf8f 9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638485311585894231%7CUnkn own% 7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWw iLCJ XVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=LGjDpiVkpy%2Be22c%2F81aLPPur%2BAJz HTXL Kb84lJZitnQ%3D&reserved=0
Unsubscribe:http://https/ %3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers- discuss%2Fripen cc- management%25254&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7 C f0a8de7a34784444617308dc5b020df9%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a309 86%7 C0%7C0%7C638485311585904363%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wL jAwM DAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sd ata= AFoj0tjM9koRoJw0JVV6oeDGAZzvxUKqC6XuMsuBZqY%3D&reserved=0
0ripe.net
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers- discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvgen iy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Cf0a8de7a34784444617308dc5b020df9%7Cf8f 9bd 573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638485311585910766%7CUnknown%7 CTW FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXV CI6 Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=cGGZ6o56Z8bJvv41fZ3hSquUIhVjKBgm7MSqJQo2U f8% 3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers- discuss%2Fadmin%2540roskomnad zor.io&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Cf0a8de7a347 844 44617308dc5b020df9%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638 485 311585916842%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2 luM zIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Sux6kJ%2Bv9dDx PPr iP8vovAbQibXR815mpwAS4e0e6Z8%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/evgeniy.brodskiy%40ky... _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/nuclearcat%40nuclearc...
My ripe is hacked Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef> ________________________________ From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED <admin@roskomnadzor.io> Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 6:00:32 PM To: ivaylo <ivaylo@bglans.net>; Fergal Cunningham <fergalc@ripe.net> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [comms-circle] Re: Re: Re: [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals Agree! If member fee is same - then resources also must be same. On 12.04.2024 14:02, ivaylo wrote:
From IANA documents signed and agreed from RIPE:
------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) Neutrality and impartiality in relation to all interested parties, and particularly the LIRs
All organisations that receive service from the new RIR must be treated equally. The policies and guidelines proposed and implemented by the RIR need to ensure fair distribution of resources, and impartial treatment of the members/requestors.
The new RIR should be established as an independent, not-for-profit and open membership association. --------------------------------------------------------------------------
As some of you mentioned bigger part of the members are "happy" with the current charging scheme. Also seems we can not agree for charging scheme based on resources the member hold. Then logicaly we have an other option:
Let then RIPE do same with the resources ! Allocate absolutely equal number of resources to each of the LIR members ! Because there is shortage for IPV4, deallocate them from members who hold more ! For IPV6 just release new networks for simplification. For 32 bit ASNs give the current holders 1 year to free them, and then redistribute again equal number to each LIR.
To avoid disruption of the internet work, during the deallocation/allocation keep the IRR and ROA object same. And then separate we LIRs will make each to each contracts.
Ivaylo Josifov VarnaIX / Varteh LTD +359 52 969393 Varna, Bulgaria
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024, Fergal Cunningham wrote:
Dear Sebastien,
The charging scheme is adopted by the General Meeting upon proposal of the Executive Board. The Executive Board proposes a charging scheme and is responsible for the adoption of the budget and the activity plan of the organisation, so it is their responsibility to propose a charging scheme to collect the budget for the execution of this activity plan.
For the execution of the activity plan of 2025 the board proposed multiple options for covering the estimated budget. Contrary to other years, this time the current charging scheme cannot cover the necessary expenses. It would be damaging for the organisation to propose a resolution that would result in maintaining the current charging scheme and thus a much smaller income. The board has no obligation to put forward a resolution that may result in maintaining the current charging scheme. It does have an obligation to put forward resolutions for the benefit of the organisation.
So in short, the proposal would be completely valid.
All the best,
Fergal
On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 12:09?PM Sebastien Brossier <sebastien@brossier.org> wrote: On 12/04/2024 10:56, Gert Doering wrote: > On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 09:59:37AM +0200, Sebastien Brossier wrote: >> Correct, but the question is: is it ok for the option to reject the proposed >> resolution to be missing ? > > This option would take away the necessary resources for the NCC to do > what they presented at the autumn AGM.? So, yes, this would be a very > poor choice. > > The question is not "if" this is the budget, the question is "how can > the costs for this budget be distributed?".? So "no!" can not be a valid > choice for that question.
Hi,
I agree that a rejection is not desirable and would put the NCC in a difficult situation. All voting options should result in the same budget.
I'm not asking if it is desirable, but if it is *legal* to remove the choice to reject a proposal. I think it is better to ask the question now, rather than take the risk of seeing someone challenge the vote result later.
Regards, Sebastien Brossier
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss
Unsubscribe:https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ripencc-management%4
0ripe.net
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/admin%40roskomnadzor....
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ahmad.fakih%40smartne...
Am 12.04.24 um 16:02 schrieb ivaylo:
Allocate absolutely equal number of resources to each of the LIR members
Interesting idea, especially as the NCC would need to reshuffle each time a new LIR opens or an old one closes.
For 32 bit ASNs give the current holders 1 year to free them, and then redistribute again equal number to each LIR.
As there's basically no use case anymore to *need* a *16* bit ASN, and the distinction was already removed by the NCC, what's the purpose here? Furthermore, what's the reason to force people with a 32 bit ASN to switch to a redistributed 16 bit one besides just causing a lot of work? Especially if this would hit an IXP ... With AFAIK less than 150,000 assigned out of 4,100,000,000+, I fail to see the scarcity of ASN in the forseeable future. 32 bit IPv4 and 16 bit ASN were too conservative, true. But with 4 billion ASN still available this would allow for about one ASN for every second living human ... Regards, -kai -- Kai Siering Senior System Engineer mail.de GmbH Münsterstraße 3 D-33330 Gütersloh Tel.: +49 (0) 5241 / 74 34 986 Fax: +49 (0) 5241 / 74 34 987 E-Mail: k.siering@team.mail.de Web: https://mail.de/ Geschäftsführender Gesellschafter: Fabian Bock Sitz der Gesellschaft Nordhastedt Handelsregister Pinneberg HRB 8007 PI Steuernummer 18 293 20020
Hello, I think it is a very reasonable increase, the budget is maintained for a while and the changes are not so dramatic that they could impact many people. Let's be honest, an increase of 400€ (33-34€/month) a year is not going to kill us. Kind regards
Hello,
Why do we not have an option that refuses any rate increases, and forces RIPE to reduce it's budget?
Option D - No change to rates, RIPE reduces budget according to fewer number of LIR!
The Board MUST make tough decisions. If RIPE is serving fewer LIR then the board must adjust RIPE to be a proper size.
Daniel~
On 4/10/24 4:18 AM, Simon-Jan Haytink wrote:
Dear RIPE NCC members,
We can now share three draft charging scheme models for 2025 that the Executive Board approved with the following resolution at its meeting on 25 March 2024:
The RIPE NCC Executive Board approves the submission of the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 options to the upcoming RIPE NCC General Meeting for members to vote on.
- Option A - Charging Scheme as is with 22.58% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,900) and a 0% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 50)
- Option B - Charging Scheme as is with 20.97% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,875) and a 50% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 75)
- Option C - Charging Scheme as is with 16.13% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,800), a 50% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 75) and a new AS Numbers fee of EUR 50 per assignment
*Resources falling under this charge are IPv4 and IPv6 PI assignments; Anycast assignments; IPv4 and IPv6 IXP assignments; and Legacy IPv4 resource registrations through a sponsoring LIR.
The full draft charging scheme models are available from the GM Documentation page:http://url1904.soltia.es/ls/click?upn=u001.EkkA3-2Bq-2F-2BWyQiPBedocQDTMbZUy...
Although the proposed models are relatively simple, we provide a calculator where you can see exactly what you would pay under each of the proposed models:
http://url1904.soltia.es/ls/click?upn=u001.EkkA3-2Bq-2F-2BWyQiPBedocQDe76v8-...
The main considerations for the Executive Board in proposing these three models are:
1. The consolidation of LIR accounts, which means the burden to generate sufficient income must be met by fewer accounts
2. Increased costs due to inflation that were previously catered for by the large number of LIR accounts
3. Following the discussions last year and again this year, there appears to be no clear consensus among members on how a category-based model would work and the Board does not wish to put another category model forward at the upcoming GM that will be rejected by the members. Rather, the Board will propose a simple model that guarantees adequate funding for 2025 and 2026 - under this proposal, we expect there would be no need for a fee increase for 2026. The Board will work with the RIPE NCC on a more in-depth consultation with the members aimed at arriving at a sustainable solution for 2027 and beyond, possibly involving a new charging scheme task force.
All three proposed models are designed to arrive at the same income of EUR 41.1 million for the RIPE NCC in 2025. This will cover all current services and activities, a 5% staff cost increase, a 2% inflation increase on all non-staff costs, and EUR 1 million for additional work relating to registry complexity and security projects aimed at ensuring the resilience of the Registry and the RIPE NCC more broadly. Any such additional work would be discussed with the membership during Activity Plan and Budget consultations and then need to be approved by the Board. This will also allow some leeway should more LIR accounts close than we expect.
It’s important to note that the RIPE NCC aims for an income budget that will provide a surplus, and this means that should we meet our budgetary targets, a surplus can be returned to members in 2026 should they so wish.
While the RIPE NCC continues to carry out cost-cutting efforts across the organisation, drastically reducing the budget at this time is not advisable due to the work that needs to be carried out, especially in relation to maintaining high-quality registry services and securing the registry and RIPE NCC systems. Cutting services or activities is not something the Board is planning to do, and such actions would take time and need full consultation with the membership. An overview of the activities and services that the membership fee covers is provided below this email.
I also urge you to see the presentation we delivered at the charging scheme open house in March so that the full context of the situation and the financial landscape we face is clear to you. The slides are available at:
http://url1904.soltia.es/ls/click?upn=u001.EkkA3-2Bq-2F-2BWyQiPBedocQDTMbZUy...
Finally, I want to thank all those who have contributed to the consultation so far on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025. The models we present here are draft and in two weeks we will announce the final proposal that members will vote on at the GM on 22-24 May. Please discuss the draft proposal on the members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>list - any input received by 19 April can be incorporated if possible into the final models we propose. And make sure to register for the GM so that you can vote on the charging scheme that will apply for you and all members next year:
http://url1904.soltia.es/ls/click?upn=u001.EkkA3-2Bq-2F-2BWyQiPBedocQDR-2B7-...
Simon-Jan Haytink
Chief Financial Officer
RIPE NCC
Services and Activities Covered by the Member Fee
- A trusted, efficient, accurate and resilient registry that guarantees uniqueness of resources held by members
- Neutral information services uninfluenced by commercial or government interests that allow both the RIPE NCC and the community to carry out useful research into the Internet
- Engagement activities, including RIPE and regional meetings, that build an active membership and community and that contribute to the overall good of the Internet
- A voice and influence for the membership in key decision-making fora, including with governments and regulators
- Protection of the Joint Internet Number Registry as developed by the Internet community
- Learning and development activities that help to address skills shortages and contribute to an educated membership
- Support for the Policy Development Process (PDP)
- An authoritative registry of routing information provided by RPKI and the RIPE Database
- K-root and DNS services
- A dedicated staff with considerable expertise contributing to all of the above
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net http://url1904.soltia.es/ls/click?upn=u001.EkkA3-2Bq-2F-2BWyQiPBedocQDQgmSgy... Unsubscribe: http://url1904.soltia.es/ls/click?upn=u001.EkkA3-2Bq-2F-2BWyQiPBedocQDQgmSgy...
-- *Leopoldo Maestro* *Soltia Consulting S.L* *Email:* info@soltia.es <mailto:info@soltia.es> | *Tel:* (+34) 910052420 *Movil:* (+34) 661004140 En virtud de lo establecido en la Ley 15/1999, y la LSSICE 34/2002, le informamos que sus datos forman parte de un fichero automatizado titularidad de Soltia Consulting, S.L. La información registrada se utilizará para informarle por cualquier medio electrónico de nuestras novedades comerciales. Puede ejercer los derechos de acceso, rectificación, cancelación y oposición en: C\Zurbano 45 1ª Planta, 28010 Madrid, España.
Howdy, A modest increase is not going to kill us, but why are fee's going up when RIPE is shrinking? Should RIPE have the same budget and staff, when it is serving fewer members? Fewer LIR members should inturn mean a smaller , more efficient RIPE. Daniel~ On 4/10/24 7:48 AM, Leopoldo Maestro - Soltia Consulting SL wrote:
Hello,
I think it is a very reasonable increase, the budget is maintained for a while and the changes are not so dramatic that they could impact many people.
Let's be honest, an increase of 400€ (33-34€/month) a year is not going to kill us.
Kind regards
Hello,
Why do we not have an option that refuses any rate increases, and forces RIPE to reduce it's budget?
Option D - No change to rates, RIPE reduces budget according to fewer number of LIR!
The Board MUST make tough decisions. If RIPE is serving fewer LIR then the board must adjust RIPE to be a proper size.
Daniel~
On 4/10/24 4:18 AM, Simon-Jan Haytink wrote:
Dear RIPE NCC members,
We can now share three draft charging scheme models for 2025 that the Executive Board approved with the following resolution at its meeting on 25 March 2024:
The RIPE NCC Executive Board approves the submission of the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 options to the upcoming RIPE NCC General Meeting for members to vote on.
- Option A - Charging Scheme as is with 22.58% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,900) and a 0% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 50)
- Option B - Charging Scheme as is with 20.97% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,875) and a 50% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 75)
- Option C - Charging Scheme as is with 16.13% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,800), a 50% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 75) and a new AS Numbers fee of EUR 50 per assignment
*Resources falling under this charge are IPv4 and IPv6 PI assignments; Anycast assignments; IPv4 and IPv6 IXP assignments; and Legacy IPv4 resource registrations through a sponsoring LIR.
The full draft charging scheme models are available from the GM Documentation page:https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2024/documentation-... <http://url1904.soltia.es/ls/click?upn=u001.EkkA3-2Bq-2F-2BWyQiPBedocQDTMbZUybI9nTx5vjxrY-2F8Z1FOZiVeADG6UNhTmcFSt5-2BjfPcecgUL6OrZDhyZ6rLIbhfQilM8h43R8-2BuvM8uFsqNnyPOnKXi0wxmIpJxjDc9Kx9O63AmpzoIB1XDJEY3VA36MZG-2B1dIfBzW5XxttyIM-3DNWRS_5Y9C-2B-2Fzbmi1Z8AZ1P0Xb40GNjsL-2Fdfbf6y3l5mDAYddVWlCuXiPb5OXwoeBsfBEbMIRGg7XK27UOcXYWGiTZ-2Fistx0G2Ms5r1JO-2FcQl0zNORjlFJzRw73A32q6ar1c-2ByjG22MCLeNd0aXQRZmj2saUwPrSwh9-2B395-2BFiaBq475KeA7tqF65uKAs0rkapUHtRPAtB2i4bIh13ZbUeZITtnw-3D-3D>
Although the proposed models are relatively simple, we provide a calculator where you can see exactly what you would pay under each of the proposed models:
https://www.ripe.net/documents/3757/CS2025_Member_Calculator.xlsx <http://url1904.soltia.es/ls/click?upn=u001.EkkA3-2Bq-2F-2BWyQiPBedocQDe76v8-2Fvdx607-2BV9v25XdIYW4rFRji8zwIoZc2tqcWLNwj8Y6DZZ5JVm-2FoipnXOGvCa8Kk8Bh9rQpjrNfjvcEII-3DMQKr_5Y9C-2B-2Fzbmi1Z8AZ1P0Xb40GNjsL-2Fdfbf6y3l5mDAYddVWlCuXiPb5OXwoeBsfBEbMIRGg7XK27UOcXYWGiTZ-2FsqvI4dkX9fRCAOL8Y-2B4bxiWgdYNorMfh-2B8tbUN40MxMgZ7Xxp24xRRHCaWW7jAfSam2NlJd2UhPFF7j7H-2BE00DY64Kvzu1AMDUwtvTnYfmPUTW6NaRNPAR8xFBfGjUq3Q-3D-3D>
The main considerations for the Executive Board in proposing these three models are:
1. The consolidation of LIR accounts, which means the burden to generate sufficient income must be met by fewer accounts
2. Increased costs due to inflation that were previously catered for by the large number of LIR accounts
3. Following the discussions last year and again this year, there appears to be no clear consensus among members on how a category-based model would work and the Board does not wish to put another category model forward at the upcoming GM that will be rejected by the members. Rather, the Board will propose a simple model that guarantees adequate funding for 2025 and 2026 - under this proposal, we expect there would be no need for a fee increase for 2026. The Board will work with the RIPE NCC on a more in-depth consultation with the members aimed at arriving at a sustainable solution for 2027 and beyond, possibly involving a new charging scheme task force.
All three proposed models are designed to arrive at the same income of EUR 41.1 million for the RIPE NCC in 2025. This will cover all current services and activities, a 5% staff cost increase, a 2% inflation increase on all non-staff costs, and EUR 1 million for additional work relating to registry complexity and security projects aimed at ensuring the resilience of the Registry and the RIPE NCC more broadly. Any such additional work would be discussed with the membership during Activity Plan and Budget consultations and then need to be approved by the Board. This will also allow some leeway should more LIR accounts close than we expect.
It’s important to note that the RIPE NCC aims for an income budget that will provide a surplus, and this means that should we meet our budgetary targets, a surplus can be returned to members in 2026 should they so wish.
While the RIPE NCC continues to carry out cost-cutting efforts across the organisation, drastically reducing the budget at this time is not advisable due to the work that needs to be carried out, especially in relation to maintaining high-quality registry services and securing the registry and RIPE NCC systems. Cutting services or activities is not something the Board is planning to do, and such actions would take time and need full consultation with the membership. An overview of the activities and services that the membership fee covers is provided below this email.
I also urge you to see the presentation we delivered at the charging scheme open house in March so that the full context of the situation and the financial landscape we face is clear to you. The slides are available at:
https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/open-house/ripe-ncc-charging-scheme... <http://url1904.soltia.es/ls/click?upn=u001.EkkA3-2Bq-2F-2BWyQiPBedocQDTMbZUybI9nTx5vjxrY-2F8Z1FOZiVeADG6UNhTmcFSt5-2BQ7a3JRMgvT7omvtUsb8bhT6M7UBONW8EV-2FGxc4iQ6S7XrSdYLswU4voWKNSBy8zGzO3B_5Y9C-2B-2Fzbmi1Z8AZ1P0Xb40GNjsL-2Fdfbf6y3l5mDAYddVWlCuXiPb5OXwoeBsfBEbMIRGg7XK27UOcXYWGiTZ-2Fj8EqsBB-2BfJc-2FDEFUF5LEUE0ige8RGGATuNnSj5dKrTyJ17Y8BLhusFwW0FP5U-2BQJeu1xcrl0ncU9KnuZ0qZudfmVfZJ6ybf1vrgavDm9GLiAGs3AqBKTW2aKaBCpRe-2FeA-3D-3D>
Finally, I want to thank all those who have contributed to the consultation so far on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025. The models we present here are draft and in two weeks we will announce the final proposal that members will vote on at the GM on 22-24 May. Please discuss the draft proposal on the members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>list - any input received by 19 April can be incorporated if possible into the final models we propose. And make sure to register for the GM so that you can vote on the charging scheme that will apply for you and all members next year:
https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active <http://url1904.soltia.es/ls/click?upn=u001.EkkA3-2Bq-2F-2BWyQiPBedocQDR-2B7-2BOPRhPxO6hToEWsUR52v9msgz-2FZMQdooF3wUQccbuB9G_5Y9C-2B-2Fzbmi1Z8AZ1P0Xb40GNjsL-2Fdfbf6y3l5mDAYddVWlCuXiPb5OXwoeBsfBEbMIRGg7XK27UOcXYWGiTZ-2Fgrk7fz74GpqWrqbbsxMnwLsYBhuhrCIkTjyX6OZ2dedNw3TLdlsy2woTCbsIP97YzTvt-2Ff-2FDBjEX198m6O1rsAOGArTs9mP1ouxORbJW7prvAr3kANbtI5bwQN14wZpYQ-3D-3D>
Simon-Jan Haytink
Chief Financial Officer
RIPE NCC
Services and Activities Covered by the Member Fee
- A trusted, efficient, accurate and resilient registry that guarantees uniqueness of resources held by members
- Neutral information services uninfluenced by commercial or government interests that allow both the RIPE NCC and the community to carry out useful research into the Internet
- Engagement activities, including RIPE and regional meetings, that build an active membership and community and that contribute to the overall good of the Internet
- A voice and influence for the membership in key decision-making fora, including with governments and regulators
- Protection of the Joint Internet Number Registry as developed by the Internet community
- Learning and development activities that help to address skills shortages and contribute to an educated membership
- Support for the Policy Development Process (PDP)
- An authoritative registry of routing information provided by RPKI and the RIPE Database
- K-root and DNS services
- A dedicated staff with considerable expertise contributing to all of the above
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe:https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/info%40soltia.es
-- *Leopoldo Maestro* *Soltia Consulting S.L*
*Email:* info@soltia.es | *Tel:* (+34) 910052420
*Movil:* (+34) 661004140
En virtud de lo establecido en la Ley 15/1999, y la LSSICE 34/2002, le informamos que sus datos forman parte de un fichero automatizado titularidad de Soltia Consulting, S.L. La información registrada se utilizará para informarle por cualquier medio electrónico de nuestras novedades comerciales. Puede ejercer los derechos de acceso, rectificación, cancelación y oposición en: C\Zurbano 45 1ª Planta, 28010 Madrid, España.
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe:https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/daniel%40privatesyste...
Hello
but why are fee's going up when RIPE is shrinking?
If ripe is shrinking, then so should its non-essential activities and buget.
Should RIPE have the same budget and staff, when it is serving fewer members?
Operations should scale with membership count/workload based on essential services.
Fewer LIR members should inturn mean a smaller , more efficient RIPE.
Yes On 4/10/24 2:55 PM, Daniel Pearson wrote:
Howdy,
A modest increase is not going to kill us, but why are fee's going up when RIPE is shrinking?
Should RIPE have the same budget and staff, when it is serving fewer members?
Fewer LIR members should inturn mean a smaller , more efficient RIPE.
Daniel~
On 4/10/24 7:48 AM, Leopoldo Maestro - Soltia Consulting SL wrote:
Hello,
I think it is a very reasonable increase, the budget is maintained for a while and the changes are not so dramatic that they could impact many people.
Let's be honest, an increase of 400€ (33-34€/month) a year is not going to kill us.
Kind regards
Hello,
Why do we not have an option that refuses any rate increases, and forces RIPE to reduce it's budget?
Option D - No change to rates, RIPE reduces budget according to fewer number of LIR!
The Board MUST make tough decisions. If RIPE is serving fewer LIR then the board must adjust RIPE to be a proper size.
Daniel~
On 4/10/24 4:18 AM, Simon-Jan Haytink wrote:
Dear RIPE NCC members,
We can now share three draft charging scheme models for 2025 that the Executive Board approved with the following resolution at its meeting on 25 March 2024:
The RIPE NCC Executive Board approves the submission of the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 options to the upcoming RIPE NCC General Meeting for members to vote on.
- Option A - Charging Scheme as is with 22.58% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,900) and a 0% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 50)
- Option B - Charging Scheme as is with 20.97% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,875) and a 50% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 75)
- Option C - Charging Scheme as is with 16.13% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,800), a 50% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 75) and a new AS Numbers fee of EUR 50 per assignment
*Resources falling under this charge are IPv4 and IPv6 PI assignments; Anycast assignments; IPv4 and IPv6 IXP assignments; and Legacy IPv4 resource registrations through a sponsoring LIR.
The full draft charging scheme models are available from the GM Documentation page:https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2024/documentation-... <http://url1904.soltia.es/ls/click?upn=u001.EkkA3-2Bq-2F-2BWyQiPBedocQDTMbZUybI9nTx5vjxrY-2F8Z1FOZiVeADG6UNhTmcFSt5-2BjfPcecgUL6OrZDhyZ6rLIbhfQilM8h43R8-2BuvM8uFsqNnyPOnKXi0wxmIpJxjDc9Kx9O63AmpzoIB1XDJEY3VA36MZG-2B1dIfBzW5XxttyIM-3DNWRS_5Y9C-2B-2Fzbmi1Z8AZ1P0Xb40GNjsL-2Fdfbf6y3l5mDAYddVWlCuXiPb5OXwoeBsfBEbMIRGg7XK27UOcXYWGiTZ-2Fistx0G2Ms5r1JO-2FcQl0zNORjlFJzRw73A32q6ar1c-2ByjG22MCLeNd0aXQRZmj2saUwPrSwh9-2B395-2BFiaBq475KeA7tqF65uKAs0rkapUHtRPAtB2i4bIh13ZbUeZITtnw-3D-3D>
Although the proposed models are relatively simple, we provide a calculator where you can see exactly what you would pay under each of the proposed models:
https://www.ripe.net/documents/3757/CS2025_Member_Calculator.xlsx <http://url1904.soltia.es/ls/click?upn=u001.EkkA3-2Bq-2F-2BWyQiPBedocQDe76v8-2Fvdx607-2BV9v25XdIYW4rFRji8zwIoZc2tqcWLNwj8Y6DZZ5JVm-2FoipnXOGvCa8Kk8Bh9rQpjrNfjvcEII-3DMQKr_5Y9C-2B-2Fzbmi1Z8AZ1P0Xb40GNjsL-2Fdfbf6y3l5mDAYddVWlCuXiPb5OXwoeBsfBEbMIRGg7XK27UOcXYWGiTZ-2FsqvI4dkX9fRCAOL8Y-2B4bxiWgdYNorMfh-2B8tbUN40MxMgZ7Xxp24xRRHCaWW7jAfSam2NlJd2UhPFF7j7H-2BE00DY64Kvzu1AMDUwtvTnYfmPUTW6NaRNPAR8xFBfGjUq3Q-3D-3D>
The main considerations for the Executive Board in proposing these three models are:
1. The consolidation of LIR accounts, which means the burden to generate sufficient income must be met by fewer accounts
2. Increased costs due to inflation that were previously catered for by the large number of LIR accounts
3. Following the discussions last year and again this year, there appears to be no clear consensus among members on how a category-based model would work and the Board does not wish to put another category model forward at the upcoming GM that will be rejected by the members. Rather, the Board will propose a simple model that guarantees adequate funding for 2025 and 2026 - under this proposal, we expect there would be no need for a fee increase for 2026. The Board will work with the RIPE NCC on a more in-depth consultation with the members aimed at arriving at a sustainable solution for 2027 and beyond, possibly involving a new charging scheme task force.
All three proposed models are designed to arrive at the same income of EUR 41.1 million for the RIPE NCC in 2025. This will cover all current services and activities, a 5% staff cost increase, a 2% inflation increase on all non-staff costs, and EUR 1 million for additional work relating to registry complexity and security projects aimed at ensuring the resilience of the Registry and the RIPE NCC more broadly. Any such additional work would be discussed with the membership during Activity Plan and Budget consultations and then need to be approved by the Board. This will also allow some leeway should more LIR accounts close than we expect.
It’s important to note that the RIPE NCC aims for an income budget that will provide a surplus, and this means that should we meet our budgetary targets, a surplus can be returned to members in 2026 should they so wish.
While the RIPE NCC continues to carry out cost-cutting efforts across the organisation, drastically reducing the budget at this time is not advisable due to the work that needs to be carried out, especially in relation to maintaining high-quality registry services and securing the registry and RIPE NCC systems. Cutting services or activities is not something the Board is planning to do, and such actions would take time and need full consultation with the membership. An overview of the activities and services that the membership fee covers is provided below this email.
I also urge you to see the presentation we delivered at the charging scheme open house in March so that the full context of the situation and the financial landscape we face is clear to you. The slides are available at:
https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/open-house/ripe-ncc-charging-scheme... <http://url1904.soltia.es/ls/click?upn=u001.EkkA3-2Bq-2F-2BWyQiPBedocQDTMbZUybI9nTx5vjxrY-2F8Z1FOZiVeADG6UNhTmcFSt5-2BQ7a3JRMgvT7omvtUsb8bhT6M7UBONW8EV-2FGxc4iQ6S7XrSdYLswU4voWKNSBy8zGzO3B_5Y9C-2B-2Fzbmi1Z8AZ1P0Xb40GNjsL-2Fdfbf6y3l5mDAYddVWlCuXiPb5OXwoeBsfBEbMIRGg7XK27UOcXYWGiTZ-2Fj8EqsBB-2BfJc-2FDEFUF5LEUE0ige8RGGATuNnSj5dKrTyJ17Y8BLhusFwW0FP5U-2BQJeu1xcrl0ncU9KnuZ0qZudfmVfZJ6ybf1vrgavDm9GLiAGs3AqBKTW2aKaBCpRe-2FeA-3D-3D>
Finally, I want to thank all those who have contributed to the consultation so far on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025. The models we present here are draft and in two weeks we will announce the final proposal that members will vote on at the GM on 22-24 May. Please discuss the draft proposal on the members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>list - any input received by 19 April can be incorporated if possible into the final models we propose. And make sure to register for the GM so that you can vote on the charging scheme that will apply for you and all members next year:
https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active <http://url1904.soltia.es/ls/click?upn=u001.EkkA3-2Bq-2F-2BWyQiPBedocQDR-2B7-2BOPRhPxO6hToEWsUR52v9msgz-2FZMQdooF3wUQccbuB9G_5Y9C-2B-2Fzbmi1Z8AZ1P0Xb40GNjsL-2Fdfbf6y3l5mDAYddVWlCuXiPb5OXwoeBsfBEbMIRGg7XK27UOcXYWGiTZ-2Fgrk7fz74GpqWrqbbsxMnwLsYBhuhrCIkTjyX6OZ2dedNw3TLdlsy2woTCbsIP97YzTvt-2Ff-2FDBjEX198m6O1rsAOGArTs9mP1ouxORbJW7prvAr3kANbtI5bwQN14wZpYQ-3D-3D>
Simon-Jan Haytink
Chief Financial Officer
RIPE NCC
Services and Activities Covered by the Member Fee
- A trusted, efficient, accurate and resilient registry that guarantees uniqueness of resources held by members
- Neutral information services uninfluenced by commercial or government interests that allow both the RIPE NCC and the community to carry out useful research into the Internet
- Engagement activities, including RIPE and regional meetings, that build an active membership and community and that contribute to the overall good of the Internet
- A voice and influence for the membership in key decision-making fora, including with governments and regulators
- Protection of the Joint Internet Number Registry as developed by the Internet community
- Learning and development activities that help to address skills shortages and contribute to an educated membership
- Support for the Policy Development Process (PDP)
- An authoritative registry of routing information provided by RPKI and the RIPE Database
- K-root and DNS services
- A dedicated staff with considerable expertise contributing to all of the above
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe:https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/info%40soltia.es
-- *Leopoldo Maestro* *Soltia Consulting S.L*
*Email:* info@soltia.es | *Tel:* (+34) 910052420
*Movil:* (+34) 661004140
En virtud de lo establecido en la Ley 15/1999, y la LSSICE 34/2002, le informamos que sus datos forman parte de un fichero automatizado titularidad de Soltia Consulting, S.L. La información registrada se utilizará para informarle por cualquier medio electrónico de nuestras novedades comerciales. Puede ejercer los derechos de acceso, rectificación, cancelación y oposición en: C\Zurbano 45 1ª Planta, 28010 Madrid, España.
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe:https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/daniel%40privatesyste...
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe:https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ripe-members%40sebast...
Daniel, I try and not get involved on these mailing lists since they end up being a bit of a "Player vs Player zone", but as far as I can tell uk.privatesystems ( [your/your employer's] RIPE tag ) , was created in 2016, meaning it was at the start from when the fees started at 1400. This was in a "boom" time for RIPE NCC. A couple of years before that the RIPE LIR fee was 1800, however then the number of LIRs exploded (likely) because of a upcoming IP shortage, so people started opening more than one LIR/membership to get more IPs However now that the RIPE waiting list is the way it is, these new LIRs are not only seemingly dropping off, but the "shortage boomer" LIRs (a term I just made up) are now merging back into larger LIRs, meaning that the (LIR-Fee * LIR-Count = cash) nunber is now a lot less, in a way that is not catching up with the years of inflation that was not applied to the fee. In the open house a table was presented that shows the numbers, plus euro inflation over time and how it would have compounded to the price today, funnily enough, the price is now basically 1800! | Year | LIRs | Fee | Inflati | Adjust | Redis. | | |------|-------|------|---------|--------|--------|-----| | 2016 | 15008 | 1.4 | 0.98% | 1.4 | 400 | 400 | | 2017 | 17601 | 1.4 | 1.25% | 1.414 | 279 | 279 | | 2018 | 20624 | 1.4 | 1.96% | 1.431 | 359 | 359 | | 2019 | 25125 | 1.4 | 2.72% | 1.459 | 568 | 568 | | 2020 | 23569 | 1.4 | 0.98% | 1.499 | 354 | 354 | | 2021 | 23209 | 1.4 | 5.71% | 1.514 | 461 | 461 | | 2022 | 23383 | 1.4 | 9.59% | 1.6 | 614 | 614 | | 2023 | 21570 | 1.55 | 1.21% | 1.754 | 8 | 8 | | 2024 | 20500 | 1.55 | 2%* | 1.775 | 54 | 54 | | 2025 | 20000 | ??? | 2%* | 1.81 | ??? | ??? | ( taken from https://www.ripe.net/documents/3744/Charging_Scheme_2025_-_Open_House.pdf , something I highly encourage everyone to flick through, if you have not already ) Now there is a "hindsight" argument on if RIPE should have just been tracking the inflation increases regardless if it would have just resulted in a bigger redistribution at the end of the year, just so that when the party stops we would not be having as much of a fight about it, but oh well, that's in the past. I understand the argument on people's desire to pay less for things, but remember that there are nice people sitting behind RIPE, who I would not always describe as being paid the "Inspire the best talent" market salary rate. If you want nice things sometimes you have to pay for stuff, and starving RIPE of money results in worse service for people, making you think that RIPE are even worse, etc etc, death spiral. RIPE also provides data sets and research that helps all RIRs and network operators. On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 at 13:57, Daniel Pearson <daniel@privatesystems.net> wrote:
Howdy,
A modest increase is not going to kill us, but why are fee's going up when RIPE is shrinking?
Should RIPE have the same budget and staff, when it is serving fewer members?
Fewer LIR members should inturn mean a smaller , more efficient RIPE.
Daniel~
On 4/10/24 7:48 AM, Leopoldo Maestro - Soltia Consulting SL wrote:
Hello,
I think it is a very reasonable increase, the budget is maintained for a while and the changes are not so dramatic that they could impact many people.
Let's be honest, an increase of 400€ (33-34€/month) a year is not going to kill us.
Kind regards
Hello,
Why do we not have an option that refuses any rate increases, and forces RIPE to reduce it's budget?
Option D - No change to rates, RIPE reduces budget according to fewer number of LIR!
The Board MUST make tough decisions. If RIPE is serving fewer LIR then the board must adjust RIPE to be a proper size.
Daniel~
On 4/10/24 4:18 AM, Simon-Jan Haytink wrote:
Dear RIPE NCC members,
We can now share three draft charging scheme models for 2025 that the Executive Board approved with the following resolution at its meeting on 25 March 2024:
The RIPE NCC Executive Board approves the submission of the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 options to the upcoming RIPE NCC General Meeting for members to vote on.
- Option A - Charging Scheme as is with 22.58% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,900) and a 0% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 50)
- Option B - Charging Scheme as is with 20.97% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,875) and a 50% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 75)
- Option C - Charging Scheme as is with 16.13% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,800), a 50% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 75) and a new AS Numbers fee of EUR 50 per assignment
*Resources falling under this charge are IPv4 and IPv6 PI assignments; Anycast assignments; IPv4 and IPv6 IXP assignments; and Legacy IPv4 resource registrations through a sponsoring LIR.
The full draft charging scheme models are available from the GM Documentation page: https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2024/documentation-...
Although the proposed models are relatively simple, we provide a calculator where you can see exactly what you would pay under each of the proposed models:
https://www.ripe.net/documents/3757/CS2025_Member_Calculator.xlsx
The main considerations for the Executive Board in proposing these three models are:
1. The consolidation of LIR accounts, which means the burden to generate sufficient income must be met by fewer accounts
2. Increased costs due to inflation that were previously catered for by the large number of LIR accounts
3. Following the discussions last year and again this year, there appears to be no clear consensus among members on how a category-based model would work and the Board does not wish to put another category model forward at the upcoming GM that will be rejected by the members. Rather, the Board will propose a simple model that guarantees adequate funding for 2025 and 2026 - under this proposal, we expect there would be no need for a fee increase for 2026. The Board will work with the RIPE NCC on a more in-depth consultation with the members aimed at arriving at a sustainable solution for 2027 and beyond, possibly involving a new charging scheme task force.
All three proposed models are designed to arrive at the same income of EUR 41.1 million for the RIPE NCC in 2025. This will cover all current services and activities, a 5% staff cost increase, a 2% inflation increase on all non-staff costs, and EUR 1 million for additional work relating to registry complexity and security projects aimed at ensuring the resilience of the Registry and the RIPE NCC more broadly. Any such additional work would be discussed with the membership during Activity Plan and Budget consultations and then need to be approved by the Board. This will also allow some leeway should more LIR accounts close than we expect.
It’s important to note that the RIPE NCC aims for an income budget that will provide a surplus, and this means that should we meet our budgetary targets, a surplus can be returned to members in 2026 should they so wish.
While the RIPE NCC continues to carry out cost-cutting efforts across the organisation, drastically reducing the budget at this time is not advisable due to the work that needs to be carried out, especially in relation to maintaining high-quality registry services and securing the registry and RIPE NCC systems. Cutting services or activities is not something the Board is planning to do, and such actions would take time and need full consultation with the membership. An overview of the activities and services that the membership fee covers is provided below this email.
I also urge you to see the presentation we delivered at the charging scheme open house in March so that the full context of the situation and the financial landscape we face is clear to you. The slides are available at:
https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/open-house/ripe-ncc-charging-scheme...
Finally, I want to thank all those who have contributed to the consultation so far on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025. The models we present here are draft and in two weeks we will announce the final proposal that members will vote on at the GM on 22-24 May. Please discuss the draft proposal on the members-discuss@ripe.net list - any input received by 19 April can be incorporated if possible into the final models we propose. And make sure to register for the GM so that you can vote on the charging scheme that will apply for you and all members next year:
https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active
Simon-Jan Haytink
Chief Financial Officer
RIPE NCC
Services and Activities Covered by the Member Fee
- A trusted, efficient, accurate and resilient registry that guarantees uniqueness of resources held by members
- Neutral information services uninfluenced by commercial or government interests that allow both the RIPE NCC and the community to carry out useful research into the Internet
- Engagement activities, including RIPE and regional meetings, that build an active membership and community and that contribute to the overall good of the Internet
- A voice and influence for the membership in key decision-making fora, including with governments and regulators
- Protection of the Joint Internet Number Registry as developed by the Internet community
- Learning and development activities that help to address skills shortages and contribute to an educated membership
- Support for the Policy Development Process (PDP)
- An authoritative registry of routing information provided by RPKI and the RIPE Database
- K-root and DNS services
- A dedicated staff with considerable expertise contributing to all of the above
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/info%40soltia.es
-- Leopoldo Maestro Soltia Consulting S.L
Email: info@soltia.es | Tel: (+34) 910052420
Movil: (+34) 661004140
En virtud de lo establecido en la Ley 15/1999, y la LSSICE 34/2002, le informamos que sus datos forman parte de un fichero automatizado titularidad de Soltia Consulting, S.L. La información registrada se utilizará para informarle por cualquier medio electrónico de nuestras novedades comerciales. Puede ejercer los derechos de acceso, rectificación, cancelación y oposición en: C\Zurbano 45 1ª Planta, 28010 Madrid, España.
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/daniel%40privatesyste...
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ripencc%40benjojo.co....
Ben, Thanks for your reply and additional information. In 2018, the budget was 26.6~ million with 151 Full time employees serving 20624 LIRS The most recent budget is 38.2 Million with a proposed 41~ Million and almost 200 Full time employees. If we did it in 2018 with 150~ employees, why can't we do it in 2024 with 150 Employees. Would that not offer a significant reduction in operating expenses. I understand inflation has happened and money doesn't stretch as far, but we also have 50~ more employees than then, for now the same amount of LIRS. Daniel~ On 4/10/24 8:26 AM, Ben Cartwright-Cox wrote:
Daniel,
I try and not get involved on these mailing lists since they end up being a bit of a "Player vs Player zone", but as far as I can tell uk.privatesystems ( [your/your employer's] RIPE tag ) , was created in 2016, meaning it was at the start from when the fees started at 1400. This was in a "boom" time for RIPE NCC.
A couple of years before that the RIPE LIR fee was 1800, however then the number of LIRs exploded (likely) because of a upcoming IP shortage, so people started opening more than one LIR/membership to get more IPs
However now that the RIPE waiting list is the way it is, these new LIRs are not only seemingly dropping off, but the "shortage boomer" LIRs (a term I just made up) are now merging back into larger LIRs, meaning that the (LIR-Fee * LIR-Count = cash) nunber is now a lot less, in a way that is not catching up with the years of inflation that was not applied to the fee.
In the open house a table was presented that shows the numbers, plus euro inflation over time and how it would have compounded to the price today, funnily enough, the price is now basically 1800!
| Year | LIRs | Fee | Inflati | Adjust | Redis. | | |------|-------|------|---------|--------|--------|-----| | 2016 | 15008 | 1.4 | 0.98% | 1.4 | 400 | 400 | | 2017 | 17601 | 1.4 | 1.25% | 1.414 | 279 | 279 | | 2018 | 20624 | 1.4 | 1.96% | 1.431 | 359 | 359 | | 2019 | 25125 | 1.4 | 2.72% | 1.459 | 568 | 568 | | 2020 | 23569 | 1.4 | 0.98% | 1.499 | 354 | 354 | | 2021 | 23209 | 1.4 | 5.71% | 1.514 | 461 | 461 | | 2022 | 23383 | 1.4 | 9.59% | 1.6 | 614 | 614 | | 2023 | 21570 | 1.55 | 1.21% | 1.754 | 8 | 8 | | 2024 | 20500 | 1.55 | 2%* | 1.775 | 54 | 54 | | 2025 | 20000 | ??? | 2%* | 1.81 | ??? | ??? |
( taken from https://www.ripe.net/documents/3744/Charging_Scheme_2025_-_Open_House.pdf , something I highly encourage everyone to flick through, if you have not already )
Now there is a "hindsight" argument on if RIPE should have just been tracking the inflation increases regardless if it would have just resulted in a bigger redistribution at the end of the year, just so that when the party stops we would not be having as much of a fight about it, but oh well, that's in the past.
I understand the argument on people's desire to pay less for things, but remember that there are nice people sitting behind RIPE, who I would not always describe as being paid the "Inspire the best talent" market salary rate. If you want nice things sometimes you have to pay for stuff, and starving RIPE of money results in worse service for people, making you think that RIPE are even worse, etc etc, death spiral. RIPE also provides data sets and research that helps all RIRs and network operators.
On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 at 13:57, Daniel Pearson <daniel@privatesystems.net> wrote:
Howdy,
A modest increase is not going to kill us, but why are fee's going up when RIPE is shrinking?
Should RIPE have the same budget and staff, when it is serving fewer members?
Fewer LIR members should inturn mean a smaller , more efficient RIPE.
Daniel~
On 4/10/24 7:48 AM, Leopoldo Maestro - Soltia Consulting SL wrote:
Hello,
I think it is a very reasonable increase, the budget is maintained for a while and the changes are not so dramatic that they could impact many people.
Let's be honest, an increase of 400€ (33-34€/month) a year is not going to kill us.
Kind regards
Hello,
Why do we not have an option that refuses any rate increases, and forces RIPE to reduce it's budget?
Option D - No change to rates, RIPE reduces budget according to fewer number of LIR!
The Board MUST make tough decisions. If RIPE is serving fewer LIR then the board must adjust RIPE to be a proper size.
Daniel~
On 4/10/24 4:18 AM, Simon-Jan Haytink wrote:
Dear RIPE NCC members,
We can now share three draft charging scheme models for 2025 that the Executive Board approved with the following resolution at its meeting on 25 March 2024:
The RIPE NCC Executive Board approves the submission of the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 options to the upcoming RIPE NCC General Meeting for members to vote on.
- Option A - Charging Scheme as is with 22.58% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,900) and a 0% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 50)
- Option B - Charging Scheme as is with 20.97% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,875) and a 50% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 75)
- Option C - Charging Scheme as is with 16.13% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,800), a 50% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 75) and a new AS Numbers fee of EUR 50 per assignment
*Resources falling under this charge are IPv4 and IPv6 PI assignments; Anycast assignments; IPv4 and IPv6 IXP assignments; and Legacy IPv4 resource registrations through a sponsoring LIR.
The full draft charging scheme models are available from the GM Documentation page: https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2024/documentation-...
Although the proposed models are relatively simple, we provide a calculator where you can see exactly what you would pay under each of the proposed models:
https://www.ripe.net/documents/3757/CS2025_Member_Calculator.xlsx
The main considerations for the Executive Board in proposing these three models are:
1. The consolidation of LIR accounts, which means the burden to generate sufficient income must be met by fewer accounts
2. Increased costs due to inflation that were previously catered for by the large number of LIR accounts
3. Following the discussions last year and again this year, there appears to be no clear consensus among members on how a category-based model would work and the Board does not wish to put another category model forward at the upcoming GM that will be rejected by the members. Rather, the Board will propose a simple model that guarantees adequate funding for 2025 and 2026 - under this proposal, we expect there would be no need for a fee increase for 2026. The Board will work with the RIPE NCC on a more in-depth consultation with the members aimed at arriving at a sustainable solution for 2027 and beyond, possibly involving a new charging scheme task force.
All three proposed models are designed to arrive at the same income of EUR 41.1 million for the RIPE NCC in 2025. This will cover all current services and activities, a 5% staff cost increase, a 2% inflation increase on all non-staff costs, and EUR 1 million for additional work relating to registry complexity and security projects aimed at ensuring the resilience of the Registry and the RIPE NCC more broadly. Any such additional work would be discussed with the membership during Activity Plan and Budget consultations and then need to be approved by the Board. This will also allow some leeway should more LIR accounts close than we expect.
It’s important to note that the RIPE NCC aims for an income budget that will provide a surplus, and this means that should we meet our budgetary targets, a surplus can be returned to members in 2026 should they so wish.
While the RIPE NCC continues to carry out cost-cutting efforts across the organisation, drastically reducing the budget at this time is not advisable due to the work that needs to be carried out, especially in relation to maintaining high-quality registry services and securing the registry and RIPE NCC systems. Cutting services or activities is not something the Board is planning to do, and such actions would take time and need full consultation with the membership. An overview of the activities and services that the membership fee covers is provided below this email.
I also urge you to see the presentation we delivered at the charging scheme open house in March so that the full context of the situation and the financial landscape we face is clear to you. The slides are available at:
https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/open-house/ripe-ncc-charging-scheme...
Finally, I want to thank all those who have contributed to the consultation so far on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025. The models we present here are draft and in two weeks we will announce the final proposal that members will vote on at the GM on 22-24 May. Please discuss the draft proposal on the members-discuss@ripe.net list - any input received by 19 April can be incorporated if possible into the final models we propose. And make sure to register for the GM so that you can vote on the charging scheme that will apply for you and all members next year:
https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active
Simon-Jan Haytink
Chief Financial Officer
RIPE NCC
Services and Activities Covered by the Member Fee
- A trusted, efficient, accurate and resilient registry that guarantees uniqueness of resources held by members
- Neutral information services uninfluenced by commercial or government interests that allow both the RIPE NCC and the community to carry out useful research into the Internet
- Engagement activities, including RIPE and regional meetings, that build an active membership and community and that contribute to the overall good of the Internet
- A voice and influence for the membership in key decision-making fora, including with governments and regulators
- Protection of the Joint Internet Number Registry as developed by the Internet community
- Learning and development activities that help to address skills shortages and contribute to an educated membership
- Support for the Policy Development Process (PDP)
- An authoritative registry of routing information provided by RPKI and the RIPE Database
- K-root and DNS services
- A dedicated staff with considerable expertise contributing to all of the above
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/info%40soltia.es
-- Leopoldo Maestro Soltia Consulting S.L
Email: info@soltia.es | Tel: (+34) 910052420
Movil: (+34) 661004140
En virtud de lo establecido en la Ley 15/1999, y la LSSICE 34/2002, le informamos que sus datos forman parte de un fichero automatizado titularidad de Soltia Consulting, S.L. La información registrada se utilizará para informarle por cualquier medio electrónico de nuestras novedades comerciales. Puede ejercer los derechos de acceso, rectificación, cancelación y oposición en: C\Zurbano 45 1ª Planta, 28010 Madrid, España.
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/daniel%40privatesyste...
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ripencc%40benjojo.co....
Hello, I totaly approve that prupose. Ripe have to scale down their activities and focus on registry and mandatory one. Definitively need an option D there. Best regards, Le 10-04-24 à 14:41, Daniel Pearson a écrit :
Hello,
Why do we not have an option that refuses any rate increases, and forces RIPE to reduce it's budget?
Option D - No change to rates, RIPE reduces budget according to fewer number of LIR!
The Board MUST make tough decisions. If RIPE is serving fewer LIR then the board must adjust RIPE to be a proper size.
Daniel~
On 4/10/24 4:18 AM, Simon-Jan Haytink wrote:
Dear RIPE NCC members,
We can now share three draft charging scheme models for 2025 that the Executive Board approved with the following resolution at its meeting on 25 March 2024:
The RIPE NCC Executive Board approves the submission of the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 options to the upcoming RIPE NCC General Meeting for members to vote on.
- Option A - Charging Scheme as is with 22.58% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,900) and a 0% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 50)
- Option B - Charging Scheme as is with 20.97% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,875) and a 50% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 75)
- Option C - Charging Scheme as is with 16.13% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,800), a 50% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 75) and a new AS Numbers fee of EUR 50 per assignment
*Resources falling under this charge are IPv4 and IPv6 PI assignments; Anycast assignments; IPv4 and IPv6 IXP assignments; and Legacy IPv4 resource registrations through a sponsoring LIR.
The full draft charging scheme models are available from the GM Documentation page:https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2024/documentation-... <https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2024/documentation-and-archives/supporting-documents/>
Although the proposed models are relatively simple, we provide a calculator where you can see exactly what you would pay under each of the proposed models:
https://www.ripe.net/documents/3757/CS2025_Member_Calculator.xlsx <https://www.ripe.net/documents/3757/CS2025_Member_Calculator.xlsx>
The main considerations for the Executive Board in proposing these three models are:
1. The consolidation of LIR accounts, which means the burden to generate sufficient income must be met by fewer accounts
2. Increased costs due to inflation that were previously catered for by the large number of LIR accounts
3. Following the discussions last year and again this year, there appears to be no clear consensus among members on how a category-based model would work and the Board does not wish to put another category model forward at the upcoming GM that will be rejected by the members. Rather, the Board will propose a simple model that guarantees adequate funding for 2025 and 2026 - under this proposal, we expect there would be no need for a fee increase for 2026. The Board will work with the RIPE NCC on a more in-depth consultation with the members aimed at arriving at a sustainable solution for 2027 and beyond, possibly involving a new charging scheme task force.
All three proposed models are designed to arrive at the same income of EUR 41.1 million for the RIPE NCC in 2025. This will cover all current services and activities, a 5% staff cost increase, a 2% inflation increase on all non-staff costs, and EUR 1 million for additional work relating to registry complexity and security projects aimed at ensuring the resilience of the Registry and the RIPE NCC more broadly. Any such additional work would be discussed with the membership during Activity Plan and Budget consultations and then need to be approved by the Board. This will also allow some leeway should more LIR accounts close than we expect.
It’s important to note that the RIPE NCC aims for an income budget that will provide a surplus, and this means that should we meet our budgetary targets, a surplus can be returned to members in 2026 should they so wish.
While the RIPE NCC continues to carry out cost-cutting efforts across the organisation, drastically reducing the budget at this time is not advisable due to the work that needs to be carried out, especially in relation to maintaining high-quality registry services and securing the registry and RIPE NCC systems. Cutting services or activities is not something the Board is planning to do, and such actions would take time and need full consultation with the membership. An overview of the activities and services that the membership fee covers is provided below this email.
I also urge you to see the presentation we delivered at the charging scheme open house in March so that the full context of the situation and the financial landscape we face is clear to you. The slides are available at:
https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/open-house/ripe-ncc-charging-scheme... <https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/open-house/ripe-ncc-charging-scheme-2025/>
Finally, I want to thank all those who have contributed to the consultation so far on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025. The models we present here are draft and in two weeks we will announce the final proposal that members will vote on at the GM on 22-24 May. Please discuss the draft proposal on the members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>list - any input received by 19 April can be incorporated if possible into the final models we propose. And make sure to register for the GM so that you can vote on the charging scheme that will apply for you and all members next year:
https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active <https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active>
Simon-Jan Haytink
Chief Financial Officer
RIPE NCC
Services and Activities Covered by the Member Fee
- A trusted, efficient, accurate and resilient registry that guarantees uniqueness of resources held by members
- Neutral information services uninfluenced by commercial or government interests that allow both the RIPE NCC and the community to carry out useful research into the Internet
- Engagement activities, including RIPE and regional meetings, that build an active membership and community and that contribute to the overall good of the Internet
- A voice and influence for the membership in key decision-making fora, including with governments and regulators
- Protection of the Joint Internet Number Registry as developed by the Internet community
- Learning and development activities that help to address skills shortages and contribute to an educated membership
- Support for the Policy Development Process (PDP)
- An authoritative registry of routing information provided by RPKI and the RIPE Database
- K-root and DNS services
- A dedicated staff with considerable expertise contributing to all of the above
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe:https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ml%40servperso.com
This On 4/10/24 2:50 PM, Servperso via members-discuss wrote:
Hello, I totaly approve that prupose. Ripe have to scale down their activities and focus on registry and mandatory one. Definitively need an option D there.
Best regards,
Le 10-04-24 à 14:41, Daniel Pearson a écrit :
Hello,
Why do we not have an option that refuses any rate increases, and forces RIPE to reduce it's budget?
Option D - No change to rates, RIPE reduces budget according to fewer number of LIR!
The Board MUST make tough decisions. If RIPE is serving fewer LIR then the board must adjust RIPE to be a proper size.
Daniel~
On 4/10/24 4:18 AM, Simon-Jan Haytink wrote:
Dear RIPE NCC members,
We can now share three draft charging scheme models for 2025 that the Executive Board approved with the following resolution at its meeting on 25 March 2024:
The RIPE NCC Executive Board approves the submission of the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 options to the upcoming RIPE NCC General Meeting for members to vote on.
- Option A - Charging Scheme as is with 22.58% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,900) and a 0% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 50)
- Option B - Charging Scheme as is with 20.97% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,875) and a 50% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 75)
- Option C - Charging Scheme as is with 16.13% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,800), a 50% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 75) and a new AS Numbers fee of EUR 50 per assignment
*Resources falling under this charge are IPv4 and IPv6 PI assignments; Anycast assignments; IPv4 and IPv6 IXP assignments; and Legacy IPv4 resource registrations through a sponsoring LIR.
The full draft charging scheme models are available from the GM Documentation page:https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2024/documentation-... <https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2024/documentation-and-archives/supporting-documents/>
Although the proposed models are relatively simple, we provide a calculator where you can see exactly what you would pay under each of the proposed models:
https://www.ripe.net/documents/3757/CS2025_Member_Calculator.xlsx <https://www.ripe.net/documents/3757/CS2025_Member_Calculator.xlsx>
The main considerations for the Executive Board in proposing these three models are:
1. The consolidation of LIR accounts, which means the burden to generate sufficient income must be met by fewer accounts
2. Increased costs due to inflation that were previously catered for by the large number of LIR accounts
3. Following the discussions last year and again this year, there appears to be no clear consensus among members on how a category-based model would work and the Board does not wish to put another category model forward at the upcoming GM that will be rejected by the members. Rather, the Board will propose a simple model that guarantees adequate funding for 2025 and 2026 - under this proposal, we expect there would be no need for a fee increase for 2026. The Board will work with the RIPE NCC on a more in-depth consultation with the members aimed at arriving at a sustainable solution for 2027 and beyond, possibly involving a new charging scheme task force.
All three proposed models are designed to arrive at the same income of EUR 41.1 million for the RIPE NCC in 2025. This will cover all current services and activities, a 5% staff cost increase, a 2% inflation increase on all non-staff costs, and EUR 1 million for additional work relating to registry complexity and security projects aimed at ensuring the resilience of the Registry and the RIPE NCC more broadly. Any such additional work would be discussed with the membership during Activity Plan and Budget consultations and then need to be approved by the Board. This will also allow some leeway should more LIR accounts close than we expect.
It’s important to note that the RIPE NCC aims for an income budget that will provide a surplus, and this means that should we meet our budgetary targets, a surplus can be returned to members in 2026 should they so wish.
While the RIPE NCC continues to carry out cost-cutting efforts across the organisation, drastically reducing the budget at this time is not advisable due to the work that needs to be carried out, especially in relation to maintaining high-quality registry services and securing the registry and RIPE NCC systems. Cutting services or activities is not something the Board is planning to do, and such actions would take time and need full consultation with the membership. An overview of the activities and services that the membership fee covers is provided below this email.
I also urge you to see the presentation we delivered at the charging scheme open house in March so that the full context of the situation and the financial landscape we face is clear to you. The slides are available at:
https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/open-house/ripe-ncc-charging-scheme... <https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/open-house/ripe-ncc-charging-scheme-2025/>
Finally, I want to thank all those who have contributed to the consultation so far on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025. The models we present here are draft and in two weeks we will announce the final proposal that members will vote on at the GM on 22-24 May. Please discuss the draft proposal on the members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>list - any input received by 19 April can be incorporated if possible into the final models we propose. And make sure to register for the GM so that you can vote on the charging scheme that will apply for you and all members next year:
https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active <https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active>
Simon-Jan Haytink
Chief Financial Officer
RIPE NCC
Services and Activities Covered by the Member Fee
- A trusted, efficient, accurate and resilient registry that guarantees uniqueness of resources held by members
- Neutral information services uninfluenced by commercial or government interests that allow both the RIPE NCC and the community to carry out useful research into the Internet
- Engagement activities, including RIPE and regional meetings, that build an active membership and community and that contribute to the overall good of the Internet
- A voice and influence for the membership in key decision-making fora, including with governments and regulators
- Protection of the Joint Internet Number Registry as developed by the Internet community
- Learning and development activities that help to address skills shortages and contribute to an educated membership
- Support for the Policy Development Process (PDP)
- An authoritative registry of routing information provided by RPKI and the RIPE Database
- K-root and DNS services
- A dedicated staff with considerable expertise contributing to all of the above
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe:https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ml%40servperso.com
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe:https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ripe-members%40sebast...
Le Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 07:41:33AM -0500, Daniel Pearson a écrit :
Hello,
Why do we not have an option that refuses any rate increases, and forces RIPE to reduce it's budget?
You are right. This is budget management 101. RIPE NCC knew that the increase in number of LIR 3/5 years ago was due to existing LIR looking for a last bit of IPv4 and would close at some time. They knew because they added a rule to keep open a new LIR for 2 years. It is sad, I am not happy to see any of the great RIPE services removed, but now is past time to reduce the budget (and deploy IPv6 ;) ). Denis
Option D - No change to rates, RIPE reduces budget according to fewer number of LIR!
The Board MUST make tough decisions. If RIPE is serving fewer LIR then the board must adjust RIPE to be a proper size.
Daniel~
On 4/10/24 4:18 AM, Simon-Jan Haytink wrote:
Dear RIPE NCC members,
We can now share three draft charging scheme models for 2025 that the Executive Board approved with the following resolution at its meeting on 25 March 2024:
The RIPE NCC Executive Board approves the submission of the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 options to the upcoming RIPE NCC General Meeting for members to vote on.
- Option A - Charging Scheme as is with 22.58% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,900) and a 0% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 50)
- Option B - Charging Scheme as is with 20.97% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,875) and a 50% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 75)
- Option C - Charging Scheme as is with 16.13% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,800), a 50% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 75) and a new AS Numbers fee of EUR 50 per assignment
*Resources falling under this charge are IPv4 and IPv6 PI assignments; Anycast assignments; IPv4 and IPv6 IXP assignments; and Legacy IPv4 resource registrations through a sponsoring LIR.
The full draft charging scheme models are available from the GM Documentation page:https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2024/documentation-... <https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2024/documentation-and-archives/supporting-documents/>
Although the proposed models are relatively simple, we provide a calculator where you can see exactly what you would pay under each of the proposed models:
https://www.ripe.net/documents/3757/CS2025_Member_Calculator.xlsx <https://www.ripe.net/documents/3757/CS2025_Member_Calculator.xlsx>
The main considerations for the Executive Board in proposing these three models are:
1. The consolidation of LIR accounts, which means the burden to generate sufficient income must be met by fewer accounts
2. Increased costs due to inflation that were previously catered for by the large number of LIR accounts
3. Following the discussions last year and again this year, there appears to be no clear consensus among members on how a category-based model would work and the Board does not wish to put another category model forward at the upcoming GM that will be rejected by the members. Rather, the Board will propose a simple model that guarantees adequate funding for 2025 and 2026 - under this proposal, we expect there would be no need for a fee increase for 2026. The Board will work with the RIPE NCC on a more in-depth consultation with the members aimed at arriving at a sustainable solution for 2027 and beyond, possibly involving a new charging scheme task force.
All three proposed models are designed to arrive at the same income of EUR 41.1 million for the RIPE NCC in 2025. This will cover all current services and activities, a 5% staff cost increase, a 2% inflation increase on all non-staff costs, and EUR 1 million for additional work relating to registry complexity and security projects aimed at ensuring the resilience of the Registry and the RIPE NCC more broadly. Any such additional work would be discussed with the membership during Activity Plan and Budget consultations and then need to be approved by the Board. This will also allow some leeway should more LIR accounts close than we expect.
It’s important to note that the RIPE NCC aims for an income budget that will provide a surplus, and this means that should we meet our budgetary targets, a surplus can be returned to members in 2026 should they so wish.
While the RIPE NCC continues to carry out cost-cutting efforts across the organisation, drastically reducing the budget at this time is not advisable due to the work that needs to be carried out, especially in relation to maintaining high-quality registry services and securing the registry and RIPE NCC systems. Cutting services or activities is not something the Board is planning to do, and such actions would take time and need full consultation with the membership. An overview of the activities and services that the membership fee covers is provided below this email.
I also urge you to see the presentation we delivered at the charging scheme open house in March so that the full context of the situation and the financial landscape we face is clear to you. The slides are available at:
https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/open-house/ripe-ncc-charging-scheme... <https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/open-house/ripe-ncc-charging-scheme-2025/>
Finally, I want to thank all those who have contributed to the consultation so far on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025. The models we present here are draft and in two weeks we will announce the final proposal that members will vote on at the GM on 22-24 May. Please discuss the draft proposal on the members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>list - any input received by 19 April can be incorporated if possible into the final models we propose. And make sure to register for the GM so that you can vote on the charging scheme that will apply for you and all members next year:
https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active <https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active>
Simon-Jan Haytink
Chief Financial Officer
RIPE NCC
Services and Activities Covered by the Member Fee
- A trusted, efficient, accurate and resilient registry that guarantees uniqueness of resources held by members
- Neutral information services uninfluenced by commercial or government interests that allow both the RIPE NCC and the community to carry out useful research into the Internet
- Engagement activities, including RIPE and regional meetings, that build an active membership and community and that contribute to the overall good of the Internet
- A voice and influence for the membership in key decision-making fora, including with governments and regulators
- Protection of the Joint Internet Number Registry as developed by the Internet community
- Learning and development activities that help to address skills shortages and contribute to an educated membership
- Support for the Policy Development Process (PDP)
- An authoritative registry of routing information provided by RPKI and the RIPE Database
- K-root and DNS services
- A dedicated staff with considerable expertise contributing to all of the above
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ripe%40liopen.fr
-- Denis Fondras / Liopen Mob: +33.761.029.186
participants (32)
-
ahmad fakih -
Aleksi -
Arash Naderpour -
Ben Cartwright-Cox -
Blake Shepherd -
Daniel Pearson -
Denis Fondras - Liopen -
Denys Fedoryshchenko -
Doru Serdin -
Evgeniy Brodskiy -
Fergal Cunningham -
Firma KOMPEX -
Gert Doering -
ivaylo -
Kai Siering -
Kaj Niemi -
Leopoldo Maestro - Soltia Consulting SL -
m.terzioglu＠prebits.de -
Matias Meier -
Michel Lanners -
Michele Neylon - Blacknight -
Mihail Fedorov -
Patrick Velder -
Paul Newton -
Rob Evans -
ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED -
sdy＠a-n-t.ru -
Sebastian Wiesinger -
Sebastian-Wilhelm Graf -
Sebastien Brossier -
Servperso -
Simon Lockhart