Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments
Dear all, I would like to update you about the RIPE NCC Executive Board deliberations regarding the draft charging scheme for 2012. We presented you with two draft schemes, in early summer, to gather feedback from you. We did this as we wanted to hear your opinions on measures we want to take which are designed to keep the RIPE NCC financially stable and capable of serving its members as it should. You engaged in a lively discussion on this mailing list, and even ran a mini-survey. We followed the exchanges closely and as result asked RIPE NCC staff to provide the board with another charging scheme option, based on a sliding scale scheme that eliminated the membership categories we currently use. During the board meeting of last Friday, 23 September, we discussed the merits as well as some of the issues of that model. Obviously a sliding scale model as its main benefit does away with the fee jumps of the category based model. We were pleased with the model that we developed with the NCC staff and felt that it addressed many of the issues raised by you, the members. However, in consultation with our tax lawyers we have had to think again. Because it brings a "fee-per-address" flavour to the charging model of the RIPE NCC it fundamentally alters the tax scheme under which we operate. The current "category" model allows us to argue that we are a membership association with different categories of membership. This brings substantial tax advantages. As you know, for a long time the RIPE NCC tax situation has been extremely favourable, as we don't have to pay corporation tax, based on an agreement made with the Dutch tax authorities many years ago. We are advised that the envisaged change in the charging scheme would lead to a re-assessment of that agreement, with the likely outcome that the association's surplus would have to be taxed, leading to a significant financial liability, with an obvious knock-on effect to the member fees. In the light of this, the board members have agreed not to expose our organisation to that risk, staying with a category based system. We have however noted your preference for reduced "fee jumps" between categories, and have instructed NCC staff to produce a charging scheme model based on 10 categories, doubling the current category number. Category divisions will be based on a count of address space held. This revised Charging Scheme 2012 we will publish, as usual, prior to the General Meeting in November, for approval by the members during the General Meeting. We can advise you already that we are opening up the voting mechanism for all resolutions to include electronic voting, so that all members of the association have a good opportunity to take a full part in the proceedings. At this time, I would like to thank you all, on behalf of the RIPE NCC Executive Board, for participating in the discussion. I look forward to seeing as many of you as possible at the next General Meeting. Best regards, Nigel Titley Chairman RIPE NCC Executive Board
Dear Nigel, thank you first of all for your update about the charing scheme. Some point we can confirm but not all of them as the charging scheme for 2012 looks like as a billing of ip-addresses as there are a lot of "XS" categories. Otherwise - as we told time before - why the smaller LIR must have to pay a lot more instead of the big player who will crunch IPv4 ?? The calculated scheme means for us that we will increase from category "SMALL" to "L" which means a increase of our costs from 1800 EUR to 3000 EUR per year or +70% more costs which can bring a lot of members in trouble as they don't have a budget for that high increase equal which category they will have for 2012 !!! As revewed the change matrix it means that like all membres will increase one or two categories in the charging scheme. Only a very small amount will decrease. This guess to us that the budget will increase a lot too ?? Why RIPE NCC will need a so high budget for 2012 instead of 2011 ?? Other stuff is that many companies have a PI assigment but will pay only 50 EUR as a 3XS member must pay 250 EUR which means 5 times more. It should be better to ask for PI space instead of PA space as the costs are much lower !!! Only think we know is that we will VOTE contra this charging scheme. thx Alexander Schoberl SPEEDNIC S.R.L. Am 30.09.2011 03:53, schrieb Nigel Titley:
Dear all,
I would like to update you about the RIPE NCC Executive Board deliberations regarding the draft charging scheme for 2012.
We presented you with two draft schemes, in early summer, to gather feedback from you. We did this as we wanted to hear your opinions on measures we want to take which are designed to keep the RIPE NCC financially stable and capable of serving its members as it should.
You engaged in a lively discussion on this mailing list, and even ran a mini-survey. We followed the exchanges closely and as result asked RIPE NCC staff to provide the board with another charging scheme option, based on a sliding scale scheme that eliminated the membership categories we currently use.
During the board meeting of last Friday, 23 September, we discussed the merits as well as some of the issues of that model. Obviously a sliding scale model as its main benefit does away with the fee jumps of the category based model. We were pleased with the model that we developed with the NCC staff and felt that it addressed many of the issues raised by you, the members.
However, in consultation with our tax lawyers we have had to think again. Because it brings a "fee-per-address" flavour to the charging model of the RIPE NCC it fundamentally alters the tax scheme under which we operate. The current "category" model allows us to argue that we are a membership association with different categories of membership. This brings substantial tax advantages.
As you know, for a long time the RIPE NCC tax situation has been extremely favourable, as we don't have to pay corporation tax, based on an agreement made with the Dutch tax authorities many years ago. We are advised that the envisaged change in the charging scheme would lead to a re-assessment of that agreement, with the likely outcome that the association's surplus would have to be taxed, leading to a significant financial liability, with an obvious knock-on effect to the member fees.
In the light of this, the board members have agreed not to expose our organisation to that risk, staying with a category based system. We have however noted your preference for reduced "fee jumps" between categories, and have instructed NCC staff to produce a charging scheme model based on 10 categories, doubling the current category number. Category divisions will be based on a count of address space held.
This revised Charging Scheme 2012 we will publish, as usual, prior to the General Meeting in November, for approval by the members during the General Meeting. We can advise you already that we are opening up the voting mechanism for all resolutions to include electronic voting, so that all members of the association have a good opportunity to take a full part in the proceedings.
At this time, I would like to thank you all, on behalf of the RIPE NCC Executive Board, for participating in the discussion. I look forward to seeing as many of you as possible at the next General Meeting.
Best regards,
Nigel Titley Chairman RIPE NCC Executive Board
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
Hi, On Sun, Oct 02, 2011 at 11:10:23AM -0300, SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling wrote:
As revewed the change matrix it means that like all membres will increase one or two categories in the charging scheme. Only a very small amount will decrease. This guess to us that the budget will increase a lot too ?? Why RIPE NCC will need a so high budget for 2012 instead of 2011 ??
The distribution of LIRs to charging categories happens in such a way that the resulting income will match the budget. Normally the budget for 2012 should not be much higher than for 2011 (detailed numbers will usually be published before the AGM), so it looks like you have not used fully correct numbers. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hi Gert, Am 02.10.2011 14:39, schrieb Gert Doering:
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 02, 2011 at 11:10:23AM -0300, SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling wrote:
As revewed the change matrix it means that like all membres will increase one or two categories in the charging scheme. Only a very small amount will decrease. This guess to us that the budget will increase a lot too ?? Why RIPE NCC will need a so high budget for 2012 instead of 2011 ??
The distribution of LIRs to charging categories happens in such a way that the resulting income will match the budget. Normally the budget for 2012 should not be much higher than for 2011 (detailed numbers will usually be published before the AGM), so it looks like you have not used fully correct numbers.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster
sorry but I must tell you that you're wrong. I have based the members (Budget 2011 - 7725 Members - from RIPE document https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/november-2010/ChargingSchemeslides....) with the change matrix of 2012 and have recalculated the fees with the following result : Based on a calculation of 7725 members in Year 2011 the budget was about 15.190.750 EUR (based on 2011 charging prices) for the member fees. Based on the new 2012 scheme the budget will be about 18.538.000 EUR (+/- a little bit in fact of rounding difference). So in total we can speak about an increase of more than 3.000.000 EUR (about +20% as for 2011) of the member fees !?!?!?! In my calculation I don't putting in the PI space because the price of 50 EUR hasn't changed. I never seen that the costs will increase 20% within one year. So what you mean now ?? Best regards, Alexander Schoberl SPEEDNIC S.R.L.
18m Euro? Perhaps in these times of austerity we should be looking at reducing operating costs not increasing them. Even €15m seems somewhat excessive in my mind despite the numerous benefits RIPE brings to the Internet as a whole (most of which we don't realise or see) :( Sent from my iPhone On 2 Oct 2011, at 19:51, "SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling" <ripe-lir@speednic.eu> wrote:
Hi Gert,
Am 02.10.2011 14:39, schrieb Gert Doering:
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 02, 2011 at 11:10:23AM -0300, SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling wrote:
As revewed the change matrix it means that like all membres will increase one or two categories in the charging scheme. Only a very small amount will decrease. This guess to us that the budget will increase a lot too ?? Why RIPE NCC will need a so high budget for 2012 instead of 2011 ??
The distribution of LIRs to charging categories happens in such a way that the resulting income will match the budget. Normally the budget for 2012 should not be much higher than for 2011 (detailed numbers will usually be published before the AGM), so it looks like you have not used fully correct numbers.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster
sorry but I must tell you that you're wrong. I have based the members (Budget 2011 - 7725 Members - from RIPE document https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/november-2010/ChargingSchemeslides....) with the change matrix of 2012 and have recalculated the fees with the following result :
Based on a calculation of 7725 members in Year 2011 the budget was about 15.190.750 EUR (based on 2011 charging prices) for the member fees.
Based on the new 2012 scheme the budget will be about 18.538.000 EUR (+/- a little bit in fact of rounding difference). So in total we can speak about an increase of more than 3.000.000 EUR (about +20% as for 2011) of the member fees !?!?!?!
In my calculation I don't putting in the PI space because the price of 50 EUR hasn't changed. I never seen that the costs will increase 20% within one year. So what you mean now ??
Best regards, Alexander Schoberl SPEEDNIC S.R.L.
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
Has anyone from RIPE said that the budget is 12M? 15M? 18M? Is just just speculation on the part of one member? Has RIPE actually said what the cost per member is going to be? I've not seen anything sent to the list, but there seems to be plenty of bad feeling about supposed massive price increases. Simon On Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 08:35:19AM +0100, Jon Morby wrote:
18m Euro?
Perhaps in these times of austerity we should be looking at reducing operating costs not increasing them.
Even ?15m seems somewhat excessive in my mind despite the numerous benefits RIPE brings to the Internet as a whole (most of which we don't realise or see) :(
Sent from my iPhone
On 2 Oct 2011, at 19:51, "SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling" <ripe-lir@speednic.eu> wrote:
Hi Gert,
Am 02.10.2011 14:39, schrieb Gert Doering:
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 02, 2011 at 11:10:23AM -0300, SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling wrote:
As revewed the change matrix it means that like all membres will increase one or two categories in the charging scheme. Only a very small amount will decrease. This guess to us that the budget will increase a lot too ?? Why RIPE NCC will need a so high budget for 2012 instead of 2011 ??
The distribution of LIRs to charging categories happens in such a way that the resulting income will match the budget. Normally the budget for 2012 should not be much higher than for 2011 (detailed numbers will usually be published before the AGM), so it looks like you have not used fully correct numbers.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster
sorry but I must tell you that you're wrong. I have based the members (Budget 2011 - 7725 Members - from RIPE document https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/november-2010/ChargingSchemeslides....) with the change matrix of 2012 and have recalculated the fees with the following result :
Based on a calculation of 7725 members in Year 2011 the budget was about 15.190.750 EUR (based on 2011 charging prices) for the member fees.
Based on the new 2012 scheme the budget will be about 18.538.000 EUR (+/- a little bit in fact of rounding difference). So in total we can speak about an increase of more than 3.000.000 EUR (about +20% as for 2011) of the member fees !?!?!?!
In my calculation I don't putting in the PI space because the price of 50 EUR hasn't changed. I never seen that the costs will increase 20% within one year. So what you mean now ??
Best regards, Alexander Schoberl SPEEDNIC S.R.L.
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
-- Simon Lockhart | Tel: +44 1275 793 400 | Si fractum Technical Director | Mob: +44 7789 913304 | non sit, noli Cablecom Networking Ltd | WWW: www.cablecomnetworking.co.uk | id reficere Unit 3-5 Windmill Business Park, Windmill Road, Kenn. BS21 6SR. UK
At 09:40 03/10/2011 +0100, Simon Lockhart wrote: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-507 2010: 16.5M 2011: 17.9M During 2002-2006 the budget was under or close to 10M and since 2007 the budget has gone up and up. You can assume 2012 will be well over 18M. -Hank
Has anyone from RIPE said that the budget is 12M? 15M? 18M? Is just just speculation on the part of one member?
Has RIPE actually said what the cost per member is going to be?
I've not seen anything sent to the list, but there seems to be plenty of bad feeling about supposed massive price increases.
Simon
On Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 08:35:19AM +0100, Jon Morby wrote:
18m Euro?
Perhaps in these times of austerity we should be looking at reducing operating costs not increasing them.
Even ?15m seems somewhat excessive in my mind despite the numerous benefits RIPE brings to the Internet as a whole (most of which we don't realise or see) :(
Sent from my iPhone
On 2 Oct 2011, at 19:51, "SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling" <ripe-lir@speednic.eu> wrote:
Hi Gert,
Am 02.10.2011 14:39, schrieb Gert Doering:
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 02, 2011 at 11:10:23AM -0300, SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling wrote:
As revewed the change matrix it means that like all membres will increase one or two categories in the charging scheme. Only a very small amount will decrease. This guess to us that the budget will increase a lot too ?? Why RIPE NCC will need a so high budget for 2012 instead of 2011 ??
The distribution of LIRs to charging categories happens in such a way that the resulting income will match the budget. Normally the budget for 2012 should not be much higher than for 2011 (detailed numbers will usually be published before the AGM), so it looks like you have not used fully correct numbers.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster
sorry but I must tell you that you're wrong. I have based the members (Budget 2011 - 7725 Members - from RIPE document
https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/november-2010/ChargingSchemeslides....)
with the change matrix of 2012 and have recalculated the fees with the following result :
Based on a calculation of 7725 members in Year 2011 the budget was about 15.190.750 EUR (based on 2011 charging prices) for the member fees.
Based on the new 2012 scheme the budget will be about 18.538.000 EUR (+/- a little bit in fact of rounding difference). So in total we can speak about an increase of more than 3.000.000 EUR (about +20% as for 2011) of the member fees !?!?!?!
In my calculation I don't putting in the PI space because the price of 50 EUR hasn't changed. I never seen that the costs will increase 20% within one year. So what you mean now ??
Best regards, Alexander Schoberl SPEEDNIC S.R.L.
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
-- Simon Lockhart | Tel: +44 1275 793 400 | Si fractum Technical Director | Mob: +44 7789 913304 | non sit, noli Cablecom Networking Ltd | WWW: www.cablecomnetworking.co.uk | id reficere Unit 3-5 Windmill Business Park, Windmill Road, Kenn. BS21 6SR. UK
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
Dear Simon, Am 03.10.2011 05:40, schrieb Simon Lockhart:
Has anyone from RIPE said that the budget is 12M? 15M? 18M? Is just just speculation on the part of one member?
thats not a speculation of my part. It is - as told - based on the actual members and the matrix chart. You can calculate it by your own if you want. 2011 2012 3XS about 82 - 2XS about 66 - XS about 1567 1601 S about 1440 4201 M about 1458 1525 L about 2222 304 XL about 538 75 2XL about 208 - 3XL about 126 - 4XL about 18 - ---------------------- 7725 7725 So you will see that the most changing was that from "S" to "L" and above. Only few were going down. So even the "S" is cheaper for 2012 but hasn't any effect that the budget only for member fee increase from 15M to over 18M (PI Space not included).
Has RIPE actually said what the cost per member is going to be?
The highest part of costs are "personal costs". You can look at the old meeting reports and balance which RIPE has on their website.
I've not seen anything sent to the list, but there seems to be plenty of bad feeling about supposed massive price increases.
Thinking about you will pay car insurance of 1800 EUR per year. Would you be happy if your company tells you for next year you must pay 3000 EUR even your car isn't still a Lada and don't move to a Ferrari ?? :D I wouldn't be happy with this and this year I will use the electronic voting - and hope a lot of LIR will do it - to say "STOP HERE". Best regards, Alexander Schoberl SPEEDNIC S.R.L.
Simon
On Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 08:35:19AM +0100, Jon Morby wrote:
18m Euro?
Perhaps in these times of austerity we should be looking at reducing operating costs not increasing them.
Even ?15m seems somewhat excessive in my mind despite the numerous benefits RIPE brings to the Internet as a whole (most of which we don't realise or see) :(
Sent from my iPhone
On 2 Oct 2011, at 19:51, "SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling"<ripe-lir@speednic.eu> wrote:
Hi Gert,
Am 02.10.2011 14:39, schrieb Gert Doering:
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 02, 2011 at 11:10:23AM -0300, SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling wrote:
As revewed the change matrix it means that like all membres will increase one or two categories in the charging scheme. Only a very small amount will decrease. This guess to us that the budget will increase a lot too ?? Why RIPE NCC will need a so high budget for 2012 instead of 2011 ??
The distribution of LIRs to charging categories happens in such a way that the resulting income will match the budget. Normally the budget for 2012 should not be much higher than for 2011 (detailed numbers will usually be published before the AGM), so it looks like you have not used fully correct numbers.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster
sorry but I must tell you that you're wrong. I have based the members (Budget 2011 - 7725 Members - from RIPE document https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/november-2010/ChargingSchemeslides....) with the change matrix of 2012 and have recalculated the fees with the following result :
Based on a calculation of 7725 members in Year 2011 the budget was about 15.190.750 EUR (based on 2011 charging prices) for the member fees.
Based on the new 2012 scheme the budget will be about 18.538.000 EUR (+/- a little bit in fact of rounding difference). So in total we can speak about an increase of more than 3.000.000 EUR (about +20% as for 2011) of the member fees !?!?!?!
In my calculation I don't putting in the PI space because the price of 50 EUR hasn't changed. I never seen that the costs will increase 20% within one year. So what you mean now ??
Best regards, Alexander Schoberl SPEEDNIC S.R.L.
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
On 03/10/2011 13:44, SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling wrote:
Dear Simon,
Has anyone from RIPE said that the budget is 12M? 15M? 18M? Is just just speculation on the part of one member?
Am 03.10.2011 05:40, schrieb Simon Lockhart: thats not a speculation of my part. It is - as told - based on the actual members and the matrix chart. You can calculate it by your own if you want.
We are looking at increased costs largely because we expect the "run out fairly" and IPv4 depletion measures to result in much more work for registration services. In addition we are throwing more resources at Ipv6 outreach. We've set a deficit budget to try and compensate and reduce the fees to the members. Full budget (and charging scheme details) will be available well in time for the AGM. As has been mentioned, though, the budget and charging scheme are actually separate (although related) issues. Nigel
Hi Nigel, On Mon, 2011-10-03 at 19:32 +0200, Nigel Titley wrote:
We are looking at increased costs largely because we expect the "run out fairly" and IPv4 depletion measures to result in much more work for registration services. In addition we are throwing more resources at Ipv6 outreach. We've set a deficit budget to try and compensate and reduce the fees to the members. Full budget (and charging scheme details) will be available well in time for the AGM.
What will happen to those resources when the available IPv4 resources will be definitely ran out ? Regards, -- Clément Cavadore
* Clement Cavadore:
What will happen to those resources when the available IPv4 resources will be definitely ran out ?
IPv4 addresses will never run out as such. It just will become increasingly difficult to recover and reassign address space. If we don't put an artificial stop to this, costs will continue to skyrocket. -- Florian Weimer <fweimer@bfk.de> BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ Kriegsstraße 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99
Dear Nigel,
We are looking at increased costs largely because we expect the "run out fairly" and IPv4 depletion measures to result in much more work for registration services.
Could you tell what you mean when you tell about "much more work for registration services" ?
Full budget (and charging scheme details) will be available well in time for the AGM.
New charging scheme in not very good balanced. IP-address have very high value. AS - not. When end user need IP-addresses - most of time needs for understand how customer will use IP-addresses and ASN RIPE give automatic and as a result cost of assignment ASN is not the same as assigment IP-addreses. I think cost of ASN assignment should be 0 euro. As a result this resource should'n included on calculating size of LIR. I suggest to remove this column from charging scheme. -- Alexey S Ivanov General Director LeaderTelecom Ltd.
Dear Nigel, Am 03.10.2011 14:32, schrieb Nigel Titley:
On 03/10/2011 13:44, SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling wrote:
Dear Simon,
Has anyone from RIPE said that the budget is 12M? 15M? 18M? Is just just speculation on the part of one member?
Am 03.10.2011 05:40, schrieb Simon Lockhart: thats not a speculation of my part. It is - as told - based on the actual members and the matrix chart. You can calculate it by your own if you want.
We are looking at increased costs largely because we expect the "run out fairly" and IPv4 depletion measures to result in much more work for registration services. In addition we are throwing more resources at Ipv6 outreach. We've set a deficit budget to try and compensate and reduce the fees to the members. Full budget (and charging scheme details) will be available well in time for the AGM.
I can't confirm you wrote. Maybe the "run out of IPv4" can be effected into a shorter time but the registration will still the same work as right now up IPv4 is "sold out". As for IPv6 - if RIPE NCC will be inteligent - the work can be reduced to a minimum as putting into an automatic job which will delegate for all IPv4 members a similar IPv6 range (based on the IPv4 block they will have). With that method you will delegate for all members - which don't have - a IPv6 range within 1 day instead of a lot of manual work ;) Same for PI space members as RIPE has the "Addressing Plan" for that resources. Otherwise it is not up-to-date talking about "reduce the fees to members" as like for all there is a big increase. But let us know where +/- 3M EUR will going into ? new services, personnal, etc. ??? I guess it would be important to know it before the AGM as all members can thinking about what happend.
As has been mentioned, though, the budget and charging scheme are actually separate (although related) issues.
Sure both are spearated but the charging scheme - as the incoming fees - will be into the budget to be sure that it isn't deficit ;) Best regards, Alexander Schoberl SPEEDNIC S.R.L.
Nigel
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
At 18:32 03/10/2011 +0100, Nigel Titley wrote:
As has been mentioned, though, the budget and charging scheme are actually separate (although related) issues.
Where can a discussion thread be started in regards to the budget (*not* charging scheme)? Thanks, Hank
Nigel
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
Hi Jon, Without repeating myself in this discussion, I'll just post a url for you to read from earlier this year on the topic. http://www.ripe.net/maillists/ncc-archives/members-discuss/2011/msg00154.htm... Basically, the members approve the activity schedule for the RIPE NCC. That means that we also shouldn't bitch about a certain cost, not for profit doesn't mean free :) If we don't agree..either we should have a look at how certain costs are being made or we should scrap certain activities. In the end.. we're only talking about 6.25 euro per LIR per day. Regards, Erik Bais
Dear all,
I would like to update you about the RIPE NCC Executive Board deliberations regarding the draft charging scheme for 2012.
We presented you with two draft schemes, in early summer, to gather feedback from you. We did this as we wanted to hear your opinions on measures we want to take which are designed to keep the RIPE NCC financially stable and capable of serving its members as it should.
You engaged in a lively discussion on this mailing list, and even ran a mini-survey. We followed the exchanges closely and as result asked RIPE NCC staff to provide the board with another charging scheme option, based on a sliding scale scheme that eliminated the membership categories we currently use.
During the board meeting of last Friday, 23 September, we discussed the merits as well as some of the issues of that model. Obviously a sliding scale model as its main benefit does away with the fee jumps of the category based model. We were pleased with the model that we developed with the NCC staff and felt that it addressed many of the issues raised by you, the members.
However, in consultation with our tax lawyers we have had to think again. Because it brings a "fee-per-address" flavour to the charging model of the RIPE NCC it fundamentally alters the tax scheme under which we operate. The current "category" model allows us to argue that we are a membership association with different categories of membership. This brings substantial tax advantages.
As you know, for a long time the RIPE NCC tax situation has been extremely favourable, as we don't have to pay corporation tax, based on an agreement made with the Dutch tax authorities many years ago. We are advised that the envisaged change in the charging scheme would lead to a re-assessment of that agreement, with the likely outcome that the association's surplus would have to be taxed, leading to a significant financial liability, with an obvious knock-on effect to the member fees.
In the light of this, the board members have agreed not to expose our organisation to that risk, staying with a category based system. We have however noted your preference for reduced "fee jumps" between categories, and have instructed NCC staff to produce a charging scheme model based on 10 categories, doubling the current category number. Category divisions will be based on a count of address space held.
This revised Charging Scheme 2012 we will publish, as usual, prior to the General Meeting in November, for approval by the members during the General Meeting. We can advise you already that we are opening up the voting mechanism for all resolutions to include electronic voting, so that all members of the association have a good opportunity to take a full part in the proceedings.
At this time, I would like to thank you all, on behalf of the RIPE NCC Executive Board, for participating in the discussion. I look forward to seeing as many of you as possible at the next General Meeting.
Best regards,
Nigel Titley Chairman RIPE NCC Executive Board
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general
Dear Nigel, It is impossible to change price model for next year. Each LIR had to give to RIPE information about signed agreement for next year with end users. As a result we have signed contracts with prices from old charing scheme. If you will increase prices then next year we have to work without profit. It is very difficult time for European region and we have to cut costs next year. I suggest: 1. Leave charging shema for 2012 year the same as in 2011. 2. Increase prices for 2013. But we have to approve new charing scheme before 1 July 2012. Then we will have about 3 month for changing in contracts with our customers. I already sent documents for electronic voting. I'll vote first time in RIPE. And I'm going to vote against new charing scheme for 2012. It's too late to change it. -- Best regards, Alexey Ivanov General Director LeaderTelecom Ltd Тел.: 8(495)778-98-51 Am 30.09.2011 03:53, schrieb Nigel Titley: page:
[1]https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: [2]https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. [1] https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view [2] https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Hi Nigel, To my understanding and as stated on the website, Ripe Ncc is a not for profit org. Under Dutch law. Basically a 'vereniging' as we call that in Dutch. the difference between a 'vereniging' and a Stichting (Foundation) is that a stichting doesn't have members (according to the Dutch IRS website). Both type of organizations can be under Dutch law free of profit (income) tax. Called vpb tax (vennootsschapsbelasting) or corporate tax. It depends if the goal of the organization is to make a profit. It is allowed, but if you do, you need to pay vpb and you are not allowed to divide the profit under its members. You can however reduce the cost for the members to leverage that profit to a nil profit. The question that came to my mind was how a category model would alter the current tax situation. Or is that only the case in a pay per ip model ? If one would ( as I suggested ) go to a single fee per member and everyone is the same, regardless of size / color whatever. It would probably reduce the administrative hassle within the ripe ncc backoffice a lot, resulting also in a reduced membership fee. A fee structure based on an obsolete ( and almost depleted ) technology is soo 2000 ... We need to evolve and like with the transition to ipv6, change is good. Bite the bullet once and enjoy the result after work done. How easy would it be to just divide the total budget across the total number of lirs and we all know what the cost for next year is. ( roughly 17.5 Milj. Euro divided by 7746 members .. = 2250 euro cost per LIR ). My 2€cent on a sunny Sunday afternoon, Erik Bais
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss- bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Nigel Titley Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 9:53 AM To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: [members-discuss] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments
Dear all,
I would like to update you about the RIPE NCC Executive Board deliberations regarding the draft charging scheme for 2012.
We presented you with two draft schemes, in early summer, to gather feedback from you. We did this as we wanted to hear your opinions on measures we want to take which are designed to keep the RIPE NCC financially stable and capable of serving its members as it should.
You engaged in a lively discussion on this mailing list, and even ran a mini-survey. We followed the exchanges closely and as result asked RIPE NCC staff to provide the board with another charging scheme option, based on a sliding scale scheme that eliminated the membership categories we currently use.
During the board meeting of last Friday, 23 September, we discussed the merits as well as some of the issues of that model. Obviously a sliding scale model as its main benefit does away with the fee jumps of the category based model. We were pleased with the model that we developed with the NCC staff and felt that it addressed many of the issues raised by you, the members.
However, in consultation with our tax lawyers we have had to think again. Because it brings a "fee-per-address" flavour to the charging model of the RIPE NCC it fundamentally alters the tax scheme under which we operate. The current "category" model allows us to argue that we are a membership association with different categories of membership. This brings substantial tax advantages.
As you know, for a long time the RIPE NCC tax situation has been extremely favourable, as we don't have to pay corporation tax, based on an agreement made with the Dutch tax authorities many years ago. We are advised that the envisaged change in the charging scheme would lead to a re-assessment of that agreement, with the likely outcome that the association's surplus would have to be taxed, leading to a significant financial liability, with an obvious knock-on effect to the member fees.
In the light of this, the board members have agreed not to expose our organisation to that risk, staying with a category based system. We have however noted your preference for reduced "fee jumps" between categories, and have instructed NCC staff to produce a charging scheme model based on 10 categories, doubling the current category number. Category divisions will be based on a count of address space held.
This revised Charging Scheme 2012 we will publish, as usual, prior to the General Meeting in November, for approval by the members during the General Meeting. We can advise you already that we are opening up the voting mechanism for all resolutions to include electronic voting, so that all members of the association have a good opportunity to take a full part in the proceedings.
At this time, I would like to thank you all, on behalf of the RIPE NCC Executive Board, for participating in the discussion. I look forward to seeing as many of you as possible at the next General Meeting.
Best regards,
Nigel Titley Chairman RIPE NCC Executive Board
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1410 / Virus Database: 1520/3929 - Release Date: 09/30/11
*fully agree with erik* ipv4 is obsolete and should not be used as a billing basis. and indeed, if the "Average" is 2250/yr, that doesn't differ that much from what direct-pi-with-ripe non-lirs, small and extra small lirs pay anyway (guess there are not that many extra large lirs then ;) so everyone-pays-the-same would make sense. less overhead. On Sun, 2 Oct 2011, Erik Bais wrote:
Hi Nigel,
To my understanding and as stated on the website, Ripe Ncc is a not for profit org. Under Dutch law. Basically a 'vereniging' as we call that in Dutch. the difference between a 'vereniging' and a Stichting (Foundation) is that a stichting doesn't have members (according to the Dutch IRS website).
Both type of organizations can be under Dutch law free of profit (income) tax. Called vpb tax (vennootsschapsbelasting) or corporate tax. It depends if the goal of the organization is to make a profit. It is allowed, but if you do, you need to pay vpb and you are not allowed to divide the profit under its members. You can however reduce the cost for the members to leverage that profit to a nil profit.
The question that came to my mind was how a category model would alter the current tax situation. Or is that only the case in a pay per ip model ?
If one would ( as I suggested ) go to a single fee per member and everyone is the same, regardless of size / color whatever. It would probably reduce the administrative hassle within the ripe ncc backoffice a lot, resulting also in a reduced membership fee.
A fee structure based on an obsolete ( and almost depleted ) technology is soo 2000 ...
We need to evolve and like with the transition to ipv6, change is good. Bite the bullet once and enjoy the result after work done. How easy would it be to just divide the total budget across the total number of lirs and we all know what the cost for next year is. ( roughly 17.5 Milj. Euro divided by 7746 members .. = 2250 euro cost per LIR ).
My 2€cent on a sunny Sunday afternoon,
Erik Bais
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss- bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Nigel Titley Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 9:53 AM To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: [members-discuss] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments
Dear all,
I would like to update you about the RIPE NCC Executive Board deliberations regarding the draft charging scheme for 2012.
We presented you with two draft schemes, in early summer, to gather feedback from you. We did this as we wanted to hear your opinions on measures we want to take which are designed to keep the RIPE NCC financially stable and capable of serving its members as it should.
You engaged in a lively discussion on this mailing list, and even ran a mini-survey. We followed the exchanges closely and as result asked RIPE NCC staff to provide the board with another charging scheme option, based on a sliding scale scheme that eliminated the membership categories we currently use.
During the board meeting of last Friday, 23 September, we discussed the merits as well as some of the issues of that model. Obviously a sliding scale model as its main benefit does away with the fee jumps of the category based model. We were pleased with the model that we developed with the NCC staff and felt that it addressed many of the issues raised by you, the members.
However, in consultation with our tax lawyers we have had to think again. Because it brings a "fee-per-address" flavour to the charging model of the RIPE NCC it fundamentally alters the tax scheme under which we operate. The current "category" model allows us to argue that we are a membership association with different categories of membership. This brings substantial tax advantages.
As you know, for a long time the RIPE NCC tax situation has been extremely favourable, as we don't have to pay corporation tax, based on an agreement made with the Dutch tax authorities many years ago. We are advised that the envisaged change in the charging scheme would lead to a re-assessment of that agreement, with the likely outcome that the association's surplus would have to be taxed, leading to a significant financial liability, with an obvious knock-on effect to the member fees.
In the light of this, the board members have agreed not to expose our organisation to that risk, staying with a category based system. We have however noted your preference for reduced "fee jumps" between categories, and have instructed NCC staff to produce a charging scheme model based on 10 categories, doubling the current category number. Category divisions will be based on a count of address space held.
This revised Charging Scheme 2012 we will publish, as usual, prior to the General Meeting in November, for approval by the members during the General Meeting. We can advise you already that we are opening up the voting mechanism for all resolutions to include electronic voting, so that all members of the association have a good opportunity to take a full part in the proceedings.
At this time, I would like to thank you all, on behalf of the RIPE NCC Executive Board, for participating in the discussion. I look forward to seeing as many of you as possible at the next General Meeting.
Best regards,
Nigel Titley Chairman RIPE NCC Executive Board
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1410 / Virus Database: 1520/3929 - Release Date: 09/30/11
If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
sven@cb3rob.net:
ipv4 is obsolete and should not be used as a billing basis.
I disagree strongly here. IPv4 is not obsolete - yet! We may be past "peak IPv4" (to borrow a term from the oil industry ;-) and it may have started its descent towards obsolescence, but it will remain in use for a long time to come. A lot of administrative work remains with IPv4 before we can say "over and done with", and for that reason IPv4 should be _PART_OF_ the basis for billing. As things evolve, it's quite possible that the IPv4 fraction of the basis will decrease, as, eventually, the "IPv12" (or whatever the next generation will be called) fraction increases, but IPv4 hasn't dropped dead yet. Cheers, /Liman #---------------------------------------------------------------------- # Lars-Johan Liman, M.Sc. ! E-mail: liman@netnod.se # Senior Systems Specialist ! Tel: +46 8 - 562 860 12 # Netnod Internet Exchange, Stockholm ! http://www.netnod.se/ #----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mon, 3 Oct 2011, Lars-Johan Liman wrote:
sven@cb3rob.net:
ipv4 is obsolete and should not be used as a billing basis.
I disagree strongly here. IPv4 is not obsolete - yet! We may be past "peak IPv4" (to borrow a term from the oil industry ;-) and it may have started its descent towards obsolescence, but it will remain in use for a long time to come. A lot of administrative work remains with IPv4 before we can say "over and done with", and for that reason IPv4 should be _PART_OF_ the basis for billing. As things evolve, it's quite possible that the IPv4 fraction of the basis will decrease, as, eventually, the "IPv12" (or whatever the next generation will be called) fraction increases, but IPv4 hasn't dropped dead yet.
Well said Lars-Johan. I totally agree. Best Regards, Daniel Stolpe _________________________________________________________________________________ Daniel Stolpe Tel: 08 - 688 11 81 stolpe@resilans.se Resilans AB Fax: 08 - 55 00 21 63 http://www.resilans.se/ Box 13 054 556741-1193 103 02 Stockholm
Dear Nigel, Implementing IPv6 only works if we use a "big bang policy" like the millennium problem or the Euro. That is not going to happen, because we cannot force members or their customers to go along at the same time. For that reason I believe the following situation is true: 1. IPv4 billing remains and IPv6 billing with much more address space opens the door for more members. For a non-profit organization that would mean lowering the membership fees and lowering the allocation fees... Did anyone made a calculation on how RIPE would benefit from a significant increase in members during 2012? 2. New members should have equal rights compared to current members to implement IPv4 and IPv6. Since last February the last /8's have been given to the RIR's. They are now almost depleted. This means new members can't have new IPv4 addresses and should right away start with implementing IPv6. The effects of that depletion is that among current members IPv4 address space is being sold/transferred. This works in hand a rise in cost for new members who need IPv4 and it starts looking like a trade floor which totally opposes the RIPE allocation policies. 3. The strongest shoulders should carry the heaviest load. I would like to suggest claiming back some old allocations, starting with the /8's which are also not used for more than 15 per cent at the most. Those companies/institutions have much more resources to implement IPv6 faster than most of us. More members would avoid increase in membership fees, but this is actually hold back due to lack of IPv4 and the backdoor trade which start to flourish wildly ... Regards, Fred Arendse -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Nigel Titley Sent: vrijdag 30 september 2011 9:53 To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: [members-discuss] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments Dear all, I would like to update you about the RIPE NCC Executive Board deliberations regarding the draft charging scheme for 2012. We presented you with two draft schemes, in early summer, to gather feedback from you. We did this as we wanted to hear your opinions on measures we want to take which are designed to keep the RIPE NCC financially stable and capable of serving its members as it should. You engaged in a lively discussion on this mailing list, and even ran a mini-survey. We followed the exchanges closely and as result asked RIPE NCC staff to provide the board with another charging scheme option, based on a sliding scale scheme that eliminated the membership categories we currently use. During the board meeting of last Friday, 23 September, we discussed the merits as well as some of the issues of that model. Obviously a sliding scale model as its main benefit does away with the fee jumps of the category based model. We were pleased with the model that we developed with the NCC staff and felt that it addressed many of the issues raised by you, the members. However, in consultation with our tax lawyers we have had to think again. Because it brings a "fee-per-address" flavour to the charging model of the RIPE NCC it fundamentally alters the tax scheme under which we operate. The current "category" model allows us to argue that we are a membership association with different categories of membership. This brings substantial tax advantages. As you know, for a long time the RIPE NCC tax situation has been extremely favourable, as we don't have to pay corporation tax, based on an agreement made with the Dutch tax authorities many years ago. We are advised that the envisaged change in the charging scheme would lead to a re-assessment of that agreement, with the likely outcome that the association's surplus would have to be taxed, leading to a significant financial liability, with an obvious knock-on effect to the member fees. In the light of this, the board members have agreed not to expose our organisation to that risk, staying with a category based system. We have however noted your preference for reduced "fee jumps" between categories, and have instructed NCC staff to produce a charging scheme model based on 10 categories, doubling the current category number. Category divisions will be based on a count of address space held. This revised Charging Scheme 2012 we will publish, as usual, prior to the General Meeting in November, for approval by the members during the General Meeting. We can advise you already that we are opening up the voting mechanism for all resolutions to include electronic voting, so that all members of the association have a good opportunity to take a full part in the proceedings. At this time, I would like to thank you all, on behalf of the RIPE NCC Executive Board, for participating in the discussion. I look forward to seeing as many of you as possible at the next General Meeting. Best regards, Nigel Titley Chairman RIPE NCC Executive Board ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
Hi Fred,
Did anyone made a calculation on how RIPE would benefit from a significant increase in members during 2012?
We are probably in the depletion phase for v4 by 2012. So each /21 that is handed out to a new LIR is gone from the last /8. Why should we give that last /8 away for membership fees at just 500 euro while everyone else pays between 1800 and 3000 a year ? There is no way to request PI anymore when v4 is depleted.. but that doesn't mean that we should hand out LIR's for that same (or almost similar) price as cost is probably one of the only reasons why certain companies opt for PI vs a LIR status atm.
2. New members should have equal rights compared to current members to implement IPv4 and IPv6.
Since last February the last /8's have been given to the RIR's. They are now almost depleted. This means new members can't have new IPv4 addresses and should right away start with implementing IPv6. The effects of that depletion is that among current members IPv4 address space is being sold/transferred. This works in hand a rise in cost for new members who need IPv4 and it starts looking like a trade floor which totally opposes the RIPE allocation policies.
Each current LIR member has their v4. When the RIPE pool is done and we are going to chip into the last /8, each current member gets 1 /21 from the that /8. Each new lir (after that moment) also only gets 1 /21. So it is not that nobody can't have anything anymore.. There is enough to supply new LIR's for some years .. However, if someone thinks they can request or require a /16 because they are the next Facebook or Netflix or something else.. That is when they need to become creative as RIPE can't help them at that moment anymore..
3. The strongest shoulders should carry the heaviest load.
I would like to suggest claiming back some old allocations, starting with the /8's which are also not used for more than 15 per cent at the most. Those companies/institutions have much more resources to implement IPv6 faster than most of us.
You mean the legacy allocations ? that have been around even longer than RIPE ? How can you claim something back that wasn't yours to begin with ? Most of the legacy space /8's has been around longer than ARIN / RIPE have been around. One of those legacy holders said to me once ... IPv4 is going to be depleted anyway .. why prolong the inevitable ?? Their extra /10 or something that they could give back, will only delay the whole depletion with 1 or 2 months ..
More members would avoid increase in membership fees, but this is actually hold back due to lack of IPv4 and the backdoor trade which start to flourish wildly ...
I just finished a request for a /22 PI for a customer last week through RIPE. As long as the pool isn't finished yet, the only thing that flourishes wildly is the media speculation on IP trading ... That will / might change later, but currently it isn't the case. I haven't had anyone come up to me offering X amount for the IP's we have in use.. did you ? Erik Bais
Hi Erik, Am 03.10.2011 09:26, schrieb Erik Bais:
Hi Fred,
Did anyone made a calculation on how RIPE would benefit from a significant increase in members during 2012?
We are probably in the depletion phase for v4 by 2012. So each /21 that is handed out to a new LIR is gone from the last /8.
Why should we give that last /8 away for membership fees at just 500 euro while everyone else pays between 1800 and 3000 a year ? There is no way to request PI anymore when v4 is depleted.. but that doesn't mean that we should hand out LIR's for that same (or almost similar) price as cost is probably one of the only reasons why certain companies opt for PI vs a LIR status atm.
Thats I told. I know a company who have a /22 PI-Space. He must pay only 50 EUR / year. A LIR must pay 750 for that range. Sorry but is this real ?? Where is democracy that each part must pay the same for what he gets ?? Maybe better to include the PI space in the scheme with 50% discount as they don't can use courses/etc. ?? RIPE was thinking about that ??
More members would avoid increase in membership fees, but this is actually hold back due to lack of IPv4 and the backdoor trade which start to flourish wildly ...
I just finished a request for a /22 PI for a customer last week through RIPE. As long as the pool isn't finished yet, the only thing that flourishes wildly is the media speculation on IP trading ... That will / might change later, but currently it isn't the case. I haven't had anyone come up to me offering X amount for the IP's we have in use.. did you ?
Yes we must do like same for a /23 for a new customer because now everybody knows that IPs are rare. We got only one SPAM mail where they bid for 8x/24 in one block but nothing true behind. Best regards, Alexander Schoberl SPEEDNIC S.R.L.
Erik Bais
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
Dear All, I agree with what Fred wrote. As a small ISP (and also startup) I forecast troubles in the future for who wants to get into the business next year. Indeed I do not think that a "pure IPv6" operator-network is feasable for an Italian ISP, most of the content is still (and it will be) on IPv6 for a long time. Considering that in Italy we cannot (for legal reasons) to do nat or yes we can do but only a 1-to-1 nat, this means that a small ISP that starts the business when the IPv4 address space is gone would have huge difficulties in making that content reachable for its customers. In few words most of the techincal difficulties and issues would go to the small ISP while big and huge systems would still use their "IPv4 reserves" which not so many issues. My personal opinion is that, being IPv4 a scarse resource, the big systems/telco (who holds most of the content in most cases) should be pushed to implement IPv6 asap. And that would happen only with an aggressive (exponential) IPv4 fee plan that discourage the use of IPv4 address space. I find immoral and techincally
Dear Nigel,
Implementing IPv6 only works if we use a "big bang policy" like the millennium problem or the Euro. That is not going to happen, because we cannot force members or their customers to go along at the same time. For that reason I believe the following situation is true:
1. IPv4 billing remains and IPv6 billing with much more address space opens the door for more members.
For a non-profit organization that would mean lowering the membership fees and lowering the allocation fees... Did anyone made a calculation on how RIPE would benefit from a significant increase in members during 2012?
2. New members should have equal rights compared to current members to implement IPv4 and IPv6.
Since last February the last /8's have been given to the RIR's. They are now almost depleted. This means new members can't have new IPv4 addresses and should right away start with implementing IPv6. The effects of that depletion is that among current members IPv4 address space is being sold/transferred. This works in hand a rise in cost for new members who need IPv4 and it starts looking like a trade floor which totally opposes the RIPE allocation policies.
3. The strongest shoulders should carry the heaviest load.
I would like to suggest claiming back some old allocations, starting with the /8's which are also not used for more than 15 per cent at the most. Those companies/institutions have much more resources to implement IPv6 faster than most of us.
More members would avoid increase in membership fees, but this is actually hold back due to lack of IPv4 and the backdoor trade which start to flourish wildly ...
Regards,
Fred Arendse
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Nigel Titley Sent: vrijdag 30 september 2011 9:53 To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: [members-discuss] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments
Dear all,
I would like to update you about the RIPE NCC Executive Board deliberations regarding the draft charging scheme for 2012.
We presented you with two draft schemes, in early summer, to gather feedback from you. We did this as we wanted to hear your opinions on measures we want to take which are designed to keep the RIPE NCC financially stable and capable of serving its members as it should.
You engaged in a lively discussion on this mailing list, and even ran a mini-survey. We followed the exchanges closely and as result asked RIPE NCC staff to provide the board with another charging scheme option, based on a sliding scale scheme that eliminated the membership categories we currently use.
During the board meeting of last Friday, 23 September, we discussed the merits as well as some of the issues of that model. Obviously a sliding scale model as its main benefit does away with the fee jumps of the category based model. We were pleased with the model that we developed with the NCC staff and felt that it addressed many of the issues raised by you, the members.
However, in consultation with our tax lawyers we have had to think again. Because it brings a "fee-per-address" flavour to the charging model of the RIPE NCC it fundamentally alters the tax scheme under which we operate. The current "category" model allows us to argue that we are a membership association with different categories of membership. This brings substantial tax advantages.
As you know, for a long time the RIPE NCC tax situation has been extremely favourable, as we don't have to pay corporation tax, based on an agreement made with the Dutch tax authorities many years ago. We are advised that the envisaged change in the charging scheme would lead to a re-assessment of that agreement, with the likely outcome that the association's surplus would have to be taxed, leading to a significant financial liability, with an obvious knock-on effect to the member fees.
In the light of this, the board members have agreed not to expose our organisation to that risk, staying with a category based system. We have however noted your preference for reduced "fee jumps" between categories, and have instructed NCC staff to produce a charging scheme model based on 10 categories, doubling the current category number. Category divisions will be based on a count of address space held.
This revised Charging Scheme 2012 we will publish, as usual, prior to the General Meeting in November, for approval by the members during the General Meeting. We can advise you already that we are opening up the voting mechanism for all resolutions to include electronic voting, so that all members of the association have a good opportunity to take a full part in the proceedings.
At this time, I would like to thank you all, on behalf of the RIPE NCC Executive Board, for participating in the discussion. I look forward to seeing as many of you as possible at the next General Meeting.
Best regards,
Nigel Titley Chairman RIPE NCC Executive Board
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
-- Ing. Paolo Di Francesco Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 Fax : +39-091-8772072 assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 web: http://www.level7.it
Dear all, this reaction has in basic little to do with charging scheme, but is significant to the whole operation and the charging schemes now discussed. A little history: I'm professionally behind computers/desk calculators since 1974, so I have seen some things in the past 35+ years... The whole issue of LIR's staring up is the fact that those out there in the field (hosters), come with servers which require IPv4. Start with checking shells like Direct Admin. IP NAT translation is already putting a problem on the licensing of that application. Now try to register a native IPv6 server... I also have been behind Cisco for the last 17 years, so I have made some tests... NAT-PT for IPv4 in IPv6 addressing will not solve the problem for those hosters. NAT remains NAT. So, their door will be passed to someone who has ample IPv4 address space... Here we have an unequal battle on our hands. Moreover, what about customers which want to switch hoster? Will they stop with their server in their hands at a new hoster with little IPv4 space to devide? I have checked many applications and there are lots around which pose the same problem... Is it not the software which puts limits, then the registration processes at the developer side is not ready for an IPv6 address... What does this mean for the remaining IPv4 space? Who do we give it? Now start looking at current situation with much legacy IPv4 in hands of just a handfull companies/institutions. Wether someone tells me that this has been given out before RIPE or ARIN even existed, those ranges still eat up my memory in my BGP router... If they want to keep it, guys, put it behind your MPLS network and let the 5 RIR's handle the needed IPv4 space... Lots of software still out there is not ready for switching to IPv6 given the example of Direct Admin. Have a look at large operating systems like TPF (airlines/IBM) for instance. If there was a reason some parts would not be ready to run IPv6 now, do you think it will be tomorrow? How many workstations are connected to those reservation systems from United Airlines, Galileo, Amadeus, etc, etc worldwide? Now analize networks. Most of them are already able to work with IPv6. We have mechanisms like MPLS whch enables us to even use fictitious protocols like smoke signals or tam-tam protocol. We can run all if we want anywhere. Are we limited by any reasons not to roll out IPv6? No, we can do it. Servers and developed applications cannot. Simply we could have a customer who spend a lot of money in developing an application which runs on an operating system just not quite ready for IPv6. Upgrading the OS to be able to do it, would cost him a tremendous amount of money because it means work on his application. In basic such a customer will use a LIR/hoster which has enough IPv4 and not the newer kids on the block which are kept happy with a bar of chocolate... Now back to the charging scheme; how does it look effectively? No gain in new LIR's since they can offer a small amount of IPv4 resources, putting them behind the net... I feel that RIPE (and other RIR's) should be able to increase the number of LIR's, not to keep the same numbers and simply devide the rising costs between the existing LIR's. My recommendations are: - Stop giving away IP (PI) space to non-LIR members for a little fee; let LIR's handle the customers. Compare this with ccTLD SIDN. Works with members only; - claim back /8 networks. We are bothered by them, so they should obey the rules of IPv4 instead of sitting on huge piles of addresses without being used at all; - focus on the large LIR's first. They have means to increase IPv6 (core) and thus would be able to donate back IPv4. Remember, I am from a time when a computer was more like a calculator and brand names were HP model 9825 and 9830. My mouse that time used to be a soldering iron fixing problems in external I/O interfaces... The enormous growth we have now, also due to Virtualization will require IPv6 implementation FAST, but not without having new LIR's be able to compete with the existing ones. Any discussion on pricing model is senseless if you don't solve that issue FIRST! Regards, Fred ________________________________________ From: Paolo Di Francesco [paolo.difrancesco@level7.it] Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 23:34 To: Fred Arendse Cc: Nigel Titley; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments Dear All, I agree with what Fred wrote. As a small ISP (and also startup) I forecast troubles in the future for who wants to get into the business next year. Indeed I do not think that a "pure IPv6" operator-network is feasable for an Italian ISP, most of the content is still (and it will be) on IPv6 for a long time. Considering that in Italy we cannot (for legal reasons) to do nat or yes we can do but only a 1-to-1 nat, this means that a small ISP that starts the business when the IPv4 address space is gone would have huge difficulties in making that content reachable for its customers. In few words most of the techincal difficulties and issues would go to the small ISP while big and huge systems would still use their "IPv4 reserves" which not so many issues. My personal opinion is that, being IPv4 a scarse resource, the big systems/telco (who holds most of the content in most cases) should be pushed to implement IPv6 asap. And that would happen only with an aggressive (exponential) IPv4 fee plan that discourage the use of IPv4 address space. I find immoral and techincally
Dear Nigel,
Implementing IPv6 only works if we use a "big bang policy" like the millennium problem or the Euro. That is not going to happen, because we cannot force members or their customers to go along at the same time. For that reason I believe the following situation is true:
1. IPv4 billing remains and IPv6 billing with much more address space opens the door for more members.
For a non-profit organization that would mean lowering the membership fees and lowering the allocation fees... Did anyone made a calculation on how RIPE would benefit from a significant increase in members during 2012?
2. New members should have equal rights compared to current members to implement IPv4 and IPv6.
Since last February the last /8's have been given to the RIR's. They are now almost depleted. This means new members can't have new IPv4 addresses and should right away start with implementing IPv6. The effects of that depletion is that among current members IPv4 address space is being sold/transferred. This works in hand a rise in cost for new members who need IPv4 and it starts looking like a trade floor which totally opposes the RIPE allocation policies.
3. The strongest shoulders should carry the heaviest load.
I would like to suggest claiming back some old allocations, starting with the /8's which are also not used for more than 15 per cent at the most. Those companies/institutions have much more resources to implement IPv6 faster than most of us.
More members would avoid increase in membership fees, but this is actually hold back due to lack of IPv4 and the backdoor trade which start to flourish wildly ...
Regards,
Fred Arendse
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Nigel Titley Sent: vrijdag 30 september 2011 9:53 To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: [members-discuss] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments
Dear all,
I would like to update you about the RIPE NCC Executive Board deliberations regarding the draft charging scheme for 2012.
We presented you with two draft schemes, in early summer, to gather feedback from you. We did this as we wanted to hear your opinions on measures we want to take which are designed to keep the RIPE NCC financially stable and capable of serving its members as it should.
You engaged in a lively discussion on this mailing list, and even ran a mini-survey. We followed the exchanges closely and as result asked RIPE NCC staff to provide the board with another charging scheme option, based on a sliding scale scheme that eliminated the membership categories we currently use.
During the board meeting of last Friday, 23 September, we discussed the merits as well as some of the issues of that model. Obviously a sliding scale model as its main benefit does away with the fee jumps of the category based model. We were pleased with the model that we developed with the NCC staff and felt that it addressed many of the issues raised by you, the members.
However, in consultation with our tax lawyers we have had to think again. Because it brings a "fee-per-address" flavour to the charging model of the RIPE NCC it fundamentally alters the tax scheme under which we operate. The current "category" model allows us to argue that we are a membership association with different categories of membership. This brings substantial tax advantages.
As you know, for a long time the RIPE NCC tax situation has been extremely favourable, as we don't have to pay corporation tax, based on an agreement made with the Dutch tax authorities many years ago. We are advised that the envisaged change in the charging scheme would lead to a re-assessment of that agreement, with the likely outcome that the association's surplus would have to be taxed, leading to a significant financial liability, with an obvious knock-on effect to the member fees.
In the light of this, the board members have agreed not to expose our organisation to that risk, staying with a category based system. We have however noted your preference for reduced "fee jumps" between categories, and have instructed NCC staff to produce a charging scheme model based on 10 categories, doubling the current category number. Category divisions will be based on a count of address space held.
This revised Charging Scheme 2012 we will publish, as usual, prior to the General Meeting in November, for approval by the members during the General Meeting. We can advise you already that we are opening up the voting mechanism for all resolutions to include electronic voting, so that all members of the association have a good opportunity to take a full part in the proceedings.
At this time, I would like to thank you all, on behalf of the RIPE NCC Executive Board, for participating in the discussion. I look forward to seeing as many of you as possible at the next General Meeting.
Best regards,
Nigel Titley Chairman RIPE NCC Executive Board
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
-- Ing. Paolo Di Francesco Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 Fax : +39-091-8772072 assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 web: http://www.level7.it
Hello!
My personal opinion is that, being IPv4 a scarse resource, the big systems/telco (who holds most of the content in most cases) should be pushed to implement IPv6 asap. And that would happen only with an aggressive (exponential) IPv4 fee plan that discourage the use of IPv4 address space.
In Russia big telco tell us that they have troubles with using IPv6. Often often the manufacturer write that IPv6 supported, but it doesn't work. And any aggressive fee plan will just increase costs and will not help with developing network. I think that big providers will make changes only when IP-adddresses in IPv4 will be finished. In this case telecom will request IPv6 support. -- Alexey S Ivanov General Director LeaderTelecom Ltd.
Dear Nigel, After some considerations I would like to propose another charging scheme alternative, one that could comply with the current tax regulations. The basic idea is to treat all members and all their registered objects as equal. The scheme would look something like this: - one basic membership fee for all LIR members; - a fee for each registered object, regardless of their size; This is something comparable like we are already doing with PI objects, which already get charged 50 eur/year each. This model just stretches it to other objects too (PA ipv4/ipv6 and ASN). Exact values of these fees have to be calculated by RIPE NCC treasurer to match the budget, but the basic membership fee should be kept low enough to match something like the current extra-small category for starting LIRs. Hoping for some support from other RIPE members and the community, and awaiting to see some calculations what values these fees could be set at. With kind regards, Michiel Klaver At Fri, 30 Sep 2011 08:53:18 +0100, Nigel Titley <nigel@titley.com> wrote:
Dear all,
I would like to update you about the RIPE NCC Executive Board deliberations regarding the draft charging scheme for 2012.
We presented you with two draft schemes, in early summer, to gather feedback from you. We did this as we wanted to hear your opinions on measures we want to take which are designed to keep the RIPE NCC financially stable and capable of serving its members as it should.
You engaged in a lively discussion on this mailing list, and even ran a mini-survey. We followed the exchanges closely and as result asked RIPE NCC staff to provide the board with another charging scheme option, based on a sliding scale scheme that eliminated the membership categories we currently use.
During the board meeting of last Friday, 23 September, we discussed the merits as well as some of the issues of that model. Obviously a sliding scale model as its main benefit does away with the fee jumps of the category based model. We were pleased with the model that we developed with the NCC staff and felt that it addressed many of the issues raised by you, the members.
However, in consultation with our tax lawyers we have had to think again. Because it brings a "fee-per-address" flavour to the charging model of the RIPE NCC it fundamentally alters the tax scheme under which we operate. The current "category" model allows us to argue that we are a membership association with different categories of membership. This brings substantial tax advantages.
As you know, for a long time the RIPE NCC tax situation has been extremely favourable, as we don't have to pay corporation tax, based on an agreement made with the Dutch tax authorities many years ago. We are advised that the envisaged change in the charging scheme would lead to a re-assessment of that agreement, with the likely outcome that the association's surplus would have to be taxed, leading to a significant financial liability, with an obvious knock-on effect to the member fees.
In the light of this, the board members have agreed not to expose our organisation to that risk, staying with a category based system. We have however noted your preference for reduced "fee jumps" between categories, and have instructed NCC staff to produce a charging scheme model based on 10 categories, doubling the current category number. Category divisions will be based on a count of address space held.
This revised Charging Scheme 2012 we will publish, as usual, prior to the General Meeting in November, for approval by the members during the General Meeting. We can advise you already that we are opening up the voting mechanism for all resolutions to include electronic voting, so that all members of the association have a good opportunity to take a full part in the proceedings.
At this time, I would like to thank you all, on behalf of the RIPE NCC Executive Board, for participating in the discussion. I look forward to seeing as many of you as possible at the next General Meeting.
Best regards,
Nigel Titley Chairman RIPE NCC Executive Board
Hi Michiel, 100% agree. That would be better charging scheme ;) Best regards, Alexander Schoberl SPEEDNIC S.R.L. Am 05.10.2011 08:23, schrieb Michiel Klaver:
Dear Nigel,
After some considerations I would like to propose another charging scheme alternative, one that could comply with the current tax regulations. The basic idea is to treat all members and all their registered objects as equal. The scheme would look something like this:
- one basic membership fee for all LIR members; - a fee for each registered object, regardless of their size;
This is something comparable like we are already doing with PI objects, which already get charged 50 eur/year each. This model just stretches it to other objects too (PA ipv4/ipv6 and ASN). Exact values of these fees have to be calculated by RIPE NCC treasurer to match the budget, but the basic membership fee should be kept low enough to match something like the current extra-small category for starting LIRs.
Hoping for some support from other RIPE members and the community, and awaiting to see some calculations what values these fees could be set at.
With kind regards, Michiel Klaver
At Fri, 30 Sep 2011 08:53:18 +0100, Nigel Titley<nigel@titley.com> wrote:
Dear all,
I would like to update you about the RIPE NCC Executive Board deliberations regarding the draft charging scheme for 2012.
We presented you with two draft schemes, in early summer, to gather feedback from you. We did this as we wanted to hear your opinions on measures we want to take which are designed to keep the RIPE NCC financially stable and capable of serving its members as it should.
You engaged in a lively discussion on this mailing list, and even ran a mini-survey. We followed the exchanges closely and as result asked RIPE NCC staff to provide the board with another charging scheme option, based on a sliding scale scheme that eliminated the membership categories we currently use.
During the board meeting of last Friday, 23 September, we discussed the merits as well as some of the issues of that model. Obviously a sliding scale model as its main benefit does away with the fee jumps of the category based model. We were pleased with the model that we developed with the NCC staff and felt that it addressed many of the issues raised by you, the members.
However, in consultation with our tax lawyers we have had to think again. Because it brings a "fee-per-address" flavour to the charging model of the RIPE NCC it fundamentally alters the tax scheme under which we operate. The current "category" model allows us to argue that we are a membership association with different categories of membership. This brings substantial tax advantages.
As you know, for a long time the RIPE NCC tax situation has been extremely favourable, as we don't have to pay corporation tax, based on an agreement made with the Dutch tax authorities many years ago. We are advised that the envisaged change in the charging scheme would lead to a re-assessment of that agreement, with the likely outcome that the association's surplus would have to be taxed, leading to a significant financial liability, with an obvious knock-on effect to the member fees.
In the light of this, the board members have agreed not to expose our organisation to that risk, staying with a category based system. We have however noted your preference for reduced "fee jumps" between categories, and have instructed NCC staff to produce a charging scheme model based on 10 categories, doubling the current category number. Category divisions will be based on a count of address space held.
This revised Charging Scheme 2012 we will publish, as usual, prior to the General Meeting in November, for approval by the members during the General Meeting. We can advise you already that we are opening up the voting mechanism for all resolutions to include electronic voting, so that all members of the association have a good opportunity to take a full part in the proceedings.
At this time, I would like to thank you all, on behalf of the RIPE NCC Executive Board, for participating in the discussion. I look forward to seeing as many of you as possible at the next General Meeting.
Best regards,
Nigel Titley Chairman RIPE NCC Executive Board
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
Dear Michie, Great IDEA! 05.10.2011 15:55 - Michiel Klaver написал(а): Dear Nigel, After some considerations I would like to propose another charging scheme alternative, one that could comply with the current tax regulations. The basic idea is to treat all members and all their registered objects as equal. The scheme would look something like this: - one basic membership fee for all LIR members; - a fee for each registered object, regardless of their size; This is something comparable like we are already doing with PI objects, which already get charged 50 eur/year each. This model just stretches it to other objects too (PA ipv4/ipv6 and ASN). Exact values of these fees have to be calculated by RIPE NCC treasurer to match the budget, but the basic membership fee should be kept low enough to match something like the current extra-small category for starting LIRs. Hoping for some support from other RIPE members and the community, and awaiting to see some calculations what values these fees could be set at. With kind regards, Michiel Klaver At Fri, 30 Sep 2011 08:53:18 +0100, Nigel Titley <nigel@titley.com> wrote:
Dear all,
I would like to update you about the RIPE NCC Executive Board deliberations regarding the draft charging scheme for 2012.
We presented you with two draft schemes, in early summer, to gather feedback from you. We did this as we wanted to hear your opinions on measures we want to take which are designed to keep the RIPE NCC financially stable and capable of serving its members as it should.
You engaged in a lively discussion on this mailing list, and even ran a mini-survey. We followed the exchanges closely and as result asked RIPE NCC staff to provide the board with another charging scheme option, based on a sliding scale scheme that eliminated the membership categories we currently use.
During the board meeting of last Friday, 23 September, we discussed the merits as well as some of the issues of that model. Obviously a sliding scale model as its main benefit does away with the fee jumps of the category based model. We were pleased with the model that we developed with the NCC staff and felt that it addressed many of the issues raised by you, the members.
However, in consultation with our tax lawyers we have had to think again. Because it brings a "fee-per-address" flavour to the charging model of the RIPE NCC it fundamentally alters the tax scheme under which we operate. The current "category" model allows us to argue that we are a membership association with different categories of membership. This brings substantial tax advantages.
As you know, for a long time the RIPE NCC tax situation has been extremely favourable, as we don't have to pay corporation tax, based on an agreement made with the Dutch tax authorities many years ago. We are advised that the envisaged change in the charging scheme would lead to a re-assessment of that agreement, with the likely outcome that the association's surplus would have to be taxed, leading to a significant financial liability, with an obvious knock-on effect to the member fees.
In the light of this, the board members have agreed not to expose our organisation to that risk, staying with a category based system. We have however noted your preference for reduced "fee jumps" between categories, and have instructed NCC staff to produce a charging scheme model based on 10 categories, doubling the current category number. Category divisions will be based on a count of address space held.
This revised Charging Scheme 2012 we will publish, as usual, prior to the General Meeting in November, for approval by the members during the General Meeting. We can advise you already that we are opening up the voting mechanism for all resolutions to include electronic voting, so that all members of the association have a good opportunity to take a full part in the proceedings.
At this time, I would like to thank you all, on behalf of the RIPE NCC Executive Board, for participating in the discussion. I look forward to seeing as many of you as possible at the next General Meeting.
Best regards,
Nigel Titley Chairman RIPE NCC Executive Board
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: [1]https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. [1] https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Am 05.10.2011 15:10, schrieb LeaderTelecom Ltd.:
Dear Michie,
Great IDEA!
Err... Great idea... or is it? Really, cui bono? This scheme has been proposed numerous times, IIRC even in this very discussion. In my perception, Small LIRs will not really profit from it, as they typically have a small network (1 or 2 allocations, 1 ASN, X-SMALL category). They'll pay roughly the same because the annual membership fee will have to be adjusted to account for the losses accrued by your idea. Medium LIRs might pay slightly less, I guess... There's probably a sweet spot somewhere (and I'll assume you calculated it so you're in it ;) ). Big LIRs however, with their multiple 12's, large AS sets and network allocations would probably pay drastically less than before. This would shift the weight off those who massively profit from the resources administrated by RIPE NCC onto those who take up less resources. I don't consider this to be very fair. On the contrary: Those who use up large portions of the address space should damn well pay large portions of the NCC's bills. In addition, charging per resource allocation, be it one address or 65K, looks like "per address" charging to the tax authorities. And this is specifically what RIPE is looking to avoid. Gruß, --ck PS: To the colleagues at Telekom and PrivateLayer: GET YOUR DAMN TICKET SYSTEMS OFF THIS LIST! -- Filoo GmbH Christopher Kunz, Geschäftsführer Web: http://www.filoo.de/ E-Mail: chris@filoo.de Tel.: (+49) 0 52 48 / 1 89 84 -11 Fax: (+49) 0 52 48 / 1 89 84 -20 Please sign & encrypt mail wherever possible, my key: C882 8ED1 7DD1 9011 C088 EA50 5CFA 2EEB 397A CAC1 [Achtung, neue Firmenadresse!] Moltkestraße 25a 33330 Gütersloh HRB4355, AG Gütersloh Geschäftsführer: S.Grewing, J.Rehpöhler, C.Kunz Folgen Sie uns auf Twitter: http://twitter.com/filoogmbh
Am 05.10.2011 15:10, schrieb LeaderTelecom Ltd.:
Dear Michie, Great IDEA!
Err... Great idea... or is it? Really, cui bono?
[...]
Big LIRs however, with their multiple 12's, large AS sets and network allocations would probably pay drastically less than before. This would shift the weight off those who massively profit from the resources administrated by RIPE NCC onto those who take up less resources. I don't consider this to be very fair.
I agree as well. For Big ISPs, the RIPE fee divided by customer is not a big issue. To preserve diversity in the internet, I is important to have small ISPs. If we just pamper the big ones, internet will change to a more and more monopolistic place. Have a look at the aggregation taking place at the moment and just imagine what the internet will be in 4-5 years...
On the contrary: Those who use up large portions of the address space should damn well pay large portions of the NCC's bills.
I'm with you. Kind regards, John Fitzgerald ---------------------------------------------------------------- John Fitzgerald Interactive Network GmbH MD/Geschaeftsfuehrer Jahnstrasse 15 http://www.internet.de D-60318 Frankfurt am Main mailto:john.fitzgerald@internet.de Tel.: +49 69 1336-0 PGP-KEY: on request Fax.: +49 69 1336-1000 HRB 47625 USt.ID-Nr. DE 202192770 Geschäftsführer Ralf Herrmann, John Fitzgerald Handelsregister Amtsgericht Frankfurt am Main Registriert bei Bundesnetzagentur seit 1996 als Internet Service Provider (ISP) (http://www.bundesnetzagentur.de) Regnr. 96/142 ----------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Christopher, Looking at the current (and past) charging fees, only 1% of all registered LIRs are category extra large, and they already pay 'peanuts' compared to their size: 5750 euro, not even the double of a medium size category LIR (2750 euro). I doubt those extra large companies would pay considerably less with this proposed scheme, as most of them have numerous registered objects. Just run an inverse lookup at the RIPE database for some of maintainer objects of the extra large category members to see big amounts of inetnum objects as result. https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-499 Some arguments in favour for this new scheme would be: - Ease of administration (and less costs for NCC); - Fair and transparent for every LIR, without complicated formula like the current scheme; - Future proof, not based on ipv4 address count; Please take a look at the current numbers or wait for the proper calculations before jumping to conclusions about this proposal. With kind regards, Michiel Klaver At Wed, 5 Oct 2011 15:28:01 +0200, "Christopher Kunz (Filoo GmbH)" <chris@filoo.de> wrote: Err... Great idea... or is it? Really, cui bono? This scheme has been proposed numerous times, IIRC even in this very discussion. In my perception, Small LIRs will not really profit from it, as they typically have a small network (1 or 2 allocations, 1 ASN, X-SMALL category). They'll pay roughly the same because the annual membership fee will have to be adjusted to account for the losses accrued by your idea. Medium LIRs might pay slightly less, I guess... There's probably a sweet spot somewhere (and I'll assume you calculated it so you're in it ;) ). Big LIRs however, with their multiple 12's, large AS sets and network allocations would probably pay drastically less than before. This would shift the weight off those who massively profit from the resources administrated by RIPE NCC onto those who take up less resources. I don't consider this to be very fair. On the contrary: Those who use up large portions of the address space should damn well pay large portions of the NCC's bills. In addition, charging per resource allocation, be it one address or 65K, looks like "per address" charging to the tax authorities. And this is specifically what RIPE is looking to avoid. Gruß, --ck PS: To the colleagues at Telekom and PrivateLayer: GET YOUR DAMN TICKET SYSTEMS OFF THIS LIST!
those "big amounts of inetnum objects" however are usually subnets of /16 , /15, /14 or even /8's so that won't change -much-. its not like they have significantly more objects, its just that they have larger ones. i'd say, like erik bais, flat-fee, and forget about this overhead. (oh and get rid of policy 2007-01 as a LIR is -supposed to be- an office that hands out ip space (registers pi for its customers)... policy 2007-01 is a pain in the butt ;) i'm more for scrapping the concept of PA space than for making it difficult to get PI for your customers. and "omg ipv4 will run out".. well ipv4 runs out anyway. lets get it over with. -- Greetings, Sven Olaf Kamphuis, CB3ROB Enterprises Ltc. ========================================================================= Address: One CyberBunker Avenue Registration: RCB00A3LE CB-10000 CyberBunker-1 Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 Republic-CyberBunker GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE e-Mail: sven@cb3rob.net ========================================================================= http://www.facebook.com/cb3rob ========================================================================= Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Wed, 5 Oct 2011, Michiel Klaver wrote:
Hi Christopher,
Looking at the current (and past) charging fees, only 1% of all registered LIRs are category extra large, and they already pay 'peanuts' compared to their size: 5750 euro, not even the double of a medium size category LIR (2750 euro). I doubt those extra large companies would pay considerably less with this proposed scheme, as most of them have numerous registered objects. Just run an inverse lookup at the RIPE database for some of maintainer objects of the extra large category members to see big amounts of inetnum objects as result.
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-499
Some arguments in favour for this new scheme would be: - Ease of administration (and less costs for NCC); - Fair and transparent for every LIR, without complicated formula like the current scheme; - Future proof, not based on ipv4 address count;
Please take a look at the current numbers or wait for the proper calculations before jumping to conclusions about this proposal.
With kind regards, Michiel Klaver
At Wed, 5 Oct 2011 15:28:01 +0200, "Christopher Kunz (Filoo GmbH)" <chris@filoo.de> wrote:
Err... Great idea... or is it? Really, cui bono?
This scheme has been proposed numerous times, IIRC even in this very discussion. In my perception, Small LIRs will not really profit from it, as they typically have a small network (1 or 2 allocations, 1 ASN, X-SMALL category). They'll pay roughly the same because the annual membership fee will have to be adjusted to account for the losses accrued by your idea. Medium LIRs might pay slightly less, I guess... There's probably a sweet spot somewhere (and I'll assume you calculated it so you're in it ;) ). Big LIRs however, with their multiple 12's, large AS sets and network allocations would probably pay drastically less than before. This would shift the weight off those who massively profit from the resources administrated by RIPE NCC onto those who take up less resources. I don't consider this to be very fair. On the contrary: Those who use up large portions of the address space should damn well pay large portions of the NCC's bills.
In addition, charging per resource allocation, be it one address or 65K, looks like "per address" charging to the tax authorities. And this is specifically what RIPE is looking to avoid.
Gruß,
--ck
PS: To the colleagues at Telekom and PrivateLayer: GET YOUR DAMN TICKET SYSTEMS OFF THIS LIST!
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
Hi Sven, This idea is just an expansion of Erik Bais' flat-fee proposal, a flat fee for all members plus an extra fee per registered object. This would fulfill NCC's wish to lower the costs for small LIRs who have only a few objects. As side effect it could slow-down those LIRs who 'give away' a PI /24 for each colo rack they sell. Registering large amounts of small objects then won't be profitable anymore. And it could accelerate the adoption of ipv6, as it mostly requires just 1 object. With kind regards, Michiel Klaver At Wed, 5 Oct 2011 15:04:33 +0000, Sven Olaf Kamphuis <sven@cb3rob.net> wrote:
those "big amounts of inetnum objects" however are usually subnets of /16 , /15, /14 or even /8's so that won't change -much-.
its not like they have significantly more objects, its just that they have larger ones.
i'd say, like erik bais, flat-fee, and forget about this overhead.
(oh and get rid of policy 2007-01 as a LIR is -supposed to be- an office that hands out ip space (registers pi for its customers)... policy 2007-01 is a pain in the butt ;)
i'm more for scrapping the concept of PA space than for making it difficult to get PI for your customers.
and "omg ipv4 will run out".. well ipv4 runs out anyway. lets get it over with.
Hi, let's keep aside the fact that charging per allocation ("per address") or similar measures seems to be a big problem, tax-wise. Let's look at your points:
Some arguments in favour for this new scheme would be: - Ease of administration (and less costs for NCC);
RIPE still need to keep track of every single assignment that's currently in use by a LIR. You still need this data as a basis for annual membership fee calculation. The only difference is a slightly easier algorithm (= changing 1 line of code) for that calculation. So how is your approach any easier for the NCC?
- Fair and transparent for every LIR, without complicated formula like the current scheme;
Same as above. I don't think transparency is improved by charging LIRs per allocation. The current calculation scheme is simple math. Not very convincing for me.
- Future proof, not based on ipv4 address count;
I consider this point outright invalid and I'll gladly tell you why. As multiple postings have stated in this thread before: IPv4 is not going to go away. On the contrary: You'll see a lively trade of IPv4 address blocks in the next years - facilitated by the RIRs. There won't be any new IPv4 allocations due to depletion soon, but does that mean that RIPE NCC will stop charging everyone for their IPv4 allocations in 2012? No, it doesn't. We're not talking about the 2020 charging plan here, we're talking about _next year_! IMHO the only valid point in favor of your model, really, is the fact that the X-LARGE LIRs will also tend to have large numbers of resources in use (as opposed to few, but large allocations). I haven't looked that up and I'd love to see some figures. Maybe you can whip up some for one small, one medium, and one large LIR? Gruß, --ck -- Filoo GmbH Christopher Kunz, Geschäftsführer Web: http://www.filoo.de/ E-Mail: chris@filoo.de Tel.: (+49) 0 52 48 / 1 89 84 -11 Fax: (+49) 0 52 48 / 1 89 84 -20 Please sign & encrypt mail wherever possible, my key: C882 8ED1 7DD1 9011 C088 EA50 5CFA 2EEB 397A CAC1 [Achtung, neue Firmenadresse!] Moltkestraße 25a 33330 Gütersloh HRB4355, AG Gütersloh Geschäftsführer: S.Grewing, J.Rehpöhler, C.Kunz Folgen Sie uns auf Twitter: http://twitter.com/filoogmbh
I have always defending RIPE in discussions with interested parties, but I am not so sure any longer. One question, regardless of the level of spending, why is an LIR with 1 ASN and a /19 (standard allocation in '98) moving from the small to medium category? I should think that there are a fair few members in this situation, we train in house and haven't been to a meeting since '99 and only interact with RIPE robots. Looking at the proposed SSA and T&C's http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/november-2011/documents/proposed-cha... (RIPE admin, the document title is incorrectly labelled Articles of Association). The rising costs are probably going to be due to an intention to audit members, bad data will be a reason to cancel membership, with a sign up fee being applied for regaining membership.(6.3)(9.4i) A new article stating resources are not assets will stop trading, the above will reclaim unused resources, despite all the work needed to re-aggregate your network (the big legacy blocks accepted again, of course).(10.2) If you forget your invoice, no notice, but after 30 days your membership can be taken away with a sign up fee to re-instate.(5.3) There seems to be a fracture between what the membership wants and what the organisation are planning. Thanks for you time Mike On Wed, 2011-10-05 at 14:43 +0000, Michiel Klaver wrote:
Hi Christopher,
Looking at the current (and past) charging fees, only 1% of all registered LIRs are category extra large, and they already pay 'peanuts' compared to their size: 5750 euro, not even the double of a medium size category LIR (2750 euro). I doubt those extra large companies would pay considerably less with this proposed scheme, as most of them have numerous registered objects. Just run an inverse lookup at the RIPE database for some of maintainer objects of the extra large category members to see big amounts of inetnum objects as result.
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-499
Some arguments in favour for this new scheme would be: - Ease of administration (and less costs for NCC); - Fair and transparent for every LIR, without complicated formula like the current scheme; - Future proof, not based on ipv4 address count;
Please take a look at the current numbers or wait for the proper calculations before jumping to conclusions about this proposal.
With kind regards, Michiel Klaver
At Wed, 5 Oct 2011 15:28:01 +0200, "Christopher Kunz (Filoo GmbH)" <chris@filoo.de> wrote:
Err... Great idea... or is it? Really, cui bono?
This scheme has been proposed numerous times, IIRC even in this very discussion. In my perception, Small LIRs will not really profit from it, as they typically have a small network (1 or 2 allocations, 1 ASN, X-SMALL category). They'll pay roughly the same because the annual membership fee will have to be adjusted to account for the losses accrued by your idea. Medium LIRs might pay slightly less, I guess... There's probably a sweet spot somewhere (and I'll assume you calculated it so you're in it ;) ). Big LIRs however, with their multiple 12's, large AS sets and network allocations would probably pay drastically less than before. This would shift the weight off those who massively profit from the resources administrated by RIPE NCC onto those who take up less resources. I don't consider this to be very fair. On the contrary: Those who use up large portions of the address space should damn well pay large portions of the NCC's bills.
In addition, charging per resource allocation, be it one address or 65K, looks like "per address" charging to the tax authorities. And this is specifically what RIPE is looking to avoid.
Gruß,
--ck
PS: To the colleagues at Telekom and PrivateLayer: GET YOUR DAMN TICKET SYSTEMS OFF THIS LIST!
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
-- Mike Hollowell Arrowhead Systems Ltd http://www.theinternet.org.uk tel: +44 1782 747044 fax: +44 1782 410734 Arrowhead Systems Limited: A company registered in England and Wales, company number 02694760 Reg'd Office: 5 The Villas, Stoke-On-Trent, Staffordshire. ST4 5AQ. UK
participants (20)
-
Christopher Kunz (Filoo GmbH) -
Clement Cavadore -
Daniel Stolpe -
Erik Bais -
Florian Weimer -
Fred Arendse -
Gert Doering -
Hank Nussbacher -
John Fitzgerald -
Jon Morby -
Lars-Johan Liman -
LeaderTelecom Ltd. -
LeaderTelecom Ltd. -
Michiel Klaver -
Mike Hollowell -
Nigel Titley -
Paolo Di Francesco -
Simon Lockhart -
SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling -
Sven Olaf Kamphuis