This is NOT a good example. In this example we see how a /22 allocation pays 1094 EUR per year, which is close to 1 EUR / 1 IP / Year, and a /8 allocation pays 48.000 EUR, which is 0.003 EURO / 1 IP / Year, which is 333 times less expensive. So tell me again how this is a good example. Thanks

On 16 Apr 2024, at 17:07, Firma KOMPEX <gabi@kompex.pl> wrote:

very good example Sebastian

Others are doing it and Europe should too

We should be pioneers and we are in the Middle Ages. We are chipping away at such obvious issues from others.

The fixed fee for the LIR Account + the resource fee can stay they need to be calculated

But necessarily, as you pointed out, IP usage should be accounted for

Pozdrawiam Gabriel Sulka

------------------------------------------------------------- Firma Handlowo - Usługowa KOMPEX 34-400 Nowy Targ ul. Szaflarska 62A tel(18) 264-60-55 pn-pt 09:30 - 17:00 sb. 09:30 - 13:00 www.kompex.pl <http://www.kompex.pl/> ; bok@kompex.pl <mailto:bok@kompex.pl> ; kompex@nowytarg.net <mailto:kompex@nowytarg.net>

-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> On Behalf Of Sebastien Brossier Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 3:51 PM To: members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)

Hello all,

I propose to add the following model to the charging scheme 2025 voting options.

*1 - Introduction:*

This charging scheme is heavily inspired by APNIC. If you are not familiar with this, you can see an example here: https://www.apnic.net/get-ip/apnic-membership/how-much-does-it-cost/member-f ees-calculator/

The main idea is that each LIR pays according to its resources, but not linearly. You don't pay twice as much because you have twice as much resources. The resulting fees are similar to what the other RIRs are charging, with infinite granularity (no categories).

It can be easily tweaked to reach any desired budget, and will remain viable when IPv4 has disappeared.

I have made IPv6 less punitive compared to APNIC, because RIPE has larger initial allocations.

Independent resources fees, sign-up fee, lack of ASN fee, remain as before in this proposal. I believe it is better to have a separate debate on these subjects at a later time.

The goal of this charging scheme is to lower the cost for members with a very low amount of resources, in order to attract newcomers and retain existing members. This way the RIPE NCC membership will remain numerous and diverse.

*2 - Charging scheme:*

(Warning: math incoming !)

IPv4_count = number of IPv4 addresses allocated (excluding independent assignments and legacy) IPv6_count = number of IPv6 /56 subnets allocated (excluding independent assignments)

Base_Fee = 638 EUR Bit_Factor = 1.31 Minimum_Fee = 500 EUR Offset_IPv4 = 8 Offset_IPv6 = 24

IPv4_Fee = Base_Fee * Bit_Factor^(log2(IPv4_count) - Offset_IPv4) IPv6_Fee = Base_Fee * Bit_Factor^(log2(IPv6_count) - Offset_IPv6)

Fee = max(IPv4_Fee, IPv6_Fee, Minimum_Fee) + 50 EUR per independent resource (excluding ASN)

My simulation, based on public data (2024-03-28), results in an average fee of 1900 EUR per LIR (+ 50 EUR per independent resource), so it should provide the same budget as the other options. If RIPE NCC find different results with their simulation, they can adjust Base_Fee.

*3 - Examples:*

50 EUR per independent resource should be added to all these fees.

No allocations: 500 EUR IPv4 /24 and/or IPv6 /32: 638 EUR IPv4 /23 and/or IPv6 /31: 835 EUR IPv4 /22 and/or IPv6 /30: 1094 EUR IPv4 /21 and/or IPv6 /29: 1434 EUR IPv4 /20 and/or IPv6 /28: 1878 EUR IPv4 /19 and/or IPv6 /27: 2461 EUR IPv4 /18 and/or IPv6 /26: 3224 EUR IPv4 /17 and/or IPv6 /25: 4223 EUR IPv4 /16 and/or IPv6 /24: 5533 EUR IPv4 /15 and/or IPv6 /23: 7248 EUR IPv4 /14 and/or IPv6 /22: 9495 EUR IPv4 /13 and/or IPv6 /21: 12439 EUR IPv4 /12 and/or IPv6 /20: 16295 EUR IPv4 /11 and/or IPv6 /19: 21347 EUR IPv4 /10 and/or IPv6 /18: 27965 EUR IPv4 /9 and/or IPv6 /17: 36634 EUR IPv4 /8 and/or IPv6 /16: 47991 EUR

Largest LIR is just below 60 kEUR.

There are no categories, so your fee can be somewhere between these numbers.

If you think the fees are too high, I invite you to read the fee schedule of the other RIRs.

Thank you if you've read this far.

Best regards, Sebastien Brossier

_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/gabi%40kompex.pl <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/gabi%40kompex.pl>

_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss> Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/suport%40bunea.eu <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/suport%40bunea.eu>

Where have I said it should be 1 EUR across the board? It doesn’t have to be 1 EUR, but it also doesn’t have to be 333 the difference. It can be progressively cheaper, but not at such a large difference. Also, FYI, UK Gov or any Gov, could always put back IPv4 if they find it to be too expensive. Just like they force people and companies to put back on the market real estate that have a very high yearly tax. How would that work out for a change? Call this a tax hike on public property, like IP addresses. Maybe they would in fact like it, since it’s their way of doing business. Otherwise, with this model, we will just move the burden from the big ISP/companies/resource holders to the smaller ones. Thanks.

On 16 Apr 2024, at 17:25, Daniel Pearson <daniel@privatesystems.net> wrote:

I'd like to see you tell the UK Government that they are going to pay 1 Euro per IP for a /8

Let me know how that conversation goes :)

On 4/16/24 9:20 AM, Petru Bunea wrote:

...

This is NOT a good example. In this example we see how a /22 allocation pays 1094 EUR per year, which is close to 1 EUR / 1 IP / Year, and a /8 allocation pays 48.000 EUR, which is 0.003 EURO / 1 IP / Year, which is 333 times less expensive. So tell me again how this is a good example.

Thanks

...

On 16 Apr 2024, at 17:07, Firma KOMPEX <gabi@kompex.pl <mailto:gabi@kompex.pl>> wrote:

very good example Sebastian

Others are doing it and Europe should too

We should be pioneers and we are in the Middle Ages. We are chipping away at such obvious issues from others.

The fixed fee for the LIR Account + the resource fee can stay they need to be calculated

But necessarily, as you pointed out, IP usage should be accounted for

Pozdrawiam Gabriel Sulka

------------------------------------------------------------- Firma Handlowo - Usługowa KOMPEX 34-400 Nowy Targ ul. Szaflarska 62A tel(18) 264-60-55 pn-pt 09:30 - 17:00 sb. 09:30 - 13:00 www.kompex.pl <http://www.kompex.pl/> ; bok@kompex.pl <mailto:bok@kompex.pl> ; kompex@nowytarg.net <mailto:kompex@nowytarg.net>

-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> On Behalf Of Sebastien Brossier Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 3:51 PM To: members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)

Hello all,

I propose to add the following model to the charging scheme 2025 voting options.

*1 - Introduction:*

This charging scheme is heavily inspired by APNIC. If you are not familiar with this, you can see an example here: https://www.apnic.net/get-ip/apnic-membership/how-much-does-it-cost/member-f <https://www.apnic.net/get-ip/apnic-membership/how-much-does-it-cost/member-f> ees-calculator/

The main idea is that each LIR pays according to its resources, but not linearly. You don't pay twice as much because you have twice as much resources. The resulting fees are similar to what the other RIRs are charging, with infinite granularity (no categories).

It can be easily tweaked to reach any desired budget, and will remain viable when IPv4 has disappeared.

I have made IPv6 less punitive compared to APNIC, because RIPE has larger initial allocations.

Independent resources fees, sign-up fee, lack of ASN fee, remain as before in this proposal. I believe it is better to have a separate debate on these subjects at a later time.

The goal of this charging scheme is to lower the cost for members with a very low amount of resources, in order to attract newcomers and retain existing members. This way the RIPE NCC membership will remain numerous and diverse.

*2 - Charging scheme:*

(Warning: math incoming !)

IPv4_count = number of IPv4 addresses allocated (excluding independent assignments and legacy) IPv6_count = number of IPv6 /56 subnets allocated (excluding independent assignments)

Base_Fee = 638 EUR Bit_Factor = 1.31 Minimum_Fee = 500 EUR Offset_IPv4 = 8 Offset_IPv6 = 24

IPv4_Fee = Base_Fee * Bit_Factor^(log2(IPv4_count) - Offset_IPv4) IPv6_Fee = Base_Fee * Bit_Factor^(log2(IPv6_count) - Offset_IPv6)

Fee = max(IPv4_Fee, IPv6_Fee, Minimum_Fee) + 50 EUR per independent resource (excluding ASN)

My simulation, based on public data (2024-03-28), results in an average fee of 1900 EUR per LIR (+ 50 EUR per independent resource), so it should provide the same budget as the other options. If RIPE NCC find different results with their simulation, they can adjust Base_Fee.

*3 - Examples:*

50 EUR per independent resource should be added to all these fees.

No allocations: 500 EUR IPv4 /24 and/or IPv6 /32: 638 EUR IPv4 /23 and/or IPv6 /31: 835 EUR IPv4 /22 and/or IPv6 /30: 1094 EUR IPv4 /21 and/or IPv6 /29: 1434 EUR IPv4 /20 and/or IPv6 /28: 1878 EUR IPv4 /19 and/or IPv6 /27: 2461 EUR IPv4 /18 and/or IPv6 /26: 3224 EUR IPv4 /17 and/or IPv6 /25: 4223 EUR IPv4 /16 and/or IPv6 /24: 5533 EUR IPv4 /15 and/or IPv6 /23: 7248 EUR IPv4 /14 and/or IPv6 /22: 9495 EUR IPv4 /13 and/or IPv6 /21: 12439 EUR IPv4 /12 and/or IPv6 /20: 16295 EUR IPv4 /11 and/or IPv6 /19: 21347 EUR IPv4 /10 and/or IPv6 /18: 27965 EUR IPv4 /9 and/or IPv6 /17: 36634 EUR IPv4 /8 and/or IPv6 /16: 47991 EUR

Largest LIR is just below 60 kEUR.

There are no categories, so your fee can be somewhere between these numbers.

If you think the fees are too high, I invite you to read the fee schedule of the other RIRs.

Thank you if you've read this far.

Best regards, Sebastien Brossier

_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss> Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/gabi%40kompex.pl <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/gabi%40kompex.pl>

_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss> Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/suport%40bunea.eu <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/suport%40bunea.eu>

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

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

"The question everyone should be arguing about is why it costs 40 million a year to run an internet registry for 20,000~ members." Exactly this. I believe this to be because of scope inflation (more useless "services" added every year increasing the budget) and organisational bloat ( like the achievements section from this nonsense https://www.ripe.net/community/tf/ripe-diversity-task-force/ ). -- Mediasat ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Doru Serdin* Network Manager Office: +4 031 82 52 657 E-mail: doru.serdin@mediasat.ro www.mediasat.ro <https://www.mediasat.ro> www.alonia.ro <https://www.alonia.ro> Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer does not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it. On 16.04.2024 5:33 PM, Daniel Pearson wrote:

Everybody is still fighting about the wrong question.

The question everyone should be arguing about is why it costs 40 million a year to run an internet registry for 20,000~ members.

Sure, the bulk of the expense is due to navigating the legal landscape of multiple member nations, but you can't tell me that's 20-30 million a year in legal fee's.

On 4/16/24 9:31 AM, Petru Bunea wrote:

...

Where have I said it should be 1 EUR across the board?

It doesn’t have to be 1 EUR, but it also doesn’t have to be 333 the difference. It can be progressively cheaper, but not at such a large difference.

Also, FYI, UK Gov or any Gov, could always put back IPv4 if they find it to be too expensive. Just like they force people and companies to put back on the market real estate that have a very high yearly tax. How would that work out for a change? Call this a tax hike on public property, like IP addresses. Maybe they would in fact like it, since it’s their way of doing business.

Otherwise, with this model, we will just move the burden from the big ISP/companies/resource holders to the smaller ones.

Thanks.

...

On 16 Apr 2024, at 17:25, Daniel Pearson <daniel@privatesystems.net> wrote:

I'd like to see you tell the UK Government that they are going to pay 1 Euro per IP for a /8

Let me know how that conversation goes :)

On 4/16/24 9:20 AM, Petru Bunea wrote:

...

This is NOT a good example. In this example we see how a /22 allocation pays 1094 EUR per year, which is close to 1 EUR / 1 IP / Year, and a /8 allocation pays 48.000 EUR, which is 0.003 EURO / 1 IP / Year, which is 333 times less expensive. So tell me again how this is a good example.

Thanks

...

On 16 Apr 2024, at 17:07, Firma KOMPEX <gabi@kompex.pl> wrote:

very good example Sebastian

Others are doing it and Europe should too

We should be pioneers and we are in the Middle Ages. We are chipping away at such obvious issues from others.

The fixed fee for the LIR Account + the resource fee can stay they need to be calculated

But necessarily, as you pointed out, IP usage should be accounted for

Pozdrawiam Gabriel Sulka

------------------------------------------------------------- Firma Handlowo - Usługowa KOMPEX 34-400 Nowy Targ ul. Szaflarska 62A tel(18) 264-60-55 pn-pt 09:30 - 17:00 sb. 09:30 - 13:00 www.kompex.pl <http://www.kompex.pl/>;bok@kompex.pl;kompex@nowytarg.net

-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Sebastien Brossier Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 3:51 PM To:members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)

Hello all,

I propose to add the following model to the charging scheme 2025 voting options.

*1 - Introduction:*

This charging scheme is heavily inspired by APNIC. If you are not familiar with this, you can see an example here: https://www.apnic.net/get-ip/apnic-membership/how-much-does-it-cost/member-f ees-calculator/

The main idea is that each LIR pays according to its resources, but not linearly. You don't pay twice as much because you have twice as much resources. The resulting fees are similar to what the other RIRs are charging, with infinite granularity (no categories).

It can be easily tweaked to reach any desired budget, and will remain viable when IPv4 has disappeared.

I have made IPv6 less punitive compared to APNIC, because RIPE has larger initial allocations.

Independent resources fees, sign-up fee, lack of ASN fee, remain as before in this proposal. I believe it is better to have a separate debate on these subjects at a later time.

The goal of this charging scheme is to lower the cost for members with a very low amount of resources, in order to attract newcomers and retain existing members. This way the RIPE NCC membership will remain numerous and diverse.

*2 - Charging scheme:*

(Warning: math incoming !)

IPv4_count = number of IPv4 addresses allocated              (excluding independent assignments and legacy) IPv6_count = number of IPv6 /56 subnets allocated              (excluding independent assignments)

Base_Fee = 638 EUR Bit_Factor = 1.31 Minimum_Fee = 500 EUR Offset_IPv4 = 8 Offset_IPv6 = 24

IPv4_Fee = Base_Fee * Bit_Factor^(log2(IPv4_count) - Offset_IPv4) IPv6_Fee = Base_Fee * Bit_Factor^(log2(IPv6_count) - Offset_IPv6)

Fee = max(IPv4_Fee, IPv6_Fee, Minimum_Fee)         + 50 EUR per independent resource (excluding ASN)

My simulation, based on public data (2024-03-28), results in an average fee of 1900 EUR per LIR (+ 50 EUR per independent resource), so it should provide the same budget as the other options. If RIPE NCC find different results with their simulation, they can adjust Base_Fee.

*3 - Examples:*

50 EUR per independent resource should be added to all these fees.

No allocations: 500 EUR IPv4 /24 and/or IPv6 /32: 638 EUR IPv4 /23 and/or IPv6 /31: 835 EUR IPv4 /22 and/or IPv6 /30:1094 EUR IPv4 /21 and/or IPv6 /29:1434 EUR IPv4 /20 and/or IPv6 /28:1878 EUR IPv4 /19 and/or IPv6 /27:2461 EUR IPv4 /18 and/or IPv6 /26:3224 EUR IPv4 /17 and/or IPv6 /25:4223 EUR IPv4 /16 and/or IPv6 /24:5533 EUR IPv4 /15 and/or IPv6 /23:7248 EUR IPv4 /14 and/or IPv6 /22:9495 EUR IPv4 /13 and/or IPv6 /21:12439 EUR IPv4 /12 and/or IPv6 /20:16295 EUR IPv4 /11 and/or IPv6 /19:21347 EUR IPv4 /10 and/or IPv6 /18:27965 EUR IPv4 /9 and/or IPv6 /17:36634 EUR IPv4 /8 and/or IPv6 /16:47991 EUR

Largest LIR is just below 60 kEUR.

There are no categories, so your fee can be somewhere between these numbers.

If you think the fees are too high, I invite you to read the fee schedule of the other RIRs.

Thank you if you've read this far.

Best regards, Sebastien Brossier

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

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

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

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

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

No, actually RIPE is a hybrid between transalators, lawyers / legal, technical, accounting, event and PR, running critical infra etc. And yes, what now can be done with 40mil used to be done with 25 mil in 2019. Everything got more expensive, get used to it. Perhaps RIPE team can adjust here and there, but I honestly don’t see the budget to be able to drop more than 20%. So the question is where do we take those 20% from, because if we raise the prices high enough, IPv4 allocation would migrate to other RIRs, which in turn will mean more work and on the long run - less income, and after that of course - raise taxes again. Thanks

On 16 Apr 2024, at 17:33, Daniel Pearson <daniel@privatesystems.net> wrote:

Everybody is still fighting about the wrong question.

The question everyone should be arguing about is why it costs 40 million a year to run an internet registry for 20,000~ members.

Sure, the bulk of the expense is due to navigating the legal landscape of multiple member nations, but you can't tell me that's 20-30 million a year in legal fee's.

On 4/16/24 9:31 AM, Petru Bunea wrote:

...

Where have I said it should be 1 EUR across the board?

It doesn’t have to be 1 EUR, but it also doesn’t have to be 333 the difference. It can be progressively cheaper, but not at such a large difference.

Also, FYI, UK Gov or any Gov, could always put back IPv4 if they find it to be too expensive. Just like they force people and companies to put back on the market real estate that have a very high yearly tax. How would that work out for a change? Call this a tax hike on public property, like IP addresses. Maybe they would in fact like it, since it’s their way of doing business.

Otherwise, with this model, we will just move the burden from the big ISP/companies/resource holders to the smaller ones.

Thanks.

...

On 16 Apr 2024, at 17:25, Daniel Pearson <daniel@privatesystems.net <mailto:daniel@privatesystems.net>> wrote:

I'd like to see you tell the UK Government that they are going to pay 1 Euro per IP for a /8

Let me know how that conversation goes :)

On 4/16/24 9:20 AM, Petru Bunea wrote:

...

This is NOT a good example. In this example we see how a /22 allocation pays 1094 EUR per year, which is close to 1 EUR / 1 IP / Year, and a /8 allocation pays 48.000 EUR, which is 0.003 EURO / 1 IP / Year, which is 333 times less expensive. So tell me again how this is a good example.

Thanks

...

On 16 Apr 2024, at 17:07, Firma KOMPEX <gabi@kompex.pl <mailto:gabi@kompex.pl>> wrote:

very good example Sebastian

Others are doing it and Europe should too

We should be pioneers and we are in the Middle Ages. We are chipping away at such obvious issues from others.

The fixed fee for the LIR Account + the resource fee can stay they need to be calculated

But necessarily, as you pointed out, IP usage should be accounted for

Pozdrawiam Gabriel Sulka

------------------------------------------------------------- Firma Handlowo - Usługowa KOMPEX 34-400 Nowy Targ ul. Szaflarska 62A tel(18) 264-60-55 pn-pt 09:30 - 17:00 sb. 09:30 - 13:00 www.kompex.pl <http://www.kompex.pl/> ; bok@kompex.pl <mailto:bok@kompex.pl> ; kompex@nowytarg.net <mailto:kompex@nowytarg.net>

-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> On Behalf Of Sebastien Brossier Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 3:51 PM To: members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)

Hello all,

I propose to add the following model to the charging scheme 2025 voting options.

*1 - Introduction:*

This charging scheme is heavily inspired by APNIC. If you are not familiar with this, you can see an example here: https://www.apnic.net/get-ip/apnic-membership/how-much-does-it-cost/member-f <https://www.apnic.net/get-ip/apnic-membership/how-much-does-it-cost/member-f> ees-calculator/

The main idea is that each LIR pays according to its resources, but not linearly. You don't pay twice as much because you have twice as much resources. The resulting fees are similar to what the other RIRs are charging, with infinite granularity (no categories).

It can be easily tweaked to reach any desired budget, and will remain viable when IPv4 has disappeared.

I have made IPv6 less punitive compared to APNIC, because RIPE has larger initial allocations.

Independent resources fees, sign-up fee, lack of ASN fee, remain as before in this proposal. I believe it is better to have a separate debate on these subjects at a later time.

The goal of this charging scheme is to lower the cost for members with a very low amount of resources, in order to attract newcomers and retain existing members. This way the RIPE NCC membership will remain numerous and diverse.

*2 - Charging scheme:*

(Warning: math incoming !)

IPv4_count = number of IPv4 addresses allocated (excluding independent assignments and legacy) IPv6_count = number of IPv6 /56 subnets allocated (excluding independent assignments)

Base_Fee = 638 EUR Bit_Factor = 1.31 Minimum_Fee = 500 EUR Offset_IPv4 = 8 Offset_IPv6 = 24

IPv4_Fee = Base_Fee * Bit_Factor^(log2(IPv4_count) - Offset_IPv4) IPv6_Fee = Base_Fee * Bit_Factor^(log2(IPv6_count) - Offset_IPv6)

Fee = max(IPv4_Fee, IPv6_Fee, Minimum_Fee) + 50 EUR per independent resource (excluding ASN)

My simulation, based on public data (2024-03-28), results in an average fee of 1900 EUR per LIR (+ 50 EUR per independent resource), so it should provide the same budget as the other options. If RIPE NCC find different results with their simulation, they can adjust Base_Fee.

*3 - Examples:*

50 EUR per independent resource should be added to all these fees.

No allocations: 500 EUR IPv4 /24 and/or IPv6 /32: 638 EUR IPv4 /23 and/or IPv6 /31: 835 EUR IPv4 /22 and/or IPv6 /30: 1094 EUR IPv4 /21 and/or IPv6 /29: 1434 EUR IPv4 /20 and/or IPv6 /28: 1878 EUR IPv4 /19 and/or IPv6 /27: 2461 EUR IPv4 /18 and/or IPv6 /26: 3224 EUR IPv4 /17 and/or IPv6 /25: 4223 EUR IPv4 /16 and/or IPv6 /24: 5533 EUR IPv4 /15 and/or IPv6 /23: 7248 EUR IPv4 /14 and/or IPv6 /22: 9495 EUR IPv4 /13 and/or IPv6 /21: 12439 EUR IPv4 /12 and/or IPv6 /20: 16295 EUR IPv4 /11 and/or IPv6 /19: 21347 EUR IPv4 /10 and/or IPv6 /18: 27965 EUR IPv4 /9 and/or IPv6 /17: 36634 EUR IPv4 /8 and/or IPv6 /16: 47991 EUR

Largest LIR is just below 60 kEUR.

There are no categories, so your fee can be somewhere between these numbers.

If you think the fees are too high, I invite you to read the fee schedule of the other RIRs.

Thank you if you've read this far.

Best regards, Sebastien Brossier

_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss> Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/gabi%40kompex.pl <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/gabi%40kompex.pl>

_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss> Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/suport%40bunea.eu <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/suport%40bunea.eu>

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

_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss> Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/suport%40bunea.eu <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/suport%40bunea.eu>

I'm glad others have also understood the problem with increasing fees while the number of members is falling. I like to think I'm foresighted, some might call me cynical, but that means spend needs to be constrained. The RIR system is not an example of "to make money one needs to spend money" (like businesses that have a flywheel with an ad component). Let's do some napkin math and comps with the other RIRs. I chose to normalize AUD and EUR to USD so comparing is easy. Revenue figures are latest available from public sources as are the membership numbers. Numbers rounded to whatever was closest and convenient. Assumption that all have roughly budgets that coincide with their expenditure. RIPE, revenue 38M EUR (40M USD), members 20k = 2 k/member ARIN, revenue 25M USD, members 25k = 1 k/member APNIC, revenue 33M AUD (21M USD), members 10k = 2 k/member LACNIC, revenue 10M USD, members 12k = 0.8 k/member AFRINIC, revenue 6M USD, members 2k = 3 k/member All RIRs together end up with an annual revenue of 100M USD and about 70k organizations as customers. Didn't bother summarizing total assets but they'll the total assets to revenue (sales) is at least 1. Now, in my opinion, there are a few surprises. ARIN, located in a very expensive country, is quite efficient per member. PPP wise USA and NL are about the same meaning their cost base should also be rather similar. Ceteris paribus, etc. US inflation is Y/Y probably on the level of NL, too. In principle there should be some kind of economies of scale in most lines of businesses where, once reached, the marginal cost is below the average production cost. The RIRs do not seem to work that way for some strange reason... or they do in the registry function but as for other functions they do not. On the other hand, AFRINIC seems to be rather inefficient. Is there a point to this? Probably not considering there are too many people who do not want to rock the status quo. Also, considering one needs 400+ signatures to change something it is rather impossible to shake the establishment. It is what it is, we can voice our opinions but in the end they're just that. If you're unhappy with the financial policy, pretty much the only option is, in the AGM, to vote against adopting the next year's scheme and against discharging the EB. The numbers against tend to be somewhere between 10% and 20% so they're mostly protest votes in my opinion. Anyway, happy to revisit the topic again next spring. 👍 Kaj Sent from my iPad ________________________________ From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Petru Bunea <suport@bunea.eu> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 5:46 PM To: Daniel Pearson <daniel@privatesystems.net> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic) You don't often get email from suport@bunea.eu. Learn why this is important<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification> No, actually RIPE is a hybrid between transalators, lawyers / legal, technical, accounting, event and PR, running critical infra etc. And yes, what now can be done with 40mil used to be done with 25 mil in 2019. Everything got more expensive, get used to it. Perhaps RIPE team can adjust here and there, but I honestly don’t see the budget to be able to drop more than 20%. So the question is where do we take those 20% from, because if we raise the prices high enough, IPv4 allocation would migrate to other RIRs, which in turn will mean more work and on the long run - less income, and after that of course - raise taxes again. Thanks On 16 Apr 2024, at 17:33, Daniel Pearson <daniel@privatesystems.net<mailto:daniel@privatesystems.net>> wrote: Everybody is still fighting about the wrong question. The question everyone should be arguing about is why it costs 40 million a year to run an internet registry for 20,000~ members. Sure, the bulk of the expense is due to navigating the legal landscape of multiple member nations, but you can't tell me that's 20-30 million a year in legal fee's. On 4/16/24 9:31 AM, Petru Bunea wrote: Where have I said it should be 1 EUR across the board? It doesn’t have to be 1 EUR, but it also doesn’t have to be 333 the difference. It can be progressively cheaper, but not at such a large difference. Also, FYI, UK Gov or any Gov, could always put back IPv4 if they find it to be too expensive. Just like they force people and companies to put back on the market real estate that have a very high yearly tax. How would that work out for a change? Call this a tax hike on public property, like IP addresses. Maybe they would in fact like it, since it’s their way of doing business. Otherwise, with this model, we will just move the burden from the big ISP/companies/resource holders to the smaller ones. Thanks. On 16 Apr 2024, at 17:25, Daniel Pearson <daniel@privatesystems.net<mailto:daniel@privatesystems.net>> wrote: I'd like to see you tell the UK Government that they are going to pay 1 Euro per IP for a /8 Let me know how that conversation goes :) On 4/16/24 9:20 AM, Petru Bunea wrote: This is NOT a good example. In this example we see how a /22 allocation pays 1094 EUR per year, which is close to 1 EUR / 1 IP / Year, and a /8 allocation pays 48.000 EUR, which is 0.003 EURO / 1 IP / Year, which is 333 times less expensive. So tell me again how this is a good example. Thanks On 16 Apr 2024, at 17:07, Firma KOMPEX <gabi@kompex.pl<mailto:gabi@kompex.pl>> wrote: very good example Sebastian Others are doing it and Europe should too We should be pioneers and we are in the Middle Ages. We are chipping away at such obvious issues from others. The fixed fee for the LIR Account + the resource fee can stay they need to be calculated But necessarily, as you pointed out, IP usage should be accounted for Pozdrawiam Gabriel Sulka ------------------------------------------------------------- Firma Handlowo - Usługowa KOMPEX 34-400 Nowy Targ ul. Szaflarska 62A tel(18) 264-60-55 pn-pt 09:30 - 17:00 sb. 09:30 - 13:00 www.kompex.pl<http://www.kompex.pl/> ; bok@kompex.pl<mailto:bok@kompex.pl> ; kompex@nowytarg.net<mailto:kompex@nowytarg.net> -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> On Behalf Of Sebastien Brossier Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 3:51 PM To: members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic) Hello all, I propose to add the following model to the charging scheme 2025 voting options. *1 - Introduction:* This charging scheme is heavily inspired by APNIC. If you are not familiar with this, you can see an example here: https://www.apnic.net/get-ip/apnic-membership/how-much-does-it-cost/member-f ees-calculator/ The main idea is that each LIR pays according to its resources, but not linearly. You don't pay twice as much because you have twice as much resources. The resulting fees are similar to what the other RIRs are charging, with infinite granularity (no categories). It can be easily tweaked to reach any desired budget, and will remain viable when IPv4 has disappeared. I have made IPv6 less punitive compared to APNIC, because RIPE has larger initial allocations. Independent resources fees, sign-up fee, lack of ASN fee, remain as before in this proposal. I believe it is better to have a separate debate on these subjects at a later time. The goal of this charging scheme is to lower the cost for members with a very low amount of resources, in order to attract newcomers and retain existing members. This way the RIPE NCC membership will remain numerous and diverse. *2 - Charging scheme:* (Warning: math incoming !) IPv4_count = number of IPv4 addresses allocated (excluding independent assignments and legacy) IPv6_count = number of IPv6 /56 subnets allocated (excluding independent assignments) Base_Fee = 638 EUR Bit_Factor = 1.31 Minimum_Fee = 500 EUR Offset_IPv4 = 8 Offset_IPv6 = 24 IPv4_Fee = Base_Fee * Bit_Factor^(log2(IPv4_count) - Offset_IPv4) IPv6_Fee = Base_Fee * Bit_Factor^(log2(IPv6_count) - Offset_IPv6) Fee = max(IPv4_Fee, IPv6_Fee, Minimum_Fee) + 50 EUR per independent resource (excluding ASN) My simulation, based on public data (2024-03-28), results in an average fee of 1900 EUR per LIR (+ 50 EUR per independent resource), so it should provide the same budget as the other options. If RIPE NCC find different results with their simulation, they can adjust Base_Fee. *3 - Examples:* 50 EUR per independent resource should be added to all these fees. No allocations: 500 EUR IPv4 /24 and/or IPv6 /32: 638 EUR IPv4 /23 and/or IPv6 /31: 835 EUR IPv4 /22 and/or IPv6 /30: 1094 EUR IPv4 /21 and/or IPv6 /29: 1434 EUR IPv4 /20 and/or IPv6 /28: 1878 EUR IPv4 /19 and/or IPv6 /27: 2461 EUR IPv4 /18 and/or IPv6 /26: 3224 EUR IPv4 /17 and/or IPv6 /25: 4223 EUR IPv4 /16 and/or IPv6 /24: 5533 EUR IPv4 /15 and/or IPv6 /23: 7248 EUR IPv4 /14 and/or IPv6 /22: 9495 EUR IPv4 /13 and/or IPv6 /21: 12439 EUR IPv4 /12 and/or IPv6 /20: 16295 EUR IPv4 /11 and/or IPv6 /19: 21347 EUR IPv4 /10 and/or IPv6 /18: 27965 EUR IPv4 /9 and/or IPv6 /17: 36634 EUR IPv4 /8 and/or IPv6 /16: 47991 EUR Largest LIR is just below 60 kEUR. There are no categories, so your fee can be somewhere between these numbers. If you think the fees are too high, I invite you to read the fee schedule of the other RIRs. Thank you if you've read this far. Best regards, Sebastien Brossier _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/gabi%40kompex.pl _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/suport%40bunea.eu _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/daniel%40privatesyste... _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/suport%40bunea.eu

Hi, Good points. On the topic of AFRINIC, I would slightly disagree. Membership numbers have been increasing from about 1200 in 2018-ish, when they restated revenue, at around 5.3M USD to the 6M-ish USD I mentioned in my previous email. I haven't actively been following the story there but assumed the legal troubles started FY2021-ish.. since revenue was restated, there was probably something else going on earlier. They spent about 140k on legal in 2022 although only non-audited numbers exist. I'm reading it as if the legal issues themselves did not affect revenue one way or another. As for RIPE, well, I'm advocating on spending less and crystallizing the value prop because right now it's all over the place. 1. LIRs [must] pay because they need the registry services 2. In exchange they get a ton of services that many do not use at all 3. All services and functions are necessary because [list with many reasons] 4. "We need to increase the fees because of 2 and 3" 5. Goto 1 That being said, the gym analogy someone replied with a few days ago is quite apt. Most people there, too, pay but do not use. Kaj Sent from my iPad ________________________________ From: Kurt Jaeger <members-discuss@nepustil.net> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 8:06 PM To: Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic) [You don't often get email from members-discuss@nepustil.net. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Hi! Thanks for writing up those stats.

Let's do some napkin math and comps with the other RIRs. [...]

RIPE, revenue 38M EUR (40M USD), members 20k = 2 k/member ARIN, revenue 25M USD, members 25k = 1 k/member APNIC, revenue 33M AUD (21M USD), members 10k = 2 k/member LACNIC, revenue 10M USD, members 12k = 0.8 k/member AFRINIC, revenue 6M USD, members 2k = 3 k/member [...]

Now, in my opinion, there are a few surprises. ARIN, located in a very expensive country, is quite efficient per member.

I think one has to analyse if ARIN and RIPE do the same when it comes to reach-out, research etc. I'm not sure that ARIN is as active as RIPE is. Also: The language barrier in the service area is much more difficult to traverse than in the ARIN service area. And the RIPE has to cope with a very difficult legal and political landscape compared to ARIN.

On the other hand, AFRINIC seems to be rather inefficient.

I would not hold that against AFRINIC, given their legal and political landscape. -- MfG/Best regards, Kurt Jaeger Now what ? Dr.-Ing. Nepustil & Co. GmbH fon +49 7123 93006-0 pi@nepustil.net Rathausstr. 3 mob +49 171 3101372 72658 Bempflingen

Confidential/Конфіденційно Hello Kurtis! I think there is one more circle. Some members simply want to increase the cost of ownership IPv4 address space. Perhaps, from their point of view, this will result in some IPv4 addresses being transferred back to RIPE. P.S. I believe it is not, a lot of reasons why. From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Kurtis Lindqvist Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2024 11:56 AM To: Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net>; Kurt Jaeger <members-discuss@nepustil.net> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic) You don't often get email from kurtis@linx.net<mailto:kurtis@linx.net>. Learn why this is important<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification> Hi Kaj! Isn’t this really at the heart of the problem. In a Venn diagram there are (at least) three circles here, the members with an opinion the mailinglist who want to crystalise the core services and keep RIPE NCC costs lower and see greater efficiency gains, there is the circle of members who respond to the membership survey and are happy and want to keep all services as they are and then there is a circle of the members who actually vote (and possibly manage the payments). I am not convinced there is a great overlap of these circles and so we end up in a situation with very little guidance. Best Regards, - kurtis - -- Kurt Erik Lindqvist, CEO T: +44 (0) 20 7645 3528 | www.linx.net<http://www.linx.net/> [b8dd7c7e-5b7a-4bb3-bf55-4265639a41be]<https://www.linx.net/> London Internet Exchange Ltd (LINX) C/O WeWork, 2 Minister Court, London, EC3R 7BB, United Kingdom Registered in England number 3137929 [09f5285b-9bf5-4663-a1d5-f335264499f8]<https://twitter.com/linx_network>[0ab2af08-4510-4094-a068-c92129623c5c]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/linx>[34761a22-8ab1-4259-b5a4-c45509cfc94a]<https://www.facebook.com/LondonInternetExchange/>[591060a6-addb-47a4-a833-1c93e4b644f4]<https://www.youtube.com/user/LINXnetwork> From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> on behalf of Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net<mailto:kajtzu@basen.net>> Date: Tuesday, 16 April 2024 at 19:49 To: Kurt Jaeger <members-discuss@nepustil.net<mailto:members-discuss@nepustil.net>> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> <members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic) Hi, Good points. On the topic of AFRINIC, I would slightly disagree. Membership numbers have been increasing from about 1200 in 2018-ish, when they restated revenue, at around 5.3M USD to the 6M-ish USD I mentioned in my previous email. I haven't actively been following the story there but assumed the legal troubles started FY2021-ish.. since revenue was restated, there was probably something else going on earlier. They spent about 140k on legal in 2022 although only non-audited numbers exist. I'm reading it as if the legal issues themselves did not affect revenue one way or another. As for RIPE, well, I'm advocating on spending less and crystallizing the value prop because right now it's all over the place. 1. LIRs [must] pay because they need the registry services 2. In exchange they get a ton of services that many do not use at all 3. All services and functions are necessary because [list with many reasons] 4. "We need to increase the fees because of 2 and 3" 5. Goto 1 That being said, the gym analogy someone replied with a few days ago is quite apt. Most people there, too, pay but do not use. Kaj Sent from my iPad ________________________________ From: Kurt Jaeger <members-discuss@nepustil.net<mailto:members-discuss@nepustil.net>> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 8:06 PM To: Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net<mailto:kajtzu@basen.net>> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> <members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic) [You don't often get email from members-discuss@nepustil.net<mailto:members-discuss@nepustil.net>. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Hi! Thanks for writing up those stats.

Let's do some napkin math and comps with the other RIRs. [...]

RIPE, revenue 38M EUR (40M USD), members 20k = 2 k/member ARIN, revenue 25M USD, members 25k = 1 k/member APNIC, revenue 33M AUD (21M USD), members 10k = 2 k/member LACNIC, revenue 10M USD, members 12k = 0.8 k/member AFRINIC, revenue 6M USD, members 2k = 3 k/member [...]

Now, in my opinion, there are a few surprises. ARIN, located in a very expensive country, is quite efficient per member.

I think one has to analyse if ARIN and RIPE do the same when it comes to reach-out, research etc. I'm not sure that ARIN is as active as RIPE is. Also: The language barrier in the service area is much more difficult to traverse than in the ARIN service area. And the RIPE has to cope with a very difficult legal and political landscape compared to ARIN.

On the other hand, AFRINIC seems to be rather inefficient.

I would not hold that against AFRINIC, given their legal and political landscape. -- MfG/Best regards, Kurt Jaeger Now what ? Dr.-Ing. Nepustil & Co. GmbH fon +49 7123 93006-0 pi@nepustil.net<mailto:pi@nepustil.net> Rathausstr. 3 mob +49 171 3101372 72658 Bempflingen

Confidential/Конфіденційно Maybe, but to be sure we all understand consequences for this "easy" solution to "complicated problem" I have two questions: - do LIRs have ability to transfer IPv4 networks between RIRs (because for the land example, transfer is not an option) ?? - is this transfer more complicated and costly than have fair share of RIPE spends ? -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of sdy@a-n-t.ru Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2024 12:59 PM To: Evgeniy Brodskiy <Evgeniy.Brodskiy@kyivstar.net> Cc: Kurt Jaeger <members-discuss@nepustil.net>; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic) Sorry, but my 5 cents... Not only "result in some IPv4 addresses being transferred back to RIPE". Lets do not forget, It will decrease payment for LIR who could not take more IPv4 an AS. So, This will make the relationship between the NCC participants more honest too.

Confidential/Конфіденційно

Hello Kurtis!

I think there is one more circle. Some members simply want to increase the cost of ownership IPv4 address space. Perhaps, from their point of view, this will result in some IPv4 addresses being transferred back to RIPE.

P.S. I believe it is not, a lot of reasons why.

From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Kurtis Lindqvist Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2024 11:56 AM To: Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net>; Kurt Jaeger <members-discuss@nepustil.net> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)

You don't often get email from kurtis@linx.net<mailto:kurtis@linx.net>. Learn why this is important<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>

Hi Kaj!

Isn’t this really at the heart of the problem. In a Venn diagram there are (at least) three circles here, the members with an opinion the mailinglist who want to crystalise the core services and keep RIPE NCC costs lower and see greater efficiency gains, there is the circle of members who respond to the membership survey and are happy and want to keep all services as they are and then there is a circle of the members who actually vote (and possibly manage the payments). I am not convinced there is a great overlap of these circles and so we end up in a situation with very little guidance.

Best Regards,

- kurtis - -- Kurt Erik Lindqvist, CEO T: +44 (0) 20 7645 3528 | http://www.l/ inx.net%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Cbd413097e1 0c441352a808dc5ec54984%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C63 8489448786280462%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV 2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=QEXMYddLt GMe%2B5YroI0pEgvAe3%2BTJBPajNC65st8t6o%3D&reserved=0<https://eur01.saf/ elinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linx.net%2F&data=0 5%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Cbd413097e10c441352a808dc5ec 54984%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638489448786299804% 7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik 1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=vtv4hBXwlC5CcMN8aZ1Dfg3aCU ErpIb1fOJhmWNmekk%3D&reserved=0> [b8dd7c7e-5b7a-4bb3-bf55-4265639a41be]<https://eur01.safelinks.protect/ ion.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linx.net%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvge niy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Cbd413097e10c441352a808dc5ec54984%7Cf8f9b d573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638489448786313582%7CUnknown%7CT WFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI 6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=VTF2xqEsQquRE5dLjkUMPvI4UP8lVMjkC9k7dUY y2BM%3D&reserved=0> London Internet Exchange Ltd (LINX) C/O WeWork, 2 Minister Court, London, EC3R 7BB, United Kingdom Registered in England number 3137929 [09f5285b-9bf5-4663-a1d5-f335264499f8]<https://eur01.safelinks.protect/ ion.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Flinx_network&data=05% 7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Cbd413097e10c441352a808dc5ec54 984%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638489448786324932%7C Unknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1h aWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=6iKup8bVtB4LtGLG0TxkuCHpewpX yef3oKar3140azA%3D&reserved=0>[0ab2af08-4510-4094-a068-c92129623c5c]<h ttps://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.l inkedin.com%2Fcompany%2Flinx&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivsta r.net%7Cbd413097e10c441352a808dc5ec54984%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a 30986%7C0%7C0%7C638489448786333281%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4 wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C% 7C&sdata=3DvsDweiQlhS0ZOkvrLzIcLlxahiESXocYqlrQrcssQ%3D&reserved=0>[34 761a22-8ab1-4259-b5a4-c45509cfc94a]<https://eur01.safelinks.protection/ .outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FLondonInternetExcha nge%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Cbd413097e10c44 1352a808dc5ec54984%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638489 448786341755%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luM zIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=nrAUIZRXumi8m ycHPygzTeP15GicspQVnrotFfWm5WU%3D&reserved=0>[591060a6-addb-47a4-a833- 1c93e4b644f4]<http://http/ s%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fuser%2FLINXnetwork&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy. Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Cbd413097e10c441352a808dc5ec54984%7Cf8f9bd573 bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638489448786350626%7CUnknown%7CTWFpb GZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0 %3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xEsJW7jwlv9%2FPy9B8fWqM8wXWNGfmxxAqXzViM8rD TY%3D&reserved=0>

From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe. net>> on behalf of Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net<mailto:kajtzu@basen.net>> Date: Tuesday, 16 April 2024 at 19:49 To: Kurt Jaeger <members-discuss@nepustil.net<mailto:members-discuss@nepustil.net>> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> <members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic) Hi,

Good points.

On the topic of AFRINIC, I would slightly disagree. Membership numbers have been increasing from about 1200 in 2018-ish, when they restated revenue, at around 5.3M USD to the 6M-ish USD I mentioned in my previous email. I haven't actively been following the story there but assumed the legal troubles started FY2021-ish.. since revenue was restated, there was probably something else going on earlier. They spent about 140k on legal in 2022 although only non-audited numbers exist. I'm reading it as if the legal issues themselves did not affect revenue one way or another.

As for RIPE, well, I'm advocating on spending less and crystallizing the value prop because right now it's all over the place.

1. LIRs [must] pay because they need the registry services 2. In exchange they get a ton of services that many do not use at all 3. All services and functions are necessary because [list with many reasons] 4. "We need to increase the fees because of 2 and 3" 5. Goto 1

That being said, the gym analogy someone replied with a few days ago is quite apt. Most people there, too, pay but do not use.

Kaj

Sent from my iPad

________________________________ From: Kurt Jaeger <members-discuss@nepustil.net<mailto:members-discuss@nepustil.net>> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 8:06 PM To: Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net<mailto:kajtzu@basen.net>> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> <members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)

[You don't often get email from members-discuss@nepustil.net<mailto:members-discuss@nepustil.net>. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]

Hi!

Thanks for writing up those stats.

...

Let's do some napkin math and comps with the other RIRs. [...]

RIPE, revenue 38M EUR (40M USD), members 20k = 2 k/member ARIN, revenue 25M USD, members 25k = 1 k/member APNIC, revenue 33M AUD (21M USD), members 10k = 2 k/member LACNIC, revenue 10M USD, members 12k = 0.8 k/member AFRINIC, revenue 6M USD, members 2k = 3 k/member [...]

...

Now, in my opinion, there are a few surprises. ARIN, located in a very expensive country, is quite efficient per member.

I think one has to analyse if ARIN and RIPE do the same when it comes to reach-out, research etc. I'm not sure that ARIN is as active as RIPE is. Also: The language barrier in the service area is much more difficult to traverse than in the ARIN service area. And the RIPE has to cope with a very difficult legal and political landscape compared to ARIN.

...

On the other hand, AFRINIC seems to be rather inefficient.

I would not hold that against AFRINIC, given their legal and political landscape.

-- MfG/Best regards, Kurt Jaeger Now what ? Dr.-Ing. Nepustil & Co. GmbH fon +49 7123 93006-0 pi@nepustil.net<mailto:pi@nepustil.net> Rathausstr. 3 mob +49 171 3101372 72658 Bempflingen _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvgen iy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Cbd413097e10c441352a808dc5ec54984%7Cf8f9bd 573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638489448786359237%7CUnknown%7CTW FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6 Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=c1Ct1rc%2FVEmU%2FQQW9uF0M1pxl%2Fb%2Fu6vt ySSlccitatw%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fsdy%2540a-n-t.ru&da ta=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Cbd413097e10c441352a808d c5ec54984%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638489448786371 577%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTi I6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=N6K4cM8VFSdKljxWbyRHok brVc3o%2FuTxvapypwsGJ48%3D&reserved=0

----------------------------- С уважением Сербулов Дмитрий ООО "Альфа Нет Телеком" +7(498)785-8-000 раб. +7(495)940-92-11 доп. +7(925)518-10-69 сот. _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/registry%40kyivstar.n...

Confidential/Конфіденційно Thank you. I agree with you, today there is practically no sense in shifting between RIRs. But if someone says you'll pay 10 times (or even bigger) what you pay today because the current fee is "simply unfair", inter RIRs transfer might be an option to think. In that case everything will be fair. Small LIR will stay in RIPE with fair, per single IP, share of spends and big LIRs will receive registry services from other RIRs. At least I don't see any other options to make everybody happy with fees. From: Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2024 2:27 PM To: sdy@a-n-t.ru; Evgeniy Brodskiy <Evgeniy.Brodskiy@kyivstar.net> Cc: Kurt Jaeger <members-discuss@nepustil.net>; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic) It is possible to transfer resources between the RIRs with a bunch of conditions attached and some caveats. For example: 1. both RIRs must approve the intended transfer, 1. there needs to be some kind of justification why it would need to occur, 1. at least in LACNIC's case one would need to re-justify the incoming assignment using their rules, 1. if addresses were considered legacy at RIPE, they would convert to non-legacy when being registered with LACNIC, 1. you'd end up paying both sides of the transaction assuming you're controlling two LIRs under separate RIRs. So, it doesn't really make sense to try to "RIR shop" on price. Transfers might make sense if you want to consolidate assets for M&A purposes somewhere than where they originated. Realistically, if someone were to return IPv4 addresses to a RIR, the returned addresses would in practice instantly be gone as there are waiting lists for these. Kaj ________________________________ From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> on behalf of Evgeniy Brodskiy via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2024 13:28 To: sdy@a-n-t.ru<mailto:sdy@a-n-t.ru> <sdy@a-n-t.ru<mailto:sdy@a-n-t.ru>> Cc: Kurt Jaeger <members-discuss@nepustil.net<mailto:members-discuss@nepustil.net>>; members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> <members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic) Confidential/Конфіденційно Maybe, but to be sure we all understand consequences for this "easy" solution to "complicated problem" I have two questions: - do LIRs have ability to transfer IPv4 networks between RIRs (because for the land example, transfer is not an option) ?? - is this transfer more complicated and costly than have fair share of RIPE spends ? -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> On Behalf Of sdy@a-n-t.ru<mailto:sdy@a-n-t.ru> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2024 12:59 PM To: Evgeniy Brodskiy <Evgeniy.Brodskiy@kyivstar.net<mailto:Evgeniy.Brodskiy@kyivstar.net>> Cc: Kurt Jaeger <members-discuss@nepustil.net<mailto:members-discuss@nepustil.net>>; members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic) Sorry, but my 5 cents... Not only "result in some IPv4 addresses being transferred back to RIPE". Lets do not forget, It will decrease payment for LIR who could not take more IPv4 an AS. So, This will make the relationship between the NCC participants more honest too.

Confidential/Конфіденційно

Hello Kurtis!

I think there is one more circle. Some members simply want to increase the cost of ownership IPv4 address space. Perhaps, from their point of view, this will result in some IPv4 addresses being transferred back to RIPE.

P.S. I believe it is not, a lot of reasons why.

From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> On Behalf Of Kurtis Lindqvist Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2024 11:56 AM To: Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net<mailto:kajtzu@basen.net>>; Kurt Jaeger <members-discuss@nepustil.net<mailto:members-discuss@nepustil.net>> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)

You don't often get email from kurtis@linx.net<mailto:kurtis@linx.net>. Learn why this is important<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>

Hi Kaj!

Isn’t this really at the heart of the problem. In a Venn diagram there are (at least) three circles here, the members with an opinion the mailinglist who want to crystalise the core services and keep RIPE NCC costs lower and see greater efficiency gains, there is the circle of members who respond to the membership survey and are happy and want to keep all services as they are and then there is a circle of the members who actually vote (and possibly manage the payments). I am not convinced there is a great overlap of these circles and so we end up in a situation with very little guidance.

Best Regards,

- kurtis - -- Kurt Erik Lindqvist, CEO T: +44 (0) 20 7645 3528 | https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.l%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cfb242c26a70445f9547d08dc5ec93e06%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638489465674215657%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=MgQELgear4vMtmXLvIKSfQSBD7UaUQ1dpUSch%2F36vwI%3D&reserved=0<http://www.l/> inx.net%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Cbd413097e1 0c441352a808dc5ec54984%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C63 8489448786280462%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV 2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=QEXMYddLt GMe%2B5YroI0pEgvAe3%2BTJBPajNC65st8t6o%3D&reserved=0<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Feur01.saf%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cfb242c26a70445f9547d08dc5ec93e06%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638489465674226014%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=v7S6X1SVvgtjJci3q%2Bs6kI2NOKHGZ9wSBI5uc0kBu7I%3D&reserved=0 <https://eur01.saf/>> elinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linx.net%2F&data=0 5%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Cbd413097e10c441352a808dc5ec 54984%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638489448786299804% 7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik 1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=vtv4hBXwlC5CcMN8aZ1Dfg3aCU ErpIb1fOJhmWNmekk%3D&reserved=0> [b8dd7c7e-5b7a-4bb3-bf55-4265639a41be]<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Feur01.safelinks.protect%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cfb242c26a70445f9547d08dc5ec93e06%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638489465674232394%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=84iHrfmkLKq02Rkq%2FwYIzz%2FaxTx9ICXEEwsN5ykyd5Q%3D&reserved=0 <https://eur01.safelinks.protect/>> ion.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linx.net%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvge niy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Cbd413097e10c441352a808dc5ec54984%7Cf8f9b d573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638489448786313582%7CUnknown%7CT WFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI 6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=VTF2xqEsQquRE5dLjkUMPvI4UP8lVMjkC9k7dUY y2BM%3D&reserved=0> London Internet Exchange Ltd (LINX) C/O WeWork, 2 Minister Court, London, EC3R 7BB, United Kingdom Registered in England number 3137929 [09f5285b-9bf5-4663-a1d5-f335264499f8]<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Feur01.safelinks.protect%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cfb242c26a70445f9547d08dc5ec93e06%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638489465674239193%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=kzF31LzeCrp%2BCoGqLvGIiLEBqYkBXpPANmLNVsXRFtE%3D&reserved=0 <https://eur01.safelinks.protect/>> ion.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Flinx_network&data=05% 7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Cbd413097e10c441352a808dc5ec54 984%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638489448786324932%7C Unknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1h aWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=6iKup8bVtB4LtGLG0TxkuCHpewpX yef3oKar3140azA%3D&reserved=0>[0ab2af08-4510-4094-a068-c92129623c5c]<h ttps://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.l inkedin.com%2Fcompany%2Flinx&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivsta r.net%7Cbd413097e10c441352a808dc5ec54984%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a 30986%7C0%7C0%7C638489448786333281%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4 wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C% 7C&sdata=3DvsDweiQlhS0ZOkvrLzIcLlxahiESXocYqlrQrcssQ%3D&reserved=0>[34 761a22-8ab1-4259-b5a4-c45509cfc94a]<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Feur01.safelinks.protection%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cfb242c26a70445f9547d08dc5ec93e06%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638489465674243897%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=tu0PJxNiD9HNhSF02uPw7vI9ORz9ww6uAW8UV%2FMfu78%3D&reserved=0 <https://eur01.safelinks.protection/>> .outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FLondonInternetExcha nge%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Cbd413097e10c44 1352a808dc5ec54984%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638489 448786341755%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luM zIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=nrAUIZRXumi8m ycHPygzTeP15GicspQVnrotFfWm5WU%3D&reserved=0>[591060a6-addb-47a4-a833- 1c93e4b644f4]<http://http/ <http://http/%0b>> s%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fuser%2FLINXnetwork&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy. Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Cbd413097e10c441352a808dc5ec54984%7Cf8f9bd573 bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638489448786350626%7CUnknown%7CTWFpb GZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0 %3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xEsJW7jwlv9%2FPy9B8fWqM8wXWNGfmxxAqXzViM8rD TY%3D&reserved=0>

From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe. <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net%3cmailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.%0b>> net>> on behalf of Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net<mailto:kajtzu@basen.net<mailto:kajtzu@basen.net%3cmailto:kajtzu@basen.net>>> Date: Tuesday, 16 April 2024 at 19:49 To: Kurt Jaeger <members-discuss@nepustil.net<mailto:members-discuss@nepustil.net<mailto:members-discuss@nepustil.net%3cmailto:members-discuss@nepustil.net>>> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net%3cmailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> <members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net%3cmailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>>> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic) Hi,

Good points.

On the topic of AFRINIC, I would slightly disagree. Membership numbers have been increasing from about 1200 in 2018-ish, when they restated revenue, at around 5.3M USD to the 6M-ish USD I mentioned in my previous email. I haven't actively been following the story there but assumed the legal troubles started FY2021-ish.. since revenue was restated, there was probably something else going on earlier. They spent about 140k on legal in 2022 although only non-audited numbers exist. I'm reading it as if the legal issues themselves did not affect revenue one way or another.

As for RIPE, well, I'm advocating on spending less and crystallizing the value prop because right now it's all over the place.

1. LIRs [must] pay because they need the registry services 2. In exchange they get a ton of services that many do not use at all 3. All services and functions are necessary because [list with many reasons] 4. "We need to increase the fees because of 2 and 3" 5. Goto 1

That being said, the gym analogy someone replied with a few days ago is quite apt. Most people there, too, pay but do not use.

Kaj

Sent from my iPad

________________________________ From: Kurt Jaeger <members-discuss@nepustil.net<mailto:members-discuss@nepustil.net<mailto:members-discuss@nepustil.net%3cmailto:members-discuss@nepustil.net>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 8:06 PM To: Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net<mailto:kajtzu@basen.net<mailto:kajtzu@basen.net%3cmailto:kajtzu@basen.net>>> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net%3cmailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> <members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net%3cmailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>>> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)

[You don't often get email from members-discuss@nepustil.net<mailto:members-discuss@nepustil.net<mailto:members-discuss@nepustil.net%3cmailto:members-discuss@nepustil.net>>. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]

Hi!

Thanks for writing up those stats.

...

Let's do some napkin math and comps with the other RIRs. [...]

RIPE, revenue 38M EUR (40M USD), members 20k = 2 k/member ARIN, revenue 25M USD, members 25k = 1 k/member APNIC, revenue 33M AUD (21M USD), members 10k = 2 k/member LACNIC, revenue 10M USD, members 12k = 0.8 k/member AFRINIC, revenue 6M USD, members 2k = 3 k/member [...]

...

Now, in my opinion, there are a few surprises. ARIN, located in a very expensive country, is quite efficient per member.

I think one has to analyse if ARIN and RIPE do the same when it comes to reach-out, research etc. I'm not sure that ARIN is as active as RIPE is. Also: The language barrier in the service area is much more difficult to traverse than in the ARIN service area. And the RIPE has to cope with a very difficult legal and political landscape compared to ARIN.

...

On the other hand, AFRINIC seems to be rather inefficient.

I would not hold that against AFRINIC, given their legal and political landscape.

-- MfG/Best regards, Kurt Jaeger Now what ? Dr.-Ing. Nepustil & Co. GmbH fon +49 7123 93006-0 pi@nepustil.net<mailto:pi@nepustil.net> Rathausstr. 3 mob +49 171 3101372 72658 Bempflingen _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvgen iy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Cbd413097e10c441352a808dc5ec54984%7Cf8f9bd 573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638489448786359237%7CUnknown%7CTW FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6 Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=c1Ct1rc%2FVEmU%2FQQW9uF0M1pxl%2Fb%2Fu6vt ySSlccitatw%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fsdy%2540a-n-t.ru&da ta=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Cbd413097e10c441352a808d c5ec54984%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638489448786371 577%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTi I6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=N6K4cM8VFSdKljxWbyRHok brVc3o%2FuTxvapypwsGJ48%3D&reserved=0

----------------------------- С уважением Сербулов Дмитрий ООО "Альфа Нет Телеком" +7(498)785-8-000 раб. +7(495)940-92-11 доп. +7(925)518-10-69 сот. _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cfb242c26a70445f9547d08dc5ec93e06%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638489465674248595%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=FRXAYkMcnxY7rLBkIxk8JJojd2slK6NENpaYcoXwHcM%3D&reserved=0<https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss> Unsubscribe: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fregistry%2540kyivstar.net&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cfb242c26a70445f9547d08dc5ec93e06%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638489465674253842%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=MSWMxYSGUNiwtKqYFVfNXWddArq8G6wJRgGcdkjuHPc%3D&reserved=0<https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/registry%40kyivstar.net> _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cfb242c26a70445f9547d08dc5ec93e06%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638489465674259319%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=GieR9cPBEEvjYM%2BZbesLyhBCrABMi%2FCiyolBhIjHBhI%3D&reserved=0<https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss> Unsubscribe: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fkajtzu%2540basen.net&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cfb242c26a70445f9547d08dc5ec93e06%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638489465674264648%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=sytp8oYa7vTGn%2BzWzyjBh5TSBVXnVGyWXAu52VOdAj0%3D&reserved=0<https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/kajtzu%40basen.net>

Yes! And it is why is need to reform budget of NCC too. It is need to divide it by 2 path to. So not in 2025, but in 2026 it will be good try to do.

If you look at the current pricing model from RIPE's angle, everyone is equal in terms of making the budget. In a sense this diversification is good as each member is 1/21570th of the whole. In the big picture it does not really matter if someone is slightly late or cannot pay or it turns out that they're a high risk and aren't invoiced.

With models where some would be paying a larger (or very large) share of the budget, revenue assurance (collections) is much more important.

Also, not everyone needs to be happy with the fee structure. It is enough that the majority is. ??

Kaj ________________________________ From: Evgeniy Brodskiy <Evgeniy.Brodskiy@kyivstar.net> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2024 14:56 To: Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> Cc: Kurt Jaeger <members-discuss@nepustil.net>; members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net>; sdy@a-n-t.ru <sdy@a-n-t.ru> Subject: RE: [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)

You don't often get email from evgeniy.brodskiy@kyivstar.net. Learn why this is important<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>

Confidential/Конфіденційно

Thank you.

I agree with you, today there is practically no sense in shifting between RIRs.

But if someone says you'll pay 10 times (or even bigger) what you pay today because the current fee is "simply unfair", inter RIRs transfer might be an option to think.

In that case everything will be fair. Small LIR will stay in RIPE with fair, per single IP, share of spends and big LIRs will receive registry services from other RIRs.

At least I don't see any other options to make everybody happy with fees.

From: Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2024 2:27 PM To: sdy@a-n-t.ru; Evgeniy Brodskiy <Evgeniy.Brodskiy@kyivstar.net> Cc: Kurt Jaeger <members-discuss@nepustil.net>; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)

It is possible to transfer resources between the RIRs with a bunch of conditions attached and some caveats. For example:

1. both RIRs must approve the intended transfer,

1. there needs to be some kind of justification why it would need to occur,

1. at least in LACNIC's case one would need to re-justify the incoming assignment using their rules,

1. if addresses were considered legacy at RIPE, they would convert to non-legacy when being registered with LACNIC,

1. you'd end up paying both sides of the transaction assuming you're controlling two LIRs under separate RIRs.

So, it doesn't really make sense to try to "RIR shop" on price. Transfers might make sense if you want to consolidate assets for M&A purposes somewhere than where they originated.

Realistically, if someone were to return IPv4 addresses to a RIR, the returned addresses would in practice instantly be gone as there are waiting lists for these.

Kaj

________________________________

From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> on behalf of Evgeniy Brodskiy via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2024 13:28 To: sdy@a-n-t.ru<mailto:sdy@a-n-t.ru> <sdy@a-n-t.ru<mailto:sdy@a-n-t.ru>> Cc: Kurt Jaeger <members-discuss@nepustil.net<mailto:members-discuss@nepustil.net>>; members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> <members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)

Confidential/Конфіденційно

Maybe, but to be sure we all understand consequences for this "easy" solution to "complicated problem" I have two questions: - do LIRs have ability to transfer IPv4 networks between RIRs (because for the land example, transfer is not an option) ?? - is this transfer more complicated and costly than have fair share of RIPE spends ?

-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> On Behalf Of sdy@a-n-t.ru<mailto:sdy@a-n-t.ru> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2024 12:59 PM To: Evgeniy Brodskiy <Evgeniy.Brodskiy@kyivstar.net<mailto:Evgeniy.Brodskiy@kyivstar.net>> Cc: Kurt Jaeger <members-discuss@nepustil.net<mailto:members-discuss@nepustil.net>>; members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)

Sorry, but my 5 cents...

Not only "result in some IPv4 addresses being transferred back to RIPE". Lets do not forget, It will decrease payment for LIR who could not take more IPv4 an AS. So, This will make the relationship between the NCC participants more honest too.

...

Confidential/Конфіденційно

Hello Kurtis!

I think there is one more circle. Some members simply want to increase the cost of ownership IPv4 address space. Perhaps, from their point of view, this will result in some IPv4 addresses being transferred back to RIPE.

P.S. I believe it is not, a lot of reasons why.

From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> On Behalf Of Kurtis Lindqvist Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2024 11:56 AM To: Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net<mailto:kajtzu@basen.net>>; Kurt Jaeger <members-discuss@nepustil.net<mailto:members-discuss@nepustil.net>> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)

You don't often get email from kurtis@linx.net<mailto:kurtis@linx.net>. Learn why this is important<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>

Hi Kaj!

Isn’t this really at the heart of the problem. In a Venn diagram there are (at least) three circles here, the members with an opinion the mailinglist who want to crystalise the core services and keep RIPE NCC costs lower and see greater efficiency gains, there is the circle of members who respond to the membership survey and are happy and want to keep all services as they are and then there is a circle of the members who actually vote (and possibly manage the payments). I am not convinced there is a great overlap of these circles and so we end up in a situation with very little guidance.

Best Regards,

- kurtis - -- Kurt Erik Lindqvist, CEO T: +44 (0) 20 7645 3528 | https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.l%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cfb242c26a70445f9547d08dc5ec93e06%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638489465674215657%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=MgQELgear4vMtmXLvIKSfQSBD7UaUQ1dpUSch%2F36vwI%3D&reserved=0<http://www.l/> inx.net%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Cbd413097e1 0c441352a808dc5ec54984%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C63 8489448786280462%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV 2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=QEXMYddLt GMe%2B5YroI0pEgvAe3%2BTJBPajNC65st8t6o%3D&reserved=0<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Feur01.saf%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cfb242c26a70445f9547d08dc5ec93e06%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638489465674226014%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=v7S6X1SVvgtjJci3q%2Bs6kI2NOKHGZ9wSBI5uc0kBu7I%3D&reserved=0 <https://eur01.saf/>> elinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linx.net%2F&data=0 5%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Cbd413097e10c441352a808dc5ec 54984%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638489448786299804% 7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik 1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=vtv4hBXwlC5CcMN8aZ1Dfg3aCU ErpIb1fOJhmWNmekk%3D&reserved=0> [b8dd7c7e-5b7a-4bb3-bf55-4265639a41be]<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Feur01.safelinks.protect%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cfb242c26a70445f9547d08dc5ec93e06%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638489465674232394%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=84iHrfmkLKq02Rkq%2FwYIzz%2FaxTx9ICXEEwsN5ykyd5Q%3D&reserved=0 <https://eur01.safelinks.protect/>> ion.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linx.net%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvge niy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Cbd413097e10c441352a808dc5ec54984%7Cf8f9b d573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638489448786313582%7CUnknown%7CT WFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI 6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=VTF2xqEsQquRE5dLjkUMPvI4UP8lVMjkC9k7dUY y2BM%3D&reserved=0> London Internet Exchange Ltd (LINX) C/O WeWork, 2 Minister Court, London, EC3R 7BB, United Kingdom Registered in England number 3137929 [09f5285b-9bf5-4663-a1d5-f335264499f8]<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Feur01.safelinks.protect%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cfb242c26a70445f9547d08dc5ec93e06%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638489465674239193%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=kzF31LzeCrp%2BCoGqLvGIiLEBqYkBXpPANmLNVsXRFtE%3D&reserved=0 <https://eur01.safelinks.protect/>> ion.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Flinx_network&data=05% 7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Cbd413097e10c441352a808dc5ec54 984%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638489448786324932%7C Unknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1h aWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=6iKup8bVtB4LtGLG0TxkuCHpewpX yef3oKar3140azA%3D&reserved=0>[0ab2af08-4510-4094-a068-c92129623c5c]<h ttps://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.l inkedin.com%2Fcompany%2Flinx&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivsta r.net%7Cbd413097e10c441352a808dc5ec54984%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a 30986%7C0%7C0%7C638489448786333281%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4 wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C% 7C&sdata=3DvsDweiQlhS0ZOkvrLzIcLlxahiESXocYqlrQrcssQ%3D&reserved=0>[34 761a22-8ab1-4259-b5a4-c45509cfc94a]<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Feur01.safelinks.protection%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cfb242c26a70445f9547d08dc5ec93e06%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638489465674243897%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=tu0PJxNiD9HNhSF02uPw7vI9ORz9ww6uAW8UV%2FMfu78%3D&reserved=0 <https://eur01.safelinks.protection/>> .outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FLondonInternetExcha nge%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Cbd413097e10c44 1352a808dc5ec54984%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638489 448786341755%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luM zIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=nrAUIZRXumi8m ycHPygzTeP15GicspQVnrotFfWm5WU%3D&reserved=0>[591060a6-addb-47a4-a833- 1c93e4b644f4]<http://http/ <http://http/%0b>> s%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fuser%2FLINXnetwork&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy. Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Cbd413097e10c441352a808dc5ec54984%7Cf8f9bd573 bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638489448786350626%7CUnknown%7CTWFpb GZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0 %3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xEsJW7jwlv9%2FPy9B8fWqM8wXWNGfmxxAqXzViM8rD TY%3D&reserved=0>

From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe. <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net%3cmailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.%0b>> net>> on behalf of Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net<mailto:kajtzu@basen.net<mailto:kajtzu@basen.net%3cmailto:kajtzu@basen.net>>> Date: Tuesday, 16 April 2024 at 19:49 To: Kurt Jaeger <members-discuss@nepustil.net<mailto:members-discuss@nepustil.net<mailto:members-discuss@nepustil.net%3cmailto:members-discuss@nepustil.net>>> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net%3cmailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> <members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net%3cmailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>>> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic) Hi,

Good points.

On the topic of AFRINIC, I would slightly disagree. Membership numbers have been increasing from about 1200 in 2018-ish, when they restated revenue, at around 5.3M USD to the 6M-ish USD I mentioned in my previous email. I haven't actively been following the story there but assumed the legal troubles started FY2021-ish.. since revenue was restated, there was probably something else going on earlier. They spent about 140k on legal in 2022 although only non-audited numbers exist. I'm reading it as if the legal issues themselves did not affect revenue one way or another.

As for RIPE, well, I'm advocating on spending less and crystallizing the value prop because right now it's all over the place.

1. LIRs [must] pay because they need the registry services 2. In exchange they get a ton of services that many do not use at all 3. All services and functions are necessary because [list with many reasons] 4. "We need to increase the fees because of 2 and 3" 5. Goto 1

That being said, the gym analogy someone replied with a few days ago is quite apt. Most people there, too, pay but do not use.

Kaj

Sent from my iPad

________________________________ From: Kurt Jaeger <members-discuss@nepustil.net<mailto:members-discuss@nepustil.net<mailto:members-discuss@nepustil.net%3cmailto:members-discuss@nepustil.net>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 8:06 PM To: Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net<mailto:kajtzu@basen.net<mailto:kajtzu@basen.net%3cmailto:kajtzu@basen.net>>> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net%3cmailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> <members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net%3cmailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>>> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)

[You don't often get email from members-discuss@nepustil.net<mailto:members-discuss@nepustil.net<mailto:members-discuss@nepustil.net%3cmailto:members-discuss@nepustil.net>>. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]

Hi!

Thanks for writing up those stats.

...

Let's do some napkin math and comps with the other RIRs. [...]

RIPE, revenue 38M EUR (40M USD), members 20k = 2 k/member ARIN, revenue 25M USD, members 25k = 1 k/member APNIC, revenue 33M AUD (21M USD), members 10k = 2 k/member LACNIC, revenue 10M USD, members 12k = 0.8 k/member AFRINIC, revenue 6M USD, members 2k = 3 k/member [...]

...

Now, in my opinion, there are a few surprises. ARIN, located in a very expensive country, is quite efficient per member.

I think one has to analyse if ARIN and RIPE do the same when it comes to reach-out, research etc. I'm not sure that ARIN is as active as RIPE is. Also: The language barrier in the service area is much more difficult to traverse than in the ARIN service area. And the RIPE has to cope with a very difficult legal and political landscape compared to ARIN.

...

On the other hand, AFRINIC seems to be rather inefficient.

I would not hold that against AFRINIC, given their legal and political landscape.

-- MfG/Best regards, Kurt Jaeger Now what ? Dr.-Ing. Nepustil & Co. GmbH fon +49 7123 93006-0 pi@nepustil.net<mailto:pi@nepustil.net> Rathausstr. 3 mob +49 171 3101372 72658 Bempflingen _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvgen iy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Cbd413097e10c441352a808dc5ec54984%7Cf8f9bd 573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638489448786359237%7CUnknown%7CTW FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6 Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=c1Ct1rc%2FVEmU%2FQQW9uF0M1pxl%2Fb%2Fu6vt ySSlccitatw%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fsdy%2540a-n-t.ru&da ta=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Cbd413097e10c441352a808d c5ec54984%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638489448786371 577%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTi I6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=N6K4cM8VFSdKljxWbyRHok brVc3o%2FuTxvapypwsGJ48%3D&reserved=0

----------------------------- С уважением Сербулов Дмитрий ООО "Альфа Нет Телеком" +7(498)785-8-000 раб. +7(495)940-92-11 доп. +7(925)518-10-69 сот.

_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cfb242c26a70445f9547d08dc5ec93e06%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638489465674248595%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=FRXAYkMcnxY7rLBkIxk8JJojd2slK6NENpaYcoXwHcM%3D&reserved=0<https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss> Unsubscribe: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fregistry%2540kyivstar.net&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cfb242c26a70445f9547d08dc5ec93e06%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638489465674253842%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=MSWMxYSGUNiwtKqYFVfNXWddArq8G6wJRgGcdkjuHPc%3D&reserved=0<https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/registry%40kyivstar.net> _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cfb242c26a70445f9547d08dc5ec93e06%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638489465674259319%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=GieR9cPBEEvjYM%2BZbesLyhBCrABMi%2FCiyolBhIjHBhI%3D&reserved=0<https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss> Unsubscribe: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fkajtzu%2540basen.net&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cfb242c26a70445f9547d08dc5ec93e06%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638489465674264648%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=sytp8oYa7vTGn%2BzWzyjBh5TSBVXnVGyWXAu52VOdAj0%3D&reserved=0<https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/kajtzu%40basen.net>

----------------------------- С уважением Сербулов Дмитрий ООО "Альфа Нет Телеком" +7(498)785-8-000 раб. +7(495)940-92-11 доп. +7(925)518-10-69 сот.

The IPv4-less LIR should be able to buy addresses on the market pretty much immediately. The going rate for a /24 seems to be somewhere between 6k and 12k USD depending (+ transaction costs) on RIR and some nondisclosed factors. Assuming the IPV4-less LIR is some kind of entity that needs, well, IPv4-addresses and has some kind of funding/revenue, I'd imagine that the decision in favor of acquiring addresses is quite straightforward. In that sense I do not understand the ones on the waitlist. Kaj ________________________________ From: Dmitry Kohmanyuk <dk@hostmaster.ua> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2024 17:14 To: Evgeniy Brodskiy <Evgeniy.Brodskiy@kyivstar.net>; Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> Cc: Kurt Jaeger <members-discuss@nepustil.net>; members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic) On Wed, 17 Apr 2024, at 14:56, Evgeniy Brodskiy via members-discuss wrote: Confidential/Конфіденційно I love those confidential markings :) Thank you. I agree with you, today there is practically no sense in shifting between RIRs. But if someone says you'll pay 10 times (or even bigger) what you pay today because the current fee is "simply unfair", inter RIRs transfer might be an option to think. In that case everything will be fair. Small LIR will stay in RIPE with fair, per single IP, share of spends and big LIRs will receive registry services from other RIRs. At least I don't see any other options to make everybody happy with fees. And this is why we have this balance: for a big IPv4 block LIR (from the RIPE region), it's very comfortable to stay in the RIPE region and save a lot of euros, for a smaller IPv4 block LIR, the cost of moving to ARIN or LACNIC is too high, and the risk is not worth the savings, For an IPv4-less LIR, there is no way to get these addresses faster anyway (they are on the waiting list). So nobody leaves the big boy-friendly club, and those who have been staying for a long time enjoy the benefits of membership, meetings, training, Atlas, you name it. And the General Meetings, of course. (I enjoy it all, too.) -- dk@

I dont think so. Members want members to pay proportional as their resources. The increase of the costs is a result of the solution proposals, because actually for example one member with about %0,5 of the general resources pays the same as a member with about %0,005 or may be %0,0005 only. -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards Murat TERZIOGLU PREBITS Bochumer Str. 20 44866 Bochum Deutschland Telefon: 0234/58825994 Telefax: 0234/58825995 <http://www.prebits.de/> www.prebits.de <mailto:info@prebits.de> info@prebits.de USt-ID: DE315418902 Von: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> Im Auftrag von Evgeniy Brodskiy via members-discuss Gesendet: Mittwoch, 17. April 2024 11:50 An: Kurtis Lindqvist <kurtis@linx.net> Cc: Kurt Jaeger <members-discuss@nepustil.net>; members-discuss@ripe.net Betreff: Re: [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic) Confidential/Конфіденційно Hello Kurtis! I think there is one more circle. Some members simply want to increase the cost of ownership IPv4 address space. Perhaps, from their point of view, this will result in some IPv4 addresses being transferred back to RIPE. P.S. I believe it is not, a lot of reasons why. From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> > On Behalf Of Kurtis Lindqvist Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2024 11:56 AM To: Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net <mailto:kajtzu@basen.net> >; Kurt Jaeger <members-discuss@nepustil.net <mailto:members-discuss@nepustil.net> > Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic) You don't often get email from kurtis@linx.net <mailto:kurtis@linx.net> . Learn why this is important <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification> Hi Kaj! Isn’t this really at the heart of the problem. In a Venn diagram there are (at least) three circles here, the members with an opinion the mailinglist who want to crystalise the core services and keep RIPE NCC costs lower and see greater efficiency gains, there is the circle of members who respond to the membership survey and are happy and want to keep all services as they are and then there is a circle of the members who actually vote (and possibly manage the payments). I am not convinced there is a great overlap of these circles and so we end up in a situation with very little guidance. Best Regards, - kurtis - -- Kurt Erik Lindqvist, CEO T: +44 (0) 20 7645 3528 | <http://www.linx.net/> www.linx.net <https://www.linx.net/> London Internet Exchange Ltd (LINX) C/O WeWork, 2 Minister Court, London, EC3R 7BB, United Kingdom Registered in England number 3137929 <https://twitter.com/linx_network> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/linx> <https://www.facebook.com/LondonInternetExchange/> <https://www.youtube.com/user/LINXnetwork> From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> > on behalf of Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net <mailto:kajtzu@basen.net> > Date: Tuesday, 16 April 2024 at 19:49 To: Kurt Jaeger <members-discuss@nepustil.net <mailto:members-discuss@nepustil.net> > Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> <members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic) Hi, Good points. On the topic of AFRINIC, I would slightly disagree. Membership numbers have been increasing from about 1200 in 2018-ish, when they restated revenue, at around 5.3M USD to the 6M-ish USD I mentioned in my previous email. I haven't actively been following the story there but assumed the legal troubles started FY2021-ish.. since revenue was restated, there was probably something else going on earlier. They spent about 140k on legal in 2022 although only non-audited numbers exist. I'm reading it as if the legal issues themselves did not affect revenue one way or another. As for RIPE, well, I'm advocating on spending less and crystallizing the value prop because right now it's all over the place. 1. LIRs [must] pay because they need the registry services 2. In exchange they get a ton of services that many do not use at all 3. All services and functions are necessary because [list with many reasons] 4. "We need to increase the fees because of 2 and 3" 5. Goto 1 That being said, the gym analogy someone replied with a few days ago is quite apt. Most people there, too, pay but do not use. Kaj Sent from my iPad _____ From: Kurt Jaeger <members-discuss@nepustil.net <mailto:members-discuss@nepustil.net> > Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 8:06 PM To: Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net <mailto:kajtzu@basen.net> > Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> <members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic) [You don't often get email from members-discuss@nepustil.net <mailto:members-discuss@nepustil.net> . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Hi! Thanks for writing up those stats.

Let's do some napkin math and comps with the other RIRs. [...]

RIPE, revenue 38M EUR (40M USD), members 20k = 2 k/member ARIN, revenue 25M USD, members 25k = 1 k/member APNIC, revenue 33M AUD (21M USD), members 10k = 2 k/member LACNIC, revenue 10M USD, members 12k = 0.8 k/member AFRINIC, revenue 6M USD, members 2k = 3 k/member [...]

Now, in my opinion, there are a few surprises. ARIN, located in a very expensive country, is quite efficient per member.

I think one has to analyse if ARIN and RIPE do the same when it comes to reach-out, research etc. I'm not sure that ARIN is as active as RIPE is. Also: The language barrier in the service area is much more difficult to traverse than in the ARIN service area. And the RIPE has to cope with a very difficult legal and political landscape compared to ARIN.

On the other hand, AFRINIC seems to be rather inefficient.

I would not hold that against AFRINIC, given their legal and political landscape. -- MfG/Best regards, Kurt Jaeger Now what ? Dr.-Ing. Nepustil & Co. GmbH fon +49 7123 93006-0 pi@nepustil.net <mailto:pi@nepustil.net> Rathausstr. 3 mob +49 171 3101372 72658 Bempflingen

On 17.04.24 11:50, Evgeniy Brodskiy via members-discuss wrote:

I think there is one more circle. Some members simply want to increase the cost of ownership IPv4 address space.

From: members-discuss <...> On Behalf Of Kurtis Lindqvist Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2024 11:56 AM

Isn’t this really at the heart of the problem. In a Venn diagram there are (at least) three circles here, the members with an opinion the mailinglist who want to crystalise the core services and keep RIPE NCC costs lower and see greater efficiency gains, there is the circle of members who respond to the membership survey and are happy and want to keep all services as they are and then there is a circle of the members who actually vote (and possibly manage the payments). I am not convinced there is a great overlap of these circles and so we end up in a situation with very little guidance.

Actually, the *most* important circle is *still* missing in the picture you paint: The "big corp" members of RIPE that so many suspect of intentionally mooching off the small LIRs. Because whatever your/our first move is, they'll *still* be present, be RIPE members (possibly *several*), have deeper pockets, and (supposedly) want to spend it to counteract you. Which has an overwhelming effect on the timelines: -- It takes half an hour to take your personal definition of "fair" (or whatever term you prefer), do an off-the-cuff computation based on it, and post your favorite alternative charging scheme asking to have it put to vote as well. -- It takes maybe a couple hours for someone to play advocatus diaboli and point out how "big corp" could react so as to game that scheme and turn it *against* you. (Yes, there have been several such replies in the current spate of list mails, too, essentially falling on deaf ears.) -- It takes until a GM - *ideally* the next, but don't hold your breath - to have a vote on what definition *RIPE* and its executives shall have and use for "fair" so that we can hold all future proposed charging schemes against it *beforehand*. -- It probably will take *several years* of refinement to get all the loopholes ironed out before we have a, so to say, "scheme of charging schemes" that actually prevents "big evil corp" rolling it back from *within* RIPE. -- We will *NEVER* get to the point where "big corp" cannot use their means to launch, e.g., a political campaign a la "let's replace RIPE with Something Better™, thanks to the power of Good Legislation™!" (Which, in my book, means that we *should not* cut RIPE down to the budget covering the bare necessities and not more. Ask for the extra to be refunded at the end of the fiscal year if unused, but reacting to such a campaign with "ah, let's have a budget to fight that *next* year" is literally a nonstarter.) -- (In the meantime, the charging schemes that'll get the votes will likely still be the ones proposed by RIPE executives, because the simple mechanism of "he made that bed, knowing that he'll have to lie in it" makes it more trustworthy to the average voter than some other random guy's suggestion.) Kind regards, -- Jochen Bern Systemingenieur Binect GmbH

Hi Kaj, Benchmarking is always useful, but sometimes comparing may be a bit difficult. On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 at 18:27, Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> wrote:

RIPE, revenue 38M EUR (40M USD), members 20k = 2 k/member ARIN, revenue 25M USD, members 25k = 1 k/member APNIC, revenue 33M AUD (21M USD), members 10k = 2 k/member LACNIC, revenue 10M USD, members 12k = 0.8 k/member AFRINIC, revenue 6M USD, members 2k = 3 k/member

APNIC and LACNIC has National Internet Registries that handle members in their countries which makes comparison difficult. ARIN has recently changed their membership structure to include the equivalent of our End Users and individual ASN holders. They have also removed the distinction between PI and PA. If the RIPE NCC did the same, we would more than double the number of members and bring the average to less than 1k/member. -- Sincerely, Hans Petter Holen Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer RIPE NCC

Hello, I want to chime in with request for some kind of clarification. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Original intent behind whole LIR and PI/PA concept was that LIRs were some kind of ISP that provided access to Internet for end users thus needed numerical resources. Since some of these customers might require persistent resources (addresses, asn etc), but they can't afford/don't want to be LIR themselves (for example hosting company). Thus idea of sponsored resources came into life (which btw should be solution for hobby nets and small organisations). This leads me to following questions: 1. How many LIRs are organisations whose primary bussiness operation is providing access to Internet? 2. Removing distinction between PI and PA (which I understand forces PI resources holder to open their own LIR account) should introduce new members. Can you please calculate how count of these new membership compares to current number of LIRs that are about to be closed/hold no resources? Best regards, Łukasz Jarosz wt., 16 kwi 2024, 20:57 użytkownik Hans Petter Holen <hph@ripe.net> napisał:

Hi Kaj, Benchmarking is always useful, but sometimes comparing may be a bit difficult.

On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 at 18:27, Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> wrote:

...

RIPE, revenue 38M EUR (40M USD), members 20k = 2 k/member ARIN, revenue 25M USD, members 25k = 1 k/member APNIC, revenue 33M AUD (21M USD), members 10k = 2 k/member LACNIC, revenue 10M USD, members 12k = 0.8 k/member AFRINIC, revenue 6M USD, members 2k = 3 k/member

APNIC and LACNIC has National Internet Registries that handle members in their countries which makes comparison difficult.

ARIN has recently changed their membership structure to include the equivalent of our End Users and individual ASN holders. They have also removed the distinction between PI and PA.

If the RIPE NCC did the same, we would more than double the number of members and bring the average to less than 1k/member.

-- Sincerely,

Hans Petter Holen Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer RIPE NCC _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/lukasz%40jarosz.pl

Hi, Both RIPE and their CDN seem to use DNSSEC. Indeed, the CDN utilizes LE as the issuing CA. The LE does publish the list of issued certificates as part of Certificate Transparency, as far as I know the list is public and can be consumed by anyone. Is there some specific concern you're thinking of? Kaj Sent from my iPad ________________________________ From: Andrey Korolyov <andrey@xdel.ru> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 10:12 PM To: Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> Cc: Petru Bunea <suport@bunea.eu>; Daniel Pearson <daniel@privatesystems.net>; members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic) You don't often get email from andrey@xdel.ru. Learn why this is important<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification> RIPE, revenue 38M EUR (40M USD), members 20k = 2 k/member ARIN, revenue 25M USD, members 25k = 1 k/member APNIC, revenue 33M AUD (21M USD), members 10k = 2 k/member LACNIC, revenue 10M USD, members 12k = 0.8 k/member AFRINIC, revenue 6M USD, members 2k = 3 k/member Thanks for the numbers Kaj. BTW I wonder how it was possible for two of five organisations listed, including RIPE, to not allocate the funds for a purchase of a regular SSL certificate for their resources, using instead free-tier CA (and RIPE uses the worst one in terms of hijack-ability, Let's Encrypt).

If you have a state actor with their own CA they can issue whatever Evil Certificate that they need although I guess it would leave some kind of trail. That does sound slightly inconvenient. Agree that it is more convenient to have someone else issuing them. Plausible deniability and all that. The browsers really don’t care which CA issues the certificate and CAA records aren’t checked by the browsers (by design, I think?) and HPKP is not used anymore either? How does paying for a DV or the green EV - I think browsers don’t show this anymore - Good Certificate help then? Besides spending 1000 or whatever and ending up with the Good Certificate? The state actor can still have a Evil Certificate issued by someone else and your browser will be just as happy seeing it as if it were your Good Certificate. I guess the issuing CA should check CAA but do they all do that? I've never added any CAA records anywhere and have over the years procured a few of certificates. So I'm guessing that also not a real option. How should this be fixed, in your opinion, considering the above? Kaj Sent from my iPad ________________________________ From: Andrey Korolyov <andrey@xdel.ru> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 10:44:53 PM To: Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> Cc: Petru Bunea <suport@bunea.eu>; Daniel Pearson <daniel@privatesystems.net>; members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic) [You don't often get email from andrey@xdel.ru. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 10:30 PM Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> wrote:

Hi,

Both RIPE and their CDN seem to use DNSSEC.

Indeed, the CDN utilizes LE as the issuing CA. The LE does publish the list of issued certificates as part of Certificate Transparency, as far as I know the list is public and can be consumed by anyone.

Is there some specific concern you're thinking of?

Kaj

Yes, there is a simple way for circumventing the issuing procedure of LE certificates when an actor is able to act as man-in-the-middle, see [1] for example. Theoretical assumptions of the same kind of attack circulated around security-related communities since beginning of LE deployment and it's quite strange to see the org with annual budget of tens on M$ using zero-liability CA for the primary web resource. 1. https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftherecord.media%2Fjabber-ru-alleged-government-wiretap-expired-tls-certificate&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cd9f99cf886224ef283a108dc5e4db856%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638488935117222243%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=If7ZCGnKBRvSCs5t%2Faw8RuEqF53HS391HmnKe4cyMzE%3D&reserved=0<https://therecord.media/jabber-ru-alleged-government-wiretap-expired-tls-certificate>

Le Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 09:33:48AM -0500, Daniel Pearson [daniel@privatesystems.net] a écrit:

Everybody is still fighting about the wrong question.

The question everyone should be arguing about is why it costs 40 million a year to run an internet registry for 20,000~ members.

Sure, the bulk of the expense is due to navigating the legal landscape of multiple member nations, but you can't tell me that's 20-30 million a year in legal fee's.

Both questions need to be handled, but they don't need to be tightly linked. Short term question is how to provide funds for the current 40M budget, in a model that fit the best. Expenses reduction is a multi-year plan. -- Dominique Rousseau Neuronnexion, Prestataire Internet & Intranet 6 rue des Hautes cornes - 80000 Amiens tel: 03 22 71 61 90 - fax: 03 22 71 61 99 - http://www.neuronnexion.coop

This always happens when a party can decide their pay by themselves. It's just human nature. If you could decide to earn 10% more this year, by just your decision without any practical repercussions -- wouldn't you do it? All anyone needs to do is look at any government in the world, and their ever growing budgets and ever higher "money" printing. There's no checks and balances really, so it always happens. It's like taxes, they only ever go up -- never down. -Aleksi Magna Capax Finland Oy On 16/04/2024 17.54, Daniel Pearson wrote:

I'm pretty sure we all told RIPE loudly last year to reduce it's budget but were ignored and now they are proposing an even higher budget this year.

So no, the two items are very linked.

On 4/16/24 9:48 AM, Dominique Rousseau wrote:

...

Le Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 09:33:48AM -0500, Daniel Pearson [daniel@privatesystems.net] a écrit:

...

Everybody is still fighting about the wrong question.

The question everyone should be arguing about is why it costs 40 million a year to run an internet registry for 20,000~ members.

Sure, the bulk of the expense is due to navigating the legal landscape of multiple member nations, but you can't tell me that's 20-30 million a year in legal fee's.

Both questions need to be handled, but they don't need to be tightly linked. Short term question is how to provide funds for the current 40M budget, in a model that fit the best.

Expenses reduction is a multi-year plan.

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

I guess UK Gov spend MUCH MUCH MUCH MORE on all kinds of stationery in offices nor that amount :D So, dont need to worry about UK Gov, they pretty rich. On 16.04.2024 14:25, Daniel Pearson wrote:

I'd like to see you tell the UK Government that they are going to pay 1 Euro per IP for a /8

Let me know how that conversation goes :)

On 4/16/24 9:20 AM, Petru Bunea wrote:

...

This is NOT a good example. In this example we see how a /22 allocation pays 1094 EUR per year, which is close to 1 EUR / 1 IP / Year, and a /8 allocation pays 48.000 EUR, which is 0.003 EURO / 1 IP / Year, which is 333 times less expensive. So tell me again how this is a good example.

Thanks

...

On 16 Apr 2024, at 17:07, Firma KOMPEX <gabi@kompex.pl> wrote:

very good example Sebastian

Others are doing it and Europe should too

We should be pioneers and we are in the Middle Ages. We are chipping away at such obvious issues from others.

The fixed fee for the LIR Account + the resource fee can stay they need to be calculated

But necessarily, as you pointed out, IP usage should be accounted for

Pozdrawiam Gabriel Sulka

------------------------------------------------------------- Firma Handlowo - Usługowa KOMPEX 34-400 Nowy Targ ul. Szaflarska 62A tel(18) 264-60-55 pn-pt 09:30 - 17:00 sb. 09:30 - 13:00 www.kompex.pl <http://www.kompex.pl/>;bok@kompex.pl;kompex@nowytarg.net

-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Sebastien Brossier Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 3:51 PM To:members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)

Hello all,

I propose to add the following model to the charging scheme 2025 voting options.

*1 - Introduction:*

This charging scheme is heavily inspired by APNIC. If you are not familiar with this, you can see an example here: https://www.apnic.net/get-ip/apnic-membership/how-much-does-it-cost/member-f ees-calculator/

The main idea is that each LIR pays according to its resources, but not linearly. You don't pay twice as much because you have twice as much resources. The resulting fees are similar to what the other RIRs are charging, with infinite granularity (no categories).

It can be easily tweaked to reach any desired budget, and will remain viable when IPv4 has disappeared.

I have made IPv6 less punitive compared to APNIC, because RIPE has larger initial allocations.

Independent resources fees, sign-up fee, lack of ASN fee, remain as before in this proposal. I believe it is better to have a separate debate on these subjects at a later time.

The goal of this charging scheme is to lower the cost for members with a very low amount of resources, in order to attract newcomers and retain existing members. This way the RIPE NCC membership will remain numerous and diverse.

*2 - Charging scheme:*

(Warning: math incoming !)

IPv4_count = number of IPv4 addresses allocated              (excluding independent assignments and legacy) IPv6_count = number of IPv6 /56 subnets allocated              (excluding independent assignments)

Base_Fee = 638 EUR Bit_Factor = 1.31 Minimum_Fee = 500 EUR Offset_IPv4 = 8 Offset_IPv6 = 24

IPv4_Fee = Base_Fee * Bit_Factor^(log2(IPv4_count) - Offset_IPv4) IPv6_Fee = Base_Fee * Bit_Factor^(log2(IPv6_count) - Offset_IPv6)

Fee = max(IPv4_Fee, IPv6_Fee, Minimum_Fee)         + 50 EUR per independent resource (excluding ASN)

My simulation, based on public data (2024-03-28), results in an average fee of 1900 EUR per LIR (+ 50 EUR per independent resource), so it should provide the same budget as the other options. If RIPE NCC find different results with their simulation, they can adjust Base_Fee.

*3 - Examples:*

50 EUR per independent resource should be added to all these fees.

No allocations: 500 EUR IPv4 /24 and/or IPv6 /32: 638 EUR IPv4 /23 and/or IPv6 /31: 835 EUR IPv4 /22 and/or IPv6 /30:1094 EUR IPv4 /21 and/or IPv6 /29:1434 EUR IPv4 /20 and/or IPv6 /28:1878 EUR IPv4 /19 and/or IPv6 /27:2461 EUR IPv4 /18 and/or IPv6 /26:3224 EUR IPv4 /17 and/or IPv6 /25:4223 EUR IPv4 /16 and/or IPv6 /24:5533 EUR IPv4 /15 and/or IPv6 /23:7248 EUR IPv4 /14 and/or IPv6 /22:9495 EUR IPv4 /13 and/or IPv6 /21:12439 EUR IPv4 /12 and/or IPv6 /20:16295 EUR IPv4 /11 and/or IPv6 /19:21347 EUR IPv4 /10 and/or IPv6 /18:27965 EUR IPv4 /9 and/or IPv6 /17:36634 EUR IPv4 /8 and/or IPv6 /16:47991 EUR

Largest LIR is just below 60 kEUR.

There are no categories, so your fee can be somewhere between these numbers.

If you think the fees are too high, I invite you to read the fee schedule of the other RIRs.

Thank you if you've read this far.

Best regards, Sebastien Brossier

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

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

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

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

Price you pay is not exactly amount of resources. Otherwise LIRs without v4 subnets should pay zero :) Yes, but 333 times the difference is by any definition nowhere near “not exactly”. LIRs without v4 subnets do not cause a lot of tickets, do they? Yes, they should not pay zero, and 500 EUR seems a good and fair amount to start with. Don’t have any comment there.

We are not trying to tax resource holders. Scheme exists to somehow evaluate possibilities of LIR tied to their real size and RIPE budget needs. It will never be exact - someone always will be unhappy. You are right, this is not tax. Taxes usually go progressively, not regressively. The mentioned calculation and example is regressing in money paid per resource, and is doing nothing more than encourage big resource holders to merge on bigger and bigger LIR accounts, rather than leave more IPv4 space back into the market. Honestly, 50.000 EUR for someone that has a /8 is around 4.000 EUR per month. That is pocket change, and is NOT a motivation to release more IPv4 space back into the market.

Honestly, seeing small LIRs protecting huge / whale resource holders reminds me of the workers that protect the interest of billionaires. Thanks

On 16 Apr 2024, at 17:37, Mihail Fedorov <mihail@fedorov.net> wrote:

Hello.

Very good example of what it actually can be - with real math. Thank you!

I once again advise to put less charges on IPv6. Genrally it’s a good and correct approach. But in current reality this will result need to restructure v6 subnets for everyone, who opted into /29 but using /32 (which is what many small LIRs do) and create additional work for everyone. In some distant future there will be no difference but for now every occasion to motivate networks to have IPv6 should be valued.

Apart from that that’s the scheme I would be happy to vote for.

...

On 16 Apr 2024, at 17:21, Petru Bunea <suport@bunea.eu <mailto:suport@bunea.eu>> wrote:

This is NOT a good example. In this example we see how a /22 allocation pays 1094 EUR per year, which is close to 1 EUR / 1 IP / Year, and a /8 allocation pays 48.000 EUR, which is 0.003 EURO / 1 IP / Year, which is 333 times less expensive. So tell me again how this is a good example.

We are not trying to tax resource holders. Scheme exists to somehow evaluate possibilities of LIR tied to their real size and RIPE budget needs. It will never be exact - someone always will be unhappy. But this is how *all* other RIRs are charging.

Price you pay is not exactly amount of resources. Otherwise LIRs without v4 subnets should pay zero :)

Current alternative is everyone paying twice of what you mentioned regardless of resources.

...

Thanks

...

On 16 Apr 2024, at 17:07, Firma KOMPEX <gabi@kompex.pl <mailto:gabi@kompex.pl>> wrote:

very good example Sebastian

Others are doing it and Europe should too

We should be pioneers and we are in the Middle Ages. We are chipping away at such obvious issues from others.

The fixed fee for the LIR Account + the resource fee can stay they need to be calculated

But necessarily, as you pointed out, IP usage should be accounted for

Pozdrawiam Gabriel Sulka

------------------------------------------------------------- Firma Handlowo - Usługowa KOMPEX 34-400 Nowy Targ ul. Szaflarska 62A tel(18) 264-60-55 pn-pt 09:30 - 17:00 sb. 09:30 - 13:00 www.kompex.pl <http://www.kompex.pl/> ; bok@kompex.pl <mailto:bok@kompex.pl> ; kompex@nowytarg.net <mailto:kompex@nowytarg.net>

-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> On Behalf Of Sebastien Brossier Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 3:51 PM To: members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)

Hello all,

I propose to add the following model to the charging scheme 2025 voting options.

*1 - Introduction:*

This charging scheme is heavily inspired by APNIC. If you are not familiar with this, you can see an example here: https://www.apnic.net/get-ip/apnic-membership/how-much-does-it-cost/member-f <https://www.apnic.net/get-ip/apnic-membership/how-much-does-it-cost/member-f> ees-calculator/

The main idea is that each LIR pays according to its resources, but not linearly. You don't pay twice as much because you have twice as much resources. The resulting fees are similar to what the other RIRs are charging, with infinite granularity (no categories).

It can be easily tweaked to reach any desired budget, and will remain viable when IPv4 has disappeared.

I have made IPv6 less punitive compared to APNIC, because RIPE has larger initial allocations.

Independent resources fees, sign-up fee, lack of ASN fee, remain as before in this proposal. I believe it is better to have a separate debate on these subjects at a later time.

The goal of this charging scheme is to lower the cost for members with a very low amount of resources, in order to attract newcomers and retain existing members. This way the RIPE NCC membership will remain numerous and diverse.

*2 - Charging scheme:*

(Warning: math incoming !)

IPv4_count = number of IPv4 addresses allocated (excluding independent assignments and legacy) IPv6_count = number of IPv6 /56 subnets allocated (excluding independent assignments)

Base_Fee = 638 EUR Bit_Factor = 1.31 Minimum_Fee = 500 EUR Offset_IPv4 = 8 Offset_IPv6 = 24

IPv4_Fee = Base_Fee * Bit_Factor^(log2(IPv4_count) - Offset_IPv4) IPv6_Fee = Base_Fee * Bit_Factor^(log2(IPv6_count) - Offset_IPv6)

Fee = max(IPv4_Fee, IPv6_Fee, Minimum_Fee) + 50 EUR per independent resource (excluding ASN)

My simulation, based on public data (2024-03-28), results in an average fee of 1900 EUR per LIR (+ 50 EUR per independent resource), so it should provide the same budget as the other options. If RIPE NCC find different results with their simulation, they can adjust Base_Fee.

*3 - Examples:*

50 EUR per independent resource should be added to all these fees.

No allocations: 500 EUR IPv4 /24 and/or IPv6 /32: 638 EUR IPv4 /23 and/or IPv6 /31: 835 EUR IPv4 /22 and/or IPv6 /30: 1094 EUR IPv4 /21 and/or IPv6 /29: 1434 EUR IPv4 /20 and/or IPv6 /28: 1878 EUR IPv4 /19 and/or IPv6 /27: 2461 EUR IPv4 /18 and/or IPv6 /26: 3224 EUR IPv4 /17 and/or IPv6 /25: 4223 EUR IPv4 /16 and/or IPv6 /24: 5533 EUR IPv4 /15 and/or IPv6 /23: 7248 EUR IPv4 /14 and/or IPv6 /22: 9495 EUR IPv4 /13 and/or IPv6 /21: 12439 EUR IPv4 /12 and/or IPv6 /20: 16295 EUR IPv4 /11 and/or IPv6 /19: 21347 EUR IPv4 /10 and/or IPv6 /18: 27965 EUR IPv4 /9 and/or IPv6 /17: 36634 EUR IPv4 /8 and/or IPv6 /16: 47991 EUR

Largest LIR is just below 60 kEUR.

There are no categories, so your fee can be somewhere between these numbers.

If you think the fees are too high, I invite you to read the fee schedule of the other RIRs.

Thank you if you've read this far.

Best regards, Sebastien Brossier

_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss> Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/gabi%40kompex.pl <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/gabi%40kompex.pl>

_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss> Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/suport%40bunea.eu <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/suport%40bunea.eu>

---

members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss> Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/mihail%40fedorov.net <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/mihail%40fedorov.net>

On 16/04/2024 16:37, Mihail Fedorov wrote:

I once again advise to put less charges on IPv6. Genrally it’s a good and correct approach. But in current reality this will result need to restructure v6 subnets for everyone, who opted into /29 but using /32 (which is what many small LIRs do) and create additional work for everyone. In some distant future there will be no difference but for now every occasion to motivate networks to have IPv6 should be valued.

Apart from that that’s the scheme I would be happy to vote for.

Finally found some time to test some variants. Alternative parameters, where you can have up to /29 IPv6 at base fee (same total budget): Base_Fee = 700 EUR Bit_Factor = 1.31 Minimum_Fee = Base_Fee Offset_IPv4 = 8 Offset_IPv6 = 27 No allocations: 700 EUR IPv4 /24 and/or IPv6 /29: 700 EUR IPv4 /23 and/or IPv6 /28: 917 EUR IPv4 /22 and/or IPv6 /27: 1201 EUR IPv4 /21 and/or IPv6 /26: 1573 EUR IPv4 /20 and/or IPv6 /25: 2061 EUR IPv4 /19 and/or IPv6 /24: 2700 EUR IPv4 /18 and/or IPv6 /23: 3537 EUR IPv4 /17 and/or IPv6 /22: 4634 EUR IPv4 /16 and/or IPv6 /21: 6071 EUR IPv4 /15 and/or IPv6 /20: 7953 EUR IPv4 /14 and/or IPv6 /19: 10418 EUR IPv4 /13 and/or IPv6 /18: 13648 EUR IPv4 /12 and/or IPv6 /17: 17879 EUR IPv4 /11 and/or IPv6 /16: 23422 EUR IPv4 /10 and/or IPv6 /15: 30682 EUR IPv4 /9 and/or IPv6 /14: 40194 EUR IPv4 /8 and/or IPv6 /13: 52654 EUR Largest LIR: 65143 EUR Sebastien Brossier

Hi, That's the model we want to see too and we vote for sure ! We think punish people who own multiples asn is counter productive and always strike loud on small isp / non proofit. It can have a real negative impact on net neutrality (required by icann, to maintain your RIR status) by reducing the 'sponsoring' offer possibility. RIPE board, please add option D with this one and buy this guy a cofee :) Best regards, Le 20-04-24 à 10:32, Sebastien Brossier a écrit :

On 16/04/2024 16:37, Mihail Fedorov wrote:

...

I once again advise to put less charges on IPv6. Genrally it’s a good and correct approach. But in current reality this will result need to restructure v6 subnets for everyone, who opted into /29 but using /32 (which is what many small LIRs do) and create additional work for everyone. In some distant future there will be no difference but for now every occasion to motivate networks to have IPv6 should be valued.

Apart from that that’s the scheme I would be happy to vote for.

Finally found some time to test some variants. Alternative parameters, where you can have up to /29 IPv6 at base fee (same total budget):

Base_Fee = 700 EUR Bit_Factor = 1.31 Minimum_Fee = Base_Fee Offset_IPv4 = 8 Offset_IPv6 = 27

No allocations:              700 EUR IPv4 /24 and/or IPv6 /29:       700 EUR IPv4 /23 and/or IPv6 /28:       917 EUR IPv4 /22 and/or IPv6 /27:      1201 EUR IPv4 /21 and/or IPv6 /26:      1573 EUR IPv4 /20 and/or IPv6 /25:      2061 EUR IPv4 /19 and/or IPv6 /24:      2700 EUR IPv4 /18 and/or IPv6 /23:      3537 EUR IPv4 /17 and/or IPv6 /22:      4634 EUR IPv4 /16 and/or IPv6 /21:      6071 EUR IPv4 /15 and/or IPv6 /20:      7953 EUR IPv4 /14 and/or IPv6 /19:     10418 EUR IPv4 /13 and/or IPv6 /18:     13648 EUR IPv4 /12 and/or IPv6 /17:     17879 EUR IPv4 /11 and/or IPv6 /16:     23422 EUR IPv4 /10 and/or IPv6 /15:     30682 EUR IPv4 /9 and/or IPv6 /14:     40194 EUR IPv4 /8 and/or IPv6 /13:     52654 EUR Largest LIR:            65143 EUR

Sebastien Brossier

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

Net neutrality is about treating data equally, without favoritism, by those who transport it. It isn't perfect as sometimes governments have some ideas on what needs to be blocked. Also, for operational reasons, transported data sometimes needs to be blocked, too. But most of the time things work. What net neutrality is not is entertaining the idea of redistributing IPv4 addresses equally to everyone. Addresses were distributed on [shown] need in the past. All have been distributed a long time since, they're not coming back. :) Kaj Sent from my iPad ________________________________ From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of sdy@a-n-t.ru <sdy@a-n-t.ru> Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2024 12:33 PM To: Servperso <ml@servperso.com> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic) Hi, Sorry but I'm not agree with like it must be D. It is wrong way of payment. It will move payment to middle size LIR's and do nothing to return not use IPv4. It will freeze dictature of large IPv4 owner in networking. And do nothing for net neutrality.

Hi, That's the model we want to see too and we vote for sure !

We think punish people who own multiples asn is counter productive and always strike loud on small isp / non proofit. It can have a real negative impact on net neutrality (required by icann, to maintain your RIR status) by reducing the 'sponsoring' offer possibility.

RIPE board, please add option D with this one and buy this guy a cofee :)

Best regards,

Le 20-04-24 à 10:32, Sebastien Brossier a écrit :

...

On 16/04/2024 16:37, Mihail Fedorov wrote:

...

I once again advise to put less charges on IPv6. Genrally it’s a good and correct approach. But in current reality this will result need to restructure v6 subnets for everyone, who opted into /29 but using /32 (which is what many small LIRs do) and create additional work for everyone. In some distant future there will be no difference but for now every occasion to motivate networks to have IPv6 should be valued.

Apart from that that’s the scheme I would be happy to vote for.

Finally found some time to test some variants. Alternative parameters, where you can have up to /29 IPv6 at base fee (same total budget):

Base_Fee = 700 EUR Bit_Factor = 1.31 Minimum_Fee = Base_Fee Offset_IPv4 = 8 Offset_IPv6 = 27

No allocations: 700 EUR IPv4 /24 and/or IPv6 /29: 700 EUR IPv4 /23 and/or IPv6 /28: 917 EUR IPv4 /22 and/or IPv6 /27: 1201 EUR IPv4 /21 and/or IPv6 /26: 1573 EUR IPv4 /20 and/or IPv6 /25: 2061 EUR IPv4 /19 and/or IPv6 /24: 2700 EUR IPv4 /18 and/or IPv6 /23: 3537 EUR IPv4 /17 and/or IPv6 /22: 4634 EUR IPv4 /16 and/or IPv6 /21: 6071 EUR IPv4 /15 and/or IPv6 /20: 7953 EUR IPv4 /14 and/or IPv6 /19: 10418 EUR IPv4 /13 and/or IPv6 /18: 13648 EUR IPv4 /12 and/or IPv6 /17: 17879 EUR IPv4 /11 and/or IPv6 /16: 23422 EUR IPv4 /10 and/or IPv6 /15: 30682 EUR IPv4 /9 and/or IPv6 /14: 40194 EUR IPv4 /8 and/or IPv6 /13: 52654 EUR Largest LIR: 65143 EUR

Sebastien Brossier

_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7C%7Ca05b8f661d7742fb1b9f08dc611cfe9f%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638492024380390749%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=fgbpQWpyD6yeEARFBTdSnYBmbc%2FiPBWeQnrZbXGWccA%3D&reserved=0<https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss> Unsubscribe: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fml%2540servperso.com&data=05%7C02%7C%7Ca05b8f661d7742fb1b9f08dc611cfe9f%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638492024380400557%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=aHGVWRBhtPCVdrbROcNXk%2BR3sZYARzIm2BN9okI%2BOW4%3D&reserved=0<https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ml%40servperso.com>

_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7C%7Ca05b8f661d7742fb1b9f08dc611cfe9f%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638492024380407742%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=gNE1MtC5OomIcwwKskZchmwRCzEVzW9pYTj9jJ1THpA%3D&reserved=0<https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss> Unsubscribe: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fsdy%2540a-n-t.ru&data=05%7C02%7C%7Ca05b8f661d7742fb1b9f08dc611cfe9f%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638492024380413811%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=jL2hQNyhXWEifU%2BVofGpjkAXAlEEIIZQLP4huvNq7r8%3D&reserved=0<https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/sdy%40a-n-t.ru>

----------------------------- С уважением Сербулов Дмитрий ООО "Альфа Нет Телеком" +7(498)785-8-000 раб. +7(495)940-92-11 доп. +7(925)518-10-69 сот. _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7C%7Ca05b8f661d7742fb1b9f08dc611cfe9f%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638492024380419752%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=jHLXsprtfuLAzqCgtQ5qSFTFw178lRlVDideyE%2Bj0cI%3D&reserved=0<https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss> Unsubscribe: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fkajtzu%2540basen.net&data=05%7C02%7C%7Ca05b8f661d7742fb1b9f08dc611cfe9f%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638492024380425235%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=VHME8HuR%2FNnLvkb6zCkPAh9HffM2JPKoHqtofqHbbYI%3D&reserved=0<https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/kajtzu%40basen.net>

I’m sure there is a lesson here somewhere but I’m kind of missing it. None of the examples you mentioned are coming back, either, and the world is probably better without. Hence, rather than beating the proverbial dead horse of IPv4 addresses, let it be. The future is supposed to be about IPv6 anyway. Kaj Sent from my iPad ________________________________ From: sdy@a-n-t.ru <sdy@a-n-t.ru> Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2024 1:00 PM To: Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)

...

All have been distributed a long time since, they're not coming back.

A long time ago: - everything belonged to the king - there was slavery somewhere - there were dinosaurs Shall we continue? Or move into the future. ----------------------------- Serbulov Dmitry

If people are unhappy with the cost of renting addresses from cloud providers, hosting providers or ISPs, they should be able to move elsewhere where such fees aren't imposed on them. Most of these providers do have local, regional, or global competitors. If they aren't moving the service offerings are compelling enough even when there is a slight charge per public IPv4 address. As for limiting access, again, there seems to be ample amounts of addresses for sale by various brokers. Yes, technically the fixed cost would be different between the upstart and the established player w.r.t. addresses but does it matter? The one-time cost for these is significantly less than what an average cloud shop spends on Google ads and marketing per day to make itself known. I don’t think the RIRs should meddle in the business models of the LIRs, either. Kaj Sent from my iPad ________________________________ From: sdy@a-n-t.ru <sdy@a-n-t.ru> Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2024 1:41 PM To: Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> Cc: sdy@a-n-t.ru <sdy@a-n-t.ru>; members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic) Kaj, sorry, but I am not agree with you. Unfortunately, with the current address management policy, this will never happen ("The future is supposed to be about IPv6 anyway")! What is the point of doing a full migration to IPv6 for those who are now 'selling' 1 IPv4 address for $12 a year? They don't pay even 1 cent for it! This business will last forever, as well as migration to IPv6, unless the community stops it by force. Big old companies and old small speculators, due to the connivance of old RIR participants (and old LIRs too), have received a huge number of addresses into management and are now using them with pleasure to make profits and limit the access of new companies to the market. That is the real picture of the networks world right now. --- Serbulov Dmitry

I’m sure there is a lesson here somewhere but I’m kind of missing it. None of the examples you mentioned are coming back, either, and the world is probably better without.

Hence, rather than beating the proverbial dead horse of IPv4 addresses, let it be. The future is supposed to be about IPv6 anyway.

Kaj

Sent from my iPad

________________________________ From: sdy@a-n-t.ru <sdy@a-n-t.ru> Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2024 1:00 PM To: Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)

...

...

All have been distributed a long time since, they're not coming back.

A long time ago: - everything belonged to the king - there was slavery somewhere - there were dinosaurs

Shall we continue? Or move into the future.

----------------------------- Serbulov Dmitry

----------------------------- С уважением Сербулов Дмитрий ООО "Альфа Нет Телеком" +7(498)785-8-000 раб. +7(495)940-92-11 доп. +7(925)518-10-69 сот.

Hi Sebastien, I think IPv6 allocations larger than /29 aren't very common. Your proposal again puts too much load on smaller LIRs. I strongly prefer the several proposed linear models like: - 0.01 to 0.1 EUR per IPv4/32 (multiple proposals) - 7.92 EUR per IPv4/24 (my proposal of 2024-04-12 => Neutral to current RIPE NCC budget) - 20 EUR per IPv4/24 for the first 1750 /24 (James A.T. Rice's proposal of 2024-04-19) @RIPE: I would like to see at least one of the above models to choose from. @Sebastien: Your proposal is by FAR the most expensive for smaller LIRs: Your Cost for the smaller LIRs following the proposed parameters: 1st /24: free 1st /23: 217 (EUR 109 per /24) 1st /22: 501 (EUR 125 per /24) 1st /21: 873 (EUR 108 per /24) 1st /20: 1361 (EUR 85 per /24) 1st /19: 2000 (EUR 62 per /24) 1st /18: 2837 (EUR 44 per /24) Regards, Claudius -- Kantonsschule Zug/AS34288 Claudius Zingerli, Dr. sc. ETH Zürich Technischer Leiter Informatik, NOC Luessiweg 24 6300 Zug Switzerland claudius.zingerli@ksz.ch Tel: +41 41 728 1212 Direkt: +41 41 728 1307 On 20.04.24 10:32, Sebastien Brossier wrote:

On 16/04/2024 16:37, Mihail Fedorov wrote:

...

I once again advise to put less charges on IPv6. Genrally it’s a good and correct approach. But in current reality this will result need to restructure v6 subnets for everyone, who opted into /29 but using /32 (which is what many small LIRs do) and create additional work for everyone. In some distant future there will be no difference but for now every occasion to motivate networks to have IPv6 should be valued.

Apart from that that’s the scheme I would be happy to vote for.

Finally found some time to test some variants. Alternative parameters, where you can have up to /29 IPv6 at base fee (same total budget):

Base_Fee = 700 EUR Bit_Factor = 1.31 Minimum_Fee = Base_Fee Offset_IPv4 = 8 Offset_IPv6 = 27

No allocations:              700 EUR IPv4 /24 and/or IPv6 /29:       700 EUR IPv4 /23 and/or IPv6 /28:       917 EUR IPv4 /22 and/or IPv6 /27:      1201 EUR IPv4 /21 and/or IPv6 /26:      1573 EUR IPv4 /20 and/or IPv6 /25:      2061 EUR IPv4 /19 and/or IPv6 /24:      2700 EUR IPv4 /18 and/or IPv6 /23:      3537 EUR IPv4 /17 and/or IPv6 /22:      4634 EUR IPv4 /16 and/or IPv6 /21:      6071 EUR IPv4 /15 and/or IPv6 /20:      7953 EUR IPv4 /14 and/or IPv6 /19:     10418 EUR IPv4 /13 and/or IPv6 /18:     13648 EUR IPv4 /12 and/or IPv6 /17:     17879 EUR IPv4 /11 and/or IPv6 /16:     23422 EUR IPv4 /10 and/or IPv6 /15:     30682 EUR IPv4 /9 and/or IPv6 /14:     40194 EUR IPv4 /8 and/or IPv6 /13:     52654 EUR Largest LIR:            65143 EUR

Sebastien Brossier

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

On 20/04/2024 11:44, Claudius Zingerli wrote:

I think IPv6 allocations larger than /29 aren't very common. Your proposal again puts too much load on smaller LIRs. I generated this alternate simulation to address the concerns of those with IPv6 /29 and a very small amount of IPv4, but it is indeed worse for everyone else. Billing IPv6 in a fair way is not easy when 90% of LIRs are in the same category.

Honestly, I prefer my initial proposal. Or James A.T. Rice's proposal if we're not going to charge for IPv6 at the moment. Sebastien Brossier

Dear Dmytro, Making resolutions on the charging scheme for next year is solely the responsibility of the Executive Board. Proposing different versions is not possible. Please see also the mail I sent on Friday: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/2024-April/005454.ht... Best regards, Fergal On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 1:44 PM Dmitry Kohmanyuk via members-discuss < members-discuss@ripe.net> wrote:

On 22 Apr 2024, at 13:03, Sebastien Brossier <sebastien@brossier.org> wrote:

...

On 20/04/2024 11:44, Claudius Zingerli wrote:

...

I think IPv6 allocations larger than /29 aren't very common. Your

proposal again puts too much load on smaller LIRs.

...

I generated this alternate simulation to address the concerns of those with IPv6 /29 and a very small amount of IPv4, but it is indeed worse for everyone else. Billing IPv6 in a fair way is not easy when 90% of LIRs are in the same category.

Honestly, I prefer my initial proposal. Or James A.T. Rice's proposal if we're not going to charge for IPv6 at the moment.

Hi Sebastien,

I am examining formulas which involve a fixed price, as well as charges for both IPv4 and IPv6, and wondering if there is anyone who can help calculate the impact of merging LIRs or moving addresses on these (obviously not exactly.)

Additionally, I have a question about whether membership is able to propose any version to these charges for voting, subject to a signature threshold, or if it is solely the board's responsibility.

-- dk@

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

Dear Murat, That's correct. Any proposals regarding the Charging Scheme are meant to come from the Executive Board. Best regards, Fergal On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 5:42 PM <m.terzioglu@prebits.de> wrote:

Dear Fergal,

So we dont have now the possibility to offer new proposals for charging scheme here: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/member-proposals/ and we cant either offer any proposal for not chosing any offered options, right?

-- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards

*Murat TERZIOGLU* *PREB**IT**S*

Bochumer Str. 20

44866 Bochum

Deutschland

Telefon: 0234/58825994

Telefax: 0234/58825995

www.prebits.de

info@prebits.de

USt-ID: DE315418902

*Von:* members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> *Im Auftrag von *Fergal Cunningham *Gesendet:* Montag, 22. April 2024 16:58 *An:* members-discuss@ripe.net *Betreff:* Re: [members-discuss] [comms-circle] Re: Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)

Dear Dmytro,

Making resolutions on the charging scheme for next year is solely the responsibility of the Executive Board. Proposing different versions is not possible. Please see also the mail I sent on Friday:

https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/2024-April/005454.ht...

Best regards, Fergal

On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 1:44 PM Dmitry Kohmanyuk via members-discuss < members-discuss@ripe.net> wrote:

On 22 Apr 2024, at 13:03, Sebastien Brossier <sebastien@brossier.org> wrote:

...

On 20/04/2024 11:44, Claudius Zingerli wrote:

...

I think IPv6 allocations larger than /29 aren't very common. Your

proposal again puts too much load on smaller LIRs.

...

I generated this alternate simulation to address the concerns of those with IPv6 /29 and a very small amount of IPv4, but it is indeed worse for everyone else. Billing IPv6 in a fair way is not easy when 90% of LIRs are in the same category.

Honestly, I prefer my initial proposal. Or James A.T. Rice's proposal if we're not going to charge for IPv6 at the moment.

Hi Sebastien,

I am examining formulas which involve a fixed price, as well as charges for both IPv4 and IPv6, and wondering if there is anyone who can help calculate the impact of merging LIRs or moving addresses on these (obviously not exactly.)

Additionally, I have a question about whether membership is able to propose any version to these charges for voting, subject to a signature threshold, or if it is solely the board's responsibility.

-- dk@

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

Hi, all. Don't worry, don't hurry. If we want to change something it is need to do it step by step. Now, at first it is need to decide what kind of scheme types we want in 2026 year: 1. One equal payment. 2. Category payment. 3. Payment for each resources. It is need to vote on it. After it is need to plan budget and payments size for 2026. I like <3>.

So, Executive Board will be continue to offering "same like" charging schemes and no way to offer something new? Even with 400 votes?

On 22.04.2024 16:27, Fergal Cunningham wrote:

...

Dear Murat,

That's correct. Any proposals regarding the Charging Scheme are meant to come from the Executive Board.

Best regards, Fergal

On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 5:42 PM <m.terzioglu@prebits.de <mailto:m.terzioglu@prebits.de>> wrote:

Dear Fergal,____

__ __

__ __

So we dont have now the possibility to offer new proposals for charging scheme here: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/member-proposals/ and we cant either offer any proposal for not chosing any offered options, right?____

__ __

__ __

__ __

-- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards

*Murat TERZIOGLU* *PREB**IT**S**____*

__ __

Bochumer Str. 20____

44866 Bochum____

Deutschland____

__ __

Telefon: 0234/58825994____

Telefax: 0234/58825995____

__ __

www.prebits.de <http://www.prebits.de/>____

info@prebits.de <mailto:info@prebits.de>____

__ __

USt-ID: DE315418902____

__ __

__ __

*Von:*members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> *Im Auftrag von *Fergal Cunningham *Gesendet:* Montag, 22. April 2024 16:58 *An:* members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> *Betreff:* Re: [members-discuss] [comms-circle] Re: Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)____

__ __

Dear Dmytro,

Making resolutions on the charging scheme for next year is solely the responsibility of the Executive Board. Proposing different versions is not possible. Please see also the mail I sent on Friday: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/2024-April/005454.ht...

Best regards, Fergal____

__ __

On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 1:44 PM Dmitry Kohmanyuk via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> wrote:____

On 22 Apr 2024, at 13:03, Sebastien Brossier <sebastien@brossier.org <mailto:sebastien@brossier.org>> wrote: > > On 20/04/2024 11:44, Claudius Zingerli wrote: >> I think IPv6 allocations larger than /29 aren't very common. Your proposal again puts too much load on smaller LIRs. > I generated this alternate simulation to address the concerns of those with IPv6 /29 and a very small amount of IPv4, but it is indeed worse for everyone else. Billing IPv6 in a fair way is not easy when 90% of LIRs are in the same category. > > Honestly, I prefer my initial proposal. Or James A.T. Rice's proposal if we're not going to charge for IPv6 at the moment.

Hi Sebastien,

I am examining formulas which involve a fixed price, as well as charges for both IPv4 and IPv6, and wondering if there is anyone who can help calculate the impact of merging LIRs or moving addresses on these (obviously not exactly.)

Additionally, I have a question about whether membership is able to propose any version to these charges for voting, subject to a signature threshold, or if it is solely the board's responsibility.

-- dk@

_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ripencc-management%40...

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

_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/sdy%40a-n-t.ru

----------------------------- С уважением Сербулов Дмитрий ООО "Альфа Нет Телеком" +7(498)785-8-000 раб. +7(495)940-92-11 доп. +7(925)518-10-69 сот.

Le 22-04-24 à 21:27, Mihail Fedorov a écrit :

Same time members majority clearly indicated (again, that’s what I see in this mailing list) that simply raising fee to 400-500 EUR is not acceptable and really hurts some smaller LIRs - different approach should be chosen.

Totaly agree with that. Just one last thing Model C is the worst of all, it offers to lower the bill by €100. But all LIRs have at least one ASN (+50€) or even 2 (+100€). It's just a sleight of hand which aims to undermine the companies and associations offering ASN sponsorship. Once again, for me there is a real problem. We tax the “small ones” to spare the big ones by not touching IPv4. And in general, this problem has divided the board and the members for several years. The RIPE actually proposed a gradual model last year, but it was rejected because it again targeted small LIRs and not large ones. A person with 10 /24 paid more than a person with a continuous /16. The BOARD clearly seems to be burying its head in the sand when we talk about a model based on the quantity of IP owned and not on the "quantity of resources". On the other hand, the BOARD will not be able to continue its somewhat too-vertical management and this burying its head policy for long. If the members have the feeling of being ignored a little too much, the vote will speak when it is necessary to elect new people or accept the discharge of management for its good management. In my opinion, the fact that the board is proposing a D model in accordance with its investment plan (we cannot reduce the cost of such a structure in such a short time, we agree) will be a first step towards the community. I would like to point out that these comments only concern me and my understanding of the various discussions that I have been following for several years. Best regards, Sarah

Agree Regards, Naira -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Lutz Donnerhacke Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2024 9:51 AM To: 'Mihail Fedorov' <mihail@fedorov.net> Cc: 'members-discuss@ripe.net' <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [comms-circle] Re: Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic) * Mihail Fedorov wrote:

With all the respect to RIPE Executive board, there is a problem. From the day first 2025 charging scheme draft was published - thread instantly got hundreds of responses clearly indicating just one thing - that proposed scheme is not ok. Majority (at least that’s what I see in members-discuss) of members raised their concerns and responded that they disagree with it. [...] Correct me if I’m wrong, but I assumed that RIPE is members ruled structure. That’s what all RIPE learning PDFs say. You can not simply ignore everyone.

I'm sorry to step in here, but if you ask this way ... The overwhelming majority of members did not respond at all. This means that they see no pressing problem with the current proposal. We only see a - frankly - small group of members who are emphatically loud and repetitive. It seems to me that their motivation is to want to reduce the already low annual costs even further for their personal benefit. In most countries, a fixed fee per member is typical for associations and cooperatives. That's why the controlling department of most companies has no problem with it. And this is precisely why all attempts in the past to switch to a resource-based fee have failed: You would have to explain the RIPE bill to the accounting department. Resource-based fees were introduced to stimulate the return of AS numbers etc. that are no longer used. Again, the same reason: you have to explain this accounting item. Lutz Donnerhacke _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/nkuroyan%40telecomarm...

Dear RIPE NCC and Members, The primary issue we are encountering stems from artificial growth and inequitable membership fees, both of which have significant implications for our budget planning. Let me provide an example from my own country: There was a rush for acquiring smaller subnets like /24, leading to a surge in memberships. Both the membership application fees and the annual transfer period fees were paid, causing an increase in our budget. The management at RIPE NCC was aware of this artificial growth and anticipated a budget reduction when the transfer period arrived. Their response was to increase the membership fees. On behalf of my LIR colleagues in Turkey, I can assert the following: The internet and IT sector in Turkey is expanding rapidly. We need to remain competitive against international markets and enhance our resources to protect and develop our company assets. In doing this, it is also essential to maintain competitive pricing. Consider a country where to earn 1800 euros, one must work at minimum wage for 3.6 months. We felt compelled to open these memberships and viewed it as an imposition. Now, with the increase in fees, it seems our options are illusory; neither choice is satisfactory. While we are concerned about our own situations, the sustainability of RIPE NCC is of greater importance. We are all in this together and do not shirk responsibility. However, we expect a fairer payment system. Should the revenue from the IP addresses of a member with a /8 subnet be the same as that of a member with a /22? This question is illustrative, and there are many other similar examples we could discuss. Kind Regards, Zekeriya Köş Managing Partner Phone:+90 850 840 6452 Direct: +90 542 790 6502 kos.zekeriya@survivor.com.tr SURVIVOR Bilişim Teknolojileri Anonim Şirketi http://www.survivor.com.tr -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Mihail Fedorov Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2024 10:02 AM To: Lutz Donnerhacke <L.Donnerhacke@iks-service.de> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [comms-circle] Re: Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)

On 23 Apr 2024, at 8:51, Lutz Donnerhacke <L.Donnerhacke@iks-service.de> wrote:

* Mihail Fedorov wrote:

...

With all the respect to RIPE Executive board, there is a problem. >From the day first 2025 charging scheme draft was published - thread instantly got hundreds of responses clearly indicating just one thing - that proposed scheme is not ok. Majority (at least that’s what I see in members-discuss) of members raised their concerns and responded that they disagree with it. [...] Correct me if I’m wrong, but I assumed that RIPE is members ruled structure. That’s what all RIPE learning PDFs say. You can not simply ignore everyone.

I'm sorry to step in here, but if you ask this way ...

The overwhelming majority of members did not respond at all. This means that they see no pressing problem with the current proposal.

Hello. You’re a little bit manipulating facts, hopefully not intentionally. You can not assume majority agree with you just because they do not respond. It only indicates that very small % of LIRs do care about this mailing list.

From those who read/participate - most replied that they do not agree and just couple actually agreed.

We only see a - frankly - small group of members who are emphatically loud and repetitive. It seems to me that their motivation is to want to reduce the already low annual costs even further for their personal benefit.

In most countries, a fixed fee per member is typical for associations and cooperatives. That's why the controlling department of most companies has no problem with it. And this is precisely why all attempts in the past to switch to a resource-based fee have failed: You would have to explain the RIPE bill to the accounting department.

This is again not correct about both facts. First of all - RIPE is serving many countries, not just European Union. This includes different countries with different association types and different average budget. One of perfect examples is LIR from Lebanon who posted here previously. What you call “personal benefit” in reality is 4 average monthly salaries not paid in this countries. Also with current model and introducing of sponsorship RIPE created providing ASN registration as business model. This LIRs who trusted this model and started their business will be essentially killed if members will vote for “A” - or otherwise they will need to pay significantly more than world biggest ISPs. And the last point - how is this can be considered cheap if it will be 7 times (literally) more expensive than other RIRs model? ARIN price for small org is $250.

Resource-based fees were introduced to stimulate the return of AS numbers etc. that are no longer used. Again, the same reason: you have to explain this accounting item.

Lutz Donnerhacke

_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/info%40survivor.com.t...

* Mihail Fedorov wrote:

...

With all the respect to RIPE Executive board, there is a problem. From the day first 2025 charging scheme draft was published - thread instantly got hundreds of responses clearly indicating just one thing - that proposed scheme is not ok. Majority (at least that’s what I see in members-discuss) of members raised their concerns and responded that they disagree with it. [...] Correct me if I’m wrong, but I assumed that RIPE is members ruled structure. That’s what all RIPE learning PDFs say. You can not simply ignore everyone.

I'm sorry to step in here, but if you ask this way ...

The overwhelming majority of members did not respond at all. This means that they see no pressing problem with the current proposal.

We only see a - frankly - small group of members who are emphatically loud and repetitive. It seems to me that their motivation is to want to reduce the already low annual costs even further for their personal benefit. Absolutely incorrect assumption (as it is already said). For example there are many reasons why the LIR in Lebanon are silent

On Tue, 2024-04-23 at 05:51 +0000, Lutz Donnerhacke wrote: this maillist, but everyone I spoke with and who read mallist was categorically outraged by the current situation.

In most countries, a fixed fee per member is typical for associations and cooperatives. That's why the controlling department of most companies has no problem with it. And this is precisely why all attempts in the past to switch to a resource-based fee have failed:

It is failed only in RIPE, and it worked in ALL other RIR. And this also food for thoughts, why it failed in RIPE. Also RIPE is not golf club, it is kind of resource allocating non- profit. USB-IF, IEEE (mac address allocation), PCI-SIG(only one vid per member) and many others do the same, there is always annual maintenance fee which is dependent on size of allocated resources.

You would have to explain the RIPE bill to the accounting department.

Resource-based fees were introduced to stimulate the return of AS numbers etc. that are no longer used. Again, the same reason: you have to explain this accounting item.

Lutz Donnerhacke _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/nuclearcat%40nuclearc...

Fact - We have not been given the option to Reject all choices which is what I specifically reject. NO Should absolutely be an option. On 4/23/24 8:38 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight via members-discuss wrote:

Gotta love theories vs facts

Fact: RIPE has around 20 thousand members

Fact : less than 100 of them have posted on this list in the month of April.

Fact: not all the under 100 members (or more specifically, people who are linked to members) are against the charging schemes proposed

Fact: this email won’t make any difference to the vocal minority who have issues with the charging schemes being proposed

Fact: the result will be decided based on actual votes cast next month

Regards

Michele

--

Mr Michele Neylon

Blacknight Solutions

Hosting, Colocation & Domains

https://www.blacknight.com/ <https://www.blacknight.com/>

https://blacknight.blog/ <https://blacknight.blog/>

Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072

Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090

Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ <https://michele.blog/>

Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ <https://ceo.hosting/>

-------------------------------

Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland  Company No.: 370845

I have sent this email at a time that is convenient for me. I do not expect you to respond to it outside of your usual working hours.

*From: *members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Denys Fedoryshchenko <nuclearcat@nuclearcat.com> *Date: *Tuesday, 23 April 2024 at 09:20 *To: *Lutz Donnerhacke <L.Donnerhacke@iks-service.de>, 'Mihail Fedorov' <mihail@fedorov.net> *Cc: *'members-discuss@ripe.net' <members-discuss@ripe.net> *Subject: *Re: [members-discuss] [comms-circle] Re: Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)

[EXTERNAL EMAIL] Please use caution when opening attachments from unrecognised sources.

...

* Mihail Fedorov wrote:

...

With all the respect to RIPE Executive board, there is a problem. From the day first 2025 charging scheme draft was published - thread instantly got hundreds of responses clearly indicating just one thing - that proposed scheme is not ok. Majority (at least that’s what I see in members-discuss) of members raised their concerns and responded that they disagree with it. [...] Correct me if I’m wrong, but I assumed that RIPE is members ruled structure. That’s what all RIPE learning PDFs say. You can not simply ignore everyone.

I'm sorry to step in here, but if you ask this way ...

The overwhelming majority of members did not respond at all. This means that they see no pressing problem with the current proposal.

We only see a - frankly - small group of members who are emphatically loud and repetitive. It seems to me that their motivation is to want to reduce the already low annual costs even further for their personal benefit. Absolutely incorrect assumption (as it is already said). For example there are many reasons why the LIR in Lebanon are silent

On Tue, 2024-04-23 at 05:51 +0000, Lutz Donnerhacke wrote: this maillist, but everyone I spoke with and who read mallist was categorically outraged by the current situation.

...

In most countries, a fixed fee per member is typical for associations and cooperatives. That's why the controlling department of most companies has no problem with it. And this is precisely why all attempts in the past to switch to a resource-based fee have failed:

It is failed only in RIPE, and it worked in ALL other RIR. And this also food for thoughts, why it failed in RIPE. Also RIPE is not golf club, it is kind of resource allocating non- profit. USB-IF, IEEE (mac address allocation), PCI-SIG(only one vid per member) and many others do the same, there is always annual maintenance fee which is dependent on size of allocated resources.

...

You would have to explain the RIPE bill to the accounting department.

Resource-based fees were introduced to stimulate the return of AS numbers etc. that are no longer used. Again, the same reason: you have to explain this accounting item.

Lutz Donnerhacke _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe:

https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/nuclearcat%40nuclearc...

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

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

Dear Lutz, You shouldn't make assumptions about what other people or org have in mind. I'm a small LIR, and I'm in contact with few other small LIRs. We didn't participate here either because we lack of time, because there are already nice propositions (having fees by IPv4 looks nice for the small LIR), or because some are looking for migrate to an other RIR or merge with an other LIR. Not sending an email in any discussions here doesn't mean having no interrest in them and not following them. Kind regards, Alexandre Le 23/04/2024 à 07:51, Lutz Donnerhacke a écrit :

* Mihail Fedorov wrote:

...

With all the respect to RIPE Executive board, there is a problem. From the day first 2025 charging scheme draft was published - thread instantly got hundreds of responses clearly indicating just one thing - that proposed scheme is not ok. Majority (at least that’s what I see in members-discuss) of members raised their concerns and responded that they disagree with it. [...] Correct me if I’m wrong, but I assumed that RIPE is members ruled structure. That’s what all RIPE learning PDFs say. You can not simply ignore everyone.

I'm sorry to step in here, but if you ask this way ...

The overwhelming majority of members did not respond at all. This means that they see no pressing problem with the current proposal.

We only see a - frankly - small group of members who are emphatically loud and repetitive. It seems to me that their motivation is to want to reduce the already low annual costs even further for their personal benefit.

In most countries, a fixed fee per member is typical for associations and cooperatives. That's why the controlling department of most companies has no problem with it. And this is precisely why all attempts in the past to switch to a resource-based fee have failed: You would have to explain the RIPE bill to the accounting department.

Resource-based fees were introduced to stimulate the return of AS numbers etc. that are no longer used. Again, the same reason: you have to explain this accounting item.

Lutz Donnerhacke _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/alexandre-ripe-ncc%40...

Hi Pavel, As I mentioned in my previous email, certain agenda items may only be proposed by the Executive Board. The Articles of Association indicate the following items: - The adoption of the Charging Scheme with respect to the coming financial year (Art. 15.4.b) - The adoption of amendments to the Standard Service Agreement (Art. 15.5.c) - The approval of new arbiters and/or dismissal of current arbiters and/or adoption of amendments to the arbitration procedure (Art 15.5.d) https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/2024-April/005454.ht... Best regards, Fergal On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 9:31 PM Pavel Odintsov <ripe@pavel-odintsov.com> wrote:

Hello, Fergal!

Thank you very much for providing feedback and clarifying this point.

I'm not sure that I clearly understand reasons about inability to alter this specific proposal.

In current https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-818/ articles of association I can see section 15.6:

15.6 On the application In Writing of a group of Members who are jointly entitled to cast at least two percent (2%) of the total number of possible votes, other subjects will be added to the agenda. Such an application, accompanied by the verbatim text of the resolutions proposed by the said Members, shall have to be sent to the Executive Board at least two weeks before the Meeting.

The Executive Board shall immediately send the verbatim text of the resolutions proposed by the said Members to all the Members of the Association.

I do not see any limitations about types of proposals here.

Can you clarify why we have these constraints?

Thank you!

On Monday, 22 April 2024 at 15:57, Fergal Cunningham <fergalc@ripe.net> wrote:

Dear Dmytro,

Making resolutions on the charging scheme for next year is solely the responsibility of the Executive Board. Proposing different versions is not possible. Please see also the mail I sent on Friday:

https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/2024-April/005454.ht...

Best regards, Fergal

On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 1:44 PM Dmitry Kohmanyuk via members-discuss < members-discuss@ripe.net> wrote:

...

On 22 Apr 2024, at 13:03, Sebastien Brossier <sebastien@brossier.org> wrote:

...

On 20/04/2024 11:44, Claudius Zingerli wrote:

...

I think IPv6 allocations larger than /29 aren't very common. Your

proposal again puts too much load on smaller LIRs.

...

I generated this alternate simulation to address the concerns of those with IPv6 /29 and a very small amount of IPv4, but it is indeed worse for everyone else. Billing IPv6 in a fair way is not easy when 90% of LIRs are in the same category.

Honestly, I prefer my initial proposal. Or James A.T. Rice's proposal if we're not going to charge for IPv6 at the moment.

Hi Sebastien,

I am examining formulas which involve a fixed price, as well as charges for both IPv4 and IPv6, and wondering if there is anyone who can help calculate the impact of merging LIRs or moving addresses on these (obviously not exactly.)

Additionally, I have a question about whether membership is able to propose any version to these charges for voting, subject to a signature threshold, or if it is solely the board's responsibility.

-- dk@

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

That is actually really really bad. Certainly larger resource holders ought to get some discount, but 1/333th the cost ... Yea, if everything was priced like that we'd only have 1 megacorporation -- and this kind of discount levels would actually promote waste. -Aleksi On 16/04/2024 17.20, Petru Bunea wrote:

This is NOT a good example. In this example we see how a /22 allocation pays 1094 EUR per year, which is close to 1 EUR / 1 IP / Year, and a /8 allocation pays 48.000 EUR, which is 0.003 EURO / 1 IP / Year, which is 333 times less expensive. So tell me again how this is a good example.

Thanks

...

On 16 Apr 2024, at 17:07, Firma KOMPEX <gabi@kompex.pl> wrote:

very good example Sebastian

Others are doing it and Europe should too

We should be pioneers and we are in the Middle Ages. We are chipping away at such obvious issues from others.

The fixed fee for the LIR Account + the resource fee can stay they need to be calculated

But necessarily, as you pointed out, IP usage should be accounted for

Pozdrawiam Gabriel Sulka

------------------------------------------------------------- Firma Handlowo - Usługowa KOMPEX 34-400 Nowy Targ ul. Szaflarska 62A tel(18) 264-60-55 pn-pt 09:30 - 17:00 sb. 09:30 - 13:00 www.kompex.pl <http://www.kompex.pl/>;bok@kompex.pl;kompex@nowytarg.net

-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Sebastien Brossier Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 3:51 PM To:members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)

Hello all,

I propose to add the following model to the charging scheme 2025 voting options.

*1 - Introduction:*

This charging scheme is heavily inspired by APNIC. If you are not familiar with this, you can see an example here: https://www.apnic.net/get-ip/apnic-membership/how-much-does-it-cost/member-f ees-calculator/

The main idea is that each LIR pays according to its resources, but not linearly. You don't pay twice as much because you have twice as much resources. The resulting fees are similar to what the other RIRs are charging, with infinite granularity (no categories).

It can be easily tweaked to reach any desired budget, and will remain viable when IPv4 has disappeared.

I have made IPv6 less punitive compared to APNIC, because RIPE has larger initial allocations.

Independent resources fees, sign-up fee, lack of ASN fee, remain as before in this proposal. I believe it is better to have a separate debate on these subjects at a later time.

The goal of this charging scheme is to lower the cost for members with a very low amount of resources, in order to attract newcomers and retain existing members. This way the RIPE NCC membership will remain numerous and diverse.

*2 - Charging scheme:*

(Warning: math incoming !)

IPv4_count = number of IPv4 addresses allocated              (excluding independent assignments and legacy) IPv6_count = number of IPv6 /56 subnets allocated              (excluding independent assignments)

Base_Fee = 638 EUR Bit_Factor = 1.31 Minimum_Fee = 500 EUR Offset_IPv4 = 8 Offset_IPv6 = 24

IPv4_Fee = Base_Fee * Bit_Factor^(log2(IPv4_count) - Offset_IPv4) IPv6_Fee = Base_Fee * Bit_Factor^(log2(IPv6_count) - Offset_IPv6)

Fee = max(IPv4_Fee, IPv6_Fee, Minimum_Fee)         + 50 EUR per independent resource (excluding ASN)

My simulation, based on public data (2024-03-28), results in an average fee of 1900 EUR per LIR (+ 50 EUR per independent resource), so it should provide the same budget as the other options. If RIPE NCC find different results with their simulation, they can adjust Base_Fee.

*3 - Examples:*

50 EUR per independent resource should be added to all these fees.

No allocations: 500 EUR IPv4 /24 and/or IPv6 /32: 638 EUR IPv4 /23 and/or IPv6 /31: 835 EUR IPv4 /22 and/or IPv6 /30:1094 EUR IPv4 /21 and/or IPv6 /29:1434 EUR IPv4 /20 and/or IPv6 /28:1878 EUR IPv4 /19 and/or IPv6 /27:2461 EUR IPv4 /18 and/or IPv6 /26:3224 EUR IPv4 /17 and/or IPv6 /25:4223 EUR IPv4 /16 and/or IPv6 /24:5533 EUR IPv4 /15 and/or IPv6 /23:7248 EUR IPv4 /14 and/or IPv6 /22:9495 EUR IPv4 /13 and/or IPv6 /21:12439 EUR IPv4 /12 and/or IPv6 /20:16295 EUR IPv4 /11 and/or IPv6 /19:21347 EUR IPv4 /10 and/or IPv6 /18:27965 EUR IPv4 /9 and/or IPv6 /17:36634 EUR IPv4 /8 and/or IPv6 /16:47991 EUR

Largest LIR is just below 60 kEUR.

There are no categories, so your fee can be somewhere between these numbers.

If you think the fees are too high, I invite you to read the fee schedule of the other RIRs.

Thank you if you've read this far.

Best regards, Sebastien Brossier

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

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

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