** *Dear all,* * Thanks for the early feedback on the two draft models, both on the list and in reply to my original mail. This is exactly what we hoped for - discussion on the pros and cons of the two models and guidance on where the fees in each should be set. I will try to address some of the issues raised so far. First, it’s important to note that the two models were created with our interpretation of the principles of the Charging Scheme Task Force in mind. So we aim for greater equity while keeping in mind that all members should contribute to the funding of the association, and we should not be dependent on a small number of members to pay a large portion of the fees. I recommend that you look at the two models with the task force principles in mind and let us know if you think we can better match them. A linear model that charges per IP address is a good example of something that falls outside the principles set by the task force. The full report is available at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/member-and-community-consultations/char... <https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/member-and-community-consultations/charging-scheme-task-force-2024/final-report/> The fees set in the models are always going to be criticised - we have seen criticism from a number of perspectives and from different types of members. That is good, however at this stage it is more important to get input on the boundaries (for Model A) and the formula (for Model B). This is because the fees have the potential to increase or decrease over time according to the RIPE NCC’s funding needs. What we are trying to get input on here is the relative distribution of costs between the membership. Equity as a concept is very hard to measure or be objective about - the previous model was a one-fee-per-LIR Account model, which has equality as a key concept. The models we share now do not focus on equality and have differentiation in fees. How equitable these differentiations are is what we need your input on. And on the point about using Excel-based calculators. We are able to transparently provide a lot of data and information in the spreadsheets that members can use to create different scenarios. Providing all this data and flexibility to calculate scenarios as members wish in a non-Excel application was not something we could do easily given time constraints and internal workload, and the anticipated level of feedback which will require ongoing updates. In the meantime, please keep the feedback and questions coming. It is hugely valuable to get them, and it will help us arrive at a better funding model in the long run. Kind regards, Simon-Jan Haytink Chief Financial Officer RIPE NCC * On 15/12/2025 18:58, sdy@a-n-t.ru wrote:

Hi, All!

As I understand, we keep going in circles. Time after time, we are offered the same and same solutions with different sauces. Those with few resources are forced to pay for those who have too many.

Let's do this! Either there will be an option where the payment for IPv4 resources will be strictly linear in the calculation formulas and without any restrictions, or let's LEAVE EVERYTHING AS IT IS.

Looking at the socio-economic situation in the EU, in the next 2-3 years, the issue of calculating the amount of the annual payment will not be the most important subject for RIPE NCC at all.

Moreover, it is not a fact that the INTERNET will remain the same as we are all used to. The time to change something in the near future is gone, it remains only to observe what is happening.

Dmitry Serbulov.

...

Hello everybody

Just remember that this is a conversation that we collectively have quite often and it always ends up at least mildly heated.

Let's try and be nice to each other and remember that almost everyone here is not trying to be unreasonable! To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details.

Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription.

Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/

To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details.

Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription.

Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at:https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/

On 16/12/2025 15:38:45, "Simon-Jan Haytink" <simonjh@ripe.net> wrote:

Thanks for the early feedback on the two draft models, both on the list and in reply to my original mail.

Each year feedback is given when these models are offered, it has been to keep to the flat fee.

I recommend that you look at the two models with the task force principles in mind and let us know if you think we can better match them. A linear model that charges per IP address is a good example of something that falls outside the principles set by the task force.

Yes, by writing the principles so as to exclude linear they prevent the task force from offering it. Without that artificial constraint it would have been an equitable model too. I happen to agree it's not a viable model but others think it is and would like it to be a option. When you open the door to alternatives it is rude to close it to some.

The fees set in the models are always going to be criticised - we have seen criticism from a number of perspectives and from different types of members. That is good

No it is not good. You are playing off one group of members against another to see who can gain at the others expense. This is not equity.

however at this stage it is more important to get input on the boundaries (for Model A) and the formula (for Model B). This is because the fees have the potential to increase or decrease over time according to the RIPE NCC’s funding needs.

We cannot choose a model without knowing the cost. Some may decide to tolerate paying a bit more but can't do that with the amount unknown. Trying to set the formula like this means it is meaningless, we can only guess from the calculator (and really, why do we have to jump through hoops putting our own values in, send it pre populated). Send the categories and their price, tell me which we would be in. Then it's a quick easy decision. What we learned last time is that categories are a time bomb with reducing membership. Unless the costs get shifted to the higher IP count categories the expected reduction in small members can lead to a large increase for small/medium members. I would not want to agree to categories while they can potentially increase small/medium tier ISPs costs radically. So no, they cannot be judged independently of the costs.

What we are trying to get input on here is the relative distribution of costs between the membership.

Then you need to be clear about the costs now and in future years. Will you guarantee to offer a flat rate model every year in case the categories don't work out? If not then it is too risky.

Equity as a concept is very hard to measure or be objective about

If we can't agree what it is then why are we trying to implement it?

- the previous model was a one-fee-per-LIR Account model

That seems to remain the least worst. brandon

Dear Simon-Jan & all, Thank you for the ongoing discussion and for encouraging concrete feedback on how the models behave in practice. Looking at both proposed models, one common structural characteristic stands out: fees increase approximately linearly by category, while the amount of address space represented by each category increases exponentially. This creates a sharp divergence between resource growth and fee growth as categories increase. A possible way to address this would be to make the fee progression itself explicitly non-linear, positioned between linear and exponential growth. Concretely, instead of a roughly linear increase per category, the fee could follow a curve such as: Fee(k) = F0*2^(ak) (0<a<1) where k is the category index. For illustration only, values of a around 0.5–0.6 produce a curve where fees grow faster than linear, but significantly slower than the underlying resource size. In practical terms, this means that moving up one category would still result in a clearly higher fee, but not one that mirrors the exponential increase in address space. This appears to better balance equity, reduce incentives for fragmentation, and avoid concentrating a disproportionate share of total income on a small number of very large members. Separately, in the category-based approach, the Category 0 appears to group members with very small IPv4 holdings together with members holding no IPv6 /32 at all. This seems difficult to reconcile with RIPE NCC’s long-standing policy objective of encouraging IPv6 deployment, and may be worth revisiting when refining the category definitions. I hope this more concrete example is useful when evaluating refinements to the charging scheme. Kind regards, Chenyang Gao On Dec 16, 2025, at 7:38 AM, Simon-Jan Haytink <simonjh@ripe.net> wrote: Dear all, Thanks for the early feedback on the two draft models, both on the list and in reply to my original mail. This is exactly what we hoped for - discussion on the pros and cons of the two models and guidance on where the fees in each should be set. I will try to address some of the issues raised so far. First, it’s important to note that the two models were created with our interpretation of the principles of the Charging Scheme Task Force in mind. So we aim for greater equity while keeping in mind that all members should contribute to the funding of the association, and we should not be dependent on a small number of members to pay a large portion of the fees. I recommend that you look at the two models with the task force principles in mind and let us know if you think we can better match them. A linear model that charges per IP address is a good example of something that falls outside the principles set by the task force. The full report is available at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/member-and-community-consultations/char... The fees set in the models are always going to be criticised - we have seen criticism from a number of perspectives and from different types of members. That is good, however at this stage it is more important to get input on the boundaries (for Model A) and the formula (for Model B). This is because the fees have the potential to increase or decrease over time according to the RIPE NCC’s funding needs. What we are trying to get input on here is the relative distribution of costs between the membership. Equity as a concept is very hard to measure or be objective about - the previous model was a one-fee-per-LIR Account model, which has equality as a key concept. The models we share now do not focus on equality and have differentiation in fees. How equitable these differentiations are is what we need your input on. And on the point about using Excel-based calculators. We are able to transparently provide a lot of data and information in the spreadsheets that members can use to create different scenarios. Providing all this data and flexibility to calculate scenarios as members wish in a non-Excel application was not something we could do easily given time constraints and internal workload, and the anticipated level of feedback which will require ongoing updates. In the meantime, please keep the feedback and questions coming. It is hugely valuable to get them, and it will help us arrive at a better funding model in the long run. Kind regards, Simon-Jan Haytink Chief Financial Officer RIPE NCC On 15/12/2025 18:58, sdy@a-n-t.ru<mailto:sdy@a-n-t.ru> wrote: Hi, All! As I understand, we keep going in circles. Time after time, we are offered the same and same solutions with different sauces. Those with few resources are forced to pay for those who have too many. Let's do this! Either there will be an option where the payment for IPv4 resources will be strictly linear in the calculation formulas and without any restrictions, or let's LEAVE EVERYTHING AS IT IS. Looking at the socio-economic situation in the EU, in the next 2-3 years, the issue of calculating the amount of the annual payment will not be the most important subject for RIPE NCC at all. Moreover, it is not a fact that the INTERNET will remain the same as we are all used to. The time to change something in the near future is gone, it remains only to observe what is happening. Dmitry Serbulov. Hello everybody Just remember that this is a conversation that we collectively have quite often and it always ends up at least mildly heated. Let's try and be nice to each other and remember that almost everyone here is not trying to be unreasonable! To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details. Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription. Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/ To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details. Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription. Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/ To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details. Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription. Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/

The models in both A and B are definitely promising. Even regarding the basic distribution of weighting and prices, someone has clearly put a lot of effort into designing a fair system. I support a fair distribution because I myself am one of the small businesses that only received a /24 subnet via the waiting list and could easily use a second or third in the future, for which I would be willing to pay higher fees. Perhaps this will lead to a change of heart among those who own networks, since there are currently no consequences. Fairness begins where others can share. Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen Walde IT-Systemhaus - CEO Dirk Walde - IT-Specialist Mangenberger Str. 76 - D-42655 Solingen - Germany +49(0)212-3833235 - info@walde-it.de - http://www.walde-it.de NETWORK AS203226 + AS199679 + AS199681 / ABUSE: abuse@waldeit.de ** RIPE NCC Full Member - RIPE LIR Service ** DREG ID: 11/075 (§6 TKG) - TAX ID: DE159795091 Simon-Jan Haytink schrieb:

*

Dear RIPE NCC members,

We have opened Phase 1 of the Charging Scheme Consultation and invite your feedback on two proposed models for the annual fee, which represents the significant majority of the RIPE NCC’s income.

*What we are consulting on in Phase 1*

The RIPE NCC’s income from members consists of two parts - together they make up the Membership Fee:

1.

Annual Fee - the main part of our income

2.

Additional Fees - currently these are ASN fees, independent assignment fees and other one-off charges

In Phase 1, our focus is only on the annual fee, because this is the foundation of the Charging Scheme and the key element for our long-term financial stability.

We are asking for your input on two possible annual fee models:

- Model A – Category-based model

- Model B – Formula-based model

For each model, we have published an explanation and an interactive calculator so you can see how your annual fee would be calculated and explore different scenarios based on your IPv4 and IPv6 holdings.

You can find the consultation details and the calculators at:

https://www.ripe.net/s/cs-model-consultation-phase-1/

*What feedback we would like to hear*

At this stage, we are interested in how the models work in practice, not in fixing the final revenue amount.

The figures you see are illustrative and not final.

We would particularly value your views on questions such as:

- Are there too many categories in Model A, or too few?

- Are the category boundaries appropriate

*

- Is a formula-based approach (Model B) preferable to a category-based one?

- Does the current formula setup make sense, or are there better options?

- Do the models adequately reflect the principles defined by the Charging Scheme Task Force, especially the principle of equity?

- Are there any issues you can see that we’ve overlooked?

*

Both models are still drafts. Your feedback now is essential before we further develop the models.

Please share your input on the Members Discuss mailing list by the end of January 2026.

We will of course follow discussions and we will address queries and comments in early January after the holiday season.

*Next steps in the consultation*

This consultation is part of a three-phase process:

- Phase 1 (now): Consult on two annual fee models (A and B), with calculators – published Dec 2025

*

- Phase 2: Consult on separate fees (e.g. ASN and independent resource fees) – planned for Jan/Feb 2026

- Phase 3: Publish a combined Charging Scheme proposal (Annual Fee + separate fees) that incorporates member feedback from Phases 1 and 2 – planned for April 2026

*

The final Charging Scheme proposal will be presented for a vote at the RIPE NCC General Meeting in May 2026.

I strongly encourage you to review the two models, use the calculators, and share your perspective. Your participation is vital in helping us develop a Charging Scheme that is stable, transparent and equitable.

Kind regards,

Simon-Jan Haytink

Chief Financial Officer

RIPE NCC

* ------------------------------------------------------------------------

----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/ncc-announce.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/

** *Dear members,* * Thanks again for the feedback shared so far, both on this mailing list and to me directly. I also appreciate the constructive suggestions that have been made on alternative models. I would like to provide some additional background and explain the rationale behind the approach we’ve taken, which I hope will help inform further discussions. Each year, when we publish the charging scheme, it prompts a wide-ranging discussion among the membership. These discussions have historically not resulted in a clear consensus on a charging scheme model. The Board therefore concluded that a set of principles developed by a member task force was needed to guide the development of a model. These principles allow us to create a model that might not match with everyone’s wishes, but they are based on the informed opinion of a diverse set of resource holders. Without these principles, we would have unlimited options and continue to revisit the same discussions without reaching consensus. The principles can be found in the Task Force’s final report:https://www.ripe.net/s/charging-scheme-task-force-2024/final-report/ <https://www.ripe.net/s/charging-scheme-task-force-2024/final-report/> In summary, the core principles that underpin the proposed models are: 1. The charging scheme model should strive for equity among members by taking into account the different resources registered to members 2. The charging scheme should be based on the idea that people and organisations pay a significant majority of their fees to be a member of the RIPE NCC, which would allow additional charges for specific services 3. The charging scheme proposals should not compromise the tax agreement that the RIPE NCC has with the Dutch government 4. The amount of categories should be determined by the RIPE NCC, but there should be enough categories to ensure there is no significant increase from one category to the next 5. The category that members are placed in should be based on the total PA resource holdings of members and be structured to discourage members from manipulating their placement to qualify for lower fees 6. There should be enough categories to ensure an equitable charging scheme based on the distribution of resources 7. The category model should ensure that those with a small number of resources would pay less than they would under a one LIR account, one fee model 8. The category model should ensure that only those with a large number of resources are towards the higher level categories and those closer to the median allocation size are closer to the medium level categories While these principles provided us with a framework for designing the models, we now need your input to help refine and improve them. In particular, we are looking for feedback on the category limits and the formula used in the models. On the linear models and pay-per-IP approaches, these discussion points conflict with several of the Task Force’s principles, particularly around maintaining a membership-based model (see principle 2 above) and avoiding outcomes that would concentrate a disproportionate share of our income budget on a small number of members (see principle 6 above). The models presented represent a considerable shift away from the current approach of equality where we charge the same fee per LIR account. Finally, I would like to note that several staff members involved in this work will be taking vacation days in the coming weeks. While we will continue to follow the discussions on the list, our availability to reply may be more limited than usual until the beginning of January. Best regards, Simon-Jan Haytink Chief Financial Officer RIPE NCC * On 18/12/2025 11:27, Kaj Niemi wrote:

We seem to have different definitions of fair.

Kaj ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* D. Walde - Walde IT-Systeme <walde@wcs-online.de> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 17, 2025 20:49 *To:* members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> *Subject:* [members-discuss] Re: Consultation on Future RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Models The models in both A and B are definitely promising. Even regarding the basic distribution of weighting and prices, someone has clearly put a lot of effort into designing a fair system. I support a fair distribution because I myself am one of the small businesses that only received a /24 subnet via the waiting list and could easily use a second or third in the future, for which I would be willing to pay higher fees. Perhaps this will lead to a change of heart among those who own networks, since there are currently no consequences. Fairness begins where others can share. Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Walde IT-Systemhaus - CEO Dirk Walde - IT-Specialist

Mangenberger Str. 76 - D-42655 Solingen - Germany

+49(0)212-3833235 -info@walde-it.de <mailto:info@walde-it.de> -http://www.walde-it.de <http://www.walde-it.de/>

NETWORK AS203226 + AS199679 + AS199681 / ABUSE:abuse@waldeit.de <mailto:abuse@waldeit.de>

** RIPE NCC Full Member - RIPE LIR Service **

DREG ID: 11/075 (§6 TKG) - TAX ID: DE159795091

Simon-Jan Haytink schrieb:

...

*

Dear RIPE NCC members,

We have opened Phase 1 of the Charging Scheme Consultation and invite your feedback on two proposed models for the annual fee, which represents the significant majority of the RIPE NCC’s income.

*What we are consulting on in Phase 1*

The RIPE NCC’s income from members consists of two parts - together they make up the Membership Fee:

1.

Annual Fee - the main part of our income

2.

Additional Fees - currently these are ASN fees, independent assignment fees and other one-off charges

In Phase 1, our focus is only on the annual fee, because this is the foundation of the Charging Scheme and the key element for our long-term financial stability.

We are asking for your input on two possible annual fee models:

- Model A – Category-based model

- Model B – Formula-based model

For each model, we have published an explanation and an interactive calculator so you can see how your annual fee would be calculated and explore different scenarios based on your IPv4 and IPv6 holdings.

You can find the consultation details and the calculators at:https://www.ripe.net/s/cs-model-consultation-phase-1/ <https://www.ripe.net/s/cs-model-consultation-phase-1/>

*What feedback we would like to hear*

At this stage, we are interested in how the models work in practice, not in fixing the final revenue amount.

The figures you see are illustrative and not final.

We would particularly value your views on questions such as:

- Are there too many categories in Model A, or too few?

- Are the category boundaries appropriate

*

- Is a formula-based approach (Model B) preferable to a category-based one?

- Does the current formula setup make sense, or are there better options?

- Do the models adequately reflect the principles defined by the Charging Scheme Task Force, especially the principle of equity?

- Are there any issues you can see that we’ve overlooked?

*

Both models are still drafts. Your feedback now is essential before we further develop the models.

Please share your input on the Members Discuss mailing list by the end of January 2026.

We will of course follow discussions and we will address queries and comments in early January after the holiday season.

*Next steps in the consultation*

This consultation is part of a three-phase process:

- Phase 1 (now): Consult on two annual fee models (A and B), with calculators – published Dec 2025

*

- Phase 2: Consult on separate fees (e.g. ASN and independent resource fees) – planned for Jan/Feb 2026

- Phase 3: Publish a combined Charging Scheme proposal (Annual Fee + separate fees) that incorporates member feedback from Phases 1 and 2 – planned for April 2026

*

The final Charging Scheme proposal will be presented for a vote at the RIPE NCC General Meeting in May 2026.

I strongly encourage you to review the two models, use the calculators, and share your perspective. Your participation is vital in helping us develop a Charging Scheme that is stable, transparent and equitable.

Kind regards,

Simon-Jan HaytinkChief Financial OfficerRIPE NCC

* ------------------------------------------------------------------------

----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit:https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/ncc-announce.ripe.net/ <https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/ncc-announce.ripe.net/> As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at:https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/ <https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/>

To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details.

Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription.

Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at:https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/

Hi, All. Once an once again! I haven't seen any real arguments from Task Force against the linear model, besides "what if they won't pay"?! Task Force NOT ONCE has proposed a linear model to discuss. I reread the same info and understood the ONE thing: ---!!!!-->> Let's be honest, the Task Force that wants to push its models to us is not interested in a linear board, because someone will have to pay honestly for resources. I believe that this "Task Force" should be disbanded due to its obvious one-sidedness of the approach to the problem. <<--!!!!---- Dmitry Serbulov.

**

*Dear members,*

*

Thanks again for the feedback shared so far, both on this mailing list and to me directly. I also appreciate the constructive suggestions that have been made on alternative models.

I would like to provide some additional background and explain the rationale behind the approach we’ve taken, which I hope will help inform further discussions.

Each year, when we publish the charging scheme, it prompts a wide-ranging discussion among the membership. These discussions have historically not resulted in a clear consensus on a charging scheme model. The Board therefore concluded that a set of principles developed by a member task force was needed to guide the development of a model. These principles allow us to create a model that might not match with everyone’s wishes, but they are based on the informed opinion of a diverse set of resource holders. Without these principles, we would have unlimited options and continue to revisit the same discussions without reaching consensus.

The principles can be found in the Task Force’s final report:https://www.ripe.net/s/charging-scheme-task-force-2024/final-report/ <https://www.ripe.net/s/charging-scheme-task-force-2024/final-report/>

In summary, the core principles that underpin the proposed models are:

1. The charging scheme model should strive for equity among members by taking into

account the different resources registered to members

2. The charging scheme should be based on the idea that people and organisations

pay a significant majority of their fees to be a member of the RIPE NCC, which

would allow additional charges for specific services

3. The charging scheme proposals should not compromise the tax agreement that the

RIPE NCC has with the Dutch government

4. The amount of categories should be determined by the RIPE NCC, but there should

be enough categories to ensure there is no significant increase from one category

to the next

5. The category that members are placed in should be based on the total PA resource

holdings of members and be structured to discourage members from manipulating

their placement to qualify for lower fees

6. There should be enough categories to ensure an equitable charging scheme based

on the distribution of resources

7. The category model should ensure that those with a small number of resources

would pay less than they would under a one LIR account, one fee model

8. The category model should ensure that only those with a large number of resources

are towards the higher level categories and those closer to the median allocation size are closer to the medium level categories

While these principles provided us with a framework for designing the models, we now need your input to help refine and improve them. In particular, we are looking for feedback on the category limits and the formula used in the models.

On the linear models and pay-per-IP approaches, these discussion points conflict with several of the Task Force’s principles, particularly around maintaining a membership-based model (see principle 2 above) and avoiding outcomes that would concentrate a disproportionate share of our income budget on a small number of members (see principle 6 above). The models presented represent a considerable shift away from the current approach of equality where we charge the same fee per LIR account.

Finally, I would like to note that several staff members involved in this work will be taking vacation days in the coming weeks. While we will continue to follow the discussions on the list, our availability to reply may be more limited than usual until the beginning of January.

Best regards,

Simon-Jan Haytink

Chief Financial Officer

RIPE NCC

*

On 18/12/2025 11:27, Kaj Niemi wrote:

...

We seem to have different definitions of fair.

Kaj ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* D. Walde - Walde IT-Systeme <walde@wcs-online.de> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 17, 2025 20:49 *To:* members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> *Subject:* [members-discuss] Re: Consultation on Future RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Models The models in both A and B are definitely promising. Even regarding the basic distribution of weighting and prices, someone has clearly put a lot of effort into designing a fair system. I support a fair distribution because I myself am one of the small businesses that only received a /24 subnet via the waiting list and could easily use a second or third in the future, for which I would be willing to pay higher fees. Perhaps this will lead to a change of heart among those who own networks, since there are currently no consequences. Fairness begins where others can share. Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Walde IT-Systemhaus - CEO Dirk Walde - IT-Specialist

Mangenberger Str. 76 - D-42655 Solingen - Germany

+49(0)212-3833235 -info@walde-it.de <mailto:info@walde-it.de> -http://www.walde-it.de <http://www.walde-it.de/>

NETWORK AS203226 + AS199679 + AS199681 / ABUSE:abuse@waldeit.de <mailto:abuse@waldeit.de>

** RIPE NCC Full Member - RIPE LIR Service **

DREG ID: 11/075 (§6 TKG) - TAX ID: DE159795091

Simon-Jan Haytink schrieb:

...

*

Dear RIPE NCC members,

We have opened Phase 1 of the Charging Scheme Consultation and invite your feedback on two proposed models for the annual fee, which represents the significant majority of the RIPE NCC’s income.

*What we are consulting on in Phase 1*

The RIPE NCC’s income from members consists of two parts - together they make up the Membership Fee:

1.

Annual Fee - the main part of our income

2.

Additional Fees - currently these are ASN fees, independent assignment fees and other one-off charges

In Phase 1, our focus is only on the annual fee, because this is the foundation of the Charging Scheme and the key element for our long-term financial stability.

We are asking for your input on two possible annual fee models:

- Model A – Category-based model

- Model B – Formula-based model

For each model, we have published an explanation and an interactive calculator so you can see how your annual fee would be calculated and explore different scenarios based on your IPv4 and IPv6 holdings.

You can find the consultation details and the calculators at:https://www.ripe.net/s/cs-model-consultation-phase-1/ <https://www.ripe.net/s/cs-model-consultation-phase-1/>

*What feedback we would like to hear*

At this stage, we are interested in how the models work in practice, not in fixing the final revenue amount.

The figures you see are illustrative and not final.

We would particularly value your views on questions such as:

- Are there too many categories in Model A, or too few?

- Are the category boundaries appropriate

*

- Is a formula-based approach (Model B) preferable to a category-based one?

- Does the current formula setup make sense, or are there better options?

- Do the models adequately reflect the principles defined by the Charging Scheme Task Force, especially the principle of equity?

- Are there any issues you can see that we’ve overlooked?

*

Both models are still drafts. Your feedback now is essential before we further develop the models.

Please share your input on the Members Discuss mailing list by the end of January 2026.

We will of course follow discussions and we will address queries and comments in early January after the holiday season.

*Next steps in the consultation*

This consultation is part of a three-phase process:

- Phase 1 (now): Consult on two annual fee models (A and B), with calculators – published Dec 2025

*

- Phase 2: Consult on separate fees (e.g. ASN and independent resource fees) – planned for Jan/Feb 2026

- Phase 3: Publish a combined Charging Scheme proposal (Annual Fee + separate fees) that incorporates member feedback from Phases 1 and 2 – planned for April 2026

*

The final Charging Scheme proposal will be presented for a vote at the RIPE NCC General Meeting in May 2026.

I strongly encourage you to review the two models, use the calculators, and share your perspective. Your participation is vital in helping us develop a Charging Scheme that is stable, transparent and equitable.

Kind regards,

Simon-Jan HaytinkChief Financial OfficerRIPE NCC

* ------------------------------------------------------------------------

----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit:https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/ncc-announce.ripe.net/ <https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/ncc-announce.ripe.net/> As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at:https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/ <https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/>

To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details.

Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription.

Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at:https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details.

Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription.

Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/

----------------------------- 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,

The huge majority of those are the new LIRs that were founded only to grab one of the last free assignments - many only with the goal to sell these IPs again after the prices rise to a 'good' level.

Please refrain yourself to put all this new LIR in the same bag. After having to wait one year and an half to be only to be granted a single /24 while paying the same fees than everyone during this whole time, like the ones who got a /22 without any waitlist not so long ago, I don't really appreciate to be considered like that. To my knowledge, the small LIR you are talking about have emptied the latest IPv4 reserves at the begining of 2022. The IPv4 pool received at this time are free of any transfert restrictions for some time now, even from the late ones. This kind of LIR will disappear over the years. Also, the small LIR paying the minimal fees in both models can be IPv6 only members. Let's not discourage LIR promoting/expanding the IPv6 usage with unappropriate considerations and biaised conclusions. As a reminder, any large IPv4 pool can be replaced by an IPv6 /29, and from a /29 one can make as much allocation as with an IPv4 /5. Kind regards, Alexandre Le 15/12/2025 à 17:25, Kaiser, Karl a écrit :

Hi,

looking at both proposals it strikes me that even the older ISPs, holding larger assignments (talking about something like /10 - /15) will face a huge increase, leaving the only conclusion that only the very small LIRs holding something like /22-/24 assignments will benefit. The huge majority of those are the new LIRs that were founded only to grab one of the last free assignments - many only with the goal to sell these IPs again after the prices rise to a 'good' level. These few LIRs holding larger assignments than that might benefit, but from a budget point of view it doesn't make much of a difference if this handful of LIR pay more or less than before. I'd like to see a calculation of both models getting run against all So as a conclusion: these adjustments are getting made to charge those who have real customers and act as ISPs more and reduce the cost for those with the main goal of using IPs for trading.

Kind regards, Karl

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: thiele@holomua.de <thiele@holomua.de> Gesendet: Montag, 15. Dezember 2025 16:08 An: members-discuss@ripe.net Betreff: [members-discuss] Consultation on Future RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Models

[Sie erhalten nicht häufig E-Mails von thiele@holomua.de. Weitere Informationen, warum dies wichtig ist, finden Sie unter https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]

Hi to everyone,

I have looked at both models. If I have understood the models correctly, it is striking that small and medium-sized LIRs suffer a significant increase in annual fees in both models. Looking at the cost contribution per IP address, it quickly becomes clear that older LIRs with /4 and larger networks in particular are making disproportionately low contributions, even though they have allocated significantly more resources. This should definitely be addressed. Why is the cost contribution per IP not kept linear?

Kind regards Peter

________________________________

Notice: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, notify the sender immediately, destroy all copies from your system and do not disclose or use the information for any purpose.

Diese E-Mail inklusive aller Anhaenge ist vertraulich und koennte bevorrechtigtem Schutz unterliegen. Wenn Sie nicht der beabsichtigte Adressat sind, informieren Sie bitte den Absender unverzueglich, loeschen Sie alle Kopien von Ihrem System und veroeffentlichen Sie oder nutzen Sie die Information keinesfalls, gleich zu welchem Zweck.

Think before you print!

MAGENTA TELEKOM (T-Mobile Austria GmbH) Geschaeftsführung: Mag. Thomas Kicker (Vorsitzender), Aufsichtsrat: Kyra Orth (Vorsitzende)

Firmenbuch: Handelsgericht Wien FN 171112 k, UID ATU 45011703 Konto: UniCredit Bank Austria AG IBAN: AT93 1200 0528 4407 2301, BIC: BKAUATWW ________________________________ To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details.

Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription.

Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/