[RFC] Motion/Proposal for Amendments to RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025
Dear RIPE Members, I am writing to propose amendments to the "RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025" for discussion. Below are the details of the proposed changes: Proposal for a Proportional Charging Model: We suggest that RIPE NCC implement a charging model based on the number of IPv4 subnets allocated to each member. This model would replace the existing flat fee structure, aiming to distribute costs more equitably among members according to their usage of number resources. Such a model would ensure that charges correspond to the scale of each member's operations and resource needs. Reduction of Annual Budget Based on Current Economic Trends: Given the economic downturn affecting our industry, we recommend that RIPE NCC conduct a thorough review of its annual budget to identify and reduce non-essential expenditures. Prioritizing core activities is crucial, especially in light of the decline in LIR membership numbers. Adjusting budget allocations to current economic realities will help stabilize the organization and alleviate financial pressure on its members. Furthermore, I have reviewed the archive and identified 41 unique email addresses that participated in discussions about this charging scheme. It appears that a consensus of at least 21 affirmative votes should prompt RIPE NCC and the relevant working group to consider the community's stance seriously. Accordingly, I propose a motion to include the following options in the charging scheme discussion: A) Maintain the current budget. B) Reduce the budget, possibly in proportion to the decrease in LIR numbers. C) Introduce fees for LIRs based on their allocated IPv4 resources. I suggest conducting a non-binding poll to gauge preferences on these options. While I am not authorized to initiate official voting, gathering responses could help us understand whether the demand for significant changes represents a majority view or just a few vocal opinions. Please reply to this email with your vote: YES or NO after each option. Best regards, Denys Fedoryshchenko
Hi Denys, Thank you for bringing forth this motion, I do not disagree with it on it's premise. I also fully agree with the call for RIPE to reduce its budget accordingly. I would recommend one addition to your proposal. "We suggest that RIPE NCC implement a weighed voting model based upon the number of resources billed to a LIR. This would ensure that a LIR is equally represented directly in relation to it's financial contribution to RIPE." If such a motion is added, I'm sure those who will pay substantially higher amounts will not object to having one vote per billed subnet or a similar implementation. Daniel~ On 4/11/24 2:19 PM, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote:
Dear RIPE Members,
I am writing to propose amendments to the "RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025" for discussion. Below are the details of the proposed changes:
Proposal for a Proportional Charging Model:
We suggest that RIPE NCC implement a charging model based on the number of IPv4 subnets allocated to each member. This model would replace the existing flat fee structure, aiming to distribute costs more equitably among members according to their usage of number resources. Such a model would ensure that charges correspond to the scale of each member's operations and resource needs.
NO
Reduction of Annual Budget Based on Current Economic Trends:
Given the economic downturn affecting our industry, we recommend that RIPE NCC conduct a thorough review of its annual budget to identify and reduce non-essential expenditures. Prioritizing core activities is crucial, especially in light of the decline in LIR membership numbers. Adjusting budget allocations to current economic realities will help stabilize the organization and alleviate financial pressure on its members.
YES
Furthermore, I have reviewed the archive and identified 41 unique email addresses that participated in discussions about this charging scheme. It appears that a consensus of at least 21 affirmative votes should prompt RIPE NCC and the relevant working group to consider the community's stance seriously.
Accordingly, I propose a motion to include the following options in the charging scheme discussion:
A) Maintain the current budget
NO
B) Reduce the budget, possibly in proportion to the decrease in LIR numbers. YES C) Introduce fees for LIRs based on their allocated IPv4 resources. NO
I suggest conducting a non-binding poll to gauge preferences on these options. While I am not authorized to initiate official voting, gathering responses could help us understand whether the demand for significant changes represents a majority view or just a few vocal opinions.
Please reply to this email with your vote: YES or NO after each option.
Best regards,
Denys Fedoryshchenko
_______________________________________________ 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...
On Thu 11 Apr 2024 14:36:35 GMT, Daniel Pearson wrote:
Hi Denys,
Thank you for bringing forth this motion, I do not disagree with it on it's premise. I also fully agree with the call for RIPE to reduce its budget accordingly.
I would recommend one addition to your proposal.
"We suggest that RIPE NCC implement a weighed voting model based upon the number of resources billed to a LIR. This would ensure that a LIR is equally represented directly in relation to it's financial contribution to RIPE."
If such a motion is added, I'm sure those who will pay substantially higher amounts will not object to having one vote per billed subnet or a similar implementation.
So next year they can revert all the work and nobody will have enough vote to go against? -- Alarig
On Thu, 2024-04-11 at 14:36 -0500, Daniel Pearson wrote:
Hi Denys,
Thank you for bringing forth this motion, I do not disagree with it on it's premise. I also fully agree with the call for RIPE to reduce its budget accordingly.
I would recommend one addition to your proposal.
"We suggest that RIPE NCC implement a weighed voting model based upon the number of resources billed to a LIR. This would ensure that a LIR is equally represented directly in relation to it's financial contribution to RIPE."
If such a motion is added, I'm sure those who will pay substantially higher amounts will not object to having one vote per billed subnet or a similar implementation.
Daniel~ I believe this will not be categorized as a membership fee, but rather as property tax, serving a dual purpose: to prevent hoarding and idle resources, and to reflect the logical difference in RIPE's overhead for servicing 100x/24 addresses compared to 1x/24 addresses. Or even triple - it is possible to structure this fee in such a way as to demotivate the merger of the remaining "last /22 LIR".
On 4/11/24 2:19 PM, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote:
Dear RIPE Members,
I am writing to propose amendments to the "RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025" for discussion. Below are the details of the proposed changes:
Proposal for a Proportional Charging Model:
We suggest that RIPE NCC implement a charging model based on the number of IPv4 subnets allocated to each member. This model would replace the existing flat fee structure, aiming to distribute costs more equitably among members according to their usage of number resources. Such a model would ensure that charges correspond to the scale of each member's operations and resource needs.
NO
Reduction of Annual Budget Based on Current Economic Trends:
Given the economic downturn affecting our industry, we recommend that RIPE NCC conduct a thorough review of its annual budget to identify and reduce non-essential expenditures. Prioritizing core activities is crucial, especially in light of the decline in LIR membership numbers. Adjusting budget allocations to current economic realities will help stabilize the organization and alleviate financial pressure on its members.
YES
Furthermore, I have reviewed the archive and identified 41 unique email addresses that participated in discussions about this charging scheme. It appears that a consensus of at least 21 affirmative votes should prompt RIPE NCC and the relevant working group to consider the community's stance seriously.
Accordingly, I propose a motion to include the following options in the charging scheme discussion:
A) Maintain the current budget
NO
B) Reduce the budget, possibly in proportion to the decrease in LIR numbers. YES C) Introduce fees for LIRs based on their allocated IPv4 resources. NO
I suggest conducting a non-binding poll to gauge preferences on these options. While I am not authorized to initiate official voting, gathering responses could help us understand whether the demand for significant changes represents a majority view or just a few vocal opinions.
Please reply to this email with your vote: YES or NO after each option.
Best regards,
Denys Fedoryshchenko
_______________________________________________ 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/nuclearcat%40nuclearc...
Hi Denys and everyone, On Thu, 11 Apr 2024, at 22:19, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote:
I am writing to propose amendments to the "RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025" for discussion. Below are the details of the proposed changes:
Proposal for a Proportional Charging Model:
We suggest that RIPE NCC implement a charging model based on the number of IPv4 subnets allocated to each member. This model would replace the existing flat fee structure, aiming to distribute costs more equitably among members according to their usage of number resources. Such a model would ensure that charges correspond to the scale of each member's operations and resource needs.
I would support this motion as I have proposed a reduction to IPv6-only address holders, with no v4 resources.
Reduction of Annual Budget Based on Current Economic Trends:
Given the economic downturn affecting our industry, we recommend that RIPE NCC conduct a thorough review of its annual budget to identify and reduce non-essential expenditures. Prioritizing core activities is crucial, especially in light of the decline in LIR membership numbers. Adjusting budget allocations to current economic realities will help stabilize the organization and alleviate financial pressure on its members.
Also yes for this proposal. However, I would not go with the cost reduction only. in his email on behalf of the board, Ondrej Filip mentioned new costs, related to the war in Ukraine, legal compliance and - for the first time in NCC history I think - "protecting the registry". As a Ukrainian, I would explain that it means dealing with an army of RIPE member countries bombing your cities, houses, and offices, destroying electric stations and internet connectivity, as well as many other things of value. Such risk exists in the entire RIPE service area. RIPE cannot operate on a shoestring, but RIPE definitely can and should optimise costs for all its activities. Lower costs are not always possible, but if a datacenter costs less than AWS, it should not be shut down.
Furthermore, I have reviewed the archive and identified 41 unique email addresses that participated in discussions about this charging scheme. It appears that a consensus of at least 21 affirmative votes should prompt RIPE NCC and the relevant working group to consider the community's stance seriously.
People do not always write when they have an opinion. Let's not forget old-fashioned conversations. I think we can have a BoF at the Krakow meeting about this. A Zoom queue and a hundred e-mails wouldn't do.
Accordingly, I propose a motion to include the following options in the charging scheme discussion:
A) Maintain the current budget. B) Reduce the budget, possibly in proportion to the decrease in LIR numbers. C) Introduce fees for LIRs based on their allocated IPv4 resources.
Yes for all of these. Let the members vote and decide. As for the reduction of income while keeping expenses, please remember we have a cash reserve. We can't bankrupt NCC that fast. Back in a day of quarterly payments, NCC has survived while getting its income over the year, not as an annual payment from members.
I suggest conducting a non-binding poll to gauge preferences on these options. While I am not authorized to initiate official voting, gathering responses could help us understand whether the demand for significant changes represents a majority view or just a few vocal opinions.
Please reply to this email with your vote: YES or NO after each option.
Thanks for the effort. I would also like to know what kind of LIR, if any, you represent and its IPv4 allocation size.
On Fri, 2024-04-12 at 00:07 +0300, Dmitry Kohmanyuk via members-discuss wrote:
Hi Denys and everyone,
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024, at 22:19, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote:
I am writing to propose amendments to the "RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025" for discussion. Below are the details of the proposed changes:
Proposal for a Proportional Charging Model:
We suggest that RIPE NCC implement a charging model based on the number of IPv4 subnets allocated to each member. This model would replace the existing flat fee structure, aiming to distribute costs more equitably among members according to their usage of number resources. Such a model would ensure that charges correspond to the scale of each member's operations and resource needs.
I would support this motion as I have proposed a reduction to IPv6- only address holders, with no v4 resources. Fully agree
Reduction of Annual Budget Based on Current Economic Trends:
Given the economic downturn affecting our industry, we recommend that RIPE NCC conduct a thorough review of its annual budget to identify and reduce non-essential expenditures. Prioritizing core activities is crucial, especially in light of the decline in LIR membership numbers. Adjusting budget allocations to current economic realities will help stabilize the organization and alleviate financial pressure on its members.
Also yes for this proposal. However, I would not go with the cost reduction only.
in his email on behalf of the board, Ondrej Filip mentioned new costs, related to the war in Ukraine, legal compliance and - for the first time in NCC history I think - "protecting the registry". As a Ukrainian, I would explain that it means dealing with an army of RIPE member countries bombing your cities, houses, and offices, destroying electric stations and internet connectivity, as well as many other things of value. Such risk exists in the entire RIPE service area.
RIPE cannot operate on a shoestring, but RIPE definitely can and should optimise costs for all its activities. Lower costs are not always possible, but if a datacenter costs less than AWS, it should not be shut down.
Furthermore, I have reviewed the archive and identified 41 unique email addresses that participated in discussions about this charging scheme. It appears that a consensus of at least 21 affirmative votes should prompt RIPE NCC and the relevant working group to consider the community's stance seriously.
People do not always write when they have an opinion. Let's not forget old-fashioned conversations. I think we can have a BoF at the Krakow meeting about this. A Zoom queue and a hundred e-mails wouldn't do. Not everyone can afford to travel for health reasons.
Accordingly, I propose a motion to include the following options in the charging scheme discussion:
A) Maintain the current budget. B) Reduce the budget, possibly in proportion to the decrease in LIR numbers. C) Introduce fees for LIRs based on their allocated IPv4 resources.
Yes for all of these. Let the members vote and decide. As for the reduction of income while keeping expenses, please remember we have a cash reserve. We can't bankrupt NCC that fast. Back in a day of quarterly payments, NCC has survived while getting its income over the year, not as an annual payment from members.
I suggest conducting a non-binding poll to gauge preferences on these options. While I am not authorized to initiate official voting, gathering responses could help us understand whether the demand for significant changes represents a majority view or just a few vocal opinions.
Please reply to this email with your vote: YES or NO after each option.
Thanks for the effort. I would also like to know what kind of LIR, if any, you represent and its IPv4 allocation size.
Small ISP in Lebanon, but as ISP consultant, I can technically obtain authorization to represent multiple entities, each with varying sizes of IPV4 resources from single /22 to approx /19.
_______________________________________________ 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...
participants (4)
-
Alarig Le Lay -
Daniel Pearson -
Denys Fedoryshchenko -
Dmitry Kohmanyuk