Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
Hi, Thanks, the email and the excel made for some quite interesting reading. There are a few other reasonable options which were not listed on the slide deck from 2021 nor in your email. An obvious option would be to reduce budgeted RIPE NCC expenditure to the level of forecasted revenue. This is what most normal companies, without assured funding, must do. Another option would be to charge LIRs for the services they use. With this I do not mean IP addresses and ASNs that were mentioned in your model but for everything. Someone who is using only basic LIR services (IP/ASN assignments, reverse name services) would not have to pay for "value-added services" (VAS). With VAS I mean RIPE NCC's varied extracurricular activities such as outreach, education programs and software development that have expanded considerably over the years and have undoubtedly been of some value to some of its members. Still, many of the same roles/functions are also conducted by membership organizations, NOGs, and independent software developers. Imposition of the costs of such programs on members, who either don't benefit from or do not use them, equates the charging model functioning mostly as an ATM to finance the ambitions and initiatives of the RIPE NCC leadership and a small group of active advocates. Some of us would be happy with a Big Mac meal rather than the expensive all you can eat seafood buffet 😉 Kaj -----Original Message----- From: ncc-announce <ncc-announce-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Simon Jan Haytink Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 11:35 To: ncc-announce@ripe.net Subject: [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 Dear RIPE NCC members, We would like to re-open the consultation we began with the membership in 2021 on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme model, and we would like to carry out that consultation well in advance of the RIPE NCC General Meeting (GM) May 2023. In 2021, we presented on this topic at the GM, and we also surveyed our members and held an open house to get direct input on the charging scheme model that members would like to see implemented by the RIPE NCC. The outcome at that stage of the consultation was that there were strong cases made for both the current one-LIR, one-fee model and for a category-based model that would charge based on the number of resources held by a member. A strong case was also made to charge for all resources allocated or assigned by the RIPE NCC, including ASNs, and to charge a fee for transfers. The Executive Board decided to suspend the consultation in light of the war in Ukraine, but we are eager to decide on a way forward on this matter together with the membership. One of the main reasons that we would like to advance the discussion on the charging model is that we expect many members with multiple LIR accounts who received resources in 2021 to merge these accounts in the coming year. This means that the income the RIPE NCC receives will be reduced by a significant amount and we will need to ensure that our charging model allows us to collect the revenue required to maintain our operations. We believe that a category-based model would be best suited to cover this consolidation risk. Continuing with the existing model would mean that an increase in fees for all members would be required. Our ultimate goal is to arrive at a charging scheme model that will be sustainable for many years to come, meeting the needs of the RIPE NCC’s members. To help with discussion and to provide something tangible for members to assess, we are putting forward two draft models for members to review. These models can be summarised as: Model 1: A “one-LIR, one-fee” model based on the current RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2023 that also charges for independent resources, ASNs, transfers and changes in business structure such as Mergers & Acquisitions. Model 2: A category-based model that charges per member (not per LIR account) and is based on resources registered and that also charges for independent resources, ASNs, transfers and changes in business structure such as Mergers & Acquisitions. In order to allow members to form an opinion based on their own situation, we are providing an Excel sheet that will allow you to calculate the fees you would pay under each of the draft models. It is important to be aware that at this stage, the numbers assigned for each item are indicative and would be reviewed in light of the discussion with members. We plan to review these figures following consultation with the members, and giving input on those figures would greatly help to arrive at a good model. You can download the Excel sheet from: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.net%2Fparticipate%2Fmail%2Fmember-and-community-consultations%2Fmember-calculator-charging-scheme-2024.xlsx&data=05%7C01%7C%7Cba37c5f6a8244dc0053308db1ef066de%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638137790087678748%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=p27R1eIR06WMjapHci7lCcjUxNBvlnExmGvJr6XesOA%3D&reserved=0 We also plan to hold another Open House meeting on the Charging Scheme in March to further discuss the charging scheme models. The Executive Board will then take the input and decide on one or more charging schemes for the membership to vote on at the GM to be held on 24 May 2023. The outcome of that vote will determine the charging scheme model to be used in the coming years. I ask that you provide your input on this important consultation on the Membership Discussion mailing list (members-discuss@ripe.net) by 26 April. Input provided up to this date will be considered by the Board when formulating the charging schemes to be proposed for the GM. Input after this date is of course also welcome although it might not be reflected in the schemes put forward to the membership at the GM. The consultation will also be recorded and available from: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.net%2Fparticipate%2Fmail%2Fmember-and-community-consultations&data=05%7C01%7C%7Cba37c5f6a8244dc0053308db1ef066de%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638137790087678748%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=HYL%2BY4nhlDzN2A0gsahcPXVxVLgVs7tNynm6fm7sJh8%3D&reserved=0 I look forward to your input. Kind regards, Simon Jan Haytink Finance Director RIPE NCC Summary 7 March: Start consultation with membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme model 21 March: Open House to discuss charging scheme with membership 24 March: Executive Board meeting to discuss input received so far 12 April: Publication of Draft RIPE NCC Charging Schemes 2024 26 April: Publication of Final RIPE NCC Charging Schemes to be voted on by members 24 May: RIPE NCC General Meeting May 2023 References Open House and Survey Results https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.net%2Fparticipate%2Fmeetings%2Fopen-house%2Fripe-ncc-open-house-charging-scheme-principles&data=05%7C01%7C%7Cba37c5f6a8244dc0053308db1ef066de%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638137790087678748%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=PXkQQ03kVkFM6T8w0wVHyjqKJV6ckSsqg6cNpg24e5w%3D&reserved=0 Presentation at General Meeting https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.net%2Fparticipate%2Fmeetings%2Fgm%2Fmeetings%2Fmay-2021%2Fdocumentation-and-archive%2Fripe-ncc-charging-scheme-discussion.pdf&data=05%7C01%7C%7Cba37c5f6a8244dc0053308db1ef066de%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638137790087678748%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=O9UYcJe53%2FlO08Qr4X%2FtcR2w0w6YopCcz448FcWGhdg%3D&reserved=0
Hello, I fully agree with Kaj regarding the reduction of expenses for RIPE NCC in the case income goes down. Operations were normally working before the explosion of the number of LIRs, so why not trying to be more reasonnable in term of budget for the next years ? Regarding the calculations for option #2, I thing there are some unfair calculations for independent resources or ASN. While a "kinda" agree that ASN should be billed (but maybe only "new ASN assignations", as current billing procedures are already in place between LIR and end users ?), I think that having at the same time the 50€ fee *PLUS* having the number of independent resources sponsored taken into account for the LIR category is totally unfair. To be frank, with such a calculation, I think that my LIR would simply terminate all the sponsoring agreement with all its customers, and offer them to continue sponsorship, but with a big fee raise. That wouldn't be an option I'd like to apply to our customers, but since our PA allocations makes us a score of 2 or 3 on the .xlsx spreadsheet, and the number of ASN/PI objects makes us 4, the fee difference is quite huge. Additionnaly: I don't really understand why extra big LIRs with millions of PA IPv4 adresses would pay just a little bit more than "medium" LIRs, having a few thousand IPs. Kind regards, Clément Cavadore On Tue, 2023-03-07 at 11:02 +0000, Kaj Niemi wrote:
Hi,
Thanks, the email and the excel made for some quite interesting reading. There are a few other reasonable options which were not listed on the slide deck from 2021 nor in your email.
An obvious option would be to reduce budgeted RIPE NCC expenditure to the level of forecasted revenue. This is what most normal companies, without assured funding, must do.
Another option would be to charge LIRs for the services they use. With this I do not mean IP addresses and ASNs that were mentioned in your model but for everything. Someone who is using only basic LIR services (IP/ASN assignments, reverse name services) would not have to pay for "value-added services" (VAS).
With VAS I mean RIPE NCC's varied extracurricular activities such as outreach, education programs and software development that have expanded considerably over the years and have undoubtedly been of some value to some of its members. Still, many of the same roles/functions are also conducted by membership organizations, NOGs, and independent software developers. Imposition of the costs of such programs on members, who either don't benefit from or do not use them, equates the charging model functioning mostly as an ATM to finance the ambitions and initiatives of the RIPE NCC leadership and a small group of active advocates.
Some of us would be happy with a Big Mac meal rather than the expensive all you can eat seafood buffet 😉
Kaj
-----Original Message----- From: ncc-announce <ncc-announce-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Simon Jan Haytink Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 11:35 To: ncc-announce@ripe.net Subject: [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
Dear RIPE NCC members,
We would like to re-open the consultation we began with the membership in 2021 on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme model, and we would like to carry out that consultation well in advance of the RIPE NCC General Meeting (GM) May 2023.
In 2021, we presented on this topic at the GM, and we also surveyed our members and held an open house to get direct input on the charging scheme model that members would like to see implemented by the RIPE NCC. The outcome at that stage of the consultation was that there were strong cases made for both the current one-LIR, one-fee model and for a category-based model that would charge based on the number of resources held by a member. A strong case was also made to charge for all resources allocated or assigned by the RIPE NCC, including ASNs, and to charge a fee for transfers.
The Executive Board decided to suspend the consultation in light of the war in Ukraine, but we are eager to decide on a way forward on this matter together with the membership.
One of the main reasons that we would like to advance the discussion on the charging model is that we expect many members with multiple LIR accounts who received resources in 2021 to merge these accounts in the coming year. This means that the income the RIPE NCC receives will be reduced by a significant amount and we will need to ensure that our charging model allows us to collect the revenue required to maintain our operations. We believe that a category-based model would be best suited to cover this consolidation risk. Continuing with the existing model would mean that an increase in fees for all members would be required. Our ultimate goal is to arrive at a charging scheme model that will be sustainable for many years to come, meeting the needs of the RIPE NCC’s members.
To help with discussion and to provide something tangible for members to assess, we are putting forward two draft models for members to review. These models can be summarised as:
Model 1: A “one-LIR, one-fee” model based on the current RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2023 that also charges for independent resources, ASNs, transfers and changes in business structure such as Mergers & Acquisitions.
Model 2: A category-based model that charges per member (not per LIR account) and is based on resources registered and that also charges for independent resources, ASNs, transfers and changes in business structure such as Mergers & Acquisitions.
In order to allow members to form an opinion based on their own situation, we are providing an Excel sheet that will allow you to calculate the fees you would pay under each of the draft models. It is important to be aware that at this stage, the numbers assigned for each item are indicative and would be reviewed in light of the discussion with members. We plan to review these figures following consultation with the members, and giving input on those figures would greatly help to arrive at a good model.
We also plan to hold another Open House meeting on the Charging Scheme in March to further discuss the charging scheme models. The Executive Board will then take the input and decide on one or more charging schemes for the membership to vote on at the GM to be held on 24 May 2023. The outcome of that vote will determine the charging scheme model to be used in the coming years.
I ask that you provide your input on this important consultation on the Membership Discussion mailing list (members-discuss@ripe.net) by 26 April. Input provided up to this date will be considered by the Board when formulating the charging schemes to be proposed for the GM. Input after this date is of course also welcome although it might not be reflected in the schemes put forward to the membership at the GM.
The consultation will also be recorded and available from: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.net%2Fparticipate%2Fmail%2Fmember-and-community-consultations&data=05%7C01%7C%7Cba37c5f6a8244dc0053308db1ef066de%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638137790087678748%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=HYL%2BY4nhlDzN2A0gsahcPXVxVLgVs7tNynm6fm7sJh8%3D&reserved=0
I look forward to your input.
Kind regards,
Simon Jan Haytink Finance Director RIPE NCC
Summary
7 March: Start consultation with membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme model 21 March: Open House to discuss charging scheme with membership 24 March: Executive Board meeting to discuss input received so far 12 April: Publication of Draft RIPE NCC Charging Schemes 2024 26 April: Publication of Final RIPE NCC Charging Schemes to be voted on by members 24 May: RIPE NCC General Meeting May 2023
References
_______________________________________________ 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/ccavadore%40vedege.ne...
My very cynical view is that if invoices to very large LIRs would become significant, someone would eventually start asking whether it is necessary to pay for RIPE NCC ("so why exactly do we pay this amount and what do we receive"). Which brings me to the following. If we use the BCG matrix to analyze RIPE NCC briefly, it is certainly in the lower left quadrant of the four-cell matrix - a cash cow. The definition for a cash cow is very high existing market share but a low market growth rate. RIPE NCC has reached an enviable position, having been able to expand its membership organically over the years, of being a regional monopoly. There seem to be significant barriers to entering the same market. These include legal (who controls the IP resources in a region and why?), regulatory (ditto, how to transfer such services away from RIR1 to a RIR2 in the same region), economic (there is probably a minimum amount of LIRs required to be able to reach economies of scale and keep a competing RIR in the same region) as well as geographic (each RIR has been created to handle a specific region and receives/received its allocations originally from IANA). Kaj -----Original Message----- From: Clement Cavadore <ccavadore@vedege.net> Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 15:07 To: Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net>; Simon Jan Haytink <simon@ripe.net>; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 Hello, I fully agree with Kaj regarding the reduction of expenses for RIPE NCC in the case income goes down. Operations were normally working before the explosion of the number of LIRs, so why not trying to be more reasonnable in term of budget for the next years ? Regarding the calculations for option #2, I thing there are some unfair calculations for independent resources or ASN. While a "kinda" agree that ASN should be billed (but maybe only "new ASN assignations", as current billing procedures are already in place between LIR and end users ?), I think that having at the same time the 50€ fee *PLUS* having the number of independent resources sponsored taken into account for the LIR category is totally unfair. To be frank, with such a calculation, I think that my LIR would simply terminate all the sponsoring agreement with all its customers, and offer them to continue sponsorship, but with a big fee raise. That wouldn't be an option I'd like to apply to our customers, but since our PA allocations makes us a score of 2 or 3 on the .xlsx spreadsheet, and the number of ASN/PI objects makes us 4, the fee difference is quite huge. Additionnaly: I don't really understand why extra big LIRs with millions of PA IPv4 adresses would pay just a little bit more than "medium" LIRs, having a few thousand IPs. Kind regards, Clément Cavadore On Tue, 2023-03-07 at 11:02 +0000, Kaj Niemi wrote:
Hi,
Thanks, the email and the excel made for some quite interesting reading. There are a few other reasonable options which were not listed on the slide deck from 2021 nor in your email.
An obvious option would be to reduce budgeted RIPE NCC expenditure to the level of forecasted revenue. This is what most normal companies, without assured funding, must do.
Another option would be to charge LIRs for the services they use. With this I do not mean IP addresses and ASNs that were mentioned in your model but for everything. Someone who is using only basic LIR services (IP/ASN assignments, reverse name services) would not have to pay for "value-added services" (VAS).
With VAS I mean RIPE NCC's varied extracurricular activities such as outreach, education programs and software development that have expanded considerably over the years and have undoubtedly been of some value to some of its members. Still, many of the same roles/functions are also conducted by membership organizations, NOGs, and independent software developers. Imposition of the costs of such programs on members, who either don't benefit from or do not use them, equates the charging model functioning mostly as an ATM to finance the ambitions and initiatives of the RIPE NCC leadership and a small group of active advocates.
Some of us would be happy with a Big Mac meal rather than the expensive all you can eat seafood buffet 😉
Kaj
-----Original Message----- From: ncc-announce <ncc-announce-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Simon Jan Haytink Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 11:35 To: ncc-announce@ripe.net Subject: [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
Dear RIPE NCC members,
We would like to re-open the consultation we began with the membership in 2021 on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme model, and we would like to carry out that consultation well in advance of the RIPE NCC General Meeting (GM) May 2023.
In 2021, we presented on this topic at the GM, and we also surveyed our members and held an open house to get direct input on the charging scheme model that members would like to see implemented by the RIPE NCC. The outcome at that stage of the consultation was that there were strong cases made for both the current one-LIR, one-fee model and for a category-based model that would charge based on the number of resources held by a member. A strong case was also made to charge for all resources allocated or assigned by the RIPE NCC, including ASNs, and to charge a fee for transfers.
The Executive Board decided to suspend the consultation in light of the war in Ukraine, but we are eager to decide on a way forward on this matter together with the membership.
One of the main reasons that we would like to advance the discussion on the charging model is that we expect many members with multiple LIR accounts who received resources in 2021 to merge these accounts in the coming year. This means that the income the RIPE NCC receives will be reduced by a significant amount and we will need to ensure that our charging model allows us to collect the revenue required to maintain our operations. We believe that a category-based model would be best suited to cover this consolidation risk. Continuing with the existing model would mean that an increase in fees for all members would be required. Our ultimate goal is to arrive at a charging scheme model that will be sustainable for many years to come, meeting the needs of the RIPE NCC’s members.
To help with discussion and to provide something tangible for members to assess, we are putting forward two draft models for members to review. These models can be summarised as:
Model 1: A “one-LIR, one-fee” model based on the current RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2023 that also charges for independent resources, ASNs, transfers and changes in business structure such as Mergers & Acquisitions.
Model 2: A category-based model that charges per member (not per LIR account) and is based on resources registered and that also charges for independent resources, ASNs, transfers and changes in business structure such as Mergers & Acquisitions.
In order to allow members to form an opinion based on their own situation, we are providing an Excel sheet that will allow you to calculate the fees you would pay under each of the draft models. It is important to be aware that at this stage, the numbers assigned for each item are indicative and would be reviewed in light of the discussion with members. We plan to review these figures following consultation with the members, and giving input on those figures would greatly help to arrive at a good model.
We also plan to hold another Open House meeting on the Charging Scheme in March to further discuss the charging scheme models. The Executive Board will then take the input and decide on one or more charging schemes for the membership to vote on at the GM to be held on 24 May 2023. The outcome of that vote will determine the charging scheme model to be used in the coming years.
I ask that you provide your input on this important consultation on the Membership Discussion mailing list (members-discuss@ripe.net) by 26 April. Input provided up to this date will be considered by the Board when formulating the charging schemes to be proposed for the GM. Input after this date is of course also welcome although it might not be reflected in the schemes put forward to the membership at the GM.
The consultation will also be recorded and available from: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.net%2Fparticipate%2Fmail%2Fmember-and-community-consultations&data=05%7C01%7C%7C46ec650a5e4f496b170408db1fd5fed9%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638138776207361486%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=kHWP0r57yAgr%2F9wjZOka8eitURyEO6SsDRibg7MtmEI%3D&reserved=0
I look forward to your input.
Kind regards,
Simon Jan Haytink Finance Director RIPE NCC
Summary
7 March: Start consultation with membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme model 21 March: Open House to discuss charging scheme with membership 24 March: Executive Board meeting to discuss input received so far 12 April: Publication of Draft RIPE NCC Charging Schemes 2024 26 April: Publication of Final RIPE NCC Charging Schemes to be voted on by members 24 May: RIPE NCC General Meeting May 2023
References
_______________________________________________ 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%7C01%7C%7C46ec650a5e4f496b170408db1fd5fed9%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638138776207361486%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=GwVj8f6E5Tyv7%2FZt6ox9jSHUgE2KD6sg9CGvoqNfQP8%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fccavadore%2540vedege.net&data=05%7C01%7C%7C46ec650a5e4f496b170408db1fd5fed9%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638138776207361486%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=k54Wmie6TgFKhEx8PjaTJKyb2eM4A%2FRNvgFn9GxUQl0%3D&reserved=0
Kaj Niemi wrote on 08/03/2023 17:27:
If we use the BCG matrix to analyze RIPE NCC briefly, it is certainly in the lower left quadrant of the four-cell matrix - a cash cow.
Kaj, it's probably useful to keep this style of analysis in the rear view mirror, but the BCG growth matrix is a somewhat un-nuanced mechanism relevant to investment opportunity assessment rather than revenue modelling of not-for-profit organisations. Inevitably, revenue remodelling exercises will create questions about what the organisation actually does. Zooming out on this, the RIPE NCC operates on a mandate to carry out the operational requirements of the RIPE Community. This includes registry functions, but the RIR function is only part of that mandate. Personally, I'd take the view that these two discussions need to be decoupled: the RIPE NCC activity plan is one policy decision, and the nuances of funding this activity plan is a slightly different one. If the two decisions are tied together, we end up with too many moving parts, i.e. instability. I don't believe that this would be in anyone's interests. The discussion at hand is whether the organisation should revert its costing model from everyone-pays-equally to larger-resource-holders-pay-more. We've had this discussion before, in 2012, where a Task Force was asked to examine the NCC funding model. They designed 3 potential schemes and the RIPE NCC membership voted 197:109 to adopt a common fee for all LIRs. The question we have now is whether to continue with this model, or to revert to the older model. I.e. this is not a new debate, nor is it of earth shattering importance. What's important is that the RIPE NCC has financial stability. In terms of the cost increases proposed for larger LIRs, the reality of ipv4 address assignment is that at €50 / address, a RIR cost increase of €1800 -> €8000 is negligible. I don't think it's likely they'll start asking serious existential questions about the RIPE NCC on the basis of a couple of €K. Nick
Hi Nick, Thanks for your constructive feedback. First, I would like to note that the BCG matrix can be used for a lot of things - including external M&A analysis as you mentioned - but originally it was created as a tool to analyze product portfolios strategically... internally. 😊 Whether an organization is "for profit" or "non-profit" is a nuance. The revenue, expenses, and capital budgeting processes for both types are the same. Where they differ is what to do with the excess.. or do they? For profits tend to plow excess into new projects/investments and return excess to their owners (= dividend) only if they are unable to find projects with better return. Non-profits behave rather similarly; some have returned excess (after all expenses and investments) to its membership - not owners, mind - in the past in the form of reduced annual fees..... I imagine most people are fine with whatever RIPE NCC thinks it needs and wants to spend their revenue on. After all, it is to the benefit of the community and internet. This is because the numbers individually are so small, and I believe most members are not even aware of the members-discuss list or read the annual budget PDFs, etc. etc. This of course is fine; everyone is entitled to their opinion and choice. Still, when the CFO equivalent for an organization comes asking for alternatives on how to raise prices to meet projected future budget from its customers (membership) I think it is super useful to look critically at what that organization spends its revenue on. I mean, the RIPE NCC budget has mostly grown year over year and so have pretty much all its departments. The revenue streams have been all but assured in the past years due to growth in networking. But are all these new (or old) functions necessary? My view is that they are not which is why I am posting here. As such one should take a critical look at what the organization does, what its original remit was and whether there are things that might not be quite inside of that scope. The organization itself thinks it is entitled to increase its charges because they do not want to reduce anything they already do. Kaj -----Original Message----- From: Nick Hilliard <nick@netability.ie> Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 13:44 To: Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 Kaj Niemi wrote on 08/03/2023 17:27:
If we use the BCG matrix to analyze RIPE NCC briefly, it is certainly
in the lower left quadrant of the four-cell matrix - a cash cow.
Kaj, it's probably useful to keep this style of analysis in the rear view mirror, but the BCG growth matrix is a somewhat un-nuanced mechanism relevant to investment opportunity assessment rather than revenue modelling of not-for-profit organisations. Inevitably, revenue remodelling exercises will create questions about what the organisation actually does. Zooming out on this, the RIPE NCC operates on a mandate to carry out the operational requirements of the RIPE Community. This includes registry functions, but the RIR function is only part of that mandate. Personally, I'd take the view that these two discussions need to be decoupled: the RIPE NCC activity plan is one policy decision, and the nuances of funding this activity plan is a slightly different one. If the two decisions are tied together, we end up with too many moving parts, i.e. instability. I don't believe that this would be in anyone's interests. The discussion at hand is whether the organisation should revert its costing model from everyone-pays-equally to larger-resource-holders-pay-more. We've had this discussion before, in 2012, where a Task Force was asked to examine the NCC funding model. They designed 3 potential schemes and the RIPE NCC membership voted 197:109 to adopt a common fee for all LIRs. The question we have now is whether to continue with this model, or to revert to the older model. I.e. this is not a new debate, nor is it of earth shattering importance. What's important is that the RIPE NCC has financial stability. In terms of the cost increases proposed for larger LIRs, the reality of ipv4 address assignment is that at €50 / address, a RIR cost increase of €1800 -> €8000 is negligible. I don't think it's likely they'll start asking serious existential questions about the RIPE NCC on the basis of a couple of €K. Nick
Kaj Niemi wrote on 09/03/2023 13:59:
Still, when the CFO equivalent for an organization comes asking for alternatives on how to raise prices to meet projected future budget from its customers (membership) I think it is super useful to look critically at what that organization spends its revenue on.
This mischaracterises where this discussion is coming from. The aim is not to find some new way to raise prices - that can be done in the existing model by just raising the prices. This discussion is the continuation of a community engagement process started in 2021, and outlined here:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/november-2021/document...
I.e. it's the outcome of a member's survey initiated in 2020 on what people wanted from the RIPE NCC. Page 3 includes:
Survey Findings • There was a clear majority in favour of charging based on resources held
So, the membership wanted a discussion on the pricing model, and this is now where we are. In relation to the activity plan, the RIPE NCC presents this centre-stage to the membership every year. Here's the FY2023 Plan:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/october-2022/documenta...
There's a breakdown of costs on Page 6. I agree that it's important to discuss this too, but it's a separate discussion which can easily be decoupled from a pricing model. Nick
I would kindly note that the assumptions regarding future fiscal years’ budgets (2023 onward) vary somewhat from the realized budget. Is it better to work with the wrong pre-assumptions made some years ago or with the actual numbers in the same situation? At least to me, when reading that PowerPoint, it seems like people at the top and everyone who saw that presentation had to be aware of a potential future budget deficit. Rather than rein in on expenditure in time, it has instead increased since. Calling "comment on two billing models exercise" as something else than "finding a way to raise prices that can be agreed on by most" seems to me as somewhat intellectual dishonesty. Now, if indeed the 2024 budget will be on the level of the 2024E budget mentioned in the presentation, yes, we can all stop here. I apologize for wasting everyone’s time and bandwidth. :) Kaj Sent from my iPhone ________________________________ From: Nick Hilliard <nick@netability.ie> Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 5:54 PM To: Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 Kaj Niemi wrote on 09/03/2023 13:59:
Still, when the CFO equivalent for an organization comes asking for alternatives on how to raise prices to meet projected future budget from its customers (membership) I think it is super useful to look critically at what that organization spends its revenue on.
This mischaracterises where this discussion is coming from. The aim is not to find some new way to raise prices - that can be done in the existing model by just raising the prices. This discussion is the continuation of a community engagement process started in 2021, and outlined here:
I.e. it's the outcome of a member's survey initiated in 2020 on what people wanted from the RIPE NCC. Page 3 includes:
Survey Findings • There was a clear majority in favour of charging based on resources held
So, the membership wanted a discussion on the pricing model, and this is now where we are. In relation to the activity plan, the RIPE NCC presents this centre-stage to the membership every year. Here's the FY2023 Plan:
There's a breakdown of costs on Page 6. I agree that it's important to discuss this too, but it's a separate discussion which can easily be decoupled from a pricing model. Nick
Kaj Niemi wrote on 09/03/2023 17:10:
I would kindly note that the assumptions regarding future fiscal years’ budgets (2023 onward) vary somewhat from the realized budget. Is it better to work with the wrong pre-assumptions made some years ago or with the actual numbers in the same situation?
At least to me, when reading that PowerPoint, it seems like people at the top and everyone who saw that presentation had to be aware of a potential future budget deficit. Rather than rein in on expenditure in time, it has instead increased since.
If I remember the presentations around that time, the concerns were about revenue uncertainty after full ipv4 exhaustion due to people no longer opening up new LIR accounts in large numbers to get their last /22 or /24. In regard to budget deficits, all boards need to consider what is going to happen if an organisation is run at a deficit. In terms of expenditure, bear it in mind that the RIPE NCC is operated on a cost recovery basis. If the cost base increases, the revenues can be increased to match. Obviously no-one likes to pay more for the same thing, but this is open as an option.
Calling "comment on two billing models exercise" as something else than "finding a way to raise prices that can be agreed on by most" seems to me as somewhat intellectual dishonesty.
As it stands, the RIPE NCC board could put a straightforward proposal to the membership to increase the flat annual LIR membership fee, without going through the drama of changing the flat charging model. In fact, tweaking the flat fee has been exactly what the NCC board has done over the last 10 years, to match revenue against expenditure. Changing the billing model, and increasing the overall revenue are, in fact, two entirely separate things, so you'll have to excuse me for scratching my head in some puzzlement about why you're suggesting otherwise. Nick
Hello, I've studied a bit the excel, we are a small company, but we do some asn sponsor. If we go with model 2, it cost us 8000€ + 50€ per asn. In practice, if model 2 is voted, we stop sponsor of all our asn (130) and good luck to ripe member to follow that. But it's completly out of question for us to pay 8000€ per year to the ripe ncc with our size. We are a small company, and that change progressively kill us while killing some of our customers too. Now, let's think that at RIPE level. I don't think ressource analyse love to follow back alot of thousands of ASN owner to tell them (you need new sponsor). While the "sponsoring offer" progressively decrease on internet. It create a real disaster and have a negative impact with NET Neutrality. The fixed fee per asn of 50€ is alot better option. Because there is no "global punishment" for the LIR. At least, got PI / ASN out of the "LIR Size counting" is alot better and more easy to scale up for provider with our size. I'm also 100% ok with other members prupose. RIPE HAVE TO SLOW DOWN THEIR EXPENSE. Your role is to maintain a database and a registry. Please prupose a vote to know what service we want to keep and what service we want to discard to be totaly fair and neutral. We help you to cut down the budget. Best regards, Sarah Le 09-03-23 à 14:59, Kaj Niemi a écrit :
Hi Nick,
Thanks for your constructive feedback. First, I would like to note that the BCG matrix can be used for a lot of things - including external M&A analysis as you mentioned - but originally it was created as a tool to analyze product portfolios strategically... internally. 😊
Whether an organization is "for profit" or "non-profit" is a nuance. The revenue, expenses, and capital budgeting processes for both types are the same. Where they differ is what to do with the excess.. or do they? For profits tend to plow excess into new projects/investments and return excess to their owners (= dividend) only if they are unable to find projects with better return. Non-profits behave rather similarly; some have returned excess (after all expenses and investments) to its membership - not owners, mind - in the past in the form of reduced annual fees.....
I imagine most people are fine with whatever RIPE NCC thinks it needs and wants to spend their revenue on. After all, it is to the benefit of the community and internet. This is because the numbers individually are so small, and I believe most members are not even aware of the members-discuss list or read the annual budget PDFs, etc. etc. This of course is fine; everyone is entitled to their opinion and choice.
Still, when the CFO equivalent for an organization comes asking for alternatives on how to raise prices to meet projected future budget from its customers (membership) I think it is super useful to look critically at what that organization spends its revenue on. I mean, the RIPE NCC budget has mostly grown year over year and so have pretty much all its departments. The revenue streams have been all but assured in the past years due to growth in networking.
But are all these new (or old) functions necessary? My view is that they are not which is why I am posting here. As such one should take a critical look at what the organization does, what its original remit was and whether there are things that might not be quite inside of that scope. The organization itself thinks it is entitled to increase its charges because they do not want to reduce anything they already do.
Kaj
-----Original Message----- From: Nick Hilliard <nick@netability.ie> Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 13:44 To: Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
Kaj Niemi wrote on 08/03/2023 17:27:
If we use the BCG matrix to analyze RIPE NCC briefly, it is certainly
in the lower left quadrant of the four-cell matrix - a cash cow.
Kaj,
it's probably useful to keep this style of analysis in the rear view
mirror, but the BCG growth matrix is a somewhat un-nuanced mechanism
relevant to investment opportunity assessment rather than revenue
modelling of not-for-profit organisations.
Inevitably, revenue remodelling exercises will create questions about
what the organisation actually does. Zooming out on this, the RIPE NCC
operates on a mandate to carry out the operational requirements of the
RIPE Community. This includes registry functions, but the RIR function
is only part of that mandate.
Personally, I'd take the view that these two discussions need to be
decoupled: the RIPE NCC activity plan is one policy decision, and the
nuances of funding this activity plan is a slightly different one. If
the two decisions are tied together, we end up with too many moving
parts, i.e. instability. I don't believe that this would be in anyone's
interests.
The discussion at hand is whether the organisation should revert its
costing model from everyone-pays-equally to
larger-resource-holders-pay-more. We've had this discussion before, in
2012, where a Task Force was asked to examine the NCC funding model.
They designed 3 potential schemes and the RIPE NCC membership voted
197:109 to adopt a common fee for all LIRs. The question we have now is
whether to continue with this model, or to revert to the older model.
I.e. this is not a new debate, nor is it of earth shattering importance.
What's important is that the RIPE NCC has financial stability.
In terms of the cost increases proposed for larger LIRs, the reality of
ipv4 address assignment is that at €50 / address, a RIR cost increase of
€1800 -> €8000 is negligible. I don't think it's likely they'll start
asking serious existential questions about the RIPE NCC on the basis of
a couple of €K.
Nick
_______________________________________________ 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
I completely agree with that point of view, as already expressed. Having PA (i-e: "owned" by the LIR itself) resources counted in order to determine LIR category is a fair thinking (but with more granularity, and higher categories for extra-large LIR). But the count (and size of) sponsoring PI resources/ASNs should *really* not be taken in account. If we (as sponsoring orgs) decide to terminate sponsorship with our end users for that reason, it will introduce stress for those end users, and much more work at RIPE NCC to register new agreements with new sponsoring LIRs. Not sure it's the goal here. Best, Clément Cavadore On Thu, 2023-03-09 at 17:05 +0100, Servperso via members-discuss wrote:
Hello, I've studied a bit the excel, we are a small company, but we do some asn sponsor. If we go with model 2, it cost us 8000€ + 50€ per asn.
In practice, if model 2 is voted, we stop sponsor of all our asn (130) and good luck to ripe member to follow that. But it's completly out of question for us to pay 8000€ per year to the ripe ncc with our size.
We are a small company, and that change progressively kill us while killing some of our customers too.
Now, let's think that at RIPE level. I don't think ressource analyse love to follow back alot of thousands of ASN owner to tell them (you need new sponsor). While the "sponsoring offer" progressively decrease on internet. It create a real disaster and have a negative impact with NET Neutrality.
The fixed fee per asn of 50€ is alot better option. Because there is no "global punishment" for the LIR. At least, got PI / ASN out of the "LIR Size counting" is alot better and more easy to scale up for provider with our size.
I'm also 100% ok with other members prupose.
RIPE HAVE TO SLOW DOWN THEIR EXPENSE. Your role is to maintain a database and a registry.
Please prupose a vote to know what service we want to keep and what service we want to discard to be totaly fair and neutral. We help you to cut down the budget.
Best regards, Sarah
If we use the BCG matrix to analyze RIPE NCC briefly, it is certainly in the lower left quadrant of the four-cell matrix - a cash cow. Kaj, it's probably useful to keep this style of analysis in the rear view mirror, but the BCG growth matrix is a somewhat un-nuanced mechanism relevant to investment opportunity assessment rather than revenue modelling of not-for-profit organisations. Inevitably, revenue remodelling exercises will create questions about what the organisation actually does. Zooming out on this, the RIPE NCC operates on a mandate to carry out the operational requirements of
Le 09-03-23 à 14:59, Kaj Niemi a écrit : Hi Nick, Thanks for your constructive feedback. First, I would like to note that the BCG matrix can be used for a lot of things - including external M&A analysis as you mentioned - but originally it was created as a tool to analyze product portfolios strategically... internally. 😊 Whether an organization is "for profit" or "non-profit" is a nuance. The revenue, expenses, and capital budgeting processes for both types are the same. Where they differ is what to do with the excess.. or do they? For profits tend to plow excess into new projects/investments and return excess to their owners (= dividend) only if they are unable to find projects with better return. Non-profits behave rather similarly; some have returned excess (after all expenses and investments) to its membership - not owners, mind - in the past in the form of reduced annual fees..... I imagine most people are fine with whatever RIPE NCC thinks it needs and wants to spend their revenue on. After all, it is to the benefit of the community and internet. This is because the numbers individually are so small, and I believe most members are not even aware of the members-discuss list or read the annual budget PDFs, etc. etc. This of course is fine; everyone is entitled to their opinion and choice. Still, when the CFO equivalent for an organization comes asking for alternatives on how to raise prices to meet projected future budget from its customers (membership) I think it is super useful to look critically at what that organization spends its revenue on. I mean, the RIPE NCC budget has mostly grown year over year and so have pretty much all its departments. The revenue streams have been all but assured in the past years due to growth in networking. But are all these new (or old) functions necessary? My view is that they are not which is why I am posting here. As such one should take a critical look at what the organization does, what its original remit was and whether there are things that might not be quite inside of that scope. The organization itself thinks it is entitled to increase its charges because they do not want to reduce anything they already do. Kaj -----Original Message----- From: Nick Hilliard <nick@netability.ie> Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 13:44 To: Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 Kaj Niemi wrote on 08/03/2023 17:27: the RIPE Community. This includes registry functions, but the RIR function is only part of that mandate. Personally, I'd take the view that these two discussions need to be decoupled: the RIPE NCC activity plan is one policy decision, and the nuances of funding this activity plan is a slightly different one. If the two decisions are tied together, we end up with too many moving parts, i.e. instability. I don't believe that this would be in anyone's interests. The discussion at hand is whether the organisation should revert its costing model from everyone-pays-equally to larger-resource-holders-pay-more. We've had this discussion before, in 2012, where a Task Force was asked to examine the NCC funding model. They designed 3 potential schemes and the RIPE NCC membership voted 197:109 to adopt a common fee for all LIRs. The question we have now is whether to continue with this model, or to revert to the older model. I.e. this is not a new debate, nor is it of earth shattering importance. What's important is that the RIPE NCC has financial stability. In terms of the cost increases proposed for larger LIRs, the reality of ipv4 address assignment is that at €50 / address, a RIR cost increase of €1800 -> €8000 is negligible. I don't think it's likely they'll start asking serious existential questions about the RIPE NCC on the basis of a couple of €K. Nick _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ml%40servperso.com
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ccavadore%40vedege.ne...
Hello Maybe this is a wrong forum, but i will still ask. And hopefully there is other people as well who dont know it, but how is these sponsored PI resources then supposed to be charged? They are not directly then LIR:s so i guess they dont pay the membership fee? If so i dont understand why some resource holders should have the possibility to avoid payments by being a sponsored resource and then someone just pools all these sponsored resources under one membership fee? Why should this have benefit to save money? If then all sponsored resourses are also members and therefore pay membership fee then i understand that these resources should not be counted 2 times against membership fees. So this is more of a question, how is this? Actually one also asked from us if we could sponsor them but as we dont know anthing about this concept we just said no 😊 Br. Hans -----Alkuperäinen viesti----- Lähettäjä: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> Puolesta Clement Cavadore Lähetetty: perjantai 10. maaliskuuta 2023 10.46 Vastaanottaja: Servperso <ml@servperso.com>; members-discuss@ripe.net Aihe: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 I completely agree with that point of view, as already expressed. Having PA (i-e: "owned" by the LIR itself) resources counted in order to determine LIR category is a fair thinking (but with more granularity, and higher categories for extra-large LIR). But the count (and size of) sponsoring PI resources/ASNs should *really* not be taken in account. If we (as sponsoring orgs) decide to terminate sponsorship with our end users for that reason, it will introduce stress for those end users, and much more work at RIPE NCC to register new agreements with new sponsoring LIRs. Not sure it's the goal here. Best, Clément Cavadore On Thu, 2023-03-09 at 17:05 +0100, Servperso via members-discuss wrote:
Hello, I've studied a bit the excel, we are a small company, but we do some asn sponsor. If we go with model 2, it cost us 8000€ + 50€ per asn.
In practice, if model 2 is voted, we stop sponsor of all our asn (130) and good luck to ripe member to follow that. But it's completly out of question for us to pay 8000€ per year to the ripe ncc with our size.
We are a small company, and that change progressively kill us while killing some of our customers too.
Now, let's think that at RIPE level. I don't think ressource analyse love to follow back alot of thousands of ASN owner to tell them (you need new sponsor). While the "sponsoring offer" progressively decrease on internet. It create a real disaster and have a negative impact with NET Neutrality.
The fixed fee per asn of 50€ is alot better option. Because there is no "global punishment" for the LIR. At least, got PI / ASN out of the "LIR Size counting" is alot better and more easy to scale up for provider with our size.
I'm also 100% ok with other members prupose.
RIPE HAVE TO SLOW DOWN THEIR EXPENSE. Your role is to maintain a database and a registry.
Please prupose a vote to know what service we want to keep and what service we want to discard to be totaly fair and neutral. We help you to cut down the budget.
Best regards, Sarah
If we use the BCG matrix to analyze RIPE NCC briefly, it is certainly in the lower left quadrant of the four-cell matrix - a cash cow. Kaj, it's probably useful to keep this style of analysis in the rear view mirror, but the BCG growth matrix is a somewhat un-nuanced mechanism relevant to investment opportunity assessment rather than revenue modelling of not-for-profit organisations. Inevitably, revenue remodelling exercises will create questions about what the organisation actually does. Zooming out on this, the RIPE NCC operates on a mandate to carry out the operational requirements of the RIPE Community. This includes registry functions, but the RIR function is only part of that mandate. Personally, I'd take the view that these two discussions need to be decoupled: the RIPE NCC activity plan is one policy decision, and the nuances of funding this activity plan is a slightly different one. If
Le 09-03-23 à 14:59, Kaj Niemi a écrit : Hi Nick, Thanks for your constructive feedback. First, I would like to note that the BCG matrix can be used for a lot of things - including external M&A analysis as you mentioned - but originally it was created as a tool to analyze product portfolios strategically... internally. 😊 Whether an organization is "for profit" or "non-profit" is a nuance. The revenue, expenses, and capital budgeting processes for both types are the same. Where they differ is what to do with the excess.. or do they? For profits tend to plow excess into new projects/investments and return excess to their owners (= dividend) only if they are unable to find projects with better return. Non-profits behave rather similarly; some have returned excess (after all expenses and investments) to its membership - not owners, mind - in the past in the form of reduced annual fees..... I imagine most people are fine with whatever RIPE NCC thinks it needs and wants to spend their revenue on. After all, it is to the benefit of the community and internet. This is because the numbers individually are so small, and I believe most members are not even aware of the members-discuss list or read the annual budget PDFs, etc. etc. This of course is fine; everyone is entitled to their opinion and choice. Still, when the CFO equivalent for an organization comes asking for alternatives on how to raise prices to meet projected future budget from its customers (membership) I think it is super useful to look critically at what that organization spends its revenue on. I mean, the RIPE NCC budget has mostly grown year over year and so have pretty much all its departments. The revenue streams have been all but assured in the past years due to growth in networking. But are all these new (or old) functions necessary? My view is that they are not which is why I am posting here. As such one should take a critical look at what the organization does, what its original remit was and whether there are things that might not be quite inside of that scope. The organization itself thinks it is entitled to increase its charges because they do not want to reduce anything they already do. Kaj -----Original Message----- From: Nick Hilliard <nick@netability.ie> Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 13:44 To: Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 Kaj Niemi wrote on 08/03/2023 17:27: the two decisions are tied together, we end up with too many moving parts, i.e. instability. I don't believe that this would be in anyone's interests. The discussion at hand is whether the organisation should revert its costing model from everyone-pays-equally to larger-resource-holders-pay-more. We've had this discussion before, in 2012, where a Task Force was asked to examine the NCC funding model. They designed 3 potential schemes and the RIPE NCC membership voted 197:109 to adopt a common fee for all LIRs. The question we have now is whether to continue with this model, or to revert to the older model. I.e. this is not a new debate, nor is it of earth shattering importance. What's important is that the RIPE NCC has financial stability. In terms of the cost increases proposed for larger LIRs, the reality of ipv4 address assignment is that at €50 / address, a RIR cost increase of €1800 -> €8000 is negligible. I don't think it's likely they'll start asking serious existential questions about the RIPE NCC on the basis of a couple of €K. Nick _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ml%40servperso. com
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ccavadore%40ved ege.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/hans.govenius%40devne...
Hi, I also think, that before so sever fee increases are implemented, budget should be reconsidered. I want to point out that according to "RIPE NCC Activity Plan and Budget 2023” ( https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-786/#4.%20Maintaining%20a%20Stro... <https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-786/#4. Maintaining a Strong Organisation> ) RIPE is spending as much money for these extracurricular activities as for maintaining registry. Especially with some of our members suffering from war and other natural disasters, RIPE shouldn’t be budgeting to increase investments, but only for sustaining required services. Best regards, Lukasz Jarosz
Wiadomość napisana przez Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> w dniu 07.03.2023, o godz. 12:02:
Hi,
Thanks, the email and the excel made for some quite interesting reading. There are a few other reasonable options which were not listed on the slide deck from 2021 nor in your email.
An obvious option would be to reduce budgeted RIPE NCC expenditure to the level of forecasted revenue. This is what most normal companies, without assured funding, must do.
Another option would be to charge LIRs for the services they use. With this I do not mean IP addresses and ASNs that were mentioned in your model but for everything. Someone who is using only basic LIR services (IP/ASN assignments, reverse name services) would not have to pay for "value-added services" (VAS).
With VAS I mean RIPE NCC's varied extracurricular activities such as outreach, education programs and software development that have expanded considerably over the years and have undoubtedly been of some value to some of its members. Still, many of the same roles/functions are also conducted by membership organizations, NOGs, and independent software developers. Imposition of the costs of such programs on members, who either don't benefit from or do not use them, equates the charging model functioning mostly as an ATM to finance the ambitions and initiatives of the RIPE NCC leadership and a small group of active advocates.
Some of us would be happy with a Big Mac meal rather than the expensive all you can eat seafood buffet 😉
Kaj
-----Original Message----- From: ncc-announce <ncc-announce-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Simon Jan Haytink Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 11:35 To: ncc-announce@ripe.net Subject: [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
Dear RIPE NCC members,
We would like to re-open the consultation we began with the membership in 2021 on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme model, and we would like to carry out that consultation well in advance of the RIPE NCC General Meeting (GM) May 2023.
In 2021, we presented on this topic at the GM, and we also surveyed our members and held an open house to get direct input on the charging scheme model that members would like to see implemented by the RIPE NCC. The outcome at that stage of the consultation was that there were strong cases made for both the current one-LIR, one-fee model and for a category-based model that would charge based on the number of resources held by a member. A strong case was also made to charge for all resources allocated or assigned by the RIPE NCC, including ASNs, and to charge a fee for transfers.
The Executive Board decided to suspend the consultation in light of the war in Ukraine, but we are eager to decide on a way forward on this matter together with the membership.
One of the main reasons that we would like to advance the discussion on the charging model is that we expect many members with multiple LIR accounts who received resources in 2021 to merge these accounts in the coming year. This means that the income the RIPE NCC receives will be reduced by a significant amount and we will need to ensure that our charging model allows us to collect the revenue required to maintain our operations. We believe that a category-based model would be best suited to cover this consolidation risk. Continuing with the existing model would mean that an increase in fees for all members would be required. Our ultimate goal is to arrive at a charging scheme model that will be sustainable for many years to come, meeting the needs of the RIPE NCC’s members.
To help with discussion and to provide something tangible for members to assess, we are putting forward two draft models for members to review. These models can be summarised as:
Model 1: A “one-LIR, one-fee” model based on the current RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2023 that also charges for independent resources, ASNs, transfers and changes in business structure such as Mergers & Acquisitions.
Model 2: A category-based model that charges per member (not per LIR account) and is based on resources registered and that also charges for independent resources, ASNs, transfers and changes in business structure such as Mergers & Acquisitions.
In order to allow members to form an opinion based on their own situation, we are providing an Excel sheet that will allow you to calculate the fees you would pay under each of the draft models. It is important to be aware that at this stage, the numbers assigned for each item are indicative and would be reviewed in light of the discussion with members. We plan to review these figures following consultation with the members, and giving input on those figures would greatly help to arrive at a good model.
We also plan to hold another Open House meeting on the Charging Scheme in March to further discuss the charging scheme models. The Executive Board will then take the input and decide on one or more charging schemes for the membership to vote on at the GM to be held on 24 May 2023. The outcome of that vote will determine the charging scheme model to be used in the coming years.
I ask that you provide your input on this important consultation on the Membership Discussion mailing list (members-discuss@ripe.net) by 26 April. Input provided up to this date will be considered by the Board when formulating the charging schemes to be proposed for the GM. Input after this date is of course also welcome although it might not be reflected in the schemes put forward to the membership at the GM.
The consultation will also be recorded and available from: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.net%2Fparticipate%2Fmail%2Fmember-and-community-consultations&data=05%7C01%7C%7Cba37c5f6a8244dc0053308db1ef066de%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638137790087678748%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=HYL%2BY4nhlDzN2A0gsahcPXVxVLgVs7tNynm6fm7sJh8%3D&reserved=0
I look forward to your input.
Kind regards,
Simon Jan Haytink Finance Director RIPE NCC
Summary
7 March: Start consultation with membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme model 21 March: Open House to discuss charging scheme with membership 24 March: Executive Board meeting to discuss input received so far 12 April: Publication of Draft RIPE NCC Charging Schemes 2024 26 April: Publication of Final RIPE NCC Charging Schemes to be voted on by members 24 May: RIPE NCC General Meeting May 2023
References
_______________________________________________ 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
Hello Tiered membership cost structures should be the only options put forward for a vote as this is the only viable and sustainable way forward. The current structure is rapidly pushing up costs for members with XS/S allocations making it unsustainable and RIPE can not afford to continue with the decreasing revenue this model achieves. Is is a no-brainer for LIRs with multiple accounts to amalgamate their positions into one LIR account and that is not sustainable under the current pricing structure. It seems reasonable to me that LIR membership costs should be calculated pro-rata on the number of resources held by each LIR, albeit with a base membership cost of say €500 per LIR with a /22 or less. Each additional /22 should be costed on the total amount of /22's within RIPE divided by the required income budget set by RIPE for the following year. For the sake of LIRs with small or extra small resources, and also for the sustainability of RIPE itself, RIPE can not in my view, even risk the option of continuing with the current “Option 1” model. Best Mike On 8 Mar 2023, at 21:46, Lukasz Jarosz <lukasz@jarosz.pl> wrote: Hi, I also think, that before so sever fee increases are implemented, budget should be reconsidered. I want to point out that according to "RIPE NCC Activity Plan and Budget 2023” ( https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-786/#4.%20Maintaining%20a%20Stro... <https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-786/#4.%20Maintaining%20a%20Strong%20Organisation> ) RIPE is spending as much money for these extracurricular activities as for maintaining registry. Especially with some of our members suffering from war and other natural disasters, RIPE shouldn’t be budgeting to increase investments, but only for sustaining required services. Best regards, Lukasz Jarosz
Wiadomość napisana przez Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net <mailto:kajtzu@basen.net>> w dniu 07.03.2023, o godz. 12:02:
Hi,
Thanks, the email and the excel made for some quite interesting reading. There are a few other reasonable options which were not listed on the slide deck from 2021 nor in your email.
An obvious option would be to reduce budgeted RIPE NCC expenditure to the level of forecasted revenue. This is what most normal companies, without assured funding, must do.
Another option would be to charge LIRs for the services they use. With this I do not mean IP addresses and ASNs that were mentioned in your model but for everything. Someone who is using only basic LIR services (IP/ASN assignments, reverse name services) would not have to pay for "value-added services" (VAS).
With VAS I mean RIPE NCC's varied extracurricular activities such as outreach, education programs and software development that have expanded considerably over the years and have undoubtedly been of some value to some of its members. Still, many of the same roles/functions are also conducted by membership organizations, NOGs, and independent software developers. Imposition of the costs of such programs on members, who either don't benefit from or do not use them, equates the charging model functioning mostly as an ATM to finance the ambitions and initiatives of the RIPE NCC leadership and a small group of active advocates.
Some of us would be happy with a Big Mac meal rather than the expensive all you can eat seafood buffet 😉
Kaj
-----Original Message----- From: ncc-announce <ncc-announce-bounces@ripe.net <mailto:ncc-announce-bounces@ripe.net>> On Behalf Of Simon Jan Haytink Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 11:35 To: ncc-announce@ripe.net <mailto:ncc-announce@ripe.net> Subject: [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
Dear RIPE NCC members,
We would like to re-open the consultation we began with the membership in 2021 on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme model, and we would like to carry out that consultation well in advance of the RIPE NCC General Meeting (GM) May 2023.
In 2021, we presented on this topic at the GM, and we also surveyed our members and held an open house to get direct input on the charging scheme model that members would like to see implemented by the RIPE NCC. The outcome at that stage of the consultation was that there were strong cases made for both the current one-LIR, one-fee model and for a category-based model that would charge based on the number of resources held by a member. A strong case was also made to charge for all resources allocated or assigned by the RIPE NCC, including ASNs, and to charge a fee for transfers.
The Executive Board decided to suspend the consultation in light of the war in Ukraine, but we are eager to decide on a way forward on this matter together with the membership.
One of the main reasons that we would like to advance the discussion on the charging model is that we expect many members with multiple LIR accounts who received resources in 2021 to merge these accounts in the coming year. This means that the income the RIPE NCC receives will be reduced by a significant amount and we will need to ensure that our charging model allows us to collect the revenue required to maintain our operations. We believe that a category-based model would be best suited to cover this consolidation risk. Continuing with the existing model would mean that an increase in fees for all members would be required. Our ultimate goal is to arrive at a charging scheme model that will be sustainable for many years to come, meeting the needs of the RIPE NCC’s members.
To help with discussion and to provide something tangible for members to assess, we are putting forward two draft models for members to review. These models can be summarised as:
Model 1: A “one-LIR, one-fee” model based on the current RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2023 that also charges for independent resources, ASNs, transfers and changes in business structure such as Mergers & Acquisitions.
Model 2: A category-based model that charges per member (not per LIR account) and is based on resources registered and that also charges for independent resources, ASNs, transfers and changes in business structure such as Mergers & Acquisitions.
In order to allow members to form an opinion based on their own situation, we are providing an Excel sheet that will allow you to calculate the fees you would pay under each of the draft models. It is important to be aware that at this stage, the numbers assigned for each item are indicative and would be reviewed in light of the discussion with members. We plan to review these figures following consultation with the members, and giving input on those figures would greatly help to arrive at a good model.
You can download the Excel sheet from: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.n... <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.net%2Fparticipate%2Fmail%2Fmember-and->community-consultations%2Fmember-calculator-charging-scheme-2024.xlsx&data=05%7C01%7C%7Cba37c5f6a8244dc0053308db1ef066de%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638137790087678748%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=p27R1eIR06WMjapHci7lCcjUxNBvlnExmGvJr6XesOA%3D&reserved=0
We also plan to hold another Open House meeting on the Charging Scheme in March to further discuss the charging scheme models. The Executive Board will then take the input and decide on one or more charging schemes for the membership to vote on at the GM to be held on 24 May 2023. The outcome of that vote will determine the charging scheme model to be used in the coming years.
I ask that you provide your input on this important consultation on the Membership Discussion mailing list (members-discuss@ripe.net) by 26 April. Input provided up to this date will be considered by the Board when formulating the charging schemes to be proposed for the GM. Input after this date is of course also welcome although it might not be reflected in the schemes put forward to the membership at the GM.
The consultation will also be recorded and available from: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.net%2Fparticipate%2Fmail%2Fmember-and-community-consultations&data=05%7C01%7C%7Cba37c5f6a8244dc0053308db1ef066de%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638137790087678748%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=HYL%2BY4nhlDzN2A0gsahcPXVxVLgVs7tNynm6fm7sJh8%3D&reserved=0
I look forward to your input.
Kind regards,
Simon Jan Haytink Finance Director RIPE NCC
Summary
7 March: Start consultation with membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme model 21 March: Open House to discuss charging scheme with membership 24 March: Executive Board meeting to discuss input received so far 12 April: Publication of Draft RIPE NCC Charging Schemes 2024 26 April: Publication of Final RIPE NCC Charging Schemes to be voted on by members 24 May: RIPE NCC General Meeting May 2023
References
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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/mail%40mys.co.uk
Hi Mike, I'm curious why you feel that charge more / spend more should be the only option for vote? Why should we not vote that RIPE reduce its expenses instead? Cheers Daniel~ On 3/9/23 05:21, mail@mys.co.uk wrote:
Hello
Tiered membership cost structures should be the only options put forward for a vote as this is the only viable and sustainable way forward.
The current structure is rapidly pushing up costs for members with XS/S allocations making it unsustainable and RIPE can not afford to continue with the decreasing revenue this model achieves.
Is is a no-brainer for LIRs with multiple accounts to amalgamate their positions into one LIR account and that is not sustainable under the current pricing structure. It seems reasonable to me that LIR membership costs should be calculated pro-rata on the number of resources held by each LIR, albeit with a base membership cost of say €500 per LIR with a /22 or less. Each additional /22 should be costed on the total amount of /22's within RIPE divided by the required income budget set by RIPE for the following year.
For the sake of LIRs with small or extra small resources, and also for the sustainability of RIPE itself, RIPE can not in my view, even risk the option of continuing with the current “Option 1” model.
Best Mike
* *
On 8 Mar 2023, at 21:46, Lukasz Jarosz <lukasz@jarosz.pl> wrote:
Hi, I also think, that before so sever fee increases are implemented, budget should be reconsidered. I want to point out that according to "RIPE NCC Activity Plan and Budget 2023” ( https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-786/#4.%20Maintaining%20a%20Stro... ) *RIPE is spending as much money for these extracurricular activities as for maintaining registry*. Especially with some of our members suffering from war and other natural disasters, RIPE shouldn’t be budgeting to increase investments, but only for sustaining required services.
Best regards, Lukasz Jarosz
Wiadomość napisana przez Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> w dniu 07.03.2023, o godz. 12:02:
Hi,
Thanks, the email and the excel made for some quite interesting reading. There are a few other reasonable options which were not listed on the slide deck from 2021 nor in your email.
An obvious option would be to reduce budgeted RIPE NCC expenditure to the level of forecasted revenue. This is what most normal companies, without assured funding, must do.
Another option would be to charge LIRs for the services they use. With this I do not mean IP addresses and ASNs that were mentioned in your model but for everything. Someone who is using only basic LIR services (IP/ASN assignments, reverse name services) would not have to pay for "value-added services" (VAS).
With VAS I mean RIPE NCC's varied extracurricular activities such as outreach, education programs and software development that have expanded considerably over the years and have undoubtedly been of some value to some of its members. Still, many of the same roles/functions are also conducted by membership organizations, NOGs, and independent software developers. Imposition of the costs of such programs on members, who either don't benefit from or do not use them, equates the charging model functioning mostly as an ATM to finance the ambitions and initiatives of the RIPE NCC leadership and a small group of active advocates.
Some of us would be happy with a Big Mac meal rather than the expensive all you can eat seafood buffet 😉
Kaj
-----Original Message----- From: ncc-announce <ncc-announce-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Simon Jan Haytink Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 11:35 To: ncc-announce@ripe.net Subject: [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
Dear RIPE NCC members,
We would like to re-open the consultation we began with the membership in 2021 on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme model, and we would like to carry out that consultation well in advance of the RIPE NCC General Meeting (GM) May 2023.
In 2021, we presented on this topic at the GM, and we also surveyed our members and held an open house to get direct input on the charging scheme model that members would like to see implemented by the RIPE NCC. The outcome at that stage of the consultation was that there were strong cases made for both the current one-LIR, one-fee model and for a category-based model that would charge based on the number of resources held by a member. A strong case was also made to charge for all resources allocated or assigned by the RIPE NCC, including ASNs, and to charge a fee for transfers.
The Executive Board decided to suspend the consultation in light of the war in Ukraine, but we are eager to decide on a way forward on this matter together with the membership.
One of the main reasons that we would like to advance the discussion on the charging model is that we expect many members with multiple LIR accounts who received resources in 2021 to merge these accounts in the coming year. This means that the income the RIPE NCC receives will be reduced by a significant amount and we will need to ensure that our charging model allows us to collect the revenue required to maintain our operations. We believe that a category-based model would be best suited to cover this consolidation risk. Continuing with the existing model would mean that an increase in fees for all members would be required. Our ultimate goal is to arrive at a charging scheme model that will be sustainable for many years to come, meeting the needs of the RIPE NCC’s members.
To help with discussion and to provide something tangible for members to assess, we are putting forward two draft models for members to review. These models can be summarised as:
Model 1: A “one-LIR, one-fee” model based on the current RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2023 that also charges for independent resources, ASNs, transfers and changes in business structure such as Mergers & Acquisitions.
Model 2: A category-based model that charges per member (not per LIR account) and is based on resources registered and that also charges for independent resources, ASNs, transfers and changes in business structure such as Mergers & Acquisitions.
In order to allow members to form an opinion based on their own situation, we are providing an Excel sheet that will allow you to calculate the fees you would pay under each of the draft models. It is important to be aware that at this stage, the numbers assigned for each item are indicative and would be reviewed in light of the discussion with members. We plan to review these figures following consultation with the members, and giving input on those figures would greatly help to arrive at a good model.
We also plan to hold another Open House meeting on the Charging Scheme in March to further discuss the charging scheme models. The Executive Board will then take the input and decide on one or more charging schemes for the membership to vote on at the GM to be held on 24 May 2023. The outcome of that vote will determine the charging scheme model to be used in the coming years.
I ask that you provide your input on this important consultation on the Membership Discussion mailing list (members-discuss@ripe.net) by 26 April. Input provided up to this date will be considered by the Board when formulating the charging schemes to be proposed for the GM. Input after this date is of course also welcome although it might not be reflected in the schemes put forward to the membership at the GM.
The consultation will also be recorded and available from: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.net%2Fparticipate%2Fmail%2Fmember-and-community-consultations&data=05%7C01%7C%7Cba37c5f6a8244dc0053308db1ef066de%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638137790087678748%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=HYL%2BY4nhlDzN2A0gsahcPXVxVLgVs7tNynm6fm7sJh8%3D&reserved=0 <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.net%2Fparticipate%2Fmail%2Fmember-and-community-consultations&data=05%7C01%7C%7Cba37c5f6a8244dc0053308db1ef066de%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638137790087678748%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=HYL%2BY4nhlDzN2A0gsahcPXVxVLgVs7tNynm6fm7sJh8%3D&reserved=0>
I look forward to your input.
Kind regards,
Simon Jan Haytink Finance Director RIPE NCC
Summary
7 March: Start consultation with membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme model 21 March: Open House to discuss charging scheme with membership 24 March: Executive Board meeting to discuss input received so far 12 April: Publication of Draft RIPE NCC Charging Schemes 2024 26 April: Publication of Final RIPE NCC Charging Schemes to be voted on by members 24 May: RIPE NCC General Meeting May 2023
References
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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/mail%40mys.co.uk
_______________________________________________ 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...
Well said. I agree with this. --- Regards, Paul Lewis. On 2023-03-09 11:21, mail@mys.co.uk wrote:
Hello
Tiered membership cost structures should be the only options put forward for a vote as this is the only viable and sustainable way forward.
The current structure is rapidly pushing up costs for members with XS/S allocations making it unsustainable and RIPE can not afford to continue with the decreasing revenue this model achieves.
Is is a no-brainer for LIRs with multiple accounts to amalgamate their positions into one LIR account and that is not sustainable under the current pricing structure. It seems reasonable to me that LIR membership costs should be calculated pro-rata on the number of resources held by each LIR, albeit with a base membership cost of say EUR500 per LIR with a /22 or less. Each additional /22 should be costed on the total amount of /22's within RIPE divided by the required income budget set by RIPE for the following year.
For the sake of LIRs with small or extra small resources, and also for the sustainability of RIPE itself, RIPE can not in my view, even risk the option of continuing with the current "Option 1" model.
Best Mike
On 8 Mar 2023, at 21:46, Lukasz Jarosz <lukasz@jarosz.pl> wrote:
Hi, I also think, that before so sever fee increases are implemented, budget should be reconsidered. I want to point out that according to "RIPE NCC Activity Plan and Budget 2023" ( https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-786/#4.%20Maintaining%20a%20Stro... ) RIPE is spending as much money for these extracurricular activities as for maintaining registry. Especially with some of our members suffering from war and other natural disasters, RIPE shouldn't be budgeting to increase investments, but only for sustaining required services.
Best regards, Lukasz Jarosz
Wiadomość napisana przez Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> w dniu 07.03.2023, o godz. 12:02:
Hi,
Thanks, the email and the excel made for some quite interesting reading. There are a few other reasonable options which were not listed on the slide deck from 2021 nor in your email.
An obvious option would be to reduce budgeted RIPE NCC expenditure to the level of forecasted revenue. This is what most normal companies, without assured funding, must do.
Another option would be to charge LIRs for the services they use. With this I do not mean IP addresses and ASNs that were mentioned in your model but for everything. Someone who is using only basic LIR services (IP/ASN assignments, reverse name services) would not have to pay for "value-added services" (VAS).
With VAS I mean RIPE NCC's varied extracurricular activities such as outreach, education programs and software development that have expanded considerably over the years and have undoubtedly been of some value to some of its members. Still, many of the same roles/functions are also conducted by membership organizations, NOGs, and independent software developers. Imposition of the costs of such programs on members, who either don't benefit from or do not use them, equates the charging model functioning mostly as an ATM to finance the ambitions and initiatives of the RIPE NCC leadership and a small group of active advocates.
Some of us would be happy with a Big Mac meal rather than the expensive all you can eat seafood buffet 😉
Kaj
-----Original Message----- From: ncc-announce <ncc-announce-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Simon Jan Haytink Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 11:35 To: ncc-announce@ripe.net Subject: [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
Dear RIPE NCC members,
We would like to re-open the consultation we began with the membership in 2021 on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme model, and we would like to carry out that consultation well in advance of the RIPE NCC General Meeting (GM) May 2023.
In 2021, we presented on this topic at the GM, and we also surveyed our members and held an open house to get direct input on the charging scheme model that members would like to see implemented by the RIPE NCC. The outcome at that stage of the consultation was that there were strong cases made for both the current one-LIR, one-fee model and for a category-based model that would charge based on the number of resources held by a member. A strong case was also made to charge for all resources allocated or assigned by the RIPE NCC, including ASNs, and to charge a fee for transfers.
The Executive Board decided to suspend the consultation in light of the war in Ukraine, but we are eager to decide on a way forward on this matter together with the membership.
One of the main reasons that we would like to advance the discussion on the charging model is that we expect many members with multiple LIR accounts who received resources in 2021 to merge these accounts in the coming year. This means that the income the RIPE NCC receives will be reduced by a significant amount and we will need to ensure that our charging model allows us to collect the revenue required to maintain our operations. We believe that a category-based model would be best suited to cover this consolidation risk. Continuing with the existing model would mean that an increase in fees for all members would be required. Our ultimate goal is to arrive at a charging scheme model that will be sustainable for many years to come, meeting the needs of the RIPE NCC's members.
To help with discussion and to provide something tangible for members to assess, we are putting forward two draft models for members to review. These models can be summarised as:
Model 1: A "one-LIR, one-fee" model based on the current RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2023 that also charges for independent resources, ASNs, transfers and changes in business structure such as Mergers & Acquisitions.
Model 2: A category-based model that charges per member (not per LIR account) and is based on resources registered and that also charges for independent resources, ASNs, transfers and changes in business structure such as Mergers & Acquisitions.
In order to allow members to form an opinion based on their own situation, we are providing an Excel sheet that will allow you to calculate the fees you would pay under each of the draft models. It is important to be aware that at this stage, the numbers assigned for each item are indicative and would be reviewed in light of the discussion with members. We plan to review these figures following consultation with the members, and giving input on those figures would greatly help to arrive at a good model.
We also plan to hold another Open House meeting on the Charging Scheme in March to further discuss the charging scheme models. The Executive Board will then take the input and decide on one or more charging schemes for the membership to vote on at the GM to be held on 24 May 2023. The outcome of that vote will determine the charging scheme model to be used in the coming years.
I ask that you provide your input on this important consultation on the Membership Discussion mailing list (members-discuss@ripe.net) by 26 April. Input provided up to this date will be considered by the Board when formulating the charging schemes to be proposed for the GM. Input after this date is of course also welcome although it might not be reflected in the schemes put forward to the membership at the GM.
The consultation will also be recorded and available from: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.net%2Fparticipate%2Fmail%2Fmember-and-community-consultations&data=05%7C01%7C%7Cba37c5f6a8244dc0053308db1ef066de%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638137790087678748%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=HYL%2BY4nhlDzN2A0gsahcPXVxVLgVs7tNynm6fm7sJh8%3D&reserved=0
I look forward to your input.
Kind regards,
Simon Jan Haytink Finance Director RIPE NCC
Summary
7 March: Start consultation with membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme model 21 March: Open House to discuss charging scheme with membership 24 March: Executive Board meeting to discuss input received so far 12 April: Publication of Draft RIPE NCC Charging Schemes 2024 26 April: Publication of Final RIPE NCC Charging Schemes to be voted on by members 24 May: RIPE NCC General Meeting May 2023
References
_______________________________________________ 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
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/mail%40mys.co.uk _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/paul.lewis%40fr89.uk
Thanks Cynthia, Patrick Velder, Lukasz & Kaj – Full ACK from our side! Von: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> Im Auftrag von Lukasz Jarosz Gesendet: Mittwoch, 8. März 2023 22:47 An: Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> Cc: Simon Jan Haytink <simon@ripe.net>; members-discuss@ripe.net Betreff: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 ! Öffnen Sie nur Anhänge oder Links aus vertrauenswürdigen Quellen! Verdachtsfälle können Sie an check@csn-solutions.de<mailto:check@csn-solutions.de> zur Prüfung weiterleiten. Hi, I also think, that before so sever fee increases are implemented, budget should be reconsidered. I want to point out that according to "RIPE NCC Activity Plan and Budget 2023” ( https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-786/#4.%20Maintaining%20a%20Stro... ) RIPE is spending as much money for these extracurricular activities as for maintaining registry. Especially with some of our members suffering from war and other natural disasters, RIPE shouldn’t be budgeting to increase investments, but only for sustaining required services. Best regards, Lukasz Jarosz Wiadomość napisana przez Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net<mailto:kajtzu@basen.net>> w dniu 07.03.2023, o godz. 12:02: Hi, Thanks, the email and the excel made for some quite interesting reading. There are a few other reasonable options which were not listed on the slide deck from 2021 nor in your email. An obvious option would be to reduce budgeted RIPE NCC expenditure to the level of forecasted revenue. This is what most normal companies, without assured funding, must do. Another option would be to charge LIRs for the services they use. With this I do not mean IP addresses and ASNs that were mentioned in your model but for everything. Someone who is using only basic LIR services (IP/ASN assignments, reverse name services) would not have to pay for "value-added services" (VAS). With VAS I mean RIPE NCC's varied extracurricular activities such as outreach, education programs and software development that have expanded considerably over the years and have undoubtedly been of some value to some of its members. Still, many of the same roles/functions are also conducted by membership organizations, NOGs, and independent software developers. Imposition of the costs of such programs on members, who either don't benefit from or do not use them, equates the charging model functioning mostly as an ATM to finance the ambitions and initiatives of the RIPE NCC leadership and a small group of active advocates. Some of us would be happy with a Big Mac meal rather than the expensive all you can eat seafood buffet 😉 Kaj -----Original Message----- From: ncc-announce <ncc-announce-bounces@ripe.net<mailto:ncc-announce-bounces@ripe.net>> On Behalf Of Simon Jan Haytink Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 11:35 To: ncc-announce@ripe.net<mailto:ncc-announce@ripe.net> Subject: [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 Dear RIPE NCC members, We would like to re-open the consultation we began with the membership in 2021 on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme model, and we would like to carry out that consultation well in advance of the RIPE NCC General Meeting (GM) May 2023. In 2021, we presented on this topic at the GM, and we also surveyed our members and held an open house to get direct input on the charging scheme model that members would like to see implemented by the RIPE NCC. The outcome at that stage of the consultation was that there were strong cases made for both the current one-LIR, one-fee model and for a category-based model that would charge based on the number of resources held by a member. A strong case was also made to charge for all resources allocated or assigned by the RIPE NCC, including ASNs, and to charge a fee for transfers. The Executive Board decided to suspend the consultation in light of the war in Ukraine, but we are eager to decide on a way forward on this matter together with the membership. One of the main reasons that we would like to advance the discussion on the charging model is that we expect many members with multiple LIR accounts who received resources in 2021 to merge these accounts in the coming year. This means that the income the RIPE NCC receives will be reduced by a significant amount and we will need to ensure that our charging model allows us to collect the revenue required to maintain our operations. We believe that a category-based model would be best suited to cover this consolidation risk. Continuing with the existing model would mean that an increase in fees for all members would be required. Our ultimate goal is to arrive at a charging scheme model that will be sustainable for many years to come, meeting the needs of the RIPE NCC’s members. To help with discussion and to provide something tangible for members to assess, we are putting forward two draft models for members to review. These models can be summarised as: Model 1: A “one-LIR, one-fee” model based on the current RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2023 that also charges for independent resources, ASNs, transfers and changes in business structure such as Mergers & Acquisitions. Model 2: A category-based model that charges per member (not per LIR account) and is based on resources registered and that also charges for independent resources, ASNs, transfers and changes in business structure such as Mergers & Acquisitions. In order to allow members to form an opinion based on their own situation, we are providing an Excel sheet that will allow you to calculate the fees you would pay under each of the draft models. It is important to be aware that at this stage, the numbers assigned for each item are indicative and would be reviewed in light of the discussion with members. We plan to review these figures following consultation with the members, and giving input on those figures would greatly help to arrive at a good model. You can download the Excel sheet from: Protected link<https://mail100.csn-solutions.net/link?id=BAgAAADk4OYQoBZ82ccAAABQaOTB4vaGApvb286DMSH_a2OmRz5VNoKT6wE13mWVNNcIYZVFaBoS5ZQufHkJEYYOPogK7q5J-JMlxtE8G7HHc8REwgTDXQsbC5qPDFBBx45Wmx2ezE4Geo3nDCrKLU2PcKraHJbWeahvb7vorQgatcozXLQxrvm0FftLM6KqclxdSCbo5iqGQiqUvzgP-QOjnsC6kmbpQgrrEGLixQzCfLId-t9U90M12N8T6KneKTDd7RvYow_CF7lJfXW-BilQjSQaiYXQ0>community-consultations%2Fmember-calculator-charging-scheme-2024.xlsx&data=05%7C01%7C%7Cba37c5f6a8244dc0053308db1ef066de%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638137790087678748%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=p27R1eIR06WMjapHci7lCcjUxNBvlnExmGvJr6XesOA%3D&reserved=0 We also plan to hold another Open House meeting on the Charging Scheme in March to further discuss the charging scheme models. The Executive Board will then take the input and decide on one or more charging schemes for the membership to vote on at the GM to be held on 24 May 2023. The outcome of that vote will determine the charging scheme model to be used in the coming years. I ask that you provide your input on this important consultation on the Membership Discussion mailing list (members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>) by 26 April. Input provided up to this date will be considered by the Board when formulating the charging schemes to be proposed for the GM. Input after this date is of course also welcome although it might not be reflected in the schemes put forward to the membership at the GM. The consultation will also be recorded and available from: Protected link<https://mail100.csn-solutions.net/link?id=BAgAAADk4OYQoBZ82f8BAAA4VCt_WZ4oZra1MhsxwJi7eLf-qC-BUY7ZrPEsZjqcMPPthowtNjb_w5kErC2RUbAhEgD6LW5GE876MfuALEgfay_jPpvuDXM5F11HsinMi1Mje5iv4y8eKzkT7p2AosXRWvQk0Tkihpd-nTBcMaJNLdGwWIT2YQCMV2-bvCzbmbxAM9bH4laKHtfEpOHTIb3gbqkt1sgf9r2muJ61csH1rfg_zujl7g6pgOATzTES0xlcY0i7GjXyY0Am2chdz5vscA9-uT11R2tjvAgBdryPC3xpuGKLT1mBb8LmU9BvfPIXLAwczFaWQjcR0hxoV-YE2WR6seh9Dc9aJuKZWwjJ5oq4N7NXo5xvVyaMwaI460Ki9KSVF1XH3qYXUBxxTO8S6u6-DH3V_vQcuBMPKe1Mujd7CzBO3gGVklwL8EtzwI1BNDG_tgbbQCG_mA_hmTPSjaX83Na47vpowI00QF3eQxwL3zEUTW8vCacvwnF-cn86IwHhkjA6mvy6p6kMVrdee0z8FlMMbE2IbaAwGFWo0vyBn62Kao-Tgj1IUzSBdHkwll0nj-w5Hlbf13KFHVTORVwBZ1NdihAghK4Nc1UqLdG5k48sBOvYIUg5bg_JZOoZ4g9Bp4onQhemOpXrGTmkcefjFbiA0UldjKP3fGH_AbxbdcJhx4HHIBvz5Bxn0> I look forward to your input. Kind regards, Simon Jan Haytink Finance Director RIPE NCC Summary 7 March: Start consultation with membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme model 21 March: Open House to discuss charging scheme with membership 24 March: Executive Board meeting to discuss input received so far 12 April: Publication of Draft RIPE NCC Charging Schemes 2024 26 April: Publication of Final RIPE NCC Charging Schemes to be voted on by members 24 May: RIPE NCC General Meeting May 2023 References Open House and Survey Results Protected link<https://mail100.csn-solutions.net/link?id=BAgAAADk4OYQoBZ82RoCAAAToQvqdrzCdbbLpGphV7TR5lZaWojISXbJToK2dCxqNRzBdYJolsWlwJ2k1_zOtx7dLtlNKSHXQRdorTDHI0i22AVAJDFydv5m-9lA_-5jSvTiNIuR6pOn8sbXDaruAupj305lgiNBCMqEdhYDYy5zAB5p996sK3RnsfS4mf35F0_BEAi3yFjTUlawhHNmV-mXQmFX05gbMf-_thWmPmYzmHhszI2og6nbHiL4pP3ZCamvX5TKbhPaO98UG1yYT7-v_jGHa7EoCFzzPXcOw_gnT9-xgfiYo-5vxGWMcyjrZNWjPrrgrtA0TobTf9Sji6ErZjFFTy7Er61Jau8Q9AlCJeeV5SZkkOj-88aluEmnefrZEiuyLSF6MyGpajauMHxnen4TerIeaJhfJRT7nFCB9t_xU7N3b4yhTMtGD13Q_DvS2POeLcapfKFJ0vQ3OavpI5gv9hbHl5Y7O2qsVJYN8rCy66Y5Xd5roaCwdPioeZgGnT6RDRt_65LL86V7FJXLZJ9phoPwwafFB5v8Bg_H7yFUs5Jw2kSxUcvV3PNF_H1bctxdU_O05B6DABCNeW6TShgPRv1kUxKZ9EKqSeMRXDwLaxIGj3D6GPmnwSqaiylO-lPCZg6zwR05pkno-IMo2708-a8tYYUrFOnzWQEagw4lVOayniHw3uRxtCQs6ZGYLCqYEzYA25KTEAaCFr325SsU2pGVVvjA0> Presentation at General Meeting Protected link<https://mail100.csn-solutions.net/link?id=BAgAAADk4OYQoBZ82UECAADkh2ch0hB_M2xmO9TVA6Zdu_iZUnF-CvfqDCDAM0e7ugc4pZlbqpEx2p0yaARomSMc_myZbV2fnjmQwXk-rvgWw9MfiRQ4pFT4-HSghEIvixwqpCWQOteZAb-T5rgsvAtzpbjD71hnug48TDOEsd3uXJifNrDaf1tnTrG-fdK4EnEq2NCN_d0ZvsaciXl0TnjQ553X1973Wg2ntTfwnUyWsKQj1rZVJcM_U4ANenluPSiujPtEf4bcFLm_rDPkP1Msh12uoh3Js9uBGWW-_xre6o53JklR1wqD77UufSsPnW80XF02wcJdYlDz9UncjOgkVd5RzJP6yaS0Hor8iYA3PfPTdkXmYR7xpEHCtiWvnvyXnrfC9p4LX3RyahHpKmSbKToykLECwkqQt5AmZAeYsx-1fms46IuK_d9Rvf-WZbcd7eBLd5Wobit2pmgpvodpYBPyIpQ6b7CrD5irMm9MCTxQubLgaVlIPbr82qg0igT7eVp9cVhtydS8BUjrgirDF8vy-it09vjevLRqmAesooECWZqFpPqP-G3luZp4TLyo_Kz1ghijw9iCnV3kIKuK-X1SVYrIm1KAw3Y4eaR1nKRMRRe8zJYUBBzkVzfaPXUMCxInFHkb0bsjAvheX2APuzxJHCWXwOKHqXPBGXbwrv3zw9UGC_D4pgZN47YOOQAqxY0MhIgn74EpzKgWVE-X6Kcd8dsNBHO7jN1Midz-Ip6F7YSJMqJNeobMsbi5cySHmW_43ljEgobMXmuL1U5o0> _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Protected link<https://mail100.csn-solutions.net/link?id=BAgAAADk4OYQoBZ82Y0AAAAQPnt1RGpU6MDNWKi7fkBnwcbKZpDHqRpDqqaGBSYMfpuN49YNQ-ojsAJgozxNCi3Oc15Sj8gw1qAdTwEuBf5ECq3uuWF3WerPGXBjLcP3qAOFwJz_88JGvnr_lCfMk4APzlT1Ab0rqsjYJdxJ4jV9DY-umjRHZTUkGWAf8DKUZr8z5CpzY7t0-J_o1Rc1> Unsubscribe: Protected link<https://mail100.csn-solutions.net/link?id=BAgAAADk4OYQoBZ82Z8AAAAXmxxQ0PgjSjLILmdJG4CRrTCmWoimwFKeCoUrAdK5olKSwCjf7PBkMlUPjPIBD3cuqwV722n_wXq57GilTmRx1yZPphx_DTEUEflhrd4Iu4VQ4cdWyPnTJ6zJxOkJg6oImxxd1wCABX_-aqKY1E-EuYokIb_m_VibEQgvhTGuYsdl9ZPlyecx3TZwAQc5QZrK8x8fyAuFdGutIH_CXNc1>
Hello, Nor scheme 1 nor scheme 2 are good and fair. Scheme 2 is litle step in the right direction but still far from from what must be. By IANA public documents delegated resources to RIPE are: 688128 IPV4 /22 blocks 2131972 IPV6 /32 blocks 42882 ASN By official data RIPE LIRs are 22500 If constant yearly fee for each LIR is 300 euro, and charge 15 EURO for each block and ASN the LIRs holds (on /22 IPV4, /32 IPV6, and 1 ASN) RIPE will collect: 22500 * 300 = 6 750 000 EURO (688128+2131972+42882)*15 = 42 944 730 EURO SUM: 49 694 730 EURO (nearly 50 milions) Which seems more than enough RIPE to function normally ! On yearly basis RIPE can revisit member taxes depending if are collected more or less money and to ask for increase of constant LIR taxes (300 euro) or to return back money to LIRs (as RIPE done it up to 2021) That will be fair charging scheme for me. As more resources you hold, as bigger your organisation is, as more you have to pay. Ivaylo Josifov VarnaIX / Varteh LTD Varna, Bulgaria
Considering the 2023 budget [1, page 6] is a round 40M EUR, you are willing to add 9.6M EUR extra just like that? Kaj [1] https://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-786.pdf -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of ivaylo Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 14:21 To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 Hello, Nor scheme 1 nor scheme 2 are good and fair. Scheme 2 is litle step in the right direction but still far from from what must be. By IANA public documents delegated resources to RIPE are: 688128 IPV4 /22 blocks 2131972 IPV6 /32 blocks 42882 ASN By official data RIPE LIRs are 22500 If constant yearly fee for each LIR is 300 euro, and charge 15 EURO for each block and ASN the LIRs holds (on /22 IPV4, /32 IPV6, and 1 ASN) RIPE will collect: 22500 * 300 = 6 750 000 EURO (688128+2131972+42882)*15 = 42 944 730 EURO SUM: 49 694 730 EURO (nearly 50 milions) Which seems more than enough RIPE to function normally ! On yearly basis RIPE can revisit member taxes depending if are collected more or less money and to ask for increase of constant LIR taxes (300 euro) or to return back money to LIRs (as RIPE done it up to 2021) That will be fair charging scheme for me. As more resources you hold, as bigger your organisation is, as more you have to pay. Ivaylo Josifov VarnaIX / Varteh LTD Varna, Bulgaria _______________________________________________ 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%7C01%7C%7Ccd09960ca3f945f2b04908db20a5f3ad%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638139669350260003%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=PNObap8wypLx6XGm3lPL8%2FgO80CE%2FwJVgRP1QZG4rwM%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fkajtzu%2540basen.net&data=05%7C01%7C%7Ccd09960ca3f945f2b04908db20a5f3ad%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638139669350260003%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TgUBG6PUZtr7Var3fO%2FfjlcB4Bcf7C7m91S3zknOwhg%3D&reserved=0
Hi everyone, I am a very small LIR (one-men-company), 2022 invoice was the highest I have ever received appart from joining fee. With just one IPv4 /22 and one IPv6 Standard assignment and one 16bit ASN this is the minimum you can get to run something. The RIPE invoice is my biggest cost of the year and I would not be able to afford any more higher membership fees in the next years (But for sure this is my personal problem and business issue) I support the following activities (some of them were already mentioned in different emails so far): - Bring RIPE Operations costs down extremely and concentrate on core objectives (Registry Function) - it cannot be that RIPE gets bigger and bigger overtime and market goes in complete different direction - the money of members need to be honored and investments made to the important functions. - RIPE membership costs should be paid based on assigned resources, calculation from Ivaylo already looks very viable. Small LIRs need to pay less (~500 €) and bigger LIRs more. There should NOT be a maximum fee. A Base fee is viable that still would suite the small LIRs. - Overhead of membership fees should be reduced in next years similar as the surplus in the past - there should be no FREE resources, this means also the ASN, and like in my case the first minimum assignments must be paid to avoid opening of LIRs just to get reduced membership fees. - LIRs that give back IPv4 blocks should get an incentive (what this exactly mean can be discussed) Thats just my 2 cents on this dicussion. Michael -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> Im Auftrag von Kaj Niemi Gesendet: Donnerstag, 9. März 2023 15:38 An: ivaylo <ivaylo@bglans.net>; members-discuss@ripe.net Betreff: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 Considering the 2023 budget [1, page 6] is a round 40M EUR, you are willing to add 9.6M EUR extra just like that? Kaj [1] https://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-786.pdf -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of ivaylo Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 14:21 To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 Hello, Nor scheme 1 nor scheme 2 are good and fair. Scheme 2 is litle step in the right direction but still far from from what must be. By IANA public documents delegated resources to RIPE are: 688128 IPV4 /22 blocks 2131972 IPV6 /32 blocks 42882 ASN By official data RIPE LIRs are 22500 If constant yearly fee for each LIR is 300 euro, and charge 15 EURO for each block and ASN the LIRs holds (on /22 IPV4, /32 IPV6, and 1 ASN) RIPE will collect: 22500 * 300 = 6 750 000 EURO (688128+2131972+42882)*15 = 42 944 730 EURO SUM: 49 694 730 EURO (nearly 50 milions) Which seems more than enough RIPE to function normally ! On yearly basis RIPE can revisit member taxes depending if are collected more or less money and to ask for increase of constant LIR taxes (300 euro) or to return back money to LIRs (as RIPE done it up to 2021) That will be fair charging scheme for me. As more resources you hold, as bigger your organisation is, as more you have to pay. Ivaylo Josifov VarnaIX / Varteh LTD Varna, Bulgaria _______________________________________________ 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%7C01%7C%7Ccd09960ca3f945 f2b04908db20a5f3ad%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638139669350 260003%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6I k1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=PNObap8wypLx6XGm3lPL8%2FgO80CE%2 FwJVgRP1QZG4rwM%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe .net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fkajtzu%2540basen.net&data=05%7C 01%7C%7Ccd09960ca3f945f2b04908db20a5f3ad%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3% 7C0%7C0%7C638139669350260003%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJ QIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TgUBG6PUZt r7Var3fO%2FfjlcB4Bcf7C7m91S3zknOwhg%3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/info%40cowmedia.de
Hi, I always liked math so after reading this whole topic I decided to do some. I reviewed Ivaylo calculations and adjusted them to simply divide RIPE budget of 40mil and divided it by RIPE operated/owned IP space size and I came to price of 0,06EUR per IPv4 address (which is very little compared to fees for static IP space that most of the big telecoms charge). Thus according to this calculations to evenly contribute to RIPE budget: my small LIR announcing 3072 IPv4 addresses should be paying 184,32 EUR Daniel Pearsons (hoarding - as was called by Josh Jameson ) LIR should be paying 4024,32 EUR Josh Jameson's AS60751 should be paying 107,52 EUR Deutsche Telecom AS3320 (assuming that all of its announced IPv4 space belongs to RIPE region) according to bgp.he.net announces 34 109 952 IPv4 address thus should contribute 2 046 597,12 EUR Orange Poland AS5617 (that's not their only one ASN :wink wink:) according to bgp.he.net announces 5 510 400 IPv4 addresses thus should contribute 330 624 EUR I can go on like this for a while about another organizations, but I hope you get the picture, that argumentation that financial incentives will help IPv4 recycling is complete SCAM AND LIE. Furthermore let's make another calculation. In Poland average price per ISP service is about 12 EUR per month which adds up to 144 EUR per year. So I can make 442 368 EUR per year out of this IPv4 space. Thus in model 1 and 2 my prognosed current fee of 2050 EUR is about 0,4% of my yearly revenue. Let's take as example Deutsche Telekom, which according to random google search last year [1] had revenue of about 114 400 000 000 EUR. We can easily calculate that their current fee of 2050 EUR (assuming only their ASN in model 1) is 1,79e-6 % of their revenue. That's over 200 000 times less. Even with my previously calculated 2 046 496,12 EUR fee that is only 0,001% of their revenue. Now it would be only 20 times smaller revenue percentage. Regardless of this offtopic analysis, I really want to put stress on three points: Calling any of these charging models fair and aimed at helping recycling IPv4 is outrageous insult and lie. I hope that finally we as community realise that RIPE funding scheme heavily favours big resource holders and this need to change. Only sustainable solution for IPv4 address space usage is to finally move to IPv6 where resources is enough for everyone everytime . Best regards, Lukasz Jarosz [1] https://www.telekom.com/en/investor-relations/publications/financial-results... On mar 9 2023, at 3:38 pm, Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> wrote:
Considering the 2023 budget [1, page 6] is a round 40M EUR, you are willing to add 9.6M EUR extra just like that?
Kaj
[1] https://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-786.pdf
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of ivaylo Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 14:21 To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
Hello, Nor scheme 1 nor scheme 2 are good and fair. Scheme 2 is litle step in the right direction but still far from from what must be.
By IANA public documents delegated resources to RIPE are: 688128 IPV4 /22 blocks 2131972 IPV6 /32 blocks 42882 ASN
By official data RIPE LIRs are 22500 If constant yearly fee for each LIR is 300 euro, and charge 15 EURO for each block and ASN the LIRs holds (on /22 IPV4, /32 IPV6, and 1 ASN)
RIPE will collect: 22500 * 300 = 6 750 000 EURO (688128+2131972+42882)*15 = 42 944 730 EURO
SUM: 49 694 730 EURO (nearly 50 milions) Which seems more than enough RIPE to function normally ! On yearly basis RIPE can revisit member taxes depending if are collected more or less money and to ask for increase of constant LIR taxes (300 euro) or to return back money to LIRs (as RIPE done it up to 2021)
That will be fair charging scheme for me. As more resources you hold, as bigger your organisation is, as more you have to pay.
Ivaylo Josifov VarnaIX / Varteh LTD Varna, Bulgaria
_______________________________________________ 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%7C01%7C%7Ccd09960ca3f945f2b04908db20a5f3ad%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638139669350260003%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=PNObap8wypLx6XGm3lPL8%2FgO80CE%2FwJVgRP1QZG4rwM%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fkajtzu%2540basen.net&data=05%7C01%7C%7Ccd09960ca3f945f2b04908db20a5f3ad%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638139669350260003%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TgUBG6PUZtr7Var3fO%2FfjlcB4Bcf7C7m91S3zknOwhg%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/lukasz%40jarosz.pl
This is an excellent analogy and I was tempted to do the maths myself. I don't agree with the scam part, but certainly it's overwhelmingly obvious that the larger providers need to pay multiples more than the small providers to achieve equal economic weight of force by IP allocation. Excuse my simplifications, but sometimes it's necessary to critique an economic model by comparing it to others. If I use 1000watts of electricity I don't expect to be billed the same as a company using 1million watts per year. Breaking the subject down into actual base cost of IP space: Electricity, it's overwhelmingly obvious the smaller providers are paying the electric bill of the largest. I'd rather not - it needs to be fairer, and I wouldn't expect a revolution, but I don't expect to be robbed. This is not a monopoly board, and because we turned up late as a player, I don't expect to be paying cash to the hotels I've apparently landed on every turn without even knowing. Vote Model 2, but honestly Lukasz is right, it needs to go further. On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 at 09:01, Łukasz Jarosz <lukasz@jarosz.pl> wrote:
Hi, I always liked math so after reading this whole topic I decided to do some. I reviewed Ivaylo calculations and adjusted them to simply divide RIPE budget of 40mil and divided it by RIPE operated/owned IP space size and I came to price of 0,06EUR per IPv4 address (which is very little compared to fees for static IP space that most of the big telecoms charge). Thus according to this calculations to evenly contribute to RIPE budget:
- my small LIR announcing 3072 IPv4 addresses should be paying 184,32 EUR - Daniel Pearsons (hoarding - as was called by Josh Jameson ) LIR should be paying 4024,32 EUR - Josh Jameson's AS60751 should be paying 107,52 EUR - Deutsche Telecom AS3320 (assuming that all of its announced IPv4 space belongs to RIPE region) according to bgp.he.net announces 34 109 952 IPv4 address thus should contribute 2 046 597,12 EUR - Orange Poland AS5617 (that's not their only one ASN :wink wink:) according to bgp.he.net announces 5 510 400 IPv4 addresses thus should contribute 330 624 EUR
I can go on like this for a while about another organizations, but I hope you get the picture, that argumentation that financial incentives will help IPv4 recycling is complete *SCAM AND LIE*. Furthermore let's make another calculation. In Poland average price per ISP service is about 12 EUR per month which adds up to 144 EUR per year. So I can make 442 368 EUR per year out of this IPv4 space. Thus in model 1 and 2 my prognosed current fee of 2050 EUR is about 0,4% of my yearly revenue. Let's take as example Deutsche Telekom, which according to random google search last year [1] had revenue of about 114 400 000 000 EUR. We can easily calculate that their current fee of 2050 EUR (assuming only their ASN in model 1) is 1,79e-6 % of their revenue. That's over 200 000 times less. Even with my previously calculated 2 046 496,12 EUR fee that is only 0,001% of their revenue. Now it would be only 20 times smaller revenue percentage. Regardless of this offtopic analysis, I really want to put stress on three points:
- *Calling any of these charging models fair and aimed at helping recycling IPv4 is outrageous insult and lie. * - *I hope that finally we as community realise that RIPE funding scheme heavily favours big resource holders and this need to change. * - *Only sustainable solution for IPv4 address space usage is to finally move to IPv6 where resources is enough for everyone everytime .*
Best regards, Lukasz Jarosz
[1] https://www.telekom.com/en/investor-relations/publications/financial-results...
On mar 9 2023, at 3:38 pm, Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> wrote:
Considering the 2023 budget [1, page 6] is a round 40M EUR, you are willing to add 9.6M EUR extra just like that?
Kaj
[1] https://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-786.pdf
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of ivaylo Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 14:21 To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
Hello,
Nor scheme 1 nor scheme 2 are good and fair. Scheme 2 is litle step in the right direction but still far from from what must be.
By IANA public documents delegated resources to RIPE are:
688128 IPV4 /22 blocks 2131972 IPV6 /32 blocks 42882 ASN
By official data RIPE LIRs are 22500
If constant yearly fee for each LIR is 300 euro, and charge 15 EURO for each block and ASN the LIRs holds (on /22 IPV4, /32 IPV6, and 1 ASN)
RIPE will collect:
22500 * 300 = 6 750 000 EURO (688128+2131972+42882)*15 = 42 944 730 EURO
SUM: 49 694 730 EURO (nearly 50 milions)
Which seems more than enough RIPE to function normally !
On yearly basis RIPE can revisit member taxes depending if are collected more or less money and to ask for increase of constant LIR taxes (300 euro) or to return back money to LIRs (as RIPE done it up to 2021)
That will be fair charging scheme for me. As more resources you hold, as bigger your organisation is, as more you have to pay.
Ivaylo Josifov VarnaIX / Varteh LTD Varna, Bulgaria
_______________________________________________ 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%7C01%7C%7Ccd09960ca3f945f2b04908db20a5f3ad%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638139669350260003%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=PNObap8wypLx6XGm3lPL8%2FgO80CE%2FwJVgRP1QZG4rwM%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fkajtzu%2540basen.net&data=05%7C01%7C%7Ccd09960ca3f945f2b04908db20a5f3ad%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638139669350260003%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TgUBG6PUZtr7Var3fO%2FfjlcB4Bcf7C7m91S3zknOwhg%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/lukasz%40jarosz.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/james%40gamerdating.c...
Hi Łukasz, After speaking with you privately I would like to defend the IP recycling point. Regardless of private sale or recycling of IP blocks, I believe it would have a positive impact on the availability of IPv4 space. https://www.ripe.net/analyse/statistics/number-of-lirs As you can see from the graph, no more IPv4 means we have stagnated with member count. IMHO as a business man, there is very little reason to join RIPE as a LIR if you can't get a single IPv4 block included in your membership fee. Which as it stands today, is true. The wait list is a joke for new members. So that leaves registering through a LIR and paying the LIR for services, instead of RIPE directly. I propose removing the upper cap of 8,000 euros for a Category 5 LIR. Supply and demand will reduce the resale value of IPv4 blocks. This means it may not make financial sense to hoard IPv4 blocks an org isn't using. It will generate an incentive to resell or recycle IP blocks instead of hoarding them for no penalty, which is the current RIPE fee structure. The possibility to acquire more IPv4 space in RIPE becomes a possibility again - perhaps have a scheme where if someone recycled a block, they get priority to claim back in the future. As far as I'm concerned Category 5 isn't where fees should even start to end. Everyone should be paying for their fair share. If RIPE's budget hits 50 million, fine - let's get IPv6 actually switched over with that money. Regards, Josh Jameson Technical Director ServeByte Ltd On 09/03/2023 20:24, Łukasz Jarosz wrote:
Hi, I always liked math so after reading this whole topic I decided to do some. I reviewed Ivaylo calculations and adjusted them to simply divide RIPE budget of 40mil and divided it by RIPE operated/owned IP space size and I came to price of 0,06EUR per IPv4 address (which is very little compared to fees for static IP space that most of the big telecoms charge). Thus according to this calculations to evenly contribute to RIPE budget:
- my small LIR announcing 3072 IPv4 addresses should be paying 184,32 EUR - Daniel Pearsons (hoarding - as was called by Josh Jameson ) LIR should be paying 4024,32 EUR - Josh Jameson's AS60751 should be paying 107,52 EUR - Deutsche Telecom AS3320 (assuming that all of its announced IPv4 space belongs to RIPE region) according to bgp.he.net announces 34 109 952 IPv4 address thus should contribute 2 046 597,12 EUR - Orange Poland AS5617 (that's not their only one ASN :wink wink:) according to bgp.he.net announces 5 510 400 IPv4 addresses thus should contribute 330 624 EUR
I can go on like this for a while about another organizations, but I hope you get the picture, that argumentation that financial incentives will help IPv4 recycling is complete SCAM AND LIE. Furthermore let's make another calculation. In Poland average price per ISP service is about 12 EUR per month which adds up to 144 EUR per year. So I can make 442 368 EUR per year out of this IPv4 space. Thus in model 1 and 2 my prognosed current fee of 2050 EUR is about 0,4% of my yearly revenue. Let's take as example Deutsche Telekom, which according to random google search last year [1] had revenue of about 114 400 000 000 EUR. We can easily calculate that their current fee of 2050 EUR (assuming only their ASN in model 1) is 1,79e-6 % of their revenue. That's over 200 000 times less. Even with my previously calculated 2 046 496,12 EUR fee that is only 0,001% of their revenue. Now it would be only 20 times smaller revenue percentage. Regardless of this offtopic analysis, I really want to put stress on three points:
- Calling any of these charging models fair and aimed at helping recycling IPv4 is outrageous insult and lie. - I hope that finally we as community realise that RIPE funding scheme heavily favours big resource holders and this need to change. - Only sustainable solution for IPv4 address space usage is to finally move to IPv6 where resources is enough for everyone everytime .
Best regards, Lukasz Jarosz
[1] https://www.telekom.com/en/investor-relations/publications/financial-results...
On mar 9 2023, at 3:38 pm, Kaj Niemi [<kajtzu@basen.net>](mailto:kajtzu@basen.net) wrote:
Considering the 2023 budget [1, page 6] is a round 40M EUR, you are willing to add 9.6M EUR extra just like that?
Kaj
[1] https://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-786.pdf
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss [<members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>](mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net) On Behalf Of ivaylo Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 14:21 To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
Hello,
Nor scheme 1 nor scheme 2 are good and fair. Scheme 2 is litle step in the right direction but still far from from what must be.
By IANA public documents delegated resources to RIPE are:
688128 IPV4 /22 blocks 2131972 IPV6 /32 blocks 42882 ASN
By official data RIPE LIRs are 22500
If constant yearly fee for each LIR is 300 euro, and charge 15 EURO for each block and ASN the LIRs holds (on /22 IPV4, /32 IPV6, and 1 ASN)
RIPE will collect:
22500 * 300 = 6 750 000 EURO (688128+2131972+42882)*15 = 42 944 730 EURO
SUM: 49 694 730 EURO (nearly 50 milions)
Which seems more than enough RIPE to function normally !
On yearly basis RIPE can revisit member taxes depending if are collected more or less money and to ask for increase of constant LIR taxes (300 euro) or to return back money to LIRs (as RIPE done it up to 2021)
That will be fair charging scheme for me. As more resources you hold, as bigger your organisation is, as more you have to pay.
Ivaylo Josifov VarnaIX / Varteh LTD Varna, Bulgaria
_______________________________________________ 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%7C01%7C%7Ccd09960ca3f945f2b04908db20a5f3ad%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638139669350260003%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=PNObap8wypLx6XGm3lPL8%2FgO80CE%2FwJVgRP1QZG4rwM%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fkajtzu%2540basen.net&data=05%7C01%7C%7Ccd09960ca3f945f2b04908db20a5f3ad%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638139669350260003%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TgUBG6PUZtr7Var3fO%2FfjlcB4Bcf7C7m91S3zknOwhg%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/lukasz%40jarosz.pl
Hi, I would like to put some additional perspective into James Palmer analogy about electricity. Up to 2012 RIPE distributed and managed 41 /8 pool allocations between 8000 LIRs. Over last 11 years 16 000 LIRs joined RIPE and received allocations from 185/8 and some recycled IP address space, but for the sake of simplicity, since pre 2012 members also received some of these allocations, I will assume that these 16 000 LIRs were assigned 16 777 216 addresses (we can easily verify that statistically they were assigned about 1000 IP addresses, so definitely new assignment policy worked). We can easily calculate that with the fee of 1550 EUR they contribute 24 800 000 EUR into the RIPE budget which is 2/3 of total membership fees income and more than half of planned 40 000 000 EUR budget for 2023. Yet they use only 41/42*100 = 2,4% of total IPv4 resources managed by RIPE. I would like CEO Holen and CFO Haytink to answer to us - majority that funds them, why they want us to pay more. TLDR: 2/3 of budget income comes from those who use only 2,4% of RIPE IPv4 address space Best regards, Łukasz Jarosz On mar 10 2023, at 1:39 pm, Josh Jameson <josh@servebyte.com> wrote:
Hi Łukasz,
After speaking with you privately I would like to defend the IP recycling point. Regardless of private sale or recycling of IP blocks, I believe it would have a positive impact on the availability of IPv4 space. https://www.ripe.net/analyse/statistics/number-of-lirs As you can see from the graph, no more IPv4 means we have stagnated with member count. IMHO as a business man, there is very little reason to join RIPE as a LIR if you can't get a single IPv4 block included in your membership fee. Which as it stands today, is true. The wait list is a joke for new members. So that leaves registering through a LIR and paying the LIR for services, instead of RIPE directly. I propose removing the upper cap of 8,000 euros for a Category 5 LIR. Supply and demand will reduce the resale value of IPv4 blocks. This means it may not make financial sense to hoard IPv4 blocks an org isn't using. It will generate an incentive to resell or recycle IP blocks instead of hoarding them for no penalty, which is the current RIPE fee structure. The possibility to acquire more IPv4 space in RIPE becomes a possibility again - perhaps have a scheme where if someone recycled a block, they get priority to claim back in the future. As far as I'm concerned Category 5 isn't where fees should even start to end. Everyone should be paying for their fair share. If RIPE's budget hits 50 million, fine - let's get IPv6 actually switched over with that money. Regards, Josh Jameson Technical Director ServeByte Ltd
On 09/03/2023 20:24, Łukasz Jarosz wrote:
Hi, I always liked math so after reading this whole topic I decided to do some. I reviewed Ivaylo calculations and adjusted them to simply divide RIPE budget of 40mil and divided it by RIPE operated/owned IP space size and I came to price of 0,06EUR per IPv4 address (which is very little compared to fees for static IP space that most of the big telecoms charge). Thus according to this calculations to evenly contribute to RIPE budget: my small LIR announcing 3072 IPv4 addresses should be paying 184,32 EUR
Daniel Pearsons (hoarding - as was called by Josh Jameson ) LIR should be paying 4024,32 EUR
Josh Jameson's AS60751 should be paying 107,52 EUR
Deutsche Telecom AS3320 (assuming that all of its announced IPv4 space belongs to RIPE region) according to bgp.he.net announces 34 109 952 IPv4 address thus should contribute 2 046 597,12 EUR
Orange Poland AS5617 (that's not their only one ASN :wink wink:) according to bgp.he.net announces 5 510 400 IPv4 addresses thus should contribute 330 624 EUR
I can go on like this for a while about another organizations, but I hope you get the picture, that argumentation that financial incentives will help IPv4 recycling is complete SCAM AND LIE. Furthermore let's make another calculation. In Poland average price per ISP service is about 12 EUR per month which adds up to 144 EUR per year. So I can make 442 368 EUR per year out of this IPv4 space. Thus in model 1 and 2 my prognosed current fee of 2050 EUR is about 0,4% of my yearly revenue. Let's take as example Deutsche Telekom, which according to random google search last year [1] had revenue of about 114 400 000 000 EUR. We can easily calculate that their current fee of 2050 EUR (assuming only their ASN in model 1) is 1,79e-6 % of their revenue. That's over 200 000 times less. Even with my previously calculated 2 046 496,12 EUR fee that is only 0,001% of their revenue. Now it would be only 20 times smaller revenue percentage. Regardless of this offtopic analysis, I really want to put stress on three points: Calling any of these charging models fair and aimed at helping recycling IPv4 is outrageous insult and lie.
I hope that finally we as community realise that RIPE funding scheme heavily favours big resource holders and this need to change.
Only sustainable solution for IPv4 address space usage is to finally move to IPv6 where resources is enough for everyone everytime .
Best regards, Lukasz Jarosz
[1] https://www.telekom.com/en/investor-relations/publications/financial-results...
On mar 9 2023, at 3:38 pm, Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> (mailto:kajtzu@basen.net) wrote:
Considering the 2023 budget [1, page 6] is a round 40M EUR, you are willing to add 9.6M EUR extra just like that?
Kaj
[1] https://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-786.pdf
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> (mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net) On Behalf Of ivaylo Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 14:21 To: members-discuss@ripe.net (mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net) Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
Hello, Nor scheme 1 nor scheme 2 are good and fair. Scheme 2 is litle step in the right direction but still far from from what must be.
By IANA public documents delegated resources to RIPE are: 688128 IPV4 /22 blocks 2131972 IPV6 /32 blocks 42882 ASN
By official data RIPE LIRs are 22500 If constant yearly fee for each LIR is 300 euro, and charge 15 EURO for each block and ASN the LIRs holds (on /22 IPV4, /32 IPV6, and 1 ASN)
RIPE will collect: 22500 * 300 = 6 750 000 EURO (688128+2131972+42882)*15 = 42 944 730 EURO
SUM: 49 694 730 EURO (nearly 50 milions) Which seems more than enough RIPE to function normally ! On yearly basis RIPE can revisit member taxes depending if are collected more or less money and to ask for increase of constant LIR taxes (300 euro) or to return back money to LIRs (as RIPE done it up to 2021)
That will be fair charging scheme for me. As more resources you hold, as bigger your organisation is, as more you have to pay.
Ivaylo Josifov VarnaIX / Varteh LTD Varna, Bulgaria
_______________________________________________ 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%7C01%7C%7Ccd09960ca3f945f2b04908db20a5f3ad%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638139669350260003%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=PNObap8wypLx6XGm3lPL8%2FgO80CE%2FwJVgRP1QZG4rwM%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fkajtzu%2540basen.net&data=05%7C01%7C%7Ccd09960ca3f945f2b04908db20a5f3ad%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638139669350260003%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TgUBG6PUZtr7Var3fO%2FfjlcB4Bcf7C7m91S3zknOwhg%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ 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/lukasz%40jarosz.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/lukasz%40jarosz.pl
Good evening, The model 2 seems to be more equitable, but not in the proposed format. The IP numbers are way too low and it looks like the smallest lirs would just subsidize the largest. Maybe we can do 10 categories if we don't want to charge per /24. I think we need more data about the number of LIRs which would fit into each category, with multiple options for the categories. It's impossible to make a reasonable decision without this data. I also agree that we should try to reduce the budget if that's required to keep the membership costs to a reasonable level. Maybe we can provide a discount to the members who have deployed IPv6 so we can encourage the IPv6 deployment? Regards Bogdan Ionescu MVPS Ltd On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 4:50 PM Josh Jameson <josh@servebyte.com> wrote:
Hi Łukasz,
After speaking with you privately I would like to defend the IP recycling point. Regardless of private sale or recycling of IP blocks, I believe it would have a positive impact on the availability of IPv4 space.
https://www.ripe.net/analyse/statistics/number-of-lirs
As you can see from the graph, no more IPv4 means we have stagnated with member count. IMHO as a business man, there is very little reason to join RIPE as a LIR if you can't get a single IPv4 block included in your membership fee. Which as it stands today, is true. The wait list is a joke for new members. So that leaves registering through a LIR and paying the LIR for services, instead of RIPE directly.
*I propose removing the upper cap of 8,000 euros for a Category 5 LIR.*
Supply and demand will reduce the resale value of IPv4 blocks. This means it may not make financial sense to hoard IPv4 blocks an org isn't using. It will generate an incentive to resell or recycle IP blocks instead of hoarding them for no penalty, which is the current RIPE fee structure. The possibility to acquire more IPv4 space in RIPE becomes a possibility again - perhaps have a scheme where if someone recycled a block, they get priority to claim back in the future.
As far as I'm concerned *Category 5 isn't where fees should even start to end*. Everyone should be paying for their fair share. If RIPE's budget hits 50 million, fine - let's get IPv6 actually switched over with that money. Regards, Josh Jameson Technical Director ServeByte Ltd
On 09/03/2023 20:24, Łukasz Jarosz wrote:
Hi, I always liked math so after reading this whole topic I decided to do some. I reviewed Ivaylo calculations and adjusted them to simply divide RIPE budget of 40mil and divided it by RIPE operated/owned IP space size and I came to price of 0,06EUR per IPv4 address (which is very little compared to fees for static IP space that most of the big telecoms charge). Thus according to this calculations to evenly contribute to RIPE budget:
- my small LIR announcing 3072 IPv4 addresses should be paying 184,32 EUR - Daniel Pearsons (hoarding - as was called by Josh Jameson ) LIR should be paying 4024,32 EUR - Josh Jameson's AS60751 should be paying 107,52 EUR - Deutsche Telecom AS3320 (assuming that all of its announced IPv4 space belongs to RIPE region) according to bgp.he.net announces 34 109 952 IPv4 address thus should contribute 2 046 597,12 EUR - Orange Poland AS5617 (that's not their only one ASN :wink wink:) according to bgp.he.net announces 5 510 400 IPv4 addresses thus should contribute 330 624 EUR
I can go on like this for a while about another organizations, but I hope you get the picture, that argumentation that financial incentives will help IPv4 recycling is complete *SCAM AND LIE*. Furthermore let's make another calculation. In Poland average price per ISP service is about 12 EUR per month which adds up to 144 EUR per year. So I can make 442 368 EUR per year out of this IPv4 space. Thus in model 1 and 2 my prognosed current fee of 2050 EUR is about 0,4% of my yearly revenue. Let's take as example Deutsche Telekom, which according to random google search last year [1] had revenue of about 114 400 000 000 EUR. We can easily calculate that their current fee of 2050 EUR (assuming only their ASN in model 1) is 1,79e-6 % of their revenue. That's over 200 000 times less. Even with my previously calculated 2 046 496,12 EUR fee that is only 0,001% of their revenue. Now it would be only 20 times smaller revenue percentage. Regardless of this offtopic analysis, I really want to put stress on three points:
- *Calling any of these charging models fair and aimed at helping recycling IPv4 is outrageous insult and lie. * - *I hope that finally we as community realise that RIPE funding scheme heavily favours big resource holders and this need to change. * - *Only sustainable solution for IPv4 address space usage is to finally move to IPv6 where resources is enough for everyone everytime .*
Best regards, Lukasz Jarosz
[1] https://www.telekom.com/en/investor-relations/publications/financial-results...
On mar 9 2023, at 3:38 pm, Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> <kajtzu@basen.net> wrote:
Considering the 2023 budget [1, page 6] is a round 40M EUR, you are willing to add 9.6M EUR extra just like that?
Kaj
[1] https://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-786.pdf
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of ivaylo Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 14:21 To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
Hello,
Nor scheme 1 nor scheme 2 are good and fair. Scheme 2 is litle step in the right direction but still far from from what must be.
By IANA public documents delegated resources to RIPE are:
688128 IPV4 /22 blocks 2131972 IPV6 /32 blocks 42882 ASN
By official data RIPE LIRs are 22500
If constant yearly fee for each LIR is 300 euro, and charge 15 EURO for each block and ASN the LIRs holds (on /22 IPV4, /32 IPV6, and 1 ASN)
RIPE will collect:
22500 * 300 = 6 750 000 EURO (688128+2131972+42882)*15 = 42 944 730 EURO
SUM: 49 694 730 EURO (nearly 50 milions)
Which seems more than enough RIPE to function normally !
On yearly basis RIPE can revisit member taxes depending if are collected more or less money and to ask for increase of constant LIR taxes (300 euro) or to return back money to LIRs (as RIPE done it up to 2021)
That will be fair charging scheme for me. As more resources you hold, as bigger your organisation is, as more you have to pay.
Ivaylo Josifov VarnaIX / Varteh LTD Varna, Bulgaria
_______________________________________________ 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%7C01%7C%7Ccd09960ca3f945f2b04908db20a5f3ad%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638139669350260003%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=PNObap8wypLx6XGm3lPL8%2FgO80CE%2FwJVgRP1QZG4rwM%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fkajtzu%2540basen.net&data=05%7C01%7C%7Ccd09960ca3f945f2b04908db20a5f3ad%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638139669350260003%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TgUBG6PUZtr7Var3fO%2FfjlcB4Bcf7C7m91S3zknOwhg%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/lukasz%40jarosz.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/admin%40mvps.net
No Kaj The numbers I wrote are all resources IANA delegated to to RIPE and I am sure not ALL of them are spread across the LIRs in RIPE region. So The sum collected money will be less than 50 milions. More likely around 40 milions with the pricing I put 15 euro for each /22 IPV4, 15 euro for each /32 IPV6 and 15 euro for each ASN the LIR holds. If I have to be honest I think 300 euro tax from each LIR (they are 22500 or that is nearly 7 milions EURO for a year) are enough RIPE to do their job. But let RIPE have better budget, I hope they can do something useful for us with our money, like to see supporting good opensource rpki cache server (like FORT which costs much less than RIPE RPKI Validator, and is times better), to support good opensource bgp like frr or bird, to support or develope new dhcpd6 combined with radvd, to write nice web HOWTOs with good practice for deploy IPV6 in the networks plus technical examples for different kind of equipment and many many more things that will be useful for the members. And to be more clear for everyone let me explain what a LIR can hold for 1500 euro which was nearly the LIR fee for 2023 by the charging scheme I wrote... 300 Euro - LIR fee 480 Euro - 32 x /22 IPV4 blocks (128 x /24 or 32768 IPV4 addresses if have free) 480 Euro - 32 x /31 IPV6 blocks (79228162514264337593543950336 IPV6 addresses) 240 Euro - 16 Autonomous systems ---- 1500 Euro per year RIPE logic is wrong to ask for same payments from multi bilions company like Deutshe Telecom, and a small operator in Moldova or Lebanon or whatever else in the region. The right logic _must_ be to encourage much more companies and organisations to become members and to pay small fees, because then and only then the RIPE bugget will be stable and solid. Ivaylo Josifov VarnaIX / Varteh LTD Varna, Bulgaria On Thu, 9 Mar 2023, Kaj Niemi wrote:
Considering the 2023 budget [1, page 6] is a round 40M EUR, you are willing to add 9.6M EUR extra just like that?
Kaj
[1] https://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-786.pdf
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of ivaylo Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 14:21 To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
Hello,
Nor scheme 1 nor scheme 2 are good and fair. Scheme 2 is litle step in the right direction but still far from from what must be.
By IANA public documents delegated resources to RIPE are:
688128 IPV4 /22 blocks 2131972 IPV6 /32 blocks 42882 ASN
By official data RIPE LIRs are 22500
If constant yearly fee for each LIR is 300 euro, and charge 15 EURO for each block and ASN the LIRs holds (on /22 IPV4, /32 IPV6, and 1 ASN)
RIPE will collect:
22500 * 300 = 6 750 000 EURO (688128+2131972+42882)*15 = 42 944 730 EURO
SUM: 49 694 730 EURO (nearly 50 milions)
Which seems more than enough RIPE to function normally !
On yearly basis RIPE can revisit member taxes depending if are collected more or less money and to ask for increase of constant LIR taxes (300 euro) or to return back money to LIRs (as RIPE done it up to 2021)
That will be fair charging scheme for me. As more resources you hold, as bigger your organisation is, as more you have to pay.
Ivaylo Josifov VarnaIX / Varteh LTD Varna, Bulgaria
_______________________________________________ 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%7C01%7C%7Ccd09960ca3f945f2b04908db20a5f3ad%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638139669350260003%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=PNObap8wypLx6XGm3lPL8%2FgO80CE%2FwJVgRP1QZG4rwM%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fkajtzu%2540basen.net&data=05%7C01%7C%7Ccd09960ca3f945f2b04908db20a5f3ad%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638139669350260003%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TgUBG6PUZtr7Var3fO%2FfjlcB4Bcf7C7m91S3zknOwhg%3D&reserved=0
Charging more for companies owns more resources is greatly fair because they have LOTbigger incomes that simple /22 company. Another positive effect would be freeing ipv4 resources by such companies (to reduce ripe costs), which grabbed lot of /16 years back, and their penetration of such blocks is not great often. They should reanalyze their ipv4 resources, implement cgnat when possible, and free as much as they can, or pay. So RIPE budget would be better balanced, fees would be more fair (300e per account), and bigger companies would think about freeing their resources and putting them back onto ripe pool, for companies need them really. This is something we everyone should push and proceed, though preferable marketing actions towards all ripe members may be needed. Another option is surely to cut stupid costs... cmon maintaining finite database consuming so much money? Traveling? Some kind of REVOLUTION should be organized by us. Something should be done to activize passive members. Pobierz aplikację BlueMail dla systemu Android W dniu 9 mar 2023, 14:56, o 14:56, użytkownik ivaylo <ivaylo@bglans.net> napisał:
Hello,
Nor scheme 1 nor scheme 2 are good and fair. Scheme 2 is litle step in the right direction but still far from from what must be.
By IANA public documents delegated resources to RIPE are:
688128 IPV4 /22 blocks 2131972 IPV6 /32 blocks 42882 ASN
By official data RIPE LIRs are 22500
If constant yearly fee for each LIR is 300 euro, and charge 15 EURO for
each block and ASN the LIRs holds (on /22 IPV4, /32 IPV6, and 1 ASN)
RIPE will collect:
22500 * 300 = 6 750 000 EURO (688128+2131972+42882)*15 = 42 944 730 EURO
SUM: 49 694 730 EURO (nearly 50 milions)
Which seems more than enough RIPE to function normally !
On yearly basis RIPE can revisit member taxes depending if are collected more or less money and to ask for increase of constant LIR taxes (300 euro) or to return back money to LIRs (as RIPE done it up to 2021)
That will be fair charging scheme for me. As more resources you hold, as bigger your organisation is, as more you have to pay.
Ivaylo Josifov VarnaIX / Varteh LTD Varna, Bulgaria
_______________________________________________ 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/piotr%40karwos.hk
Just because an entity has more IP addresses does not mean that they have more money at their disposal. Sure – there are *some* big companies that have huge IP allocations, but there are also a lot of entities that have fairly large IP blocks but who aren’t awash with cash. -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 I have sent this email at a time that is convenient for me. I do not expect you to respond to it outside of your usual working hours. From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Piotr Karwowski <piotr@karwos.hk> Date: Friday, 10 March 2023 at 09:05 To: ivaylo <ivaylo@bglans.net> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Please use caution when opening attachments from unrecognised sources. Charging more for companies owns more resources is greatly fair because they have LOTbigger incomes that simple /22 company. Another positive effect would be freeing ipv4 resources by such companies (to reduce ripe costs), which grabbed lot of /16 years back, and their penetration of such blocks is not great often. They should reanalyze their ipv4 resources, implement cgnat when possible, and free as much as they can, or pay. So RIPE budget would be better balanced, fees would be more fair (300e per account), and bigger companies would think about freeing their resources and putting them back onto ripe pool, for companies need them really. This is something we everyone should push and proceed, though preferable marketing actions towards all ripe members may be needed. Another option is surely to cut stupid costs... cmon maintaining finite database consuming so much money? Traveling? Some kind of REVOLUTION should be organized by us. Something should be done to activize passive members. Pobierz aplikację BlueMail dla systemu Android<https://bluemail.me> W dniu 9 mar 2023, o 14:56, użytkownik ivaylo <ivaylo@bglans.net<mailto:ivaylo@bglans.net>> napisał: Hello, Nor scheme 1 nor scheme 2 are good and fair. Scheme 2 is litle step in the right direction but still far from from what must be. By IANA public documents delegated resources to RIPE are: 688128 IPV4 /22 blocks 2131972 IPV6 /32 blocks 42882 ASN By official data RIPE LIRs are 22500 If constant yearly fee for each LIR is 300 euro, and charge 15 EURO for each block and ASN the LIRs holds (on /22 IPV4, /32 IPV6, and 1 ASN) RIPE will collect: 22500 * 300 = 6 750 000 EURO (688128+2131972+42882)*15 = 42 944 730 EURO SUM: 49 694 730 EURO (nearly 50 milions) Which seems more than enough RIPE to function normally ! On yearly basis RIPE can revisit member taxes depending if are collected more or less money and to ask for increase of constant LIR taxes (300 euro) or to return back money to LIRs (as RIPE done it up to 2021) That will be fair charging scheme for me. As more resources you hold, as bigger your organisation is, as more you have to pay. Ivaylo Josifov VarnaIX / Varteh LTD Varna, Bulgaria ________________________________ 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/piotr%40karwos.hk
Michele Neylon - Blacknight via members-discuss wrote on 10/03/2023 11:42:
Sure – there are **some** big companies that have huge IP allocations, but there are also a lot of entities that have fairly large IP blocks but who aren’t awash with cash.
it's also worth pointing out that if the RIPE NCC were to move to a model of billing per IP address, then it would change from a membership based association to a sale-of-services company, and if I remember correctly from previous discussions on the topic, this revenue would likely be liable to dutch corporation tax. Nick
I don't find it fair that I have to pay the same membership fee for single /24, as others for a /22 or larger allocations. Just because we were late for the party and could not afford it earlier giving us the short end of the stick is not ok. Meanwhile I'm getting offers for IPV4 on all of the mailing lists. If they are selling them then they do not need them and those need to be returned to the RIPE pool for reallocation or have them pay for it. Also, how are we on the IPv6 adoption? It just baffles me that I'm still unable to turn of IPV4 and visit everything. How come one of the biggest German ISPs has their website available only over IPv4? Why does Sony still not have full IPv6 support for the PS5 and its network? How long is the transition going to take? 100 years? Push for IPv6 and then the whole issue of having to pay too much for that fat stash of IPv4 becomes a moot point. Model 2 lowers my fee from 1500 euros to 600, good for me. If we vote for the Model 2 many smaller ISPs might also decide to join, the entry fee of 3050 euros was a tough pill to swallow. On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 at 15:43, Michele Neylon - Blacknight via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> wrote:
Just because an entity has more IP addresses does not mean that they have more money at their disposal.
Sure – there are **some** big companies that have huge IP allocations, but there are also a lot of entities that have fairly large IP blocks but who aren’t awash with cash.
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Personal blog: https://michele.blog/
Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
I have sent this email at a time that is convenient for me. I do not expect you to respond to it outside of your usual working hours.
*From: *members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Piotr Karwowski <piotr@karwos.hk> *Date: *Friday, 10 March 2023 at 09:05 *To: *ivaylo <ivaylo@bglans.net> *Cc: *members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> *Subject: *Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
*[EXTERNAL EMAIL]* Please use caution when opening attachments from unrecognised sources.
Charging more for companies owns more resources is greatly fair because they have LOTbigger incomes that simple /22 company.
Another positive effect would be freeing ipv4 resources by such companies (to reduce ripe costs), which grabbed lot of /16 years back, and their penetration of such blocks is not great often. They should reanalyze their ipv4 resources, implement cgnat when possible, and free as much as they can, or pay.
So RIPE budget would be better balanced, fees would be more fair (300e per account), and bigger companies would think about freeing their resources and putting them back onto ripe pool, for companies need them really.
This is something we everyone should push and proceed, though preferable marketing actions towards all ripe members may be needed.
Another option is surely to cut stupid costs... cmon maintaining finite database consuming so much money? Traveling?
Some kind of REVOLUTION should be organized by us.
Something should be done to activize passive members.
Pobierz aplikację BlueMail dla systemu Android <https://bluemail.me>
W dniu 9 mar 2023, o 14:56, użytkownik ivaylo <ivaylo@bglans.net> napisał:
Hello,
Nor scheme 1 nor scheme 2 are good and fair. Scheme 2 is litle step in the right direction but still far from from what must be.
By IANA public documents delegated resources to RIPE are:
688128 IPV4 /22 blocks 2131972 IPV6 /32 blocks 42882 ASN
By official data RIPE LIRs are 22500
If constant yearly fee for each LIR is 300 euro, and charge 15 EURO for each block and ASN the LIRs holds (on /22 IPV4, /32 IPV6, and 1 ASN)
RIPE will collect:
22500 * 300 = 6 750 000 EURO (688128+2131972+42882)*15 = 42 944 730 EURO
SUM: 49 694 730 EURO (nearly 50 milions)
Which seems more than enough RIPE to function normally !
On yearly basis RIPE can revisit member taxes depending if are collected more or less money and to ask for increase of constant LIR taxes (300 euro) or to return back money to LIRs (as RIPE done it up to 2021)
That will be fair charging scheme for me. As more resources you hold, as bigger your organisation is, as more you have to pay.
Ivaylo Josifov VarnaIX / Varteh LTD Varna, Bulgaria
------------------------------
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/piotr%40karwos.hk
_______________________________________________ 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/ante%40vrw.hr
Howdy, I agree Re-evaluating RIPE's position, goals and it's budget should absolutely be the case. RIPE is a registry first, that should be the core focus of RIPE. On 3/8/23 15:46, Lukasz Jarosz wrote:
Hi, I also think, that before so sever fee increases are implemented, budget should be reconsidered. I want to point out that according to "RIPE NCC Activity Plan and Budget 2023” ( https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-786/#4.%20Maintaining%20a%20Stro... ) *RIPE is spending as much money for these extracurricular activities as for maintaining registry*. Especially with some of our members suffering from war and other natural disasters, RIPE shouldn’t be budgeting to increase investments, but only for sustaining required services.
Best regards, Lukasz Jarosz
Wiadomość napisana przez Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> w dniu 07.03.2023, o godz. 12:02:
Hi,
Thanks, the email and the excel made for some quite interesting reading. There are a few other reasonable options which were not listed on the slide deck from 2021 nor in your email.
An obvious option would be to reduce budgeted RIPE NCC expenditure to the level of forecasted revenue. This is what most normal companies, without assured funding, must do.
Another option would be to charge LIRs for the services they use. With this I do not mean IP addresses and ASNs that were mentioned in your model but for everything. Someone who is using only basic LIR services (IP/ASN assignments, reverse name services) would not have to pay for "value-added services" (VAS).
With VAS I mean RIPE NCC's varied extracurricular activities such as outreach, education programs and software development that have expanded considerably over the years and have undoubtedly been of some value to some of its members. Still, many of the same roles/functions are also conducted by membership organizations, NOGs, and independent software developers. Imposition of the costs of such programs on members, who either don't benefit from or do not use them, equates the charging model functioning mostly as an ATM to finance the ambitions and initiatives of the RIPE NCC leadership and a small group of active advocates.
Some of us would be happy with a Big Mac meal rather than the expensive all you can eat seafood buffet 😉
Kaj
-----Original Message----- From: ncc-announce <ncc-announce-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Simon Jan Haytink Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 11:35 To: ncc-announce@ripe.net Subject: [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
Dear RIPE NCC members,
We would like to re-open the consultation we began with the membership in 2021 on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme model, and we would like to carry out that consultation well in advance of the RIPE NCC General Meeting (GM) May 2023.
In 2021, we presented on this topic at the GM, and we also surveyed our members and held an open house to get direct input on the charging scheme model that members would like to see implemented by the RIPE NCC. The outcome at that stage of the consultation was that there were strong cases made for both the current one-LIR, one-fee model and for a category-based model that would charge based on the number of resources held by a member. A strong case was also made to charge for all resources allocated or assigned by the RIPE NCC, including ASNs, and to charge a fee for transfers.
The Executive Board decided to suspend the consultation in light of the war in Ukraine, but we are eager to decide on a way forward on this matter together with the membership.
One of the main reasons that we would like to advance the discussion on the charging model is that we expect many members with multiple LIR accounts who received resources in 2021 to merge these accounts in the coming year. This means that the income the RIPE NCC receives will be reduced by a significant amount and we will need to ensure that our charging model allows us to collect the revenue required to maintain our operations. We believe that a category-based model would be best suited to cover this consolidation risk. Continuing with the existing model would mean that an increase in fees for all members would be required. Our ultimate goal is to arrive at a charging scheme model that will be sustainable for many years to come, meeting the needs of the RIPE NCC’s members.
To help with discussion and to provide something tangible for members to assess, we are putting forward two draft models for members to review. These models can be summarised as:
Model 1: A “one-LIR, one-fee” model based on the current RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2023 that also charges for independent resources, ASNs, transfers and changes in business structure such as Mergers & Acquisitions.
Model 2: A category-based model that charges per member (not per LIR account) and is based on resources registered and that also charges for independent resources, ASNs, transfers and changes in business structure such as Mergers & Acquisitions.
In order to allow members to form an opinion based on their own situation, we are providing an Excel sheet that will allow you to calculate the fees you would pay under each of the draft models. It is important to be aware that at this stage, the numbers assigned for each item are indicative and would be reviewed in light of the discussion with members. We plan to review these figures following consultation with the members, and giving input on those figures would greatly help to arrive at a good model.
We also plan to hold another Open House meeting on the Charging Scheme in March to further discuss the charging scheme models. The Executive Board will then take the input and decide on one or more charging schemes for the membership to vote on at the GM to be held on 24 May 2023. The outcome of that vote will determine the charging scheme model to be used in the coming years.
I ask that you provide your input on this important consultation on the Membership Discussion mailing list (members-discuss@ripe.net) by 26 April. Input provided up to this date will be considered by the Board when formulating the charging schemes to be proposed for the GM. Input after this date is of course also welcome although it might not be reflected in the schemes put forward to the membership at the GM.
The consultation will also be recorded and available from: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.net%2Fparticipate%2Fmail%2Fmember-and-community-consultations&data=05%7C01%7C%7Cba37c5f6a8244dc0053308db1ef066de%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638137790087678748%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=HYL%2BY4nhlDzN2A0gsahcPXVxVLgVs7tNynm6fm7sJh8%3D&reserved=0
I look forward to your input.
Kind regards,
Simon Jan Haytink Finance Director RIPE NCC
Summary
7 March: Start consultation with membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme model 21 March: Open House to discuss charging scheme with membership 24 March: Executive Board meeting to discuss input received so far 12 April: Publication of Draft RIPE NCC Charging Schemes 2024 26 April: Publication of Final RIPE NCC Charging Schemes to be voted on by members 24 May: RIPE NCC General Meeting May 2023
References
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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...
I believe we are not being provided with enough possible options to make sensible decisions about both our own situations and the situation we would really want for RIPE. When faced with "more cost method X" and "even more cost method Y" we are being pushed into thinking firstly that these should be the only 2 options and secondly that only the impact on a specific LIR/member matters. The primary functions of all RIRs are to maintain a 'list' of who a (finite set of) resource are allocated to, and to manage the community who set the policies around those resources. Yes the type and number of resources has grown over the years, but even today, it's not large enough to tax a 20+ year old copy of excel, let alone require dozens of staff and millions of Euros. Whilst I can appreciate a PI request, by virtue of the policies in place regarding a PI request, involve staff time ( and therefore an actual cost ) the totality of the DB shows there are not hundreds of new requests every week, nor are there realistically any significant ongoing cost once the resource is documented in the DB at the RPE end (there is for managing the DB to the LIR, afterall, we all do the bulk of the actual work maintaining the database content, except where policy stops us doing so !) Similarly for other resources, a line in a text file (which is all it functionally needs to be) or a record in a db does not constitute a massive ongoing cost. This does not require 100+ staff, and if RIPE incorrectly believe it should, perhaps now is the time to consider transfer of RIR function to a new organisation, who can be limited in role and expectation to the actual tasks an RIR is supposed to perform for those of us who pay the RIR bills. I would like to see proposed Method 3,4,5 etc to be able to do a real comparison of options, taking into account * looking at why RIPE believes there will be quite so many mergers - what are the perceived, actual and incidental benefits of multiple LIR per member, are they mostly "gaming the system" or were there actual reasons - and why, knowing this (and knowing the very-short-term financial benefit ripe will have received for it when it happened) better forward planning, budgetory constraint and so on were not in place * whether the fees are actually appropriate for the RIR task performed - where is the option to reduce fees to half and discard all the mission creep and extraneous services that has occurred * would some of the "added extras" that RIPE are "bundling" in the budget be optional/pay-per-use rather than paid for by us all if we are not to use or benefit from them and so on. With the ability to migrate resources between RIRs, perhaps RIPE should remember that it is at least technically possible for us to vote with our wallets and shift to an RIR that better meets our need vs spend, or has different policies/procedures in place. And just as prudent for RIPE and related orgs to remember they have no divine right to exist, they continue to do so because we choose to allow it. Maybe the board should be looking at ways to incentivise LIRs around the world to move to RIPE rather than constantly increasing the burden on those of us who have shouldered the funding it for 3 decades. The switch to annual for quarterly billing for example places a disproportionate burden on smaller lirs when the additional work to handle sending 4 emails not 1 is hardly a massive utilisation of stray electrons for a computer system ! TL:Dr; I vote no to both without even looking at the financial impact on us of either option, rejecting the underlying premise that there needs to be additional charging at all. And yes, while the ARIN model may not be considered perfect, something does not have to be perfect to be worthy of learning from, or taking inspiration from, or even using if more appropriate than alternatives - perhaps someone more s/sheet capable than I could add options on there for "what it would cost at ARIN, APNIC, LACNIC ..." and we can see if we are at least getting comparable value Rob
Rob, Thank you very much for this. Everyone must not forget this is a non-profit. We are voting members of the non-profit. In simple terms, we, the account holders determine the future of RIPE by how we vote, and that includes the impacts to our wallets. I'm with you in rejecting both proposed options. Daniel~ On 3/9/23 11:47, Rob Golding wrote:
I believe we are not being provided with enough possible options to make sensible decisions about both our own situations and the situation we would really want for RIPE.
When faced with "more cost method X" and "even more cost method Y" we are being pushed into thinking firstly that these should be the only 2 options and secondly that only the impact on a specific LIR/member matters.
The primary functions of all RIRs are to maintain a 'list' of who a (finite set of) resource are allocated to, and to manage the community who set the policies around those resources.
Yes the type and number of resources has grown over the years, but even today, it's not large enough to tax a 20+ year old copy of excel, let alone require dozens of staff and millions of Euros.
Whilst I can appreciate a PI request, by virtue of the policies in place regarding a PI request, involve staff time ( and therefore an actual cost ) the totality of the DB shows there are not hundreds of new requests every week, nor are there realistically any significant ongoing cost once the resource is documented in the DB at the RPE end (there is for managing the DB to the LIR, afterall, we all do the bulk of the actual work maintaining the database content, except where policy stops us doing so !)
Similarly for other resources, a line in a text file (which is all it functionally needs to be) or a record in a db does not constitute a massive ongoing cost.
This does not require 100+ staff, and if RIPE incorrectly believe it should, perhaps now is the time to consider transfer of RIR function to a new organisation, who can be limited in role and expectation to the actual tasks an RIR is supposed to perform for those of us who pay the RIR bills.
I would like to see proposed Method 3,4,5 etc to be able to do a real comparison of options, taking into account
* looking at why RIPE believes there will be quite so many mergers - what are the perceived, actual and incidental benefits of multiple LIR per member, are they mostly "gaming the system" or were there actual reasons - and why, knowing this (and knowing the very-short-term financial benefit ripe will have received for it when it happened) better forward planning, budgetory constraint and so on were not in place
* whether the fees are actually appropriate for the RIR task performed - where is the option to reduce fees to half and discard all the mission creep and extraneous services that has occurred
* would some of the "added extras" that RIPE are "bundling" in the budget be optional/pay-per-use rather than paid for by us all if we are not to use or benefit from them
and so on.
With the ability to migrate resources between RIRs, perhaps RIPE should remember that it is at least technically possible for us to vote with our wallets and shift to an RIR that better meets our need vs spend, or has different policies/procedures in place.
And just as prudent for RIPE and related orgs to remember they have no divine right to exist, they continue to do so because we choose to allow it.
Maybe the board should be looking at ways to incentivise LIRs around the world to move to RIPE rather than constantly increasing the burden on those of us who have shouldered the funding it for 3 decades.
The switch to annual for quarterly billing for example places a disproportionate burden on smaller lirs when the additional work to handle sending 4 emails not 1 is hardly a massive utilisation of stray electrons for a computer system !
TL:Dr; I vote no to both without even looking at the financial impact on us of either option, rejecting the underlying premise that there needs to be additional charging at all.
And yes, while the ARIN model may not be considered perfect, something does not have to be perfect to be worthy of learning from, or taking inspiration from, or even using if more appropriate than alternatives - perhaps someone more s/sheet capable than I could add options on there for "what it would cost at ARIN, APNIC, LACNIC ..." and we can see if we are at least getting comparable value
Rob
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/daniel%40privatesyste...
On 07/03/2023 13:02, Kaj Niemi wrote:
An obvious option would be to reduce budgeted RIPE NCC expenditure to the level of forecasted revenue. This is what most normal companies, without assured funding, must do.
Another option would be to charge LIRs for the services they use. With this I do not mean IP addresses and ASNs that were mentioned in your model but for everything. Someone who is using only basic LIR services (IP/ASN assignments, reverse name services) would not have to pay for "value-added services" (VAS).
With VAS I mean RIPE NCC's varied extracurricular activities such as outreach, education programs and software development that have expanded considerably over the years and have undoubtedly been of some value to some of its members. Still, many of the same roles/functions are also conducted by membership organizations, NOGs, and independent software developers. Imposition of the costs of such programs on members, who either don't benefit from or do not use them, equates the charging model functioning mostly as an ATM to finance the ambitions and initiatives of the RIPE NCC leadership and a small group of active advocates.
Some of us would be happy with a Big Mac meal rather than the expensive all you can eat seafood buffet 😉
Extremely well said. RIPE's budget cannot increase every year and simply increase membership fees. 100% agreement with every word Kaj has stated. -Hank
Hi, On Tue 07 Mar 2023 11:02:02 GMT, Kaj Niemi wrote:
An obvious option would be to reduce budgeted RIPE NCC expenditure to the level of forecasted revenue. This is what most normal companies, without assured funding, must do.
I totally agree. If we look at the Draft Activity Plan and Budget 2023 https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/october-2022/documenta... Right in the summary it’s written “Other factors affecting our budget include high inflation and costs related to major projects planned for 2023, especially our planned migration of some services to the cloud” So, if the budget is scarce, why continue such project in the first place? With that being the first justification of the budget, it’s not sufficient to increase the members participation for me. -- Alarig
Am 13.03.23 um 10:35 schrieb ripe-ncc-members-discuss@itns.md:
The only fair model ==> LIR FEE = RIPE NCC BUDGET x ~1.1 / RIPE NCC managed ipv4 x all LIR Allocations/Assignments.
That model is even worse than the formula in "Model 2". An allocation can be a /16 (a long, long time ago) or a /24. "Model 2" at least differentiates there ... -kai -- Kai Siering Senior System Engineer mail.de GmbH Münsterstraße 3 D-33330 Gütersloh Tel.: +49 (0) 5241 / 74 34 986 Fax: +49 (0) 5241 / 74 34 987 E-Mail: k.siering@team.mail.de Web: https://mail.de/ Geschäftsführender Gesellschafter: Fabian Bock Sitz der Gesellschaft Nordhastedt Handelsregister Pinneberg HRB 8007 PI Steuernummer 18 293 20020
Large Telco's are currently very concerned about fairness as seen in the discussion on the nettax/fairshare proposal.We could assume they would therefor be OK with paying their fair dues to RIPE ... </sarcasm off>-- IDGARA | Alex de Joode | alex@idgara.nl | +31651108221 On Mon, 13-03-2023 16h 11min, ripe-ncc-members-discuss@itns.md wrote:
The issue is not a bigger budget. If such companies as Orange, T-Mobile, MTC and many other big players will pay a fair membership tax based on the resources they hold, micro LIR (I don't know if the mean and sense of an LIR can even to be imposed to such a LIR that holds 256 ipv4 addresses, they even cannot make assignments) will have to pay much less.
Hi,
On Tue 07 Mar 2023 11:02:02 GMT, Kaj Niemi wrote: An obvious option would be to reduce budgeted RIPE NCC expenditure to the level of forecasted revenue. This is what most normal companies, without assured funding, must do. I totally agree. If we look at the Draft Activity Plan and Budget 2023 https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/october-2022/documenta... Right in the summary it’s written “Other factors affecting our budget include high inflation and costs related to major projects planned for 2023, especially our planned migration of some services to the cloud” So, if the budget is scarce, why continue such project in the first
The only fair model ==> LIR FEE = RIPE NCC BUDGET x ~1.1 / RIPE NCC managed ipv4 x all LIR Allocations/Assignments. If the community will not change the charging scheme to such a model, it will be clear that somebody is protecting big players. best, Sergiu 13.03.2023, 10:58, "Alarig Le Lay via members-discuss" <members-discuss@ripe.net>: place? With that being the first justification of the budget, it’s not sufficient to increase the members participation for me. -- Alarig _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ripe-ncc-members-disc...
RIPE is late to the party with migrating to the cloud. Many companies have already learned from this and conduct a hybrid approach. I sure hope RIPE doesn't migrate to the cloud and come complaining because they left auto-scale enabled on AWS and got hit with a huge bill.... I agree, RIPE needs to slim down, it has added 26 employees over the last few years and yet their workload has decreased drastically due to the lack of ipv4 resources. On 3/11/23 18:24, Alarig Le Lay via members-discuss wrote:
Hi,
An obvious option would be to reduce budgeted RIPE NCC expenditure to the level of forecasted revenue. This is what most normal companies, without assured funding, must do. I totally agree. If we look at the Draft Activity Plan and Budget 2023 https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/october-2022/documenta... Right in the summary it’s written “Other factors affecting our budget include high inflation and costs related to major projects planned for 2023, especially our planned migration of some services to the cloud” So, if the budget is scarce, why continue such project in the first
On Tue 07 Mar 2023 11:02:02 GMT, Kaj Niemi wrote: place?
With that being the first justification of the budget, it’s not sufficient to increase the members participation for me.
Excuse my ignorance, but I'm pretty sure migration to cloud is meant to reduce costs - not increase them. On 13/03/2023 11:05, Daniel Pearson wrote:
RIPE is late to the party with migrating to the cloud.
Many companies have already learned from this and conduct a hybrid approach. I sure hope RIPE doesn't migrate to the cloud and come complaining because they left auto-scale enabled on AWS and got hit with a huge bill....
I agree, RIPE needs to slim down, it has added 26 employees over the last few years and yet their workload has decreased drastically due to the lack of ipv4 resources.
On 3/11/23 18:24, Alarig Le Lay via members-discuss wrote:
Hi,
An obvious option would be to reduce budgeted RIPE NCC expenditure to the level of forecasted revenue. This is what most normal companies, without assured funding, must do. I totally agree. If we look at the Draft Activity Plan and Budget 2023 https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/october-2022/documenta... Right in the summary it’s written “Other factors affecting our budget include high inflation and costs related to major projects planned for 2023, especially our planned migration of some services to the cloud” So, if the budget is scarce, why continue such project in the first
On Tue 07 Mar 2023 11:02:02 GMT, Kaj Niemi wrote: place?
With that being the first justification of the budget, it’s not sufficient to increase the members participation for me.
_______________________________________________ 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/josh%40servebyte.com
Many times that is indeed the intention, but the reality of the matter is most companies will shoe-horn stand-alone solutions into the "cloud" and not actually take advantage of it. If you try and 1:1 your resources from a stand alone deployment into the cloud it is often times much more expensive. On 3/13/23 10:36, Josh Jameson wrote:
Excuse my ignorance, but I'm pretty sure migration to cloud is meant to reduce costs - not increase them.
On 13/03/2023 11:05, Daniel Pearson wrote:
RIPE is late to the party with migrating to the cloud.
Many companies have already learned from this and conduct a hybrid approach. I sure hope RIPE doesn't migrate to the cloud and come complaining because they left auto-scale enabled on AWS and got hit with a huge bill....
I agree, RIPE needs to slim down, it has added 26 employees over the last few years and yet their workload has decreased drastically due to the lack of ipv4 resources.
On 3/11/23 18:24, Alarig Le Lay via members-discuss wrote:
Hi,
An obvious option would be to reduce budgeted RIPE NCC expenditure to the level of forecasted revenue. This is what most normal companies, without assured funding, must do. I totally agree. If we look at the Draft Activity Plan and Budget 2023 https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/october-2022/documenta... Right in the summary it’s written “Other factors affecting our budget include high inflation and costs related to major projects planned for 2023, especially our planned migration of some services to the cloud” So, if the budget is scarce, why continue such project in the first
On Tue 07 Mar 2023 11:02:02 GMT, Kaj Niemi wrote: place?
With that being the first justification of the budget, it’s not sufficient to increase the members participation for me.
_______________________________________________ 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/josh%40servebyte.com
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/daniel%40privatesyste...
So, there have been many replies to this, and I'll add my two cents. RIPE is a membership organization. What we pay for is membership, not resources. Said payment of the membership fees finances RIPE's operations, and what the goal should be is a sustainable model for the future. It seems to me that the excel sheet did us a bit of a disservice. It basically prompts people to input their numbers and saying, they support the variant where they themselves pay less. And then there are the people that say, yes the tired model is good, but we need to change the thresholds to [Insert wherever they would fall into the next lower tier]. It doesn't work that way, as I assume that most of the LIRs fall into the lower tiers - and if we reduce the thresholds, it directly results in the costs for the lower tiers to increase. I'm all for a category based model. It seems reasonable to me that bigger LIRs, which profit more from their membership, should be able to shoulder more of the financial burden. I also think that the categories should go higher or the distribution ratio should be changed, as I'm sure the hyper scalers or huge organizations like Deutsche Telekom wouldn't even notice the 8000 € that are the example value of the excel sheet. However we won't know what makes sense here until we have numbers (number of LIRs per size backet). I've seen the argument "yes but we have a large number of IP addresses because that's what you got back then" but if they don't use those, they should give them back, and If they use them there is cash flow associated with that. As we're not buying resources but paying for the membership, I'm strictly against paying "per IP address " or something like that. For the same reason, I don't get why there is a "per ASN" fee, as those are (finite) resources like the IP addresses and I don't see the additional cost to RIPE operations. So now RIPE is selling ASN numbers? That seems hypocritical. If we want to take those into account we can always make them part of the category calculations. If there's a LIR with one /24 that needs ten ASNs and not have the budget for the membership then somebody needs to explain that to me. Many people have criticized the growing budget of RIPE. That may be true (I don't know enough facts to say if the numbers are necessary for RIPEs mission or not), but it's a separate discussion. Whatever the new charging scheme will be, it should be defined as percentages of the budget which the membership has to approve. If the budget increases, the membership fees increase, if it decreases, so does the fee. Best regards, Andreas Grabmüller QuarIT GmbH \\ Jägerstraße 19 \\ 83308 Trostberg \\ Deutschland a.grabmueller@quarit.de \\ www.quaritec.de \\ Telefon: +49 8621 994900-0 \\ Telefax: +49 8621 994900-9 Amtsgericht Traunstein: HRB 23872 \\ Sitz: Trostberg \\ Geschäftsführer: Andreas Grabmüller \\ Ust.-ID: DE297594275
Hello everyones, For adding my 2 cents, according to https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/ipv4/ipv4-waiting-list , there are 1075 LIR paying a full membership for having no IPv4, and possibly no IPv6 and no ASN to be managed by the RIPE NCC. Paying around 2000€ or more for having the right to be in a waiting list, with no resources, seems a little expansive. There should be a dedicated price for LIR with no resources. With the model 2, it seems there will be no fees for them ; in this regard, that's the only model which has some fairness to the newcomers. Kind regards, Alexandre Le 15/03/2023 à 14:01, Andreas Grabmüller | QuarIT GmbH a écrit :
So, there have been many replies to this, and I'll add my two cents.
RIPE is a membership organization. What we pay for is membership, not resources. Said payment of the membership fees finances RIPE's operations, and what the goal should be is a sustainable model for the future.
It seems to me that the excel sheet did us a bit of a disservice. It basically prompts people to input their numbers and saying, they support the variant where they themselves pay less. And then there are the people that say, yes the tired model is good, but we need to change the thresholds to [Insert wherever they would fall into the next lower tier]. It doesn't work that way, as I assume that most of the LIRs fall into the lower tiers - and if we reduce the thresholds, it directly results in the costs for the lower tiers to increase.
I'm all for a category based model. It seems reasonable to me that bigger LIRs, which profit more from their membership, should be able to shoulder more of the financial burden. I also think that the categories should go higher or the distribution ratio should be changed, as I'm sure the hyper scalers or huge organizations like Deutsche Telekom wouldn't even notice the 8000 € that are the example value of the excel sheet. However we won't know what makes sense here until we have numbers (number of LIRs per size backet). I've seen the argument "yes but we have a large number of IP addresses because that's what you got back then" but if they don't use those, they should give them back, and If they use them there is cash flow associated with that.
As we're not buying resources but paying for the membership, I'm strictly against paying "per IP address " or something like that. For the same reason, I don't get why there is a "per ASN" fee, as those are (finite) resources like the IP addresses and I don't see the additional cost to RIPE operations. So now RIPE is selling ASN numbers? That seems hypocritical. If we want to take those into account we can always make them part of the category calculations. If there's a LIR with one /24 that needs ten ASNs and not have the budget for the membership then somebody needs to explain that to me.
Many people have criticized the growing budget of RIPE. That may be true (I don't know enough facts to say if the numbers are necessary for RIPEs mission or not), but it's a separate discussion. Whatever the new charging scheme will be, it should be defined as percentages of the budget which the membership has to approve. If the budget increases, the membership fees increase, if it decreases, so does the fee.
Best regards, Andreas Grabmüller
QuarIT GmbH \\ Jägerstraße 19 \\ 83308 Trostberg \\ Deutschland a.grabmueller@quarit.de \\ www.quaritec.de \\ Telefon: +49 8621 994900-0 \\ Telefax: +49 8621 994900-9 Amtsgericht Traunstein: HRB 23872 \\ Sitz: Trostberg \\ Geschäftsführer: Andreas Grabmüller \\ Ust.-ID: DE297594275
_______________________________________________ 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...
On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 02:01:06PM +0100, Andreas Grabmüller | QuarIT GmbH wrote:
So, there have been many replies to this, and I'll add my two cents.
RIPE is a membership organization. What we pay for is membership, not resources. Said payment of the membership fees finances RIPE's operations, and what the goal should be is a sustainable model for the future.
Full ACK I add another 2 cents: IMHO the members should not pay for the ressources, they HOLD ( IPs, ASNs, and so on) , but pay for the ressources they CONSUME ( time of the staff, database traffic and storage, basic administration).
It seems to me that the excel sheet did us a bit of a disservice. It basically prompts people to input their numbers and saying, they support the variant where they themselves pay less. And then there are the people that say, yes the tired model is good, but we need to change the thresholds to [Insert wherever they would fall into the next lower tier]. It doesn't work that way, as I assume that most of the LIRs fall into the lower tiers - and if we reduce the thresholds, it directly results in the costs for the lower tiers to increase.
I'm all for a category based model. It seems reasonable to me that bigger LIRs, which profit more from their membership, should be able to shoulder more of the financial burden. I also think that the categories should go higher or the distribution ratio should be changed, as I'm sure the hyper scalers or huge organizations like Deutsche Telekom wouldn't even notice the 8000 € that are the example value of the excel sheet. However we won't know what makes sense here until we have numbers (number of LIRs per size backet). I've seen the argument "yes but we have a large number of IP addresses because that's what you got back then" but if they don't use those, they should give them back, and If they use them there is cash flow associated with that.
Relevant for the Service Fee should be the the service provided to the LIRs , not the earnings of the company. There is a relation between the "holded Ressources" and the income of the LIR, but also to the dynamic. Many Transfers cause more effort than a static constitution.
As we're not buying resources but paying for the membership, I'm strictly against paying "per IP address " or something like that. For the same reason, I don't get why there is a "per ASN" fee, as those are (finite) resources like the IP addresses and I don't see the additional cost to RIPE operations. So now RIPE is selling ASN numbers? That seems hypocritical. If we want to take those into account we can always make them part of the category calculations. If there's a LIR with one /24 that needs ten ASNs and not have the budget for the membership then somebody needs to explain that to me.
ACK if the category calculations are reasonable. It should not be in the spirit of Robin Hood (I recognized in many other postings) with the goal to rob the wealthy LIRs . Some voices claimed, that LIRs on the IPv4 waiting list shoud pay no fee. If the LIR or the member, the LIR belongs to, holds or can receive other NRO-Ressources, why ? Can anybody please explain me the sense of multiple LIRs per Membership. Surely there may be good causes, but my impression is, that this constellation was used in the last years by gaming the system in order to get another "last /22" against paying a sign-up-fee. And even this increased income made the members and the administration blind until it stopped.
Many people have criticized the growing budget of RIPE. That may be true (I don't know enough facts to say if the numbers are necessary for RIPEs mission or not), but it's a separate discussion. Whatever the new charging scheme will be, it should be defined as percentages of the budget which the membership has to approve. If the budget increases, the membership fees increase, if it decreases, so does the fee.
Yes, it is another discussion. But: The budget was raised because of more (unplanned) membership fees ... why should be this be "one way direction" ? Best Regards, Andreas Schmieja
Hello Sergiu, why should somebody try to "delete" you from the list? Because you post only with your First Name ? Even if you did not speak out things directly, you make believe statements that I never explained. I did not write about fairness, because in relation with money, this is a phantom.
From the socialistic view Fairness ist defined different than in the view of efforts.
You are the first writer accusing a specific member, whilest the discussion before has been rather abstract. And here the argumentation sounds logically, but it is horrybly broken: Please explain me, why the number of IP-Adresses propagated by an AS is equal to the Allocation ? Yes, our AS propagates more than a /16 - but we have only a /22 v4 Allocation from RIPE NCC. How do you know that a lot of address space is unused ? Can you proove that? Are you aware, that there are also "private Internets" connecting independent Companies? For example in the aviation sector, many airports, airlines and AirTraffricControl-Organizations are also connected beside "The Internet". Did I state, that LIRS with more Allocations shoud not pay more than members with less Allocations ? No! Many members with wide allocations cause often more overhead and I prefer, the fee is overhead-dependent, and the hold Internet ressources should be covered in a base fee (which IMHO may be reduced for members without any ressources from RIPE NCC - or better not using any NCC Services). Regards, Andreas On Sat, Mar 18, 2023 at 04:45:16PM +0200, ripe-ncc-members-discuss@itns.md wrote: dear Andreas, I think you are being cunning when you talk about resources and RIPE NCC membership fees. The time changes and the policies also should be changed. If we speak about the fairness.... pls explain me, why per ex. AS34127 Flughafen Muenchen GmbH that has IPs Originated (v4): 66,560 should pay same fee as a LIR that holds 256ips ? The pay per resource will make the guys are holding a lot of unused space to sell it or return to the RIPE NCC. This way, the price will go down and RIPE NCC will get some ips back. best Sergiu PS to the guys that are trying to delete me from the list... by kind, do not try it again. 17.03.2023, 20:10, "Andreas Schmieja" <andreas.schmieja@munich-airport.de>: On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 02:01:06PM +0100, Andreas Grabmüller | QuarIT GmbH wrote: So, there have been many replies to this, and I'll add my two cents. RIPE is a membership organization. What we pay for is membership, not resources. Said payment of the membership fees finances RIPE's operations, and what the goal should be is a sustainable model for the future. Full ACK I add another 2 cents: IMHO the members should not pay for the ressources, they HOLD ( IPs, ASNs, and so on) , but pay for the ressources they CONSUME ( time of the staff, database traffic and storage, basic administration). It seems to me that the excel sheet did us a bit of a disservice. It basically prompts people to input their numbers and saying, they support the variant where they themselves pay less. And then there are the people that say, yes the tired model is good, but we need to change the thresholds to [Insert wherever they would fall into the next lower tier]. It doesn't work that way, as I assume that most of the LIRs fall into the lower tiers - and if we reduce the thresholds, it directly results in the costs for the lower tiers to increase. I'm all for a category based model. It seems reasonable to me that bigger LIRs, which profit more from their membership, should be able to shoulder more of the financial burden. I also think that the categories should go higher or the distribution ratio should be changed, as I'm sure the hyper scalers or huge organizations like Deutsche Telekom wouldn't even notice the 8000 € that are the example value of the excel sheet. However we won't know what makes sense here until we have numbers (number of LIRs per size backet). I've seen the argument "yes but we have a large number of IP addresses because that's what you got back then" but if they don't use those, they should give them back, and If they use them there is cash flow associated with that. Relevant for the Service Fee should be the the service provided to the LIRs , not the earnings of the company. There is a relation between the "holded Ressources" and the income of the LIR, but also to the dynamic. Many Transfers cause more effort than a static constitution. As we're not buying resources but paying for the membership, I'm strictly against paying "per IP address " or something like that. For the same reason, I don't get why there is a "per ASN" fee, as those are (finite) resources like the IP addresses and I don't see the additional cost to RIPE operations. So now RIPE is selling ASN numbers? That seems hypocritical. If we want to take those into account we can always make them part of the category calculations. If there's a LIR with one /24 that needs ten ASNs and not have the budget for the membership then somebody needs to explain that to me. ACK if the category calculations are reasonable. It should not be in the spirit of Robin Hood (I recognized in many other postings) with the goal to rob the wealthy LIRs . Some voices claimed, that LIRs on the IPv4 waiting list shoud pay no fee. If the LIR or the member, the LIR belongs to, holds or can receive other NRO-Ressources, why ? Can anybody please explain me the sense of multiple LIRs per Membership. Surely there may be good causes, but my impression is, that this constellation was used in the last years by gaming the system in order to get another "last /22" against paying a sign-up-fee. And even this increased income made the members and the administration blind until it stopped. Many people have criticized the growing budget of RIPE. That may be true (I don't know enough facts to say if the numbers are necessary for RIPEs mission or not), but it's a separate discussion. Whatever the new charging scheme will be, it should be defined as percentages of the budget which the membership has to approve. If the budget increases, the membership fees increase, if it decreases, so does the fee. Yes, it is another discussion. But: The budget was raised because of more (unplanned) membership fees ... why should be this be "one way direction" ? Best Regards, Andreas Schmieja
participants (28)
-
Alarig Le Lay -
Alex de Joode -
alexandre-ripe-ncc＠lotharedon.org -
Andreas Grabmüller | QuarIT GmbH -
Andreas Schmieja -
Ante Miloloža -
Clement Cavadore -
cowmedia.de -
CSN NOC (CSN-Solutions) -
Daniel Pearson -
Hank Nussbacher -
Hans Govenius -
ivaylo -
James Palmer -
Josh Jameson -
Kai Siering -
Kaj Niemi -
Lukasz Jarosz -
mail＠mys.co.uk -
Michele Neylon - Blacknight -
MVPS LTD -
Nick Hilliard -
Paul Lewis -
Piotr Karwowski -
ripe-ncc-members-discuss＠itns.md -
Rob Golding -
Servperso -
Łukasz Jarosz