Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month
IPv6 is cheaper to implement, but the transition is a curse for admins. They don't understand it, because they only know 255. Companies should clean up their IPv4 networks. Fees should be fairer for members. We have costs that are rising with the maturity. Yes, perhaps a red line should be applied there. But we're all clear on this point, only because there is a membership charter, and it's not exactly fair. We need to come up with a new fee structure that is fair to all members. -- Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen Walde IT-Systemhaus - CEO Dirk Walde - IT-Specialist
IT was, is and always will be a field where you always have to learn new things. Deploying IPv6 is not difficult, not these days. If someone says it's hard, they shouldn't be called an admin. That's just a copy-paste monkey relying on twenty-year-old procedures that he simply doesn't want to change. And those who don't have IPv6 deployed much are crying the most. You can often find a lot of other old software from the IT museum around these. But RIPE is not a service provider in the sense that it should be charged according to the addresses consumed. If so, it would have to get rid of the non-profit label - and also pay taxes relevant for business entities. Being a non-profit means, among other things, treating all its members equally. All these attempts are just an attempt to ride a dead horse. These discussions are endless. Networks having little IPv4 cry that the world around them is unfair. No, it isn't. Old LIRs are not responsible for having received more addresses in the past - based on the policies in force at the time. Minimum allocations used to be large and gradually decreased over time. Today's efforts to charge them are in reality just an attempt to punish them. But they just arrived earlier. And unlike some LIRs that have emerged recently, they were not created solely for the purpose of speculating with IPv4 addresses. And the only thing that will happen in reality, if we force start adresses to be returnet from these old LIRs due to "fair" fees, is that speculators will rush into any freed up space like locusts. We just repeat the same thing we experienced when dividing the last /8 - LIRs founded for the purpose of speculation begin to emerge. Even if it is limited to single resource per legal entity, it is not difficult to establish a shell company. You don't invent a policy that would prevent this. Any rule can be circumvented if there is some interest. You can't resurrect a dead horse, deal with it. And admins who don't want to learn new things and defending IPv6 deployment are just prolonging this agony. - Daniel On 5/29/25 11:24 PM, D. Walde - Walde IT-Systemhaus wrote:
IPv6 is cheaper to implement, but the transition is a curse for admins. They don't understand it, because they only know 255. Companies should clean up their IPv4 networks. Fees should be fairer for members. We have costs that are rising with the maturity. Yes, perhaps a red line should be applied there. But we're all clear on this point, only because there is a membership charter, and it's not exactly fair.
We need to come up with a new fee structure that is fair to all members.
Dear colleagues, I would like to critically address several points raised by Mr. Walde in his recent message. While the discussion around a fair charging model is essential, the arguments presented are technically inaccurate, operationally naive, and strategically dangerous for the stability of the RIPE NCC ecosystem. 1. “IPv6 is cheaper to implement” This claim may be true in controlled, greenfield environments. However, it completely disregards the reality of mature, production-grade IPv4 infrastructures. For any large-scale operator, IPv6 deployment entails: hardware and software upgrades, dual-stack maintenance, reworking ACLs, DPI, logging systems, and monitoring infrastructure, and additional training, testing, and auditing processes. Furthermore, IPv6 does not replace IPv4 — it supplements it. Dual-stack operation increases both complexity and cost. Labeling IPv6 implementation as “cheaper” is misleading and technically unsound when applied to real-world networks. 2. “Admins don’t understand IPv6 because they only know 255” This statement is dismissive and inappropriate. The limitations in IPv6 adoption stem not from ignorance, but from incomplete vendor support, real-world deployment risks, and lack of commercial pressure to fully transition. Suggesting that professionals who maintain large-scale, high-availability networks lack competence is both unproductive and disrespectful. 3. “Companies should clean up their IPv4 networks” This recommendation ignores the legal, contractual, and technical bindings of many IPv4 deployments. In large organizations — especially carriers, financial institutions, and regulated sectors — reassigning or removing IPv4 resources is not a routine administrative task. It directly impacts: existing customer contracts, upstream/downstream routing policies, and in many cases, legally binding SLAs. For Tier 1 and backbone operators, IPv4 stability is critical. “Cleaning up” networks under these conditions is operationally risky and legally unacceptable. 4. “A red line should be applied to older resources” This is perhaps the most problematic suggestion. Introducing punitive measures based on the age of a resource fundamentally violates the principle of policy neutrality and nondiscrimination. LIRs that have operated for decades under consistent rules cannot and should not be subjected to retroactive penalties. Any such action would severely undermine trust in the RIPE NCC’s governance and open the door to potential legal challenges. 5. “We need a fairer structure” This is the one point where consensus exists. However, fairness is not achieved by arbitrarily penalizing maturity, stability, or historical contribution. Mature LIRs: sustain critical internet infrastructure, carry the operational burden of backward compatibility, and face legal exposure if disruptions occur. A truly fair model would recognize the real cost of maintaining legacy-compatible networks, not attempt to equalize all members through artificial constraints. Conclusion Transition to IPv6 is a long-term necessity — that much is clear. But dismantling or penalizing the IPv4 foundation without realistic migration support will destabilize the very networks that support our global infrastructure today. We should not base future charging structures on oversimplified narratives. They must reflect operational realities, legal risk, and the diverse roles RIPE members play in sustaining internet connectivity. Sincerely, Alexei Berezhnev Managing Director RADIO-FSU/RADIO-MSU NETWORK Sent from my iPhone
On 30 May 2025, at 10:13, Daniel Suchy via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> wrote:
IT was, is and always will be a field where you always have to learn new things. Deploying IPv6 is not difficult, not these days. If someone says it's hard, they shouldn't be called an admin. That's just a copy-paste monkey relying on twenty-year-old procedures that he simply doesn't want to change. And those who don't have IPv6 deployed much are crying the most. You can often find a lot of other old software from the IT museum around these.
But RIPE is not a service provider in the sense that it should be charged according to the addresses consumed. If so, it would have to get rid of the non-profit label - and also pay taxes relevant for business entities. Being a non-profit means, among other things, treating all its members equally.
All these attempts are just an attempt to ride a dead horse. These discussions are endless. Networks having little IPv4 cry that the world around them is unfair. No, it isn't.
Old LIRs are not responsible for having received more addresses in the past - based on the policies in force at the time. Minimum allocations used to be large and gradually decreased over time. Today's efforts to charge them are in reality just an attempt to punish them. But they just arrived earlier. And unlike some LIRs that have emerged recently, they were not created solely for the purpose of speculating with IPv4 addresses.
And the only thing that will happen in reality, if we force start adresses to be returnet from these old LIRs due to "fair" fees, is that speculators will rush into any freed up space like locusts. We just repeat the same thing we experienced when dividing the last /8 - LIRs founded for the purpose of speculation begin to emerge. Even if it is limited to single resource per legal entity, it is not difficult to establish a shell company. You don't invent a policy that would prevent this. Any rule can be circumvented if there is some interest.
You can't resurrect a dead horse, deal with it. And admins who don't want to learn new things and defending IPv6 deployment are just prolonging this agony.
- Daniel
On 5/29/25 11:24 PM, D. Walde - Walde IT-Systemhaus wrote: IPv6 is cheaper to implement, but the transition is a curse for admins. They don't understand it, because they only know 255. Companies should clean up their IPv4 networks. Fees should be fairer for members. We have costs that are rising with the maturity. Yes, perhaps a red line should be applied there. But we're all clear on this point, only because there is a membership charter, and it's not exactly fair. We need to come up with a new fee structure that is fair to all members.
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Hi, On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 07:38:19PM +0300, Alexey Berezhnev wrote:
Conclusion
Transition to IPv6 is a long-term necessity ??? that much is clear.
After you have deliberated long and exquisitely why it cannot be done, what would you suggest how to achieve said necessity? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Each time there's a discussion about resource holders paying their fair share according to their resource holdings at RIPE, like other RIR, you take the discussion towards an unrelated subject that is IPv6 transition. On Fri, 30 May 2025, 19:50 Gert Doering, <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 07:38:19PM +0300, Alexey Berezhnev wrote:
Conclusion
Transition to IPv6 is a long-term necessity ??? that much is clear.
After you have deliberated long and exquisitely why it cannot be done, what would you suggest how to achieve said necessity?
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Hi, On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 07:58:00PM +0300, Jean Salim wrote:
Each time there's a discussion about resource holders paying their fair share according to their resource holdings at RIPE, like other RIR, you take the discussion towards an unrelated subject that is IPv6 transition.
This is the only relevant discussion. There is not enough IPv4 available to fulfill all the demands people have - very simple math. So whatever we do will just result in more squabbling and complaints from other people that "THIS IS ALL SO UNFAIR" - yes, this is why we made IPv6 policies where every but the most large LIRs can have more address space than they will ever need, by asking politely. Guess what, we knew 15+ years ago that IPv4 would not last, and made policies where networks voluntarily(!) restricted themselves(!) so late comers could still have some space, to help with the transition. That space is now gone, transition has not been done, and - surprise - we see complaints that IPv4 is not distributed fairly. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
You are intentionally misleading this discussion, please open a new thread about IPv6 transition and discuss this subject with whom you want to. This thread's title is clearly about the charging scheme, not about IPv4 distribution nor about IPv6 transition. On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 8:07 PM Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 07:58:00PM +0300, Jean Salim wrote:
Each time there's a discussion about resource holders paying their fair share according to their resource holdings at RIPE, like other RIR, you take the discussion towards an unrelated subject that is IPv6 transition.
This is the only relevant discussion. There is not enough IPv4 available to fulfill all the demands people have - very simple math.
So whatever we do will just result in more squabbling and complaints from other people that "THIS IS ALL SO UNFAIR" - yes, this is why we made IPv6 policies where every but the most large LIRs can have more address space than they will ever need, by asking politely.
Guess what, we knew 15+ years ago that IPv4 would not last, and made policies where networks voluntarily(!) restricted themselves(!) so late comers could still have some space, to help with the transition. That space is now gone, transition has not been done, and - surprise - we see complaints that IPv4 is not distributed fairly.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hi, All. The discussion about difference on IPv4 and IPv6 is interesting, but has little relevance to the issue. Since I started this topic discussion first, I would like to continue. We live in capitalism. The smart way to get someone to give up something valuable and necessary for everyone is to make them pay for it. I believe that at the moment the only reasonable way is to receive a payment for each subnet /24. The most damning argument I heard against it is that the NCC will be in this case a commercial organization. I don't understand! Why? Say me. Why: Receiving NCC funds for each PI block - is a non-commercial activity, but collecting for each /24 - is a commercial one. And why is a fee with 10 categories - is possible, but with 32000 categories - is impossible. In my opinion, the nature of an NCC activity is determined not by the way the fee is collected and not by its amount for each participant, but by the purpose of the company and the order of profit distribution. Please, correct me if I'm wrong. Serbulov Dmitry.
You are intentionally misleading this discussion, please open a new thread about IPv6 transition and discuss this subject with whom you want to. This thread's title is clearly about the charging scheme, not about IPv4 distribution nor about IPv6 transition.
On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 8:07 PM Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Just to clarify so there's no misinformation. This thread's not about taking anybody's IPv4 allocations and redistributing it. It's about large resource holders paying their fair annual maintenance share. One of the LIRs I represent has only ONE /24 or 256 IPs that they purchased, they pay 1850 EUR a year to ripe which is a substantial amount in a country like Lebanon. While LIRs that have hundrends or even thousands of /24s pay the same 1850 EUR amount while if they closed their businesses and rent their IPS out, they would make hundreds of thousands of Euros anually. On Fri, 30 May 2025, 20:11 Jean Salim, <jean@bsmart-isp.net> wrote:
You are intentionally misleading this discussion, please open a new thread about IPv6 transition and discuss this subject with whom you want to. This thread's title is clearly about the charging scheme, not about IPv4 distribution nor about IPv6 transition.
On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 8:07 PM Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
Each time there's a discussion about resource holders paying their fair share according to their resource holdings at RIPE, like other RIR, you take the discussion towards an unrelated subject that is IPv6
On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 07:58:00PM +0300, Jean Salim wrote: transition.
This is the only relevant discussion. There is not enough IPv4 available to fulfill all the demands people have - very simple math.
So whatever we do will just result in more squabbling and complaints from other people that "THIS IS ALL SO UNFAIR" - yes, this is why we made IPv6 policies where every but the most large LIRs can have more address space than they will ever need, by asking politely.
Guess what, we knew 15+ years ago that IPv4 would not last, and made policies where networks voluntarily(!) restricted themselves(!) so late comers could still have some space, to help with the transition. That space is now gone, transition has not been done, and - surprise - we see complaints that IPv4 is not distributed fairly.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
I'll state what no one else has in very simple terms. The moment your single /24 LIR pays 100 EUR /year because it's small and the LIR with a /8 pays 100,000 EUR /year is the moment your voice will get taken away. The best way to motivate corporations of that size to get interested is to charge them ridiculous amounts of money. Mark my words, RIPE would be easily taken over and controlled by the top 10-20 resource holders if you ever tried to charge per /24 , and they'd make sure your voice is never heard again. It's simple really, if you want an equal voice in the direction of RIPE, then everyone needs to pay the same amount. If you want to watch your privileges get stripped away, try and change that to where you charge by the /24. Daniel~ On 5/30/25 1:48 PM, Jean Salim wrote:
Just to clarify so there's no misinformation. This thread's not about taking anybody's IPv4 allocations and redistributing it. It's about large resource holders paying their fair annual maintenance share. One of the LIRs I represent has only ONE /24 or 256 IPs that they purchased, they pay 1850 EUR a year to ripe which is a substantial amount in a country like Lebanon. While LIRs that have hundrends or even thousands of /24s pay the same 1850 EUR amount while if they closed their businesses and rent their IPS out, they would make hundreds of thousands of Euros anually.
On Fri, 30 May 2025, 20:11 Jean Salim, <jean@bsmart-isp.net> wrote:
You are intentionally misleading this discussion, please open a new thread about IPv6 transition and discuss this subject with whom you want to. This thread's title is clearly about the charging scheme, not about IPv4 distribution nor about IPv6 transition.
On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 8:07 PM Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 07:58:00PM +0300, Jean Salim wrote: > Each time there's a discussion about resource holders paying their fair > share according to their resource holdings at RIPE, like other RIR, you > take the discussion towards an unrelated subject that is IPv6 transition.
This is the only relevant discussion. There is not enough IPv4 available to fulfill all the demands people have - very simple math.
So whatever we do will just result in more squabbling and complaints from other people that "THIS IS ALL SO UNFAIR" - yes, this is why we made IPv6 policies where every but the most large LIRs can have more address space than they will ever need, by asking politely.
Guess what, we knew 15+ years ago that IPv4 would not last, and made policies where networks voluntarily(!) restricted themselves(!) so late comers could still have some space, to help with the transition. That space is now gone, transition has not been done, and - surprise - we see complaints that IPv4 is not distributed fairly.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit:https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at:https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
All other RIR have tiered charging and the sky didn't fall. Nobody's saying charge per /24 proportionally, it should be tiered and logarithmic like everyone else. I don't know why large LIRs with hundreds of /24 are scared of paying more than 1850 eur which is what they rent out one /24 for. What you're saying is very wrong. Now all LIRs are paying the same and still large LIR are controlling RIPE and making everybody pay for their resources while they only pay 1850 eur per year for all the resources they're controlling and making money out of. On Fri, 30 May 2025, 23:13 Daniel Pearson, <daniel@privatesystems.net> wrote:
I'll state what no one else has in very simple terms.
The moment your single /24 LIR pays 100 EUR /year because it's small and the LIR with a /8 pays 100,000 EUR /year is the moment your voice will get taken away.
The best way to motivate corporations of that size to get interested is to charge them ridiculous amounts of money. Mark my words, RIPE would be easily taken over and controlled by the top 10-20 resource holders if you ever tried to charge per /24 , and they'd make sure your voice is never heard again.
It's simple really, if you want an equal voice in the direction of RIPE, then everyone needs to pay the same amount. If you want to watch your privileges get stripped away, try and change that to where you charge by the /24.
Daniel~
On 5/30/25 1:48 PM, Jean Salim wrote:
Just to clarify so there's no misinformation. This thread's not about taking anybody's IPv4 allocations and redistributing it. It's about large resource holders paying their fair annual maintenance share. One of the LIRs I represent has only ONE /24 or 256 IPs that they purchased, they pay 1850 EUR a year to ripe which is a substantial amount in a country like Lebanon. While LIRs that have hundrends or even thousands of /24s pay the same 1850 EUR amount while if they closed their businesses and rent their IPS out, they would make hundreds of thousands of Euros anually.
On Fri, 30 May 2025, 20:11 Jean Salim, <jean@bsmart-isp.net> wrote:
You are intentionally misleading this discussion, please open a new thread about IPv6 transition and discuss this subject with whom you want to. This thread's title is clearly about the charging scheme, not about IPv4 distribution nor about IPv6 transition.
On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 8:07 PM Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
Each time there's a discussion about resource holders paying their fair share according to their resource holdings at RIPE, like other RIR, you take the discussion towards an unrelated subject that is IPv6
On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 07:58:00PM +0300, Jean Salim wrote: transition.
This is the only relevant discussion. There is not enough IPv4 available to fulfill all the demands people have - very simple math.
So whatever we do will just result in more squabbling and complaints from other people that "THIS IS ALL SO UNFAIR" - yes, this is why we made IPv6 policies where every but the most large LIRs can have more address space than they will ever need, by asking politely.
Guess what, we knew 15+ years ago that IPv4 would not last, and made policies where networks voluntarily(!) restricted themselves(!) so late comers could still have some space, to help with the transition. That space is now gone, transition has not been done, and - surprise - we see complaints that IPv4 is not distributed fairly.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen+14?entry=gmail&source=g> Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
1. Everyone has the same voting rights. 2. The services a person receives must be paid for, depending on what they receive, as additional costs arise there too. IP networks, ASNs, training, support, service. 3. Voting rights are not extended based on what someone pays. *** Perhaps we need to look into whether we need to review the RIPE for cost savings, like in the US. *** But yes, I'm someone who likes to come up with opinions and ideas like Trump that might not be appropriate. But they should be thought-provoking. Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen Walde IT-Systemhaus - CEO Dirk Walde - IT-Specialist Jean Salim schrieb:
All other RIR have tiered charging and the sky didn't fall. Nobody's saying charge per /24 proportionally, it should be tiered and logarithmic like everyone else. I don't know why large LIRs with hundreds of /24 are scared of paying more than 1850 eur which is what they rent out one /24 for. What you're saying is very wrong. Now all LIRs are paying the same and still large LIR are controlling RIPE and making everybody pay for their resources while they only pay 1850 eur per year for all the resources they're controlling and making money out of.
On Fri, 30 May 2025, 23:13 Daniel Pearson, <daniel@privatesystems.net <mailto:daniel@privatesystems.net>> wrote:
I'll state what no one else has in very simple terms.
The moment your single /24 LIR pays 100 EUR /year because it's small and the LIR with a /8 pays 100,000 EUR /year is the moment your voice will get taken away.
The best way to motivate corporations of that size to get interested is to charge them ridiculous amounts of money. Mark my words, RIPE would be easily taken over and controlled by the top 10-20 resource holders if you ever tried to charge per /24 , and they'd make sure your voice is never heard again.
It's simple really, if you want an equal voice in the direction of RIPE, then everyone needs to pay the same amount. If you want to watch your privileges get stripped away, try and change that to where you charge by the /24.
Daniel~
On 5/30/25 1:48 PM, Jean Salim wrote:
Just to clarify so there's no misinformation. This thread's not about taking anybody's IPv4 allocations and redistributing it. It's about large resource holders paying their fair annual maintenance share. One of the LIRs I represent has only ONE /24 or 256 IPs that they purchased, they pay 1850 EUR a year to ripe which is a substantial amount in a country like Lebanon. While LIRs that have hundrends or even thousands of /24s pay the same 1850 EUR amount while if they closed their businesses and rent their IPS out, they would make hundreds of thousands of Euros anually.
On Fri, 30 May 2025, 20:11 Jean Salim, <jean@bsmart-isp.net <mailto:jean@bsmart-isp.net>> wrote:
You are intentionally misleading this discussion, please open a new thread about IPv6 transition and discuss this subject with whom you want to. This thread's title is clearly about the charging scheme, not about IPv4 distribution nor about IPv6 transition.
On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 8:07 PM Gert Doering <gert@space.net <mailto:gert@space.net>> wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 07:58:00PM +0300, Jean Salim wrote: > Each time there's a discussion about resource holders paying their fair > share according to their resource holdings at RIPE, like other RIR, you > take the discussion towards an unrelated subject that is IPv6 transition.
This is the only relevant discussion. There is not enough IPv4 available to fulfill all the demands people have - very simple math.
So whatever we do will just result in more squabbling and complaints from other people that "THIS IS ALL SO UNFAIR" - yes, this is why we made IPv6 policies where every but the most large LIRs can have more address space than they will ever need, by asking politely.
Guess what, we knew 15+ years ago that IPv4 would not last, and made policies where networks voluntarily(!) restricted themselves(!) so late comers could still have some space, to help with the transition. That space is now gone, transition has not been done, and - surprise - we see complaints that IPv4 is not distributed fairly.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen+14?entry=gmail&source=g> Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
A few years ago, NCC management/board proposed a scheme that would have favored the smallest LIRs by significantly decreasing their fees while increasing fees for the others and capping the fees to largest to 10k or so. Didn’t get traction. Before the current flat fee structure, in the ancient past, there were tiers. People eventually wanted to get rid of them. I don’t think “the large LIR are controlling RIPE” and there doesn’t seem to be evidence to that either. And the fees could be reduced to half by reducing the amount of costs but that’s a topic that nobody wants to discuss, either, but for other reasons. Anyway. Kaj Sent from my iPad ________________________________ From: Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net> Sent: Friday, May 30, 2025 11:32:28 PM To: Daniel Pearson <daniel@privatesystems.net> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month You don't often get email from jean@bsmart-isp.net. Learn why this is important<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification> All other RIR have tiered charging and the sky didn't fall. Nobody's saying charge per /24 proportionally, it should be tiered and logarithmic like everyone else. I don't know why large LIRs with hundreds of /24 are scared of paying more than 1850 eur which is what they rent out one /24 for. What you're saying is very wrong. Now all LIRs are paying the same and still large LIR are controlling RIPE and making everybody pay for their resources while they only pay 1850 eur per year for all the resources they're controlling and making money out of. On Fri, 30 May 2025, 23:13 Daniel Pearson, <daniel@privatesystems.net<mailto:daniel@privatesystems.net>> wrote: I'll state what no one else has in very simple terms. The moment your single /24 LIR pays 100 EUR /year because it's small and the LIR with a /8 pays 100,000 EUR /year is the moment your voice will get taken away. The best way to motivate corporations of that size to get interested is to charge them ridiculous amounts of money. Mark my words, RIPE would be easily taken over and controlled by the top 10-20 resource holders if you ever tried to charge per /24 , and they'd make sure your voice is never heard again. It's simple really, if you want an equal voice in the direction of RIPE, then everyone needs to pay the same amount. If you want to watch your privileges get stripped away, try and change that to where you charge by the /24. Daniel~ On 5/30/25 1:48 PM, Jean Salim wrote: Just to clarify so there's no misinformation. This thread's not about taking anybody's IPv4 allocations and redistributing it. It's about large resource holders paying their fair annual maintenance share. One of the LIRs I represent has only ONE /24 or 256 IPs that they purchased, they pay 1850 EUR a year to ripe which is a substantial amount in a country like Lebanon. While LIRs that have hundrends or even thousands of /24s pay the same 1850 EUR amount while if they closed their businesses and rent their IPS out, they would make hundreds of thousands of Euros anually. On Fri, 30 May 2025, 20:11 Jean Salim, <jean@bsmart-isp.net<mailto:jean@bsmart-isp.net>> wrote: You are intentionally misleading this discussion, please open a new thread about IPv6 transition and discuss this subject with whom you want to. This thread's title is clearly about the charging scheme, not about IPv4 distribution nor about IPv6 transition. On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 8:07 PM Gert Doering <gert@space.net<mailto:gert@space.net>> wrote: Hi, On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 07:58:00PM +0300, Jean Salim wrote:
Each time there's a discussion about resource holders paying their fair share according to their resource holdings at RIPE, like other RIR, you take the discussion towards an unrelated subject that is IPv6 transition.
This is the only relevant discussion. There is not enough IPv4 available to fulfill all the demands people have - very simple math. So whatever we do will just result in more squabbling and complaints from other people that "THIS IS ALL SO UNFAIR" - yes, this is why we made IPv6 policies where every but the most large LIRs can have more address space than they will ever need, by asking politely. Guess what, we knew 15+ years ago that IPv4 would not last, and made policies where networks voluntarily(!) restricted themselves(!) so late comers could still have some space, to help with the transition. That space is now gone, transition has not been done, and - surprise - we see complaints that IPv4 is not distributed fairly. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14<https://www.google.com/maps/search/Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen+14?entry=gmail&source=g> Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/ ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Am 31.05.25 um 00:09 schrieb Kaj Niemi:
And the fees could be reduced to half by reducing the amount of costs but that’s a topic that nobody wants to discuss, either, but for other reasons. Anyway.
This was brought up, I think, two or three years ago already; decoupling the discussions of "redistributing the operational costs" and "what services are there to be financed by all members at all" – and the later is up solely to the Executive Board to decide upon – isn't the proper way anymore. Sure, given the choice, I'm rather certain a majority of members would reduce the NCC's task down to running the Portal, the DB and directly related duties — and get rid of RIPE Atlas, RIPEstat, K-Root, RPKI, maybe even the RIPE Meetings, if that cuts their member fees. But I think anyway it's time to change the bylaws and have the membership *decide* directly over the amount of services that it wants to continue to finance. Currently, by Article 15, a General Meeting will 'discuss' the draft Activity Plan, but does *decide* about it. There's currently no way for the membership to actively decide on the Activity Plan, as has been made clear by RIPE NCC officials in the past. Members only can decide about the "Charging Scheme […] upon proposal of the Executive Board" – i. e. the way the costs resulting from the Activity Plan they have no vote on are to be distributed – while Members are not allowed to propose a different Charging Scheme to that of the Executive Board (Article 15.4 b). To reduce the amount to finance, one needs to reduce the amount of spending, simple a=b/c math; if you have a given, or declining, c – number of members –, to reduce a – each member's share of the costs – you have to properly decrease b, the amount of money spent due to the Activity Plan. To finish this futile discussions once and for all, to me it's time to change Article 15.4 a from "/a discussion/ of the draft Activity Plan and draft budget after a presentation by theExecutive Board;" to "/the adoption/ of the draft Activity Plan and draft budget after a presentation by theExecutive Board;". Similar change should be considered for 15.4 c. Regards, -kai -- Kai Siering Senior System Engineer Friedrich-Ebert-Straße 70 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
Hi, Now all LIRs are paying the same and still large LIR are controlling RIPE and making everybody pay for their resources I think it is not accurate at 100%. Somone creates this slogan for unknown reason. Currently nobody pays (at least to RIPE) for resources belonging/allocated to someone else, everybody pays to fill the RIPE budget, which makes RIPE's existence and work possible. And while RIPE nonprofit organization all payments will be limited in total by budget. Also, I can agree that different LIRs consume different amounts of RIPE services. But consuming RIPE services is not equal to the number of /24s used by LIRs. Also, right now, a very small percentage of votes can be counted as votes of “big” LIRs, so how can you say that “large LIRs are controlling RIPE”? But of course, if we move to an unequal membership fee, you can be 100% sure that the equality of voting weight will change. why large LIRs with hundreds of /24 are scared of paying more than 1850 eur But why, in a community of members with equal voting weight, should someone pay more or less? If we have just one membership fee, it must be proportional to voting weight. If your proposal is to split the fee into a pure members part (fee per vote) and a service part (proportional to consumed services, not x/24th), I can understand this in the context of a budget discussion. But in this case, a price list and service catalog must be created so that each member can decide which services are affordable to him. I think it is no secret that some groups of LIRs only need the registry. Also, it can give a clear picture of which services are really valuable from the community's point of view. From: Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net> Sent: Friday, May 30, 2025 11:32 PM To: Daniel Pearson <daniel@privatesystems.net> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month Деякі одержувачі цього повідомлення нечасто отримують електронні листи з адреси jean@bsmart-isp.net<mailto:jean@bsmart-isp.net>. Дізнайтеся, чому це важливо<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification> All other RIR have tiered charging and the sky didn't fall. Nobody's saying charge per /24 proportionally, it should be tiered and logarithmic like everyone else. I don't know why large LIRs with hundreds of /24 are scared of paying more than 1850 eur which is what they rent out one /24 for. What you're saying is very wrong. Now all LIRs are paying the same and still large LIR are controlling RIPE and making everybody pay for their resources while they only pay 1850 eur per year for all the resources they're controlling and making money out of. On Fri, 30 May 2025, 23:13 Daniel Pearson, <daniel@privatesystems.net<mailto:daniel@privatesystems.net>> wrote: I'll state what no one else has in very simple terms. The moment your single /24 LIR pays 100 EUR /year because it's small and the LIR with a /8 pays 100,000 EUR /year is the moment your voice will get taken away. The best way to motivate corporations of that size to get interested is to charge them ridiculous amounts of money. Mark my words, RIPE would be easily taken over and controlled by the top 10-20 resource holders if you ever tried to charge per /24 , and they'd make sure your voice is never heard again. It's simple really, if you want an equal voice in the direction of RIPE, then everyone needs to pay the same amount. If you want to watch your privileges get stripped away, try and change that to where you charge by the /24. Daniel~ On 5/30/25 1:48 PM, Jean Salim wrote: Just to clarify so there's no misinformation. This thread's not about taking anybody's IPv4 allocations and redistributing it. It's about large resource holders paying their fair annual maintenance share. One of the LIRs I represent has only ONE /24 or 256 IPs that they purchased, they pay 1850 EUR a year to ripe which is a substantial amount in a country like Lebanon. While LIRs that have hundrends or even thousands of /24s pay the same 1850 EUR amount while if they closed their businesses and rent their IPS out, they would make hundreds of thousands of Euros anually. On Fri, 30 May 2025, 20:11 Jean Salim, <jean@bsmart-isp.net<mailto:jean@bsmart-isp.net>> wrote: You are intentionally misleading this discussion, please open a new thread about IPv6 transition and discuss this subject with whom you want to. This thread's title is clearly about the charging scheme, not about IPv4 distribution nor about IPv6 transition. On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 8:07 PM Gert Doering <gert@space.net<mailto:gert@space.net>> wrote: Hi, On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 07:58:00PM +0300, Jean Salim wrote:
Each time there's a discussion about resource holders paying their fair share according to their resource holdings at RIPE, like other RIR, you take the discussion towards an unrelated subject that is IPv6 transition.
This is the only relevant discussion. There is not enough IPv4 available to fulfill all the demands people have - very simple math. So whatever we do will just result in more squabbling and complaints from other people that "THIS IS ALL SO UNFAIR" - yes, this is why we made IPv6 policies where every but the most large LIRs can have more address space than they will ever need, by asking politely. Guess what, we knew 15+ years ago that IPv4 would not last, and made policies where networks voluntarily(!) restricted themselves(!) so late comers could still have some space, to help with the transition. That space is now gone, transition has not been done, and - surprise - we see complaints that IPv4 is not distributed fairly. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14<https://www.google.com/maps/search/Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen+14?entry=gmail&source=g> Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/ ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Конфіденційно/Confidential Hi Murat, You can ask our sales department for information on prices and the services we provide. If you're interested, I can give you their contact details. From: Murat Terzioglu | PREBITS <m.terzioglu@prebits.de> Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2025 9:37 AM To: Evgeniy Brodskiy <Evgeniy.Brodskiy@kyivstar.net> Cc: Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net>; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month What do you charge your customer for 1x fix IPV4 address? -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards Murat TERZIOGLU PREBITS - Premium Business IT Solutions Bochumer Str. 20 D-44866 Bochum Telefon: 0234/58825994 Telefax: 0234/58825995 www.prebits.de<http://www.prebits.de> m.terzioglu@prebits.de<mailto:m.terzioglu@prebits.de> USt-ID: DE315418902 Am 31.05.2025 um 03:13 schrieb Evgeniy Brodskiy via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>>: Hi, Now all LIRs are paying the same and still large LIR are controlling RIPE and making everybody pay for their resources I think it is not accurate at 100%. Somone creates this slogan for unknown reason. Currently nobody pays (at least to RIPE) for resources belonging/allocated to someone else, everybody pays to fill the RIPE budget, which makes RIPE's existence and work possible. And while RIPE nonprofit organization all payments will be limited in total by budget. Also, I can agree that different LIRs consume different amounts of RIPE services. But consuming RIPE services is not equal to the number of /24s used by LIRs. Also, right now, a very small percentage of votes can be counted as votes of “big” LIRs, so how can you say that “large LIRs are controlling RIPE”? But of course, if we move to an unequal membership fee, you can be 100% sure that the equality of voting weight will change. why large LIRs with hundreds of /24 are scared of paying more than 1850 eur But why, in a community of members with equal voting weight, should someone pay more or less? If we have just one membership fee, it must be proportional to voting weight. If your proposal is to split the fee into a pure members part (fee per vote) and a service part (proportional to consumed services, not x/24th), I can understand this in the context of a budget discussion. But in this case, a price list and service catalog must be created so that each member can decide which services are affordable to him. I think it is no secret that some groups of LIRs only need the registry. Also, it can give a clear picture of which services are really valuable from the community's point of view. From: Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net<mailto:jean@bsmart-isp.net>> Sent: Friday, May 30, 2025 11:32 PM To: Daniel Pearson <daniel@privatesystems.net<mailto:daniel@privatesystems.net>> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month Деякі одержувачі цього повідомлення нечасто отримують електронні листи з адреси jean@bsmart-isp.net<mailto:jean@bsmart-isp.net>. Дізнайтеся, чому це важливо<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification> All other RIR have tiered charging and the sky didn't fall. Nobody's saying charge per /24 proportionally, it should be tiered and logarithmic like everyone else. I don't know why large LIRs with hundreds of /24 are scared of paying more than 1850 eur which is what they rent out one /24 for. What you're saying is very wrong. Now all LIRs are paying the same and still large LIR are controlling RIPE and making everybody pay for their resources while they only pay 1850 eur per year for all the resources they're controlling and making money out of. On Fri, 30 May 2025, 23:13 Daniel Pearson, <daniel@privatesystems.net<mailto:daniel@privatesystems.net>> wrote: I'll state what no one else has in very simple terms. The moment your single /24 LIR pays 100 EUR /year because it's small and the LIR with a /8 pays 100,000 EUR /year is the moment your voice will get taken away. The best way to motivate corporations of that size to get interested is to charge them ridiculous amounts of money. Mark my words, RIPE would be easily taken over and controlled by the top 10-20 resource holders if you ever tried to charge per /24 , and they'd make sure your voice is never heard again. It's simple really, if you want an equal voice in the direction of RIPE, then everyone needs to pay the same amount. If you want to watch your privileges get stripped away, try and change that to where you charge by the /24. Daniel~ On 5/30/25 1:48 PM, Jean Salim wrote: Just to clarify so there's no misinformation. This thread's not about taking anybody's IPv4 allocations and redistributing it. It's about large resource holders paying their fair annual maintenance share. One of the LIRs I represent has only ONE /24 or 256 IPs that they purchased, they pay 1850 EUR a year to ripe which is a substantial amount in a country like Lebanon. While LIRs that have hundrends or even thousands of /24s pay the same 1850 EUR amount while if they closed their businesses and rent their IPS out, they would make hundreds of thousands of Euros anually. On Fri, 30 May 2025, 20:11 Jean Salim, <jean@bsmart-isp.net<mailto:jean@bsmart-isp.net>> wrote: You are intentionally misleading this discussion, please open a new thread about IPv6 transition and discuss this subject with whom you want to. This thread's title is clearly about the charging scheme, not about IPv4 distribution nor about IPv6 transition. On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 8:07 PM Gert Doering <gert@space.net<mailto:gert@space.net>> wrote: Hi, On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 07:58:00PM +0300, Jean Salim wrote:
Each time there's a discussion about resource holders paying their fair share according to their resource holdings at RIPE, like other RIR, you take the discussion towards an unrelated subject that is IPv6 transition.
This is the only relevant discussion. There is not enough IPv4 available to fulfill all the demands people have - very simple math. So whatever we do will just result in more squabbling and complaints from other people that "THIS IS ALL SO UNFAIR" - yes, this is why we made IPv6 policies where every but the most large LIRs can have more address space than they will ever need, by asking politely. Guess what, we knew 15+ years ago that IPv4 would not last, and made policies where networks voluntarily(!) restricted themselves(!) so late comers could still have some space, to help with the transition. That space is now gone, transition has not been done, and - surprise - we see complaints that IPv4 is not distributed fairly. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14<https://www.google.com/maps/search/Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen+14?entry=gmail&source=g> Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/ ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/ ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Again, we don't currently have 1 LIR, 1 fee because of the ASN fee. Let me remind you that it was the only voting option that brought the semblance of fairness last time, and that's why the majority voted for it, not 1 LIR 1 Fee or your "keep everything as it is because it benefits me tremendously, oh look there, IPv6!!!" On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:57 Evgeniy Brodskiy, <Evgeniy.Brodskiy@kyivstar.net> wrote:
Конфіденційно/Confidential
Hi Murat,
You can ask our sales department for information on prices and the services we provide. If you're interested, I can give you their contact details.
*From:* Murat Terzioglu | PREBITS <m.terzioglu@prebits.de> *Sent:* Saturday, May 31, 2025 9:37 AM *To:* Evgeniy Brodskiy <Evgeniy.Brodskiy@kyivstar.net> *Cc:* Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net>; members-discuss@ripe.net *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month
What do you charge your customer for 1x fix IPV4 address?
<https://www.google.com/maps/search/Bochumer+Str.+20+%0D%0A+D-44866+Bochum?entry=gmail&source=g>
--
Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards
*Murat TERZIOGLU* *PREBITS - Premium Business IT Solutions*
Bochumer Str. 20 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Bochumer+Str.+20+%0D%0A+D-44866+Bochum?entry=gmail&source=g>
D-44866 Bochum <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Bochumer+Str.+20+%0D%0A+D-44866+Bochum?entry=gmail&source=g>
Telefon: 0234/58825994
Telefax: 0234/58825995
www.prebits.de
m.terzioglu@prebits.de
USt-ID: DE315418902
Am 31.05.2025 um 03:13 schrieb Evgeniy Brodskiy via members-discuss < members-discuss@ripe.net>:
Hi,
*Now all LIRs are paying the same and still large LIR are controlling RIPE and making everybody pay for their resources*
I think it is not accurate at 100%. Somone creates this slogan for unknown reason. Currently nobody pays (at least to RIPE) for resources belonging/allocated to someone else, everybody pays to fill the RIPE budget, which makes RIPE's existence and work possible. And while RIPE nonprofit organization all payments will be limited in total by budget.
Also, I can agree that different LIRs consume different amounts of RIPE services. But consuming RIPE services is not equal to the number of /24s used by LIRs.
Also, right now, a very small percentage of votes can be counted as votes of “big” LIRs, so how can you say that “large LIRs are controlling RIPE”? But of course, if we move to an unequal membership fee, you can be 100% sure that the equality of voting weight will change.
*why large LIRs with hundreds of /24 are scared of paying more than 1850 eur*
But why, in a community of members with equal voting weight, should someone pay more or less? If we have just one membership fee, it must be proportional to voting weight.
If your proposal is to split the fee into a pure members part (fee per vote) and a service part (proportional to consumed services, not x/24th), I can understand this in the context of a budget discussion. But in this case, a price list and service catalog must be created so that each member can decide which services are affordable to him. I think it is no secret that some groups of LIRs only need the registry. Also, it can give a clear picture of which services are really valuable from the community's point of view.
*From:* Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net> *Sent:* Friday, May 30, 2025 11:32 PM *To:* Daniel Pearson <daniel@privatesystems.net> *Cc:* members-discuss@ripe.net *Subject:* [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month
Деякі одержувачі цього повідомлення нечасто отримують електронні листи з адреси jean@bsmart-isp.net. Дізнайтеся, чому це важливо <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>
All other RIR have tiered charging and the sky didn't fall.
Nobody's saying charge per /24 proportionally, it should be tiered and logarithmic like everyone else.
I don't know why large LIRs with hundreds of /24 are scared of paying more than 1850 eur which is what they rent out one /24 for.
What you're saying is very wrong.
Now all LIRs are paying the same and still large LIR are controlling RIPE and making everybody pay for their resources while they only pay 1850 eur per year for all the resources they're controlling and making money out of.
On Fri, 30 May 2025, 23:13 Daniel Pearson, <daniel@privatesystems.net> wrote:
I'll state what no one else has in very simple terms.
The moment your single /24 LIR pays 100 EUR /year because it's small and the LIR with a /8 pays 100,000 EUR /year is the moment your voice will get taken away.
The best way to motivate corporations of that size to get interested is to charge them ridiculous amounts of money. Mark my words, RIPE would be easily taken over and controlled by the top 10-20 resource holders if you ever tried to charge per /24 , and they'd make sure your voice is never heard again.
It's simple really, if you want an equal voice in the direction of RIPE, then everyone needs to pay the same amount. If you want to watch your privileges get stripped away, try and change that to where you charge by the /24.
Daniel~
On 5/30/25 1:48 PM, Jean Salim wrote:
Just to clarify so there's no misinformation. This thread's not about taking anybody's IPv4 allocations and redistributing it. It's about large resource holders paying their fair annual maintenance share.
One of the LIRs I represent has only ONE /24 or 256 IPs that they purchased, they pay 1850 EUR a year to ripe which is a substantial amount in a country like Lebanon.
While LIRs that have hundrends or even thousands of /24s pay the same 1850 EUR amount while if they closed their businesses and rent their IPS out, they would make hundreds of thousands of Euros anually.
On Fri, 30 May 2025, 20:11 Jean Salim, <jean@bsmart-isp.net> wrote:
You are intentionally misleading this discussion, please open a new thread about IPv6 transition and discuss this subject with whom you want to.
This thread's title is clearly about the charging scheme, not about IPv4 distribution nor about IPv6 transition.
On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 8:07 PM Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 07:58:00PM +0300, Jean Salim wrote:
Each time there's a discussion about resource holders paying their fair share according to their resource holdings at RIPE, like other RIR, you take the discussion towards an unrelated subject that is IPv6 transition.
This is the only relevant discussion. There is not enough IPv4 available to fulfill all the demands people have - very simple math.
So whatever we do will just result in more squabbling and complaints from other people that "THIS IS ALL SO UNFAIR" - yes, this is why we made IPv6 policies where every but the most large LIRs can have more address space than they will ever need, by asking politely.
Guess what, we knew 15+ years ago that IPv4 would not last, and made policies where networks voluntarily(!) restricted themselves(!) so late comers could still have some space, to help with the transition. That space is now gone, transition has not been done, and - surprise - we see complaints that IPv4 is not distributed fairly.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen+14?entry=gmail&source=g> Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-----
To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/
As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings.
More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Murat, you're right on point. But what charging scheme do you propose? Denys has detailed other RIRs successful tiered charging schemes in the thread. On Sat, 31 May 2025, 09:23 Murat Terzioglu | PREBITS, < m.terzioglu@prebits.de> wrote:
You claim that the voices of small members will be weakened. But what you don’t realize is this: our voices were never strong to begin with.
1.5 years ago, votes were collected against the new charging scheme. However, the GM went ahead with their own decision anyway. And what was the argument? A “stable future”…
You still don’t understand, and you keep distorting the direction of the issue.
There is a fact here:
IPv4 has monetary value on the market.
The big players are turning this into profit,
but it’s the small players who are paying the price.
As a small player, I pay €1850 for a single /24 subnet — which is all I need.
What benefit does RIPE provide me in return?
I can already hear some saying: ‘Then go to another RIR…’
RIPE NCC is managing its resources unfairly. That’s a fact.
Can someone compare IPv4 or IPv4 resources to something from everyday life?
We say: these resources are not ours, they are public resources! Yet, despite this, we can still turn them into profit — paying the same amount as someone who “owns” only a /24, while someone else a /16 or bigger.
They’re not ours, yet these resources are being sold on the market. They can be leased. And we can see the amounts being charged.
I compare these resources to land or property. If anyone has a better analogy, please share it.
I have just 450 square meters of land — enough for a single-family house. Imagine someone else has 1,000,000 square meters — they own land the size of an entire city. And we both pay the same tax. How is that fair? What benefit do I get out of it? Or let me ask — what’s the point of our voices being equal in volume?
Throughout history, such injustices have led to the downfall of nations.
RIPE NCC is a non-profit organization. People come to it to use the public resources it manages. And we know that the vast majority of members don’t have more than 5x /24 subnets. Honestly, most of them have no other expectations from RIPE NCC beyond access to these resources. They don’t use any of its other services.
Yet, we distribute €40 million in annual expenses equally among all of them.
On the other hand, many of the members using these resources — especially the larger ones — are commercial entities. And they generate significant profits from these resources. Why? Just because they became members 20 years ago.
They’re using public resources for commercial gain, and under the mask of a non-profit model, we’re making small members pay for it — spreading the cost over everyone..
If members are able to generate enorm big commercial profits from these resources, then they should pay their share accordingly.
There’s no point in holding back just because Dutch law might consider this ‘commercial income’. The Netherlands is a strong country — one that knows and enforces commercial law very well.
And if the law does see it that way, then maybe that is the right and fair approach.
However, I truly believe these resources are public resources. Because without them, the internet simply doesn’t function. It doesn’t work.
If these resources are essential, then they should not be treated as commercial assets. But if members are making such significant profits from them, then a fair compensation model must be created.
*And I openly criticize RIPE NCC for failing to create such a model.* To be honest, I don’t even think RIPE NCC truly cares about this.
Sometimes, not even 10% of members participate in the elections. You keep researching the reasons… but for 20 years, you haven’t managed to succeed.
Let me share my personal opinion:
Some members simply don’t care anymore because of the injustice.
And others — well, they’re perfectly happy. They’re comfortably using the resources, so they see no reason to bother with any of this
--
Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards
*Murat TERZIOGLU* *PREBITS - Premium Business IT Solutions*
Bochumer Str. 20 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Bochumer+Str.+20+D-44866+Bochum?entry=gmail&source=g>
D-44866 Bochum <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Bochumer+Str.+20+D-44866+Bochum?entry=gmail&source=g>
Telefon: 0234/58825994
Telefax: 0234/58825995
www.prebits.de
m.terzioglu@prebits.de
USt-ID: DE315418902
Am 30.05.2025 um 22:12 schrieb Daniel Pearson <daniel@privatesystems.net>:
I'll state what no one else has in very simple terms.
The moment your single /24 LIR pays 100 EUR /year because it's small and the LIR with a /8 pays 100,000 EUR /year is the moment your voice will get taken away.
The best way to motivate corporations of that size to get interested is to charge them ridiculous amounts of money. Mark my words, RIPE would be easily taken over and controlled by the top 10-20 resource holders if you ever tried to charge per /24 , and they'd make sure your voice is never heard again.
It's simple really, if you want an equal voice in the direction of RIPE, then everyone needs to pay the same amount. If you want to watch your privileges get stripped away, try and change that to where you charge by the /24.
Daniel~
On 5/30/25 1:48 PM, Jean Salim wrote:
Just to clarify so there's no misinformation. This thread's not about taking anybody's IPv4 allocations and redistributing it. It's about large resource holders paying their fair annual maintenance share. One of the LIRs I represent has only ONE /24 or 256 IPs that they purchased, they pay 1850 EUR a year to ripe which is a substantial amount in a country like Lebanon. While LIRs that have hundrends or even thousands of /24s pay the same 1850 EUR amount while if they closed their businesses and rent their IPS out, they would make hundreds of thousands of Euros anually.
On Fri, 30 May 2025, 20:11 Jean Salim, <jean@bsmart-isp.net> wrote:
You are intentionally misleading this discussion, please open a new thread about IPv6 transition and discuss this subject with whom you want to. This thread's title is clearly about the charging scheme, not about IPv4 distribution nor about IPv6 transition.
On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 8:07 PM Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
Each time there's a discussion about resource holders paying their fair share according to their resource holdings at RIPE, like other RIR, you take the discussion towards an unrelated subject that is IPv6
On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 07:58:00PM +0300, Jean Salim wrote: transition.
This is the only relevant discussion. There is not enough IPv4 available to fulfill all the demands people have - very simple math.
So whatever we do will just result in more squabbling and complaints from other people that "THIS IS ALL SO UNFAIR" - yes, this is why we made IPv6 policies where every but the most large LIRs can have more address space than they will ever need, by asking politely.
Guess what, we knew 15+ years ago that IPv4 would not last, and made policies where networks voluntarily(!) restricted themselves(!) so late comers could still have some space, to help with the transition. That space is now gone, transition has not been done, and - surprise - we see complaints that IPv4 is not distributed fairly.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen+14?entry=gmail&source=g> Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Конфіденційно/Confidential Hi Murat, As a small player, I pay €1850 for a single /24 subnet — which is all I need. So why do you continue to be a LIR if it is not profitable for you at all? PI support price much less than LIR membership fee. From: Murat Terzioglu | PREBITS <m.terzioglu@prebits.de> Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2025 9:19 AM To: Daniel Pearson <daniel@privatesystems.net> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month You claim that the voices of small members will be weakened. But what you don’t realize is this: our voices were never strong to begin with. 1.5 years ago, votes were collected against the new charging scheme. However, the GM went ahead with their own decision anyway. And what was the argument? A “stable future”… You still don’t understand, and you keep distorting the direction of the issue. There is a fact here: IPv4 has monetary value on the market. The big players are turning this into profit, but it’s the small players who are paying the price. As a small player, I pay €1850 for a single /24 subnet — which is all I need. What benefit does RIPE provide me in return? I can already hear some saying: ‘Then go to another RIR…’ RIPE NCC is managing its resources unfairly. That’s a fact. Can someone compare IPv4 or IPv4 resources to something from everyday life? We say: these resources are not ours, they are public resources! Yet, despite this, we can still turn them into profit — paying the same amount as someone who “owns” only a /24, while someone else a /16 or bigger. They’re not ours, yet these resources are being sold on the market. They can be leased. And we can see the amounts being charged. I compare these resources to land or property. If anyone has a better analogy, please share it. I have just 450 square meters of land — enough for a single-family house. Imagine someone else has 1,000,000 square meters — they own land the size of an entire city. And we both pay the same tax. How is that fair? What benefit do I get out of it? Or let me ask — what’s the point of our voices being equal in volume? Throughout history, such injustices have led to the downfall of nations. RIPE NCC is a non-profit organization. People come to it to use the public resources it manages. And we know that the vast majority of members don’t have more than 5x /24 subnets. Honestly, most of them have no other expectations from RIPE NCC beyond access to these resources. They don’t use any of its other services. Yet, we distribute €40 million in annual expenses equally among all of them. On the other hand, many of the members using these resources — especially the larger ones — are commercial entities. And they generate significant profits from these resources. Why? Just because they became members 20 years ago. They’re using public resources for commercial gain, and under the mask of a non-profit model, we’re making small members pay for it — spreading the cost over everyone.. If members are able to generate enorm big commercial profits from these resources, then they should pay their share accordingly. There’s no point in holding back just because Dutch law might consider this ‘commercial income’. The Netherlands is a strong country — one that knows and enforces commercial law very well. And if the law does see it that way, then maybe that is the right and fair approach. However, I truly believe these resources are public resources. Because without them, the internet simply doesn’t function. It doesn’t work. If these resources are essential, then they should not be treated as commercial assets. But if members are making such significant profits from them, then a fair compensation model must be created. And I openly criticize RIPE NCC for failing to create such a model. To be honest, I don’t even think RIPE NCC truly cares about this. Sometimes, not even 10% of members participate in the elections. You keep researching the reasons… but for 20 years, you haven’t managed to succeed. Let me share my personal opinion: Some members simply don’t care anymore because of the injustice. And others — well, they’re perfectly happy. They’re comfortably using the resources, so they see no reason to bother with any of this -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards Murat TERZIOGLU PREBITS - Premium Business IT Solutions Bochumer Str. 20 D-44866 Bochum Telefon: 0234/58825994 Telefax: 0234/58825995 www.prebits.de<http://www.prebits.de> m.terzioglu@prebits.de<mailto:m.terzioglu@prebits.de> USt-ID: DE315418902 Am 30.05.2025 um 22:12 schrieb Daniel Pearson <daniel@privatesystems.net<mailto:daniel@privatesystems.net>>: I'll state what no one else has in very simple terms. The moment your single /24 LIR pays 100 EUR /year because it's small and the LIR with a /8 pays 100,000 EUR /year is the moment your voice will get taken away. The best way to motivate corporations of that size to get interested is to charge them ridiculous amounts of money. Mark my words, RIPE would be easily taken over and controlled by the top 10-20 resource holders if you ever tried to charge per /24 , and they'd make sure your voice is never heard again. It's simple really, if you want an equal voice in the direction of RIPE, then everyone needs to pay the same amount. If you want to watch your privileges get stripped away, try and change that to where you charge by the /24. Daniel~ On 5/30/25 1:48 PM, Jean Salim wrote: Just to clarify so there's no misinformation. This thread's not about taking anybody's IPv4 allocations and redistributing it. It's about large resource holders paying their fair annual maintenance share. One of the LIRs I represent has only ONE /24 or 256 IPs that they purchased, they pay 1850 EUR a year to ripe which is a substantial amount in a country like Lebanon. While LIRs that have hundrends or even thousands of /24s pay the same 1850 EUR amount while if they closed their businesses and rent their IPS out, they would make hundreds of thousands of Euros anually. On Fri, 30 May 2025, 20:11 Jean Salim, <jean@bsmart-isp.net<mailto:jean@bsmart-isp.net>> wrote: You are intentionally misleading this discussion, please open a new thread about IPv6 transition and discuss this subject with whom you want to. This thread's title is clearly about the charging scheme, not about IPv4 distribution nor about IPv6 transition. On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 8:07 PM Gert Doering <gert@space.net<mailto:gert@space.net>> wrote: Hi, On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 07:58:00PM +0300, Jean Salim wrote:
Each time there's a discussion about resource holders paying their fair share according to their resource holdings at RIPE, like other RIR, you take the discussion towards an unrelated subject that is IPv6 transition.
This is the only relevant discussion. There is not enough IPv4 available to fulfill all the demands people have - very simple math. So whatever we do will just result in more squabbling and complaints from other people that "THIS IS ALL SO UNFAIR" - yes, this is why we made IPv6 policies where every but the most large LIRs can have more address space than they will ever need, by asking politely. Guess what, we knew 15+ years ago that IPv4 would not last, and made policies where networks voluntarily(!) restricted themselves(!) so late comers could still have some space, to help with the transition. That space is now gone, transition has not been done, and - surprise - we see complaints that IPv4 is not distributed fairly. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/ ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Come one Gert, 111,872 ipv4 IPs and you're not willing to pay ONE additional Euro than an LIR that has 256 IPs as a contribution to RIPE's budget? That's beeing greedy as hell. You want the small LIRs to subsidize you? On Sat, 31 May 2025, 15:32 Evgeniy Brodskiy via members-discuss, < members-discuss@ripe.net> wrote:
Конфіденційно/Confidential
Hi Murat,
*As a small player, I pay €1850 for a single /24 subnet — which is all I need.*
So why do you continue to be a LIR if it is not profitable for you at all?
PI support price much less than LIR membership fee.
*From:* Murat Terzioglu | PREBITS <m.terzioglu@prebits.de> *Sent:* Saturday, May 31, 2025 9:19 AM *To:* Daniel Pearson <daniel@privatesystems.net> *Cc:* members-discuss@ripe.net *Subject:* [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month
You claim that the voices of small members will be weakened. But what you don’t realize is this: our voices were never strong to begin with.
1.5 years ago, votes were collected against the new charging scheme. However, the GM went ahead with their own decision anyway. And what was the argument? A “stable future”…
You still don’t understand, and you keep distorting the direction of the issue.
There is a fact here:
IPv4 has monetary value on the market.
The big players are turning this into profit,
but it’s the small players who are paying the price.
As a small player, I pay €1850 for a single /24 subnet — which is all I need.
What benefit does RIPE provide me in return?
I can already hear some saying: ‘Then go to another RIR…’
RIPE NCC is managing its resources unfairly. That’s a fact.
Can someone compare IPv4 or IPv4 resources to something from everyday life?
We say: these resources are not ours, they are public resources! Yet, despite this, we can still turn them into profit — paying the same amount as someone who “owns” only a /24, while someone else a /16 or bigger.
They’re not ours, yet these resources are being sold on the market. They can be leased. And we can see the amounts being charged.
I compare these resources to land or property. If anyone has a better analogy, please share it.
I have just 450 square meters of land — enough for a single-family house. Imagine someone else has 1,000,000 square meters — they own land the size of an entire city. And we both pay the same tax. How is that fair? What benefit do I get out of it? Or let me ask — what’s the point of our voices being equal in volume?
Throughout history, such injustices have led to the downfall of nations.
RIPE NCC is a non-profit organization. People come to it to use the public resources it manages. And we know that the vast majority of members don’t have more than 5x /24 subnets. Honestly, most of them have no other expectations from RIPE NCC beyond access to these resources. They don’t use any of its other services.
Yet, we distribute €40 million in annual expenses equally among all of them.
On the other hand, many of the members using these resources — especially the larger ones — are commercial entities. And they generate significant profits from these resources. Why? Just because they became members 20 years ago.
They’re using public resources for commercial gain, and under the mask of a non-profit model, we’re making small members pay for it — spreading the cost over everyone..
If members are able to generate enorm big commercial profits from these resources, then they should pay their share accordingly.
There’s no point in holding back just because Dutch law might consider this ‘commercial income’. The Netherlands is a strong country — one that knows and enforces commercial law very well.
And if the law does see it that way, then maybe that is the right and fair approach.
However, I truly believe these resources are public resources. Because without them, the internet simply doesn’t function. It doesn’t work.
If these resources are essential, then they should not be treated as commercial assets. But if members are making such significant profits from them, then a fair compensation model must be created.
*And I openly criticize RIPE NCC for failing to create such a model.** To be honest, I don’t even think RIPE NCC truly cares about this.*
Sometimes, not even 10% of members participate in the elections. You keep researching the reasons… but for 20 years, you haven’t managed to succeed.
Let me share my personal opinion:
Some members simply don’t care anymore because of the injustice.
And others — well, they’re perfectly happy. They’re comfortably using the resources, so they see no reason to bother with any of this
<https://www.google.com/maps/search/Bochumer+Str.+20+%0D%0A+D-44866+Bochum?entry=gmail&source=g> --
Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards
*Murat TERZIOGLU* *PREBITS - Premium Business IT Solutions*
Bochumer Str. 20 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Bochumer+Str.+20+%0D%0A+D-44866+Bochum?entry=gmail&source=g>
D-44866 Bochum <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Bochumer+Str.+20+%0D%0A+D-44866+Bochum?entry=gmail&source=g>
Telefon: 0234/58825994
Telefax: 0234/58825995
www.prebits.de
m.terzioglu@prebits.de
USt-ID: DE315418902
Am 30.05.2025 um 22:12 schrieb Daniel Pearson <daniel@privatesystems.net>:
I'll state what no one else has in very simple terms.
The moment your single /24 LIR pays 100 EUR /year because it's small and the LIR with a /8 pays 100,000 EUR /year is the moment your voice will get taken away.
The best way to motivate corporations of that size to get interested is to charge them ridiculous amounts of money. Mark my words, RIPE would be easily taken over and controlled by the top 10-20 resource holders if you ever tried to charge per /24 , and they'd make sure your voice is never heard again.
It's simple really, if you want an equal voice in the direction of RIPE, then everyone needs to pay the same amount. If you want to watch your privileges get stripped away, try and change that to where you charge by the /24.
Daniel~
On 5/30/25 1:48 PM, Jean Salim wrote:
Just to clarify so there's no misinformation. This thread's not about taking anybody's IPv4 allocations and redistributing it. It's about large resource holders paying their fair annual maintenance share.
One of the LIRs I represent has only ONE /24 or 256 IPs that they purchased, they pay 1850 EUR a year to ripe which is a substantial amount in a country like Lebanon.
While LIRs that have hundrends or even thousands of /24s pay the same 1850 EUR amount while if they closed their businesses and rent their IPS out, they would make hundreds of thousands of Euros anually.
On Fri, 30 May 2025, 20:11 Jean Salim, <jean@bsmart-isp.net> wrote:
You are intentionally misleading this discussion, please open a new thread about IPv6 transition and discuss this subject with whom you want to.
This thread's title is clearly about the charging scheme, not about IPv4 distribution nor about IPv6 transition.
On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 8:07 PM Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 07:58:00PM +0300, Jean Salim wrote:
Each time there's a discussion about resource holders paying their fair share according to their resource holdings at RIPE, like other RIR, you take the discussion towards an unrelated subject that is IPv6 transition.
This is the only relevant discussion. There is not enough IPv4 available to fulfill all the demands people have - very simple math.
So whatever we do will just result in more squabbling and complaints from other people that "THIS IS ALL SO UNFAIR" - yes, this is why we made IPv6 policies where every but the most large LIRs can have more address space than they will ever need, by asking politely.
Guess what, we knew 15+ years ago that IPv4 would not last, and made policies where networks voluntarily(!) restricted themselves(!) so late comers could still have some space, to help with the transition. That space is now gone, transition has not been done, and - surprise - we see complaints that IPv4 is not distributed fairly.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen+14?entry=gmail&source=g> Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-----
To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/
As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings.
More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Yes, but it has root! It is the passivity of 90% of NCC members. In fact, the issues are decided on GM by the votes of 600-700 members out of 22000. Most of the LIRs not to be subscribers on [members-discuss], do not participate in GM, and do not even understand their role and rights in the community. I would like the management of the NCC to take a closer look at this problem.
<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><p style="margin: 0px 0px 12px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br></p><div dir="ltr"><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1">You claim that the voices of small members will be weakened. But what you don’t realize is this: our voices were never strong to begin with.</span></p><p class="p2" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; min-height: 22px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1"></span><br></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1">1.5 years ago, votes were collected against the new charging scheme. However, the GM went ahead with their own decision anyway. And what was the argument? A “stable future”…</span></p><p class="p2" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; min-height: 22px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1"></span><br></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1">You still don’t understand, and you keep distorting the direction of the issue.</span></p><p class="p2" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; min-height: 22px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1"></span><br></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1">There is a fact here:</span></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1">IPv4 has monetary value on the market.</span></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1">The big players are turning this into profit,</span></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1">but it’s the small players who are paying the price.</span></p><p class="p2" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; min-height: 22px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1"></span><br></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1">As a small player, I pay €1850 for a single /24 subnet — which is all I need.</span></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1">What benefit does RIPE provide me in return?</span></p><p class="p2" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; min-height: 22px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1"></span><br></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1">I can already hear some saying: ‘Then go to another RIR…’ </span></p><p class="p2" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; min-height: 22px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1"></span><br></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1">RIPE NCC is managing its resources unfairly. That’s a fact.</span></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1"><br></span></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1">Can someone compare IPv4 or IPv4 resources to something from everyday life?</span></p><p class="p2" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; min-height: 22px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1"></span><br></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1">We say: these resources are not ours, they are public resources! Yet, despite this, we can still turn them into profit — paying the same amount as someone who “owns” only a /24, while someone else a /16 or bigger.</span></p><p class="p2" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; min-height: 22px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1"></span><br></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1">They’re not ours, yet these resources are being sold on the market. They can be leased. And we can see the amounts being charged.</span></p><p class="p2" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; min-height: 22px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1"></span><br></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1">I compare these resources to land or property. If anyone has a better analogy, please share it.</span></p><p class="p2" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; min-height: 22px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1"></span><br></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1"></span></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1">I have just 450 square meters of land — enough for a single-family house. Imagine someone else has 1,000,000 square meters — they own land the size of an entire city. And we both pay the same tax. How is that fair? What benefit do I get out of it? Or let me ask — what’s the point of our voices being equal in volume?</span></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1"><br></span></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1">Throughout history, such injustices have led to the downfall of nations.</span></p><p class="p2" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; min-height: 22px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1"></span><br></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1">RIPE NCC is a non-profit organization. People come to it to use the public resources it manages. And we know that the vast majority of members don’t have more than 5x /24 subnets. Honestly, most of them have no other expectations from RIPE NCC beyond access to these resources. They don’t use any of its other services.</span></p><p class="p2" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; min-height: 22px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1"></span><br></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1">Yet, we distribute €40 million in annual expenses equally among all of them.</span></p><p class="p2" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; min-height: 22px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1"></span><br></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1">On the other hand, many of the members using these resources — especially the larger ones — are commercial entities. And they generate significant profits from these resources. Why? Just because they became members 20 years ago.</span></p><p class="p2" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; min-height: 22px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1"></span><br></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1">They’re using public resources for commercial gain, and under the mask of a non-profit model, we’re making small members pay for it — spreading the cost over everyone..</span></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1"><br></span></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1">If members are able to generate enorm big commercial profits from these resources, then they should pay their share accordingly.</span></p><p class="p2" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; min-height: 22px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1"></span><br></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1">There’s no point in holding back just because Dutch law might consider this ‘commercial income’. The Netherlands is a strong country — one that knows and enforces commercial law very well.</span></p><p class="p2" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; min-height: 22px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1"></span><br></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><o:p style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"></o:p></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1">And if the law does see it that way, then maybe that is</span><span class="s1"> the right and fair approach.</span></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1"><br></span></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1">However, I truly believe these resources are public resources. Because without them, the internet simply doesn’t function. It doesn’t work.</span></p><p class="p2" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; min-height: 22px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1"></span><br></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1">If these resources are essential, then they should not be treated as commercial assets. But if members are making such significant profits from them, then a fair compensation model must be created.</span></p><p class="p2" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; min-height: 22px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1"></span><br></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1"><b>And I openly criticize RIPE NCC for failing to create such a model.</b></span><span style="font-family: UICTFontTextStyleEmphasizedBody; font-weight: bold;"> To be honest, I don’t even think RIPE NCC truly cares about this.</span></p><p class="p2" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; min-height: 22px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><br></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1">Sometimes, not even 10% of members participate in the elections. You keep researching the reasons… but for 20 years, you haven’t managed to succeed.</span></p><p class="p2" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; min-height: 22px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1"></span><br></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1">Let me share my personal opinion:</span></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1">Some members simply don’t care anymore because of the injustice.</span></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1">And others — well, they’re perfectly happy. They’re comfortably using the resources, so they see no reason to bother with any of this</span></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><o:p style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></o:p></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><o:p style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"> </o:p><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">--</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><span lang="TR">Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards<br><br></span><b><span lang="TR">Murat TERZIOGLU</span></b><span lang="TR"><br></span><b>PREBITS - Premium Business IT Solutions</b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Bochumer Str. 20</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">D-44866 Bochum</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Telefon: <span dir="ltr">0234/58825994</span><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Telefax: <span dir="ltr">0234/58825995</span><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">www.prebits.de<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">m.terzioglu@prebits.de</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">USt-ID: DE315418902</span></p></div><div dir="ltr"><br><blockquote type="cite">Am 30.05.2025 um 22:12 schrieb Daniel Pearson <daniel@privatesystems.net>:<br><br></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">I'll state what no one else has in very simple terms. <br> </div> <div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br> </div> <div class="moz-cite-prefix">The moment your single /24 LIR pays 100 EUR /year because it's small and the LIR with a /8 pays 100,000 EUR /year is the moment your voice will get taken away.</div> <div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br> </div> <div class="moz-cite-prefix">The best way to motivate corporations of that size to get interested is to charge them ridiculous amounts of money. Mark my words, RIPE would be easily taken over and controlled by the top 10-20 resource holders if you ever tried to charge per /24 , and they'd make sure your voice is never heard again.</div> <div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br> </div> <div class="moz-cite-prefix">It's simple really, if you want an equal voice in the direction of RIPE, then everyone needs to pay the same amount. If you want to watch your privileges get stripped away, try and change that to where you charge by the /24.</div> <div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br> </div> <div class="moz-cite-prefix">Daniel~<br> </div> <div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br> </div> <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/30/25 1:48 PM, Jean Salim wrote:<br> </div> <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CAEXzSXF1dsCFJ1v++uyyCxVoNWxGzDA8b-dhoOY45Xe8OpPb-g@mail.gmail.com"> <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"> <div dir="auto">Just to clarify so there's no misinformation. This thread's not about taking anybody's IPv4 allocations and redistributing it. It's about large resource holders paying their fair annual maintenance share. <div dir="auto">One of the LIRs I represent has only ONE /24 or 256 IPs that they purchased, they pay 1850 EUR a year to ripe which is a substantial amount in a country like Lebanon.</div> <div dir="auto">While LIRs that have hundrends or even thousands of /24s pay the same 1850 EUR amount while if they closed their businesses and rent their IPS out, they would make hundreds of thousands of Euros anually.</div> </div> <br> <div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"> <div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, 30 May 2025, 20:11 Jean Salim, <<a href="mailto:jean@bsmart-isp.net" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">jean@bsmart-isp.net</a>> wrote:<br> </div> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <div dir="ltr">You are intentionally misleading this discussion, please open a new thread about IPv6 transition and discuss this subject with whom you want to. <div>This thread's title is clearly about the charging scheme, not about IPv4 distribution nor about IPv6 transition.</div> </div> <br> <div class="gmail_quote"> <div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 8:07 PM Gert Doering <<a href="mailto:gert@space.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">gert@space.net</a>> wrote:<br> </div> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hi,<br> <br> On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 07:58:00PM +0300, Jean Salim wrote:<br> > Each time there's a discussion about resource holders paying their fair<br> > share according to their resource holdings at RIPE, like other RIR, you<br> > take the discussion towards an unrelated subject that is IPv6 transition.<br> <br> This is the only relevant discussion. There is not enough IPv4 available<br> to fulfill all the demands people have - very simple math.<br> <br> So whatever we do will just result in more squabbling and complaints from<br> other people that "THIS IS ALL SO UNFAIR" - yes, this is why we made IPv6<br> policies where every but the most large LIRs can have more address space<br> than they will ever need, by asking politely.<br> <br> Guess what, we knew 15+ years ago that IPv4 would not last, and made<br> policies where networks voluntarily(!) restricted themselves(!) so late<br> comers could still have some space, to help with the transition. That<br> space is now gone, transition has not been done, and - surprise - we see<br> complaints that IPv4 is not distributed fairly.<br> <br> Gert Doering<br> -- NetMaster<br> -- <br> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?<br> <br> SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard,<br> Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler<br> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann<br> D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)<br> Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279<br> </blockquote> </div> </blockquote> </div> <br> <fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset> <pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/">https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/</a> As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/">https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/</a></pre> </blockquote> <p><br> </p>
<span>-----</span><br><span>To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/</span><br><span>As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. </span><br><span>More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/</span></div></blockquote></body></html>----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
----------------------------- С уважением Сербулов Дмитрий ООО "Альфа Нет Телеком" +7(498)785-8-000 раб. +7(495)940-92-11 доп. +7(925)518-10-69 сот.
I fully agree with the point raised here. While the voting issue might seem more appropriate under the “Analysis on Participation in May 2025 GM” thread, it is clearly relevant to this discussion as well—because the Charging Scheme is ultimately decided not by our mailing list debates, but by GM votes. The incredibly low voter turnout in RIPE NCC GMs is indeed concerning. I genuinely wonder how it is acceptable for any proposal, especially those as critical as the Charging Scheme, to be adopted with less than 10% participation. This is not even touching on the lack of tiered models or “rejection” options in the proposals themselves. RIPE NCC is quick to take action when a member fails to pay fees or violates registry policy (e.g. missing or non-functional abuse-mailbox, vague org addresses, etc.). So why is it acceptable for over 90% of members to skip voting, yet have decisions go through regardless? If RIPE is truly a community-driven, non-profit coordination body—not a commercial service provider—shouldn’t we ensure that at least one-third of members participate before any community-wide decision is accepted? Otherwise, with most members just paying fees and using the LIR Portal to manage resources without engaging in the community, RIPE increasingly looks like a commercial entity selling services. In that case, maybe it’s time to drop the illusion of community governance. Let RIPE become something more like OpenAI—a nonprofit run by a board, funded by large stakeholders, providing services directly to users rather than members. At least then we wouldn’t have these endless debates. I’ve never seen OpenAI users arguing with its board over pricing via public mailing lists. They either pay up, or stop using the service. And frankly, that model is easier for people to accept—users complain about being broke, not about being treated unfairly. So instead of clinging to a broken membership-based decision system, perhaps we should be discussing a transformation of RIPE into a modern nonprofit service organization—transparent, efficient, and free from the governance theatre that clearly no longer functions. Chenyang Sent from my iPhone On May 31, 2025, at 21:17, sdy@a-n-t.ru wrote: Yes, but it has root! It is the passivity of 90% of NCC members. In fact, the issues are decided on GM by the votes of 600-700 members out of 22000. Most of the LIRs not to be subscribers on [members-discuss], do not participate in GM, and do not even understand their role and rights in the community. I would like the management of the NCC to take a closer look at this problem. <html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><p style="margin: 0px 0px 12px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br></p><div dir="ltr"><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1">You claim that the voices of small members will be weakened. But what you don’t realize is this: our voices were never strong to begin with.</span></p><p class="p2" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; min-height: 22px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1"></span><br></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1">1.5 years ago, votes were collected against the new charging scheme. However, the GM went ahead with their own decision anyway. And what was the argument? A “stable future”…</span></p><p class="p2" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; min-height: 22px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1"></span><br></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1">You still don’t understand, and you keep distorting the direction of the issue.</span></p><p class="p2" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; min-height: 22px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1"></span><br></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1">There is a fact here:</span></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1">IPv4 has monetary value on the market.</span></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1">The big players are turning this into profit,</span></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1">but it’s the small players who are paying the price.</span></p><p class="p2" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; min-height: 22px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1"></span><br></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1">As a small player, I pay €1850 for a single /24 subnet — which is all I need.</span></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1">What benefit does RIPE provide me in return?</span></p><p class="p2" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; min-height: 22px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1"></span><br></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1">I can already hear some saying: ‘Then go to another RIR…’ </span></p><p class="p2" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; min-height: 22px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1"></span><br></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1">RIPE NCC is managing its resources unfairly. That’s a fact.</span></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1"><br></span></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1">Can someone compare IPv4 or IPv4 resources to something from everyday life?</span></p><p class="p2" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; min-height: 22px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1"></span><br></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1">We say: these resources are not ours, they are public resources! Yet, despite this, we can still turn them into profit — paying the same amount as someone who “owns” only a /24, while someone else a /16 or bigger.</span></p><p class="p2" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; min-height: 22px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1"></span><br></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1">They’re not ours, yet these resources are being sold on the market. They can be leased. And we can see the amounts being charged.</span></p><p class="p2" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; min-height: 22px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1"></span><br></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1">I compare these resources to land or property. If anyone has a better analogy, please share it.</span></p><p class="p2" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; min-height: 22px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1"></span><br></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1"></span></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1">I have just 450 square meters of land — enough for a single-family house. Imagine someone else has 1,000,000 square meters — they own land the size of an entire city. And we both pay the same tax. How is that fair? What benefit do I get out of it? Or let me ask — what’s the point of our voices being equal in volume?</span></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1"><br></span></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1">Throughout history, such injustices have led to the downfall of nations.</span></p><p class="p2" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; min-height: 22px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1"></span><br></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1">RIPE NCC is a non-profit organization. People come to it to use the public resources it manages. And we know that the vast majority of members don’t have more than 5x /24 subnets. Honestly, most of them have no other expectations from RIPE NCC beyond access to these resources. They don’t use any of its other services.</span></p><p class="p2" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; min-height: 22px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1"></span><br></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1">Yet, we distribute €40 million in annual expenses equally among all of them.</span></p><p class="p2" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; min-height: 22px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1"></span><br></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1">On the other hand, many of the members using these resources — especially the larger ones — are commercial entities. And they generate significant profits from these resources. Why? Just because they became members 20 years ago.</span></p><p class="p2" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; min-height: 22px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1"></span><br></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1">They’re using public resources for commercial gain, and under the mask of a non-profit model, we’re making small members pay for it — spreading the cost over everyone..</span></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1"><br></span></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1">If members are able to generate enorm big commercial profits from these resources, then they should pay their share accordingly.</span></p><p class="p2" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; min-height: 22px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1"></span><br></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1">There’s no point in holding back just because Dutch law might consider this ‘commercial income’. The Netherlands is a strong country — one that knows and enforces commercial law very well.</span></p><p class="p2" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; min-height: 22px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1"></span><br></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><o:p style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"></o:p></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1">And if the law does see it that way, then maybe that is</span><span class="s1"> the right and fair approach.</span></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1"><br></span></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1">However, I truly believe these resources are public resources. Because without them, the internet simply doesn’t function. It doesn’t work.</span></p><p class="p2" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; min-height: 22px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1"></span><br></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1">If these resources are essential, then they should not be treated as commercial assets. But if members are making such significant profits from them, then a fair compensation model must be created.</span></p><p class="p2" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; min-height: 22px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1"></span><br></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1"><b>And I openly criticize RIPE NCC for failing to create such a model.</b></span><span style="font-family: UICTFontTextStyleEmphasizedBody; font-weight: bold;"> To be honest, I don’t even think RIPE NCC truly cares about this.</span></p><p class="p2" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; min-height: 22px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><br></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1">Sometimes, not even 10% of members participate in the elections. You keep researching the reasons… but for 20 years, you haven’t managed to succeed.</span></p><p class="p2" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; min-height: 22px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1"></span><br></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1">Let me share my personal opinion:</span></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1">Some members simply don’t care anymore because of the injustice.</span></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span class="s1">And others — well, they’re perfectly happy. They’re comfortably using the resources, so they see no reason to bother with any of this</span></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><o:p style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></o:p></p><p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><o:p style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"> </o:p><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">--</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><span lang="TR">Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards<br><br></span><b><span lang="TR">Murat TERZIOGLU</span></b><span lang="TR"><br></span><b>PREBITS - Premium Business IT Solutions</b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Bochumer Str. 20</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">D-44866 Bochum</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Telefon: <span dir="ltr">0234/58825994</span><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Telefax: <span dir="ltr">0234/58825995</span><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">www.prebits.de<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">m.terzioglu@prebits.de</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">USt-ID: DE315418902</span></p></div><div dir="ltr"><br><blockquote type="cite">Am 30.05.2025 um 22:12 schrieb Daniel Pearson <daniel@privatesystems.net>:<br><br></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"> <div class="moz-cite-prefix">I'll state what no one else has in very simple terms. <br> </div> <div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br> </div> <div class="moz-cite-prefix">The moment your single /24 LIR pays 100 EUR /year because it's small and the LIR with a /8 pays 100,000 EUR /year is the moment your voice will get taken away.</div> <div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br> </div> <div class="moz-cite-prefix">The best way to motivate corporations of that size to get interested is to charge them ridiculous amounts of money. Mark my words, RIPE would be easily taken over and controlled by the top 10-20 resource holders if you ever tried to charge per /24 , and they'd make sure your voice is never heard again.</div> <div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br> </div> <div class="moz-cite-prefix">It's simple really, if you want an equal voice in the direction of RIPE, then everyone needs to pay the same amount. If you want to watch your privileges get stripped away, try and change that to where you charge by the /24.</div> <div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br> </div> <div class="moz-cite-prefix">Daniel~<br> </div> <div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br> </div> <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/30/25 1:48 PM, Jean Salim wrote:<br> </div> <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CAEXzSXF1dsCFJ1v++uyyCxVoNWxGzDA8b-dhoOY45Xe8OpPb-g@mail.gmail.com"> <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"> <div dir="auto">Just to clarify so there's no misinformation. This thread's not about taking anybody's IPv4 allocations and redistributing it. It's about large resource holders paying their fair annual maintenance share. <div dir="auto">One of the LIRs I represent has only ONE /24 or 256 IPs that they purchased, they pay 1850 EUR a year to ripe which is a substantial amount in a country like Lebanon.</div> <div dir="auto">While LIRs that have hundrends or even thousands of /24s pay the same 1850 EUR amount while if they closed their businesses and rent their IPS out, they would make hundreds of thousands of Euros anually.</div> </div> <br> <div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"> <div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, 30 May 2025, 20:11 Jean Salim, <<a href="mailto:jean@bsmart-isp.net" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">jean@bsmart-isp.net</a>> wrote:<br> </div> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <div dir="ltr">You are intentionally misleading this discussion, please open a new thread about IPv6 transition and discuss this subject with whom you want to. <div>This thread's title is clearly about the charging scheme, not about IPv4 distribution nor about IPv6 transition.</div> </div> <br> <div class="gmail_quote"> <div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 8:07 PM Gert Doering <<a href="mailto:gert@space.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">gert@space.net</a>> wrote:<br> </div> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hi,<br> <br> On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 07:58:00PM +0300, Jean Salim wrote:<br> > Each time there's a discussion about resource holders paying their fair<br> > share according to their resource holdings at RIPE, like other RIR, you<br> > take the discussion towards an unrelated subject that is IPv6 transition.<br> <br> This is the only relevant discussion. There is not enough IPv4 available<br> to fulfill all the demands people have - very simple math.<br> <br> So whatever we do will just result in more squabbling and complaints from<br> other people that "THIS IS ALL SO UNFAIR" - yes, this is why we made IPv6<br> policies where every but the most large LIRs can have more address space<br> than they will ever need, by asking politely.<br> <br> Guess what, we knew 15+ years ago that IPv4 would not last, and made<br> policies where networks voluntarily(!) restricted themselves(!) so late<br> comers could still have some space, to help with the transition. That<br> space is now gone, transition has not been done, and - surprise - we see<br> complaints that IPv4 is not distributed fairly.<br> <br> Gert Doering<br> -- NetMaster<br> -- <br> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?<br> <br> SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard,<br> Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler<br> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann<br> D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)<br> Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279<br> </blockquote> </div> </blockquote> </div> <br> <fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset> <pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/">https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/</a> As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/">https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/</a></pre> </blockquote> <p><br> </p> <span>-----</span><br><span>To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/</span><br><span>As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. </span><br><span>More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/</span></div></blockquote></body></html>----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/ ----------------------------- С уважением Сербулов Дмитрий ООО "Альфа Нет Телеком" +7(498)785-8-000 раб. +7(495)940-92-11 доп. +7(925)518-10-69 сот. ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Hi all, I agree with Jean. The pricing discussion keeps getting derailed into IPv6 transition talks. These are two separate issues that need separate discussions. Let's stay on topic about resource holders paying their fair share based on holdings. On Fri, 2025-05-30 at 19:58 +0300, Jean Salim wrote:
Each time there's a discussion about resource holders paying their fair share according to their resource holdings at RIPE, like other RIR, you take the discussion towards an unrelated subject that is IPv6 transition.
On Fri, 30 May 2025, 19:50 Gert Doering, <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 07:38:19PM +0300, Alexey Berezhnev wrote:
Conclusion
Transition to IPv6 is a long-term necessity ??? that much is clear.
After you have deliberated long and exquisitely why it cannot be done, what would you suggest how to achieve said necessity?
Gert Doering -- NetMaster ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
There are elections coming up now. Can I run for office? Just for your information. What do I have to do? I'd like to do more for the members. Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen Walde IT-Systemhaus - CEO Dirk Walde - IT-Specialis Denys Fedoryshchenko schrieb:
Hi all,
I agree with Jean. The pricing discussion keeps getting derailed into IPv6 transition talks. These are two separate issues that need separate discussions. Let's stay on topic about resource holders paying their fair share based on holdings.
On Fri, 2025-05-30 at 19:58 +0300, Jean Salim wrote:
Each time there's a discussion about resource holders paying their fair share according to their resource holdings at RIPE, like other RIR, you take the discussion towards an unrelated subject that is IPv6 transition.
On Fri, 30 May 2025, 19:50 Gert Doering, <gert@space.net <mailto:gert@space.net>> wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 07:38:19PM +0300, Alexey Berezhnev wrote:
Conclusion
Transition to IPv6 is a long-term necessity ??? that much is clear.
After you have deliberated long and exquisitely why it cannot be done, what would you suggest how to achieve said necessity?
Gert Doering -- NetMaster ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
If you want proceed like this, then the weight of vote should also change at the same time, to be really "fair". Organizations financially more involved in the running (funding) the association logically should have stronger voice in deciding how to spend the collected money. Otherwise, just another form of injustice or imbalance will be introduced. Members who don't pay much will effectively be making decisions about the money that someone else has put into the association. Why should someone paying (for example) 10 EUR have the same vote as someone paying 1000 EUR? The contribution of each member will change, and if the system is to be truly fair, then the voting weights must also change. Today we all have an equal vote and at the same time we contribute equally to the association (the differences are minimal). And the association's costs aren't greater for larger LIRs. On the contrary, I dare say that the greatest costs arise with those small ones that were created for the purpose of speculation when distributing the last /8 and then trading the addresses thus obtained on the secondary market... This simply has to be taken into account if we want to talk about "fairness". - Daniel On 5/30/25 9:29 PM, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote:
Hi all,
I agree with Jean. The pricing discussion keeps getting derailed into IPv6 transition talks. These are two separate issues that need separate discussions. Let's stay on topic about resource holders paying their fair share based on holdings.
Hi, Actually I have witnessed a bunch of discussions and every time it is coming to the same topic. And I'm my opinion the IPv6 topic is in a way connected. RIPE NCC has the job -among several other things- to manage resources and give it's members the ability to use these resources. This management has to be done fair and responsible. Given the historical and present circumstances the RIPE NCC has done a very good and responsible job. You have to keep in mind the policies in perspective of the amount of the resources. IP addresses where allocated more and more conservative until we have come to the present waiting list and market. Please correct me, if I am wrong. If I have understand correctly RIPE NCC is unable to scale the fees by IP addresses because it is no good to sell. The addresses are distributed to the members as long as the fees are paid and the rules are obeyed. It is regularly checked if the networks are in accordance to the registered purpose. So under any other circumstances no one can pull addresses back from a member and you would not experience this yourself, that someone presumes you are not using addresses and would return them. You might argue that there are already fees for ASN and PI resources. My understanding is that these are no fees for the resources but the share for management and tools regarding these resources. So I'm my opinion the IPv6 discussion is related, because IPv4 is over and it is not RIPE NCC's job to source IPv4 to distribute to it's members. IPv6 is the only viable solution to this. Matthias Am 30. Mai 2025 21:29:10 MESZ schrieb Denys Fedoryshchenko <nuclearcat@nuclearcat.com>:
Hi all,
I agree with Jean. The pricing discussion keeps getting derailed into IPv6 transition talks. These are two separate issues that need separate discussions. Let's stay on topic about resource holders paying their fair share based on holdings.
On Fri, 2025-05-30 at 19:58 +0300, Jean Salim wrote:
Each time there's a discussion about resource holders paying their fair share according to their resource holdings at RIPE, like other RIR, you take the discussion towards an unrelated subject that is IPv6 transition.
On Fri, 30 May 2025, 19:50 Gert Doering, <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 07:38:19PM +0300, Alexey Berezhnev wrote:
Conclusion
Transition to IPv6 is a long-term necessity ??? that much is clear.
After you have deliberated long and exquisitely why it cannot be done, what would you suggest how to achieve said necessity?
Gert Doering -- NetMaster ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Hi! What is it, that the majority wants? We (I hope to speak for the majority) want a stable internet, working tools, a voice as a community against organisations and goverments and the assurance that ressources allocated to me are not used anywhere else and stay with me as long I obey the rules. You have to keep in mind, that such a neutral, not for profit body is bound to the environment it is set in. And for the sake of stability I am quite satisfied with the RIPE NCC. Look to the US, environments can change quickly and become unstable especially for NGOs. Matthias Am Samstag, dem 31.05.2025 um 02:14 +0300 schrieb Alexey Berezhnev:
Hi Matthias,
While I understand the argument that RIPE NCC isn’t a trading platform for IPv4 and doesn’t “source” space for members, it’s increasingly clear that the current flat-fee model is disconnected from today’s reality.
Many legacy holders still sit on large unused allocations — not due to actual operational need, but simply because policies let them. In this context, adopting a scale-based model (similar to ARIN’s approach), perhaps with adjustments, seems like a perfectly reasonable and implementable solution.
It’s not about “punishing” anyone. It’s about:
* aligning resource holding with actual cost impact, * encouraging efficient use, and * gently nudging unused space back into circulation — whether by sale, lease, or return.
Clinging to the idea that “IPv4 is over” doesn’t help the market or the community. IPv6 is not yet a substitute — it’s a parallel track. Pretending otherwise just widens the gap between policy and practice.
We don’t need perfection. But we need something better than the status quo.
Regards, Alexey
Sent from my iPhone
On 31 May 2025, at 01:16, Matthias Brumm <matthias@brumm.net> wrote:
Hi,
Actually I have witnessed a bunch of discussions and every time it is coming to the same topic. And I'm my opinion the IPv6 topic is in a way connected.
RIPE NCC has the job -among several other things- to manage resources and give it's members the ability to use these resources. This management has to be done fair and responsible. Given the historical and present circumstances the RIPE NCC has done a very good and responsible job. You have to keep in mind the policies in perspective of the amount of the resources.
IP addresses where allocated more and more conservative until we have come to the present waiting list and market.
Please correct me, if I am wrong. If I have understand correctly RIPE NCC is unable to scale the fees by IP addresses because it is no good to sell. The addresses are distributed to the members as long as the fees are paid and the rules are obeyed. It is regularly checked if the networks are in accordance to the registered purpose. So under any other circumstances no one can pull addresses back from a member and you would not experience this yourself, that someone presumes you are not using addresses and would return them.
You might argue that there are already fees for ASN and PI resources. My understanding is that these are no fees for the resources but the share for management and tools regarding these resources.
So I'm my opinion the IPv6 discussion is related, because IPv4 is over and it is not RIPE NCC's job to source IPv4 to distribute to it's members. IPv6 is the only viable solution to this.
Matthias
Am 30. Mai 2025 21:29:10 MESZ schrieb Denys Fedoryshchenko <nuclearcat@nuclearcat.com>:
Hi all,
I agree with Jean. The pricing discussion keeps getting derailed into IPv6 transition talks. These are two separate issues that need separate discussions. Let's stay on topic about resource holders paying their fair share based on holdings.
On Fri, 2025-05-30 at 19:58 +0300, Jean Salim wrote:
Each time there's a discussion about resource holders paying their fair share according to their resource holdings at RIPE, like other RIR, you take the discussion towards an unrelated subject that is IPv6 transition.
On Fri, 30 May 2025, 19:50 Gert Doering, <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 07:38:19PM +0300, Alexey Berezhnev wrote:
Conclusion
Transition to IPv6 is a long-term necessity ??? that much is clear.
After you have deliberated long and exquisitely why it cannot be done, what would you suggest how to achieve said necessity?
Gert Doering -- NetMaster ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Am 30.05.25 um 20:40 schrieb Alexey Berezhnev <alex@mac3.ru>:
Furthermore, IPv6 does not replace IPv4 — it supplements it. Dual-stack operation increases both complexity and cost.
I think this is the major design problem of IPv6 which makes it costly / difficult to adopt in the broad field of (internet-)networks. While the protocol designers decided in favor of many fancy new protocoll features and design, the migration pathes (not only protocol adoption to dual-stack) to the new protocol native seemed more secondary to them. If i.e. migration to the new protocol just requires some firmware update without any reconfiguration (as long no new features are to be used from it), it would be the actual standard since many years. cheers, niels. — Niels Dettenbach https://www.syndicat.com https://www.syndicat.com/pub_key.asc
Am Freitag, dem 30.05.2025 um 19:38 +0300 schrieb Alexey Berezhnev:
Dear colleagues,
I would like to critically address several points raised by Mr. Walde in his recent message. While the discussion around a fair charging model is essential, the arguments presented are technically inaccurate, operationally naive, and strategically dangerous for the stability of the RIPE NCC ecosystem.
1. “IPv6 is cheaper to implement”
This claim may be true in controlled, greenfield environments. However, it completely disregards the reality of mature, production- grade IPv4 infrastructures. For any large-scale operator, IPv6 deployment entails:
* hardware and software upgrades, * dual-stack maintenance, * reworking ACLs, DPI, logging systems, and monitoring infrastructure, * and additional training, testing, and auditing processes.
This is something I do not understand. We are in a field of profession that is constantly changing. Best practices change, vendors come and go. Nobody wants you to make the transition within two months, but in the last 10 years you should have modernize your network completely and had plenty of time to make it at least v6 ready to do some minor adjustments. Sometimes this argument act as designing a network or backbone and please don't bother me until I am retired. Our backbone was implemented in 2016 with IPv6 at the main driver and IPv4 as a suplement. At the moment the backbone is completely replaced with new hardware. But I do not think the network operators are the breaking point, it is the customers who are afraid of IPv6. Matthias
Please stop changing the conversation from charging scheme to IPv6. You're intentionally trying to hijack it in a clear disinformation campaign. Let thise who wanna discuss IPv6 open a separate thread between each other. On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:25 Matthias Brumm, <matthias@brumm.net> wrote:
Am Freitag, dem 30.05.2025 um 19:38 +0300 schrieb Alexey Berezhnev:
Dear colleagues,
I would like to critically address several points raised by Mr. Walde in his recent message. While the discussion around a fair charging model is essential, the arguments presented are technically inaccurate, operationally naive, and strategically dangerous for the stability of the RIPE NCC ecosystem.
1. “IPv6 is cheaper to implement”
This claim may be true in controlled, greenfield environments. However, it completely disregards the reality of mature, production- grade IPv4 infrastructures. For any large-scale operator, IPv6 deployment entails:
* hardware and software upgrades, * dual-stack maintenance, * reworking ACLs, DPI, logging systems, and monitoring infrastructure, * and additional training, testing, and auditing processes.
This is something I do not understand. We are in a field of profession that is constantly changing. Best practices change, vendors come and go. Nobody wants you to make the transition within two months, but in the last 10 years you should have modernize your network completely and had plenty of time to make it at least v6 ready to do some minor adjustments.
Sometimes this argument act as designing a network or backbone and please don't bother me until I am retired.
Our backbone was implemented in 2016 with IPv6 at the main driver and IPv4 as a suplement. At the moment the backbone is completely replaced with new hardware.
But I do not think the network operators are the breaking point, it is the customers who are afraid of IPv6.
Matthias ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Hi, On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 01:28:30PM +0300, Jean Salim wrote:
Please stop changing the conversation from charging scheme to IPv6. You're intentionally trying to hijack it in a clear disinformation campaign. Let thise who wanna discuss IPv6 open a separate thread between each other.
Why is this single-minded focus on "someone got more legacy stuff for their money, this is so unfair! They must pay more!" more relevant than "here's an actual *solution*"? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
We missed you Gert, I was surprised you disappeared as you're always the one to mislead the conversation away from charging scheme. I would like yo hear your proposal on an alternative charging scheme that more fair to small LIRs. I myself, as pointed out before, prefer the ARIN model. On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:33 Gert Doering, <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 01:28:30PM +0300, Jean Salim wrote:
Please stop changing the conversation from charging scheme to IPv6. You're intentionally trying to hijack it in a clear disinformation campaign. Let thise who wanna discuss IPv6 open a separate thread between each other.
Why is this single-minded focus on "someone got more legacy stuff for their money, this is so unfair! They must pay more!" more relevant than "here's an actual *solution*"?
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hi, On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 01:36:27PM +0300, Jean Salim wrote:
We missed you Gert, I was surprised you disappeared as you're always the one to mislead the conversation away from charging scheme. I would like yo hear your proposal on an alternative charging scheme that more fair to small LIRs. I myself, as pointed out before, prefer the ARIN model.
"1 LIR, 1 vote, 1 fee for the membership" seems to be the one where most LIRs can actually *agree* on. Every charging scheme will be unfair to some - we had categories, and that was unfair to some, we had flat fees, and those are unfair to some, and even if we introduce fee-by-/24, it will be unfair to some. Even if we totally ignore IPv4, there will still be people that say "someone with a larger yearly budget should pay more", and "non-profit members should be free!", and maybe they are right. But if we go there, some people will have to pay more than they did the year before, and they will find this unfair. Conclusions left as homework to the reader. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
That's not true, last time you were afraid of even putting a tiered model on the ballot while the vast majority of LIRs (which are very small LIRs) wanted to have an option to vote on a tiered model, but you didn't even have the guts to put it to vote. On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:41 Gert Doering, <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 01:36:27PM +0300, Jean Salim wrote:
We missed you Gert, I was surprised you disappeared as you're always the one to mislead the conversation away from charging scheme. I would like yo hear your proposal on an alternative charging scheme that more fair to small LIRs. I myself, as pointed out before, prefer the ARIN model.
"1 LIR, 1 vote, 1 fee for the membership" seems to be the one where most LIRs can actually *agree* on.
Every charging scheme will be unfair to some - we had categories, and that was unfair to some, we had flat fees, and those are unfair to some, and even if we introduce fee-by-/24, it will be unfair to some.
Even if we totally ignore IPv4, there will still be people that say "someone with a larger yearly budget should pay more", and "non-profit members should be free!", and maybe they are right. But if we go there, some people will have to pay more than they did the year before, and they will find this unfair.
Conclusions left as homework to the reader.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
And by the way, for those that say it has to be a flat fee because of taxes in the Netherlands or whatever. Currently there's a fee per ASN, so the LIRs pay 50 EUR ASN which isn't a flat fee. A tiered model is possible and the right thing to do (again, everyone other than RIPE does it) Only objectors are people like Gert that manage 11872 IPv4 and want to keep paying the same fees as someone that hold 256 IPs On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:45 Jean Salim, <jean@bsmart-isp.net> wrote:
That's not true, last time you were afraid of even putting a tiered model on the ballot while the vast majority of LIRs (which are very small LIRs) wanted to have an option to vote on a tiered model, but you didn't even have the guts to put it to vote.
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:41 Gert Doering, <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
We missed you Gert, I was surprised you disappeared as you're always the one to mislead the conversation away from charging scheme. I would like yo hear your proposal on an alternative charging scheme
On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 01:36:27PM +0300, Jean Salim wrote: that
more fair to small LIRs. I myself, as pointed out before, prefer the ARIN model.
"1 LIR, 1 vote, 1 fee for the membership" seems to be the one where most LIRs can actually *agree* on.
Every charging scheme will be unfair to some - we had categories, and that was unfair to some, we had flat fees, and those are unfair to some, and even if we introduce fee-by-/24, it will be unfair to some.
Even if we totally ignore IPv4, there will still be people that say "someone with a larger yearly budget should pay more", and "non-profit members should be free!", and maybe they are right. But if we go there, some people will have to pay more than they did the year before, and they will find this unfair.
Conclusions left as homework to the reader.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Assuming Gert (or his employer) really has 11872 addresses, as you claim, the LTV is significantly higher to the organization considering what they've paid over the years. Besides your statement, that a tiered model is the right thing to do [for your benefit is implied here], there isn't anything supporting it. There is a term for copying another someone else's charging scheme or business model. It's called cargo culting. They might have made other assumptions than what you have. Similarly, I can claim that it cannot be a cost issue because, given current pricing, at less than two cents per day per IP address the pricing structure is certainly sustainable by anyone and thus fair given what we know about the market. Yes, if you have more addresses your cost per address will be even lower. Economies of scale and all that. What you seemingly want to do is to drive your own cost down at the expense of others. Which is far from fair. Kaj (who doesn't have 11872 addresses) Sent from my iPad ________________________________ From: Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net> Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2025 3:17 PM To: Gert Doering <gert@space.net> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month And by the way, for those that say it has to be a flat fee because of taxes in the Netherlands or whatever. Currently there's a fee per ASN, so the LIRs pay 50 EUR ASN which isn't a flat fee. A tiered model is possible and the right thing to do (again, everyone other than RIPE does it) Only objectors are people like Gert that manage 11872 IPv4 and want to keep paying the same fees as someone that hold 256 IPs On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:45 Jean Salim, <jean@bsmart-isp.net<mailto:jean@bsmart-isp.net>> wrote: That's not true, last time you were afraid of even putting a tiered model on the ballot while the vast majority of LIRs (which are very small LIRs) wanted to have an option to vote on a tiered model, but you didn't even have the guts to put it to vote. On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:41 Gert Doering, <gert@space.net<mailto:gert@space.net>> wrote: Hi, On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 01:36:27PM +0300, Jean Salim wrote:
We missed you Gert, I was surprised you disappeared as you're always the one to mislead the conversation away from charging scheme. I would like yo hear your proposal on an alternative charging scheme that more fair to small LIRs. I myself, as pointed out before, prefer the ARIN model.
"1 LIR, 1 vote, 1 fee for the membership" seems to be the one where most LIRs can actually *agree* on. Every charging scheme will be unfair to some - we had categories, and that was unfair to some, we had flat fees, and those are unfair to some, and even if we introduce fee-by-/24, it will be unfair to some. Even if we totally ignore IPv4, there will still be people that say "someone with a larger yearly budget should pay more", and "non-profit members should be free!", and maybe they are right. But if we go there, some people will have to pay more than they did the year before, and they will find this unfair. Conclusions left as homework to the reader. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Let me understand you well, we shouldn't have tiered charging because other LIRs are doing it and that would be copying? A tiered model is not right because it's of the benefit of the large majority of LIRs, but because it's fair. What has the cost per IP or economies of scale have anything to do with this discussion, this discussion is how to FAIRLY distribute the RIPE costs, and anyone that's 5 years or older knows that this current flat fee is very unfair for most LIRs, which are small. I don't understand why large LIRs are so much against this. Nobody's asking you to pay millions, but come on, it's only fair that you pay a bit more than LIRs with one /24 allocation are you that greedy? On Sat, 31 May 2025, 15:53 Kaj Niemi, <kajtzu@basen.net> wrote:
Assuming Gert (or his employer) really has 11872 addresses, as you claim, the LTV is significantly higher to the organization considering what they've paid over the years.
Besides your statement, that a tiered model is the right thing to do [for your benefit is implied here], there isn't anything supporting it. There is a term for copying another someone else's charging scheme or business model. It's called cargo culting. They might have made other assumptions than what you have.
Similarly, I can claim that it cannot be a cost issue because, given current pricing, at less than two cents per day per IP address the pricing structure is certainly sustainable by anyone and thus fair given what we know about the market. Yes, if you have more addresses your cost per address will be even lower. Economies of scale and all that. What you seemingly want to do is to drive your own cost down at the expense of others. Which is far from fair.
Kaj (who doesn't have 11872 addresses)
Sent from my iPad
------------------------------ *From:* Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net> *Sent:* Saturday, May 31, 2025 3:17 PM *To:* Gert Doering <gert@space.net> *Cc:* members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> *Subject:* [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month
And by the way, for those that say it has to be a flat fee because of taxes in the Netherlands or whatever. Currently there's a fee per ASN, so the LIRs pay 50 EUR ASN which isn't a flat fee. A tiered model is possible and the right thing to do (again, everyone other than RIPE does it) Only objectors are people like Gert that manage 11872 IPv4 and want to keep paying the same fees as someone that hold 256 IPs
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:45 Jean Salim, <jean@bsmart-isp.net> wrote:
That's not true, last time you were afraid of even putting a tiered model on the ballot while the vast majority of LIRs (which are very small LIRs) wanted to have an option to vote on a tiered model, but you didn't even have the guts to put it to vote.
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:41 Gert Doering, <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 01:36:27PM +0300, Jean Salim wrote:
We missed you Gert, I was surprised you disappeared as you're always the one to mislead the conversation away from charging scheme. I would like yo hear your proposal on an alternative charging scheme that more fair to small LIRs. I myself, as pointed out before, prefer the ARIN model.
"1 LIR, 1 vote, 1 fee for the membership" seems to be the one where most LIRs can actually *agree* on.
Every charging scheme will be unfair to some - we had categories, and that was unfair to some, we had flat fees, and those are unfair to some, and even if we introduce fee-by-/24, it will be unfair to some.
Even if we totally ignore IPv4, there will still be people that say "someone with a larger yearly budget should pay more", and "non-profit members should be free!", and maybe they are right. But if we go there, some people will have to pay more than they did the year before, and they will find this unfair.
Conclusions left as homework to the reader.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen+14?entry=gmail&source=g> Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
I think you misunderstand me. Saying “the other RIRs do this, we must too” doesn’t make it right, fair, better, or even worse. Nothing provided supports why they’ve made that decision. Yet you're convinced it is better. Ok. I politely once again observe it'll be better for you. You claim that tiered is better than flat. But in flat everyone pays the same. How can paying the same for membership be unfair? I'm not the biggest fan of the RIPE NCC budget nor what it spends the funds on, as evidenced by previous posts over the years, yet here I'm arguing for it. Nuts. Kaj (who qualified for the extra small category in 2008 and every year since) Sent from my iPad ________________________________ From: Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net> Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2025 4:06 PM To: Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> Cc: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>; members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month Let me understand you well, we shouldn't have tiered charging because other LIRs are doing it and that would be copying? A tiered model is not right because it's of the benefit of the large majority of LIRs, but because it's fair. What has the cost per IP or economies of scale have anything to do with this discussion, this discussion is how to FAIRLY distribute the RIPE costs, and anyone that's 5 years or older knows that this current flat fee is very unfair for most LIRs, which are small. I don't understand why large LIRs are so much against this. Nobody's asking you to pay millions, but come on, it's only fair that you pay a bit more than LIRs with one /24 allocation are you that greedy? On Sat, 31 May 2025, 15:53 Kaj Niemi, <kajtzu@basen.net<mailto:kajtzu@basen.net>> wrote: Assuming Gert (or his employer) really has 11872 addresses, as you claim, the LTV is significantly higher to the organization considering what they've paid over the years. Besides your statement, that a tiered model is the right thing to do [for your benefit is implied here], there isn't anything supporting it. There is a term for copying another someone else's charging scheme or business model. It's called cargo culting. They might have made other assumptions than what you have. Similarly, I can claim that it cannot be a cost issue because, given current pricing, at less than two cents per day per IP address the pricing structure is certainly sustainable by anyone and thus fair given what we know about the market. Yes, if you have more addresses your cost per address will be even lower. Economies of scale and all that. What you seemingly want to do is to drive your own cost down at the expense of others. Which is far from fair. Kaj (who doesn't have 11872 addresses) Sent from my iPad ________________________________ From: Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net<mailto:jean@bsmart-isp.net>> Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2025 3:17 PM To: Gert Doering <gert@space.net<mailto:gert@space.net>> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> <members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> Subject: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month And by the way, for those that say it has to be a flat fee because of taxes in the Netherlands or whatever. Currently there's a fee per ASN, so the LIRs pay 50 EUR ASN which isn't a flat fee. A tiered model is possible and the right thing to do (again, everyone other than RIPE does it) Only objectors are people like Gert that manage 11872 IPv4 and want to keep paying the same fees as someone that hold 256 IPs On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:45 Jean Salim, <jean@bsmart-isp.net<mailto:jean@bsmart-isp.net>> wrote: That's not true, last time you were afraid of even putting a tiered model on the ballot while the vast majority of LIRs (which are very small LIRs) wanted to have an option to vote on a tiered model, but you didn't even have the guts to put it to vote. On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:41 Gert Doering, <gert@space.net<mailto:gert@space.net>> wrote: Hi, On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 01:36:27PM +0300, Jean Salim wrote:
We missed you Gert, I was surprised you disappeared as you're always the one to mislead the conversation away from charging scheme. I would like yo hear your proposal on an alternative charging scheme that more fair to small LIRs. I myself, as pointed out before, prefer the ARIN model.
"1 LIR, 1 vote, 1 fee for the membership" seems to be the one where most LIRs can actually *agree* on. Every charging scheme will be unfair to some - we had categories, and that was unfair to some, we had flat fees, and those are unfair to some, and even if we introduce fee-by-/24, it will be unfair to some. Even if we totally ignore IPv4, there will still be people that say "someone with a larger yearly budget should pay more", and "non-profit members should be free!", and maybe they are right. But if we go there, some people will have to pay more than they did the year before, and they will find this unfair. Conclusions left as homework to the reader. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14<https://www.google.com/maps/search/Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen+14?entry=gmail&source=g> Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
That's the ARIN fee structure, Gert, you'd end up paying 4000 EUR only while a small LIR with one /24 pays around 250 EUR Is that too much? I honestly don't comprehend why you're fighting it this much. On Sat, 31 May 2025, 16:28 Kaj Niemi, <kajtzu@basen.net> wrote:
I think you misunderstand me.
Saying “the other RIRs do this, we must too” doesn’t make it right, fair, better, or even worse. Nothing provided supports why they’ve made that decision. Yet you're convinced it is better. Ok. I politely once again observe it'll be better for you.
You claim that tiered is better than flat. But in flat everyone pays the same. How can paying the same for membership be unfair?
I'm not the biggest fan of the RIPE NCC budget nor what it spends the funds on, as evidenced by previous posts over the years, yet here I'm arguing for it. Nuts.
Kaj (who qualified for the *extra small* category in 2008 and every year since)
Sent from my iPad
------------------------------ *From:* Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net> *Sent:* Saturday, May 31, 2025 4:06 PM *To:* Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> *Cc:* Gert Doering <gert@space.net>; members-discuss@ripe.net < members-discuss@ripe.net> *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month
Let me understand you well, we shouldn't have tiered charging because other LIRs are doing it and that would be copying? A tiered model is not right because it's of the benefit of the large majority of LIRs, but because it's fair. What has the cost per IP or economies of scale have anything to do with this discussion, this discussion is how to FAIRLY distribute the RIPE costs, and anyone that's 5 years or older knows that this current flat fee is very unfair for most LIRs, which are small. I don't understand why large LIRs are so much against this. Nobody's asking you to pay millions, but come on, it's only fair that you pay a bit more than LIRs with one /24 allocation are you that greedy?
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 15:53 Kaj Niemi, <kajtzu@basen.net> wrote:
Assuming Gert (or his employer) really has 11872 addresses, as you claim, the LTV is significantly higher to the organization considering what they've paid over the years.
Besides your statement, that a tiered model is the right thing to do [for your benefit is implied here], there isn't anything supporting it. There is a term for copying another someone else's charging scheme or business model. It's called cargo culting. They might have made other assumptions than what you have.
Similarly, I can claim that it cannot be a cost issue because, given current pricing, at less than two cents per day per IP address the pricing structure is certainly sustainable by anyone and thus fair given what we know about the market. Yes, if you have more addresses your cost per address will be even lower. Economies of scale and all that. What you seemingly want to do is to drive your own cost down at the expense of others. Which is far from fair.
Kaj (who doesn't have 11872 addresses)
Sent from my iPad
------------------------------ *From:* Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net> *Sent:* Saturday, May 31, 2025 3:17 PM *To:* Gert Doering <gert@space.net> *Cc:* members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> *Subject:* [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month
And by the way, for those that say it has to be a flat fee because of taxes in the Netherlands or whatever. Currently there's a fee per ASN, so the LIRs pay 50 EUR ASN which isn't a flat fee. A tiered model is possible and the right thing to do (again, everyone other than RIPE does it) Only objectors are people like Gert that manage 11872 IPv4 and want to keep paying the same fees as someone that hold 256 IPs
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:45 Jean Salim, <jean@bsmart-isp.net> wrote:
That's not true, last time you were afraid of even putting a tiered model on the ballot while the vast majority of LIRs (which are very small LIRs) wanted to have an option to vote on a tiered model, but you didn't even have the guts to put it to vote.
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:41 Gert Doering, <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 01:36:27PM +0300, Jean Salim wrote:
We missed you Gert, I was surprised you disappeared as you're always the one to mislead the conversation away from charging scheme. I would like yo hear your proposal on an alternative charging scheme that more fair to small LIRs. I myself, as pointed out before, prefer the ARIN model.
"1 LIR, 1 vote, 1 fee for the membership" seems to be the one where most LIRs can actually *agree* on.
Every charging scheme will be unfair to some - we had categories, and that was unfair to some, we had flat fees, and those are unfair to some, and even if we introduce fee-by-/24, it will be unfair to some.
Even if we totally ignore IPv4, there will still be people that say "someone with a larger yearly budget should pay more", and "non-profit members should be free!", and maybe they are right. But if we go there, some people will have to pay more than they did the year before, and they will find this unfair.
Conclusions left as homework to the reader.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen+14?entry=gmail&source=g> Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
I think that small LIRs are better off moving to ARIN instead of arguing with the greedy Gerts of this world. You're leaving us no choice, pulling every trick in the book, just to avoid paying ONE additional Euro to RIPE's budget. On Sat, 31 May 2025, 16:32 Jean Salim, <jean@bsmart-isp.net> wrote:
That's the ARIN fee structure, Gert, you'd end up paying 4000 EUR only while a small LIR with one /24 pays around 250 EUR Is that too much? I honestly don't comprehend why you're fighting it this much.
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 16:28 Kaj Niemi, <kajtzu@basen.net> wrote:
I think you misunderstand me.
Saying “the other RIRs do this, we must too” doesn’t make it right, fair, better, or even worse. Nothing provided supports why they’ve made that decision. Yet you're convinced it is better. Ok. I politely once again observe it'll be better for you.
You claim that tiered is better than flat. But in flat everyone pays the same. How can paying the same for membership be unfair?
I'm not the biggest fan of the RIPE NCC budget nor what it spends the funds on, as evidenced by previous posts over the years, yet here I'm arguing for it. Nuts.
Kaj (who qualified for the *extra small* category in 2008 and every year since)
Sent from my iPad
------------------------------ *From:* Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net> *Sent:* Saturday, May 31, 2025 4:06 PM *To:* Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> *Cc:* Gert Doering <gert@space.net>; members-discuss@ripe.net < members-discuss@ripe.net> *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month
Let me understand you well, we shouldn't have tiered charging because other LIRs are doing it and that would be copying? A tiered model is not right because it's of the benefit of the large majority of LIRs, but because it's fair. What has the cost per IP or economies of scale have anything to do with this discussion, this discussion is how to FAIRLY distribute the RIPE costs, and anyone that's 5 years or older knows that this current flat fee is very unfair for most LIRs, which are small. I don't understand why large LIRs are so much against this. Nobody's asking you to pay millions, but come on, it's only fair that you pay a bit more than LIRs with one /24 allocation are you that greedy?
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 15:53 Kaj Niemi, <kajtzu@basen.net> wrote:
Assuming Gert (or his employer) really has 11872 addresses, as you claim, the LTV is significantly higher to the organization considering what they've paid over the years.
Besides your statement, that a tiered model is the right thing to do [for your benefit is implied here], there isn't anything supporting it. There is a term for copying another someone else's charging scheme or business model. It's called cargo culting. They might have made other assumptions than what you have.
Similarly, I can claim that it cannot be a cost issue because, given current pricing, at less than two cents per day per IP address the pricing structure is certainly sustainable by anyone and thus fair given what we know about the market. Yes, if you have more addresses your cost per address will be even lower. Economies of scale and all that. What you seemingly want to do is to drive your own cost down at the expense of others. Which is far from fair.
Kaj (who doesn't have 11872 addresses)
Sent from my iPad
------------------------------ *From:* Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net> *Sent:* Saturday, May 31, 2025 3:17 PM *To:* Gert Doering <gert@space.net> *Cc:* members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> *Subject:* [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month
And by the way, for those that say it has to be a flat fee because of taxes in the Netherlands or whatever. Currently there's a fee per ASN, so the LIRs pay 50 EUR ASN which isn't a flat fee. A tiered model is possible and the right thing to do (again, everyone other than RIPE does it) Only objectors are people like Gert that manage 11872 IPv4 and want to keep paying the same fees as someone that hold 256 IPs
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:45 Jean Salim, <jean@bsmart-isp.net> wrote:
That's not true, last time you were afraid of even putting a tiered model on the ballot while the vast majority of LIRs (which are very small LIRs) wanted to have an option to vote on a tiered model, but you didn't even have the guts to put it to vote.
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:41 Gert Doering, <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
We missed you Gert, I was surprised you disappeared as you're always the one to mislead the conversation away from charging scheme. I would like yo hear your proposal on an alternative charging scheme
On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 01:36:27PM +0300, Jean Salim wrote: that
more fair to small LIRs. I myself, as pointed out before, prefer the ARIN model.
"1 LIR, 1 vote, 1 fee for the membership" seems to be the one where most LIRs can actually *agree* on.
Every charging scheme will be unfair to some - we had categories, and that was unfair to some, we had flat fees, and those are unfair to some, and even if we introduce fee-by-/24, it will be unfair to some.
Even if we totally ignore IPv4, there will still be people that say "someone with a larger yearly budget should pay more", and "non-profit members should be free!", and maybe they are right. But if we go there, some people will have to pay more than they did the year before, and they will find this unfair.
Conclusions left as homework to the reader.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen+14?entry=gmail&source=g> Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
ARIN offers much less ancillary services than RIPE. Imagine what would happen if RIPE's budget would be reduced and no one would have to pay more. Anyway, I don't like the name calling that you do. It is not very professional or considerate. Kaj Sent from my iPad ________________________________ From: Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net> Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2025 4:45:32 PM To: Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> Cc: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>; members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month I think that small LIRs are better off moving to ARIN instead of arguing with the greedy Gerts of this world. You're leaving us no choice, pulling every trick in the book, just to avoid paying ONE additional Euro to RIPE's budget. On Sat, 31 May 2025, 16:32 Jean Salim, <jean@bsmart-isp.net<mailto:jean@bsmart-isp.net>> wrote: [cid:ii_1972688be53eadddd482]That's the ARIN fee structure, Gert, you'd end up paying 4000 EUR only while a small LIR with one /24 pays around 250 EUR Is that too much? I honestly don't comprehend why you're fighting it this much. On Sat, 31 May 2025, 16:28 Kaj Niemi, <kajtzu@basen.net<mailto:kajtzu@basen.net>> wrote: I think you misunderstand me. Saying “the other RIRs do this, we must too” doesn’t make it right, fair, better, or even worse. Nothing provided supports why they’ve made that decision. Yet you're convinced it is better. Ok. I politely once again observe it'll be better for you. You claim that tiered is better than flat. But in flat everyone pays the same. How can paying the same for membership be unfair? I'm not the biggest fan of the RIPE NCC budget nor what it spends the funds on, as evidenced by previous posts over the years, yet here I'm arguing for it. Nuts. Kaj (who qualified for the extra small category in 2008 and every year since) Sent from my iPad ________________________________ From: Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net<mailto:jean@bsmart-isp.net>> Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2025 4:06 PM To: Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net<mailto:kajtzu@basen.net>> Cc: Gert Doering <gert@space.net<mailto:gert@space.net>>; members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> <members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month Let me understand you well, we shouldn't have tiered charging because other LIRs are doing it and that would be copying? A tiered model is not right because it's of the benefit of the large majority of LIRs, but because it's fair. What has the cost per IP or economies of scale have anything to do with this discussion, this discussion is how to FAIRLY distribute the RIPE costs, and anyone that's 5 years or older knows that this current flat fee is very unfair for most LIRs, which are small. I don't understand why large LIRs are so much against this. Nobody's asking you to pay millions, but come on, it's only fair that you pay a bit more than LIRs with one /24 allocation are you that greedy? On Sat, 31 May 2025, 15:53 Kaj Niemi, <kajtzu@basen.net<mailto:kajtzu@basen.net>> wrote: Assuming Gert (or his employer) really has 11872 addresses, as you claim, the LTV is significantly higher to the organization considering what they've paid over the years. Besides your statement, that a tiered model is the right thing to do [for your benefit is implied here], there isn't anything supporting it. There is a term for copying another someone else's charging scheme or business model. It's called cargo culting. They might have made other assumptions than what you have. Similarly, I can claim that it cannot be a cost issue because, given current pricing, at less than two cents per day per IP address the pricing structure is certainly sustainable by anyone and thus fair given what we know about the market. Yes, if you have more addresses your cost per address will be even lower. Economies of scale and all that. What you seemingly want to do is to drive your own cost down at the expense of others. Which is far from fair. Kaj (who doesn't have 11872 addresses) Sent from my iPad ________________________________ From: Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net<mailto:jean@bsmart-isp.net>> Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2025 3:17 PM To: Gert Doering <gert@space.net<mailto:gert@space.net>> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> <members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> Subject: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month And by the way, for those that say it has to be a flat fee because of taxes in the Netherlands or whatever. Currently there's a fee per ASN, so the LIRs pay 50 EUR ASN which isn't a flat fee. A tiered model is possible and the right thing to do (again, everyone other than RIPE does it) Only objectors are people like Gert that manage 11872 IPv4 and want to keep paying the same fees as someone that hold 256 IPs On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:45 Jean Salim, <jean@bsmart-isp.net<mailto:jean@bsmart-isp.net>> wrote: That's not true, last time you were afraid of even putting a tiered model on the ballot while the vast majority of LIRs (which are very small LIRs) wanted to have an option to vote on a tiered model, but you didn't even have the guts to put it to vote. On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:41 Gert Doering, <gert@space.net<mailto:gert@space.net>> wrote: Hi, On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 01:36:27PM +0300, Jean Salim wrote:
We missed you Gert, I was surprised you disappeared as you're always the one to mislead the conversation away from charging scheme. I would like yo hear your proposal on an alternative charging scheme that more fair to small LIRs. I myself, as pointed out before, prefer the ARIN model.
"1 LIR, 1 vote, 1 fee for the membership" seems to be the one where most LIRs can actually *agree* on. Every charging scheme will be unfair to some - we had categories, and that was unfair to some, we had flat fees, and those are unfair to some, and even if we introduce fee-by-/24, it will be unfair to some. Even if we totally ignore IPv4, there will still be people that say "someone with a larger yearly budget should pay more", and "non-profit members should be free!", and maybe they are right. But if we go there, some people will have to pay more than they did the year before, and they will find this unfair. Conclusions left as homework to the reader. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14<https://www.google.com/maps/search/Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen+14?entry=gmail&source=g> Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
I actually liked the Greedy Gert nickname. It's pretty accurate in my opinion. He has made himself master obfuscator and disinformer, all for saving some measly Euros On Sat, 31 May 2025, 17:05 Kaj Niemi, <kajtzu@basen.net> wrote:
ARIN offers much less ancillary services than RIPE. Imagine what would happen if RIPE's budget would be reduced and no one would have to pay more.
Anyway, I don't like the name calling that you do. It is not very professional or considerate.
Kaj
Sent from my iPad
------------------------------ *From:* Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net> *Sent:* Saturday, May 31, 2025 4:45:32 PM *To:* Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> *Cc:* Gert Doering <gert@space.net>; members-discuss@ripe.net < members-discuss@ripe.net> *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month
I think that small LIRs are better off moving to ARIN instead of arguing with the greedy Gerts of this world. You're leaving us no choice, pulling every trick in the book, just to avoid paying ONE additional Euro to RIPE's budget.
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 16:32 Jean Salim, <jean@bsmart-isp.net> wrote:
That's the ARIN fee structure, Gert, you'd end up paying 4000 EUR only while a small LIR with one /24 pays around 250 EUR Is that too much? I honestly don't comprehend why you're fighting it this much.
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 16:28 Kaj Niemi, <kajtzu@basen.net> wrote:
I think you misunderstand me.
Saying “the other RIRs do this, we must too” doesn’t make it right, fair, better, or even worse. Nothing provided supports why they’ve made that decision. Yet you're convinced it is better. Ok. I politely once again observe it'll be better for you.
You claim that tiered is better than flat. But in flat everyone pays the same. How can paying the same for membership be unfair?
I'm not the biggest fan of the RIPE NCC budget nor what it spends the funds on, as evidenced by previous posts over the years, yet here I'm arguing for it. Nuts.
Kaj (who qualified for the *extra small* category in 2008 and every year since)
Sent from my iPad
------------------------------ *From:* Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net> *Sent:* Saturday, May 31, 2025 4:06 PM *To:* Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> *Cc:* Gert Doering <gert@space.net>; members-discuss@ripe.net < members-discuss@ripe.net> *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month
Let me understand you well, we shouldn't have tiered charging because other LIRs are doing it and that would be copying? A tiered model is not right because it's of the benefit of the large majority of LIRs, but because it's fair. What has the cost per IP or economies of scale have anything to do with this discussion, this discussion is how to FAIRLY distribute the RIPE costs, and anyone that's 5 years or older knows that this current flat fee is very unfair for most LIRs, which are small. I don't understand why large LIRs are so much against this. Nobody's asking you to pay millions, but come on, it's only fair that you pay a bit more than LIRs with one /24 allocation are you that greedy?
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 15:53 Kaj Niemi, <kajtzu@basen.net> wrote:
Assuming Gert (or his employer) really has 11872 addresses, as you claim, the LTV is significantly higher to the organization considering what they've paid over the years.
Besides your statement, that a tiered model is the right thing to do [for your benefit is implied here], there isn't anything supporting it. There is a term for copying another someone else's charging scheme or business model. It's called cargo culting. They might have made other assumptions than what you have.
Similarly, I can claim that it cannot be a cost issue because, given current pricing, at less than two cents per day per IP address the pricing structure is certainly sustainable by anyone and thus fair given what we know about the market. Yes, if you have more addresses your cost per address will be even lower. Economies of scale and all that. What you seemingly want to do is to drive your own cost down at the expense of others. Which is far from fair.
Kaj (who doesn't have 11872 addresses)
Sent from my iPad
------------------------------ *From:* Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net> *Sent:* Saturday, May 31, 2025 3:17 PM *To:* Gert Doering <gert@space.net> *Cc:* members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> *Subject:* [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month
And by the way, for those that say it has to be a flat fee because of taxes in the Netherlands or whatever. Currently there's a fee per ASN, so the LIRs pay 50 EUR ASN which isn't a flat fee. A tiered model is possible and the right thing to do (again, everyone other than RIPE does it) Only objectors are people like Gert that manage 11872 IPv4 and want to keep paying the same fees as someone that hold 256 IPs
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:45 Jean Salim, <jean@bsmart-isp.net> wrote:
That's not true, last time you were afraid of even putting a tiered model on the ballot while the vast majority of LIRs (which are very small LIRs) wanted to have an option to vote on a tiered model, but you didn't even have the guts to put it to vote.
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:41 Gert Doering, <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 01:36:27PM +0300, Jean Salim wrote:
We missed you Gert, I was surprised you disappeared as you're always the one to mislead the conversation away from charging scheme. I would like yo hear your proposal on an alternative charging scheme that more fair to small LIRs. I myself, as pointed out before, prefer the ARIN model.
"1 LIR, 1 vote, 1 fee for the membership" seems to be the one where most LIRs can actually *agree* on.
Every charging scheme will be unfair to some - we had categories, and that was unfair to some, we had flat fees, and those are unfair to some, and even if we introduce fee-by-/24, it will be unfair to some.
Even if we totally ignore IPv4, there will still be people that say "someone with a larger yearly budget should pay more", and "non-profit members should be free!", and maybe they are right. But if we go there, some people will have to pay more than they did the year before, and they will find this unfair.
Conclusions left as homework to the reader.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen+14?entry=gmail&source=g> Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hi, On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 05:11:38PM +0300, Jean Salim wrote:
I actually liked the Greedy Gert nickname. It's pretty accurate in my opinion. He has made himself master obfuscator and disinformer, all for saving some measly Euros
That's always a good strategy when running out of compelling arguments, trying a bit of name calling. Congratulations, I am so impressed, this seriously strengthens your point, and I will be honoured to carry this title from now on. Gert Doering -- master disinformer and obfuscator -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Anyway, I don't like the name calling that you do. It is not very professional or considerate.
Can I remind members that RIPE has a Code of Conduct (the scope covers this mailing list), and this discussion has gone well outside those boundaries. https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-766/#ripe-meeting-code-of-conduc... Please stop. Regards, Brett -- Brett Sheffield (he/him) Gladserv Ltd
Many LIR aren't interrested by the additional services provided by the RIPE NCC. Having a fixed membership fees pushes the smallest LIR to either migrate to an other RIR, or to merge with other LIR to reduce exploitation costs. If the incencitive to make the smallest LIR to close or leave the RIPE NCC continues, that will mean increase of the membership fees for all the remaining LIR. And like that, by the end of the decade, the fees will be with 5 figures, and there will be only big players remaining, effectively owning the RIPE NCC. I'm not sure many orgs will enjoy this situation. Kind regards, Alexandre Le 31/05/2025 à 16:05, Kaj Niemi a écrit :
ARIN offers much less ancillary services than RIPE. Imagine what would happen if RIPE's budget would be reduced and no one would have to pay more.
Anyway, I don't like the name calling that you do. It is not very professional or considerate.
Kaj
Sent from my iPad
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net> *Sent:* Saturday, May 31, 2025 4:45:32 PM *To:* Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> *Cc:* Gert Doering <gert@space.net>; members-discuss@ripe.net <members- discuss@ripe.net> *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month I think that small LIRs are better off moving to ARIN instead of arguing with the greedy Gerts of this world. You're leaving us no choice, pulling every trick in the book, just to avoid paying ONE additional Euro to RIPE's budget.
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 16:32 Jean Salim, <jean@bsmart-isp.net <mailto:jean@bsmart-isp.net>> wrote:
That's the ARIN fee structure, Gert, you'd end up paying 4000 EUR only while a small LIR with one /24 pays around 250 EUR Is that too much? I honestly don't comprehend why you're fighting it this much.
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 16:28 Kaj Niemi, <kajtzu@basen.net <mailto:kajtzu@basen.net>> wrote:
I think you misunderstand me.
Saying “the other RIRs do this, we must too” doesn’t make it right, fair, better, or even worse. Nothing provided supports why they’ve made that decision. Yet you're convinced it is better. Ok. I politely once again observe it'll be better for you.
You claim that tiered is better than flat. But in flat everyone pays the same. How can paying the same for membership be unfair?
I'm not the biggest fan of the RIPE NCC budget nor what it spends the funds on, as evidenced by previous posts over the years, yet here I'm arguing for it. Nuts.
Kaj (who qualified for the _extra small_ category in 2008 and every year since)
Sent from my iPad
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net <mailto:jean@bsmart- isp.net>> *Sent:* Saturday, May 31, 2025 4:06 PM *To:* Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net <mailto:kajtzu@basen.net>> *Cc:* Gert Doering <gert@space.net <mailto:gert@space.net>>; members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> <members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month Let me understand you well, we shouldn't have tiered charging because other LIRs are doing it and that would be copying? A tiered model is not right because it's of the benefit of the large majority of LIRs, but because it's fair. What has the cost per IP or economies of scale have anything to do with this discussion, this discussion is how to FAIRLY distribute the RIPE costs, and anyone that's 5 years or older knows that this current flat fee is very unfair for most LIRs, which are small. I don't understand why large LIRs are so much against this. Nobody's asking you to pay millions, but come on, it's only fair that you pay a bit more than LIRs with one /24 allocation are you that greedy?
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 15:53 Kaj Niemi, <kajtzu@basen.net <mailto:kajtzu@basen.net>> wrote:
Assuming Gert (or his employer) really has 11872 addresses, as you claim, the LTV is significantly higher to the organization considering what they've paid over the years.
Besides your statement, that a tiered model is the right thing to do [for your benefit is implied here], there isn't anything supporting it. There is a term for copying another someone else's charging scheme or business model. It's called cargo culting. They might have made other assumptions than what you have.
Similarly, I can claim that it cannot be a cost issue because, given current pricing, at less than two cents per day per IP address the pricing structure is certainly sustainable by anyone and thus fair given what we know about the market. Yes, if you have more addresses your cost per address will be even lower. Economies of scale and all that. What you seemingly want to do is to drive your own cost down at the expense of others. Which is far from fair.
Kaj (who doesn't have 11872 addresses)
Sent from my iPad
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net <mailto:jean@bsmart- isp.net>> *Sent:* Saturday, May 31, 2025 3:17 PM *To:* Gert Doering <gert@space.net <mailto:gert@space.net>> *Cc:* members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members- discuss@ripe.net> <members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members- discuss@ripe.net>> *Subject:* [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month And by the way, for those that say it has to be a flat fee because of taxes in the Netherlands or whatever. Currently there's a fee per ASN, so the LIRs pay 50 EUR ASN which isn't a flat fee. A tiered model is possible and the right thing to do (again, everyone other than RIPE does it) Only objectors are people like Gert that manage 11872 IPv4 and want to keep paying the same fees as someone that hold 256 IPs
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:45 Jean Salim, <jean@bsmart-isp.net <mailto:jean@bsmart-isp.net>> wrote:
That's not true, last time you were afraid of even putting a tiered model on the ballot while the vast majority of LIRs (which are very small LIRs) wanted to have an option to vote on a tiered model, but you didn't even have the guts to put it to vote.
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:41 Gert Doering, <gert@space.net <mailto:gert@space.net>> wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 01:36:27PM +0300, Jean Salim wrote: > We missed you Gert, I was surprised you disappeared as you're always the > one to mislead the conversation away from charging scheme. > I would like yo hear your proposal on an alternative charging scheme that > more fair to small LIRs. > I myself, as pointed out before, prefer the ARIN model.
"1 LIR, 1 vote, 1 fee for the membership" seems to be the one where most LIRs can actually *agree* on.
Every charging scheme will be unfair to some - we had categories, and that was unfair to some, we had flat fees, and those are unfair to some, and even if we introduce fee-by-/24, it will be unfair to some.
Even if we totally ignore IPv4, there will still be people that say "someone with a larger yearly budget should pay more", and "non-profit members should be free!", and maybe they are right. But if we go there, some people will have to pay more than they did the year before, and they will find this unfair.
Conclusions left as homework to the reader.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 <https://www.google.com/ maps/search/Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen+14? entry=gmail&source=g> Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
100% Alexandre, the below accurately describes what has been happening and what will keep on happening if the current board doesn't take concrete action to introduce tiered charging fees. Many LIR aren't interrested by the additional services provided by the RIPE NCC. Having a fixed membership fees pushes the smallest LIR to either migrate to an other RIR, or to merge with other LIR to reduce exploitation costs. If the incencitive to make the smallest LIR to close or leave the RIPE NCC continues, that will mean increase of the membership fees for all the remaining LIR. And like that, by the end of the decade, the fees will be with 5 figures, and there will be only big players remaining, effectively owning the RIPE NCC. I'm not sure many orgs will enjoy this situation. On Mon, Jun 2, 2025 at 11:49 AM Alexandre <alexandre-ripe-ncc@lotharedon.org> wrote:
Many LIR aren't interrested by the additional services provided by the RIPE NCC. Having a fixed membership fees pushes the smallest LIR to either migrate to an other RIR, or to merge with other LIR to reduce exploitation costs. If the incencitive to make the smallest LIR to close or leave the RIPE NCC continues, that will mean increase of the membership fees for all the remaining LIR. And like that, by the end of the decade, the fees will be with 5 figures, and there will be only big players remaining, effectively owning the RIPE NCC. I'm not sure many orgs will enjoy this situation.
Kind regards, Alexandre
Le 31/05/2025 à 16:05, Kaj Niemi a écrit :
ARIN offers much less ancillary services than RIPE. Imagine what would happen if RIPE's budget would be reduced and no one would have to pay more.
Anyway, I don't like the name calling that you do. It is not very professional or considerate.
Kaj
Sent from my iPad
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net> *Sent:* Saturday, May 31, 2025 4:45:32 PM *To:* Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> *Cc:* Gert Doering <gert@space.net>; members-discuss@ripe.net <members- discuss@ripe.net> *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month I think that small LIRs are better off moving to ARIN instead of arguing with the greedy Gerts of this world. You're leaving us no choice, pulling every trick in the book, just to avoid paying ONE additional Euro to RIPE's budget.
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 16:32 Jean Salim, <jean@bsmart-isp.net <mailto:jean@bsmart-isp.net>> wrote:
That's the ARIN fee structure, Gert, you'd end up paying 4000 EUR only while a small LIR with one /24 pays around 250 EUR Is that too much? I honestly don't comprehend why you're fighting it this much.
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 16:28 Kaj Niemi, <kajtzu@basen.net <mailto:kajtzu@basen.net>> wrote:
I think you misunderstand me.
Saying “the other RIRs do this, we must too” doesn’t make it right, fair, better, or even worse. Nothing provided supports why they’ve made that decision. Yet you're convinced it is better. Ok. I politely once again observe it'll be better for you.
You claim that tiered is better than flat. But in flat everyone pays the same. How can paying the same for membership be unfair?
I'm not the biggest fan of the RIPE NCC budget nor what it spends the funds on, as evidenced by previous posts over the years, yet here I'm arguing for it. Nuts.
Kaj (who qualified for the _extra small_ category in 2008 and every year since)
Sent from my iPad
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net <mailto:jean@bsmart- isp.net>> *Sent:* Saturday, May 31, 2025 4:06 PM *To:* Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net <mailto:kajtzu@basen.net>> *Cc:* Gert Doering <gert@space.net <mailto:gert@space.net>>; members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> <members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month Let me understand you well, we shouldn't have tiered charging because other LIRs are doing it and that would be copying? A tiered model is not right because it's of the benefit of the large majority of LIRs, but because it's fair. What has the cost per IP or economies of scale have anything to do with this discussion, this discussion is how to FAIRLY distribute the RIPE costs, and anyone that's 5 years or older knows that this current flat fee is very unfair for most LIRs, which are small. I don't understand why large LIRs are so much against this. Nobody's asking you to pay millions, but come on, it's only fair that you pay a bit more than LIRs with one /24 allocation are you that greedy?
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 15:53 Kaj Niemi, <kajtzu@basen.net <mailto:kajtzu@basen.net>> wrote:
Assuming Gert (or his employer) really has 11872 addresses, as you claim, the LTV is significantly higher to the organization considering what they've paid over the years.
Besides your statement, that a tiered model is the right thing to do [for your benefit is implied here], there isn't anything supporting it. There is a term for copying another someone else's charging scheme or business model. It's called cargo culting. They might have made other assumptions than what you have.
Similarly, I can claim that it cannot be a cost issue because, given current pricing, at less than two cents per day per IP address the pricing structure is certainly sustainable by anyone and thus fair given what we know about the market. Yes, if you have more addresses your cost per address will be even lower. Economies of scale and all that. What you seemingly want to do is to drive your own cost down at the expense of others. Which is far from fair.
Kaj (who doesn't have 11872 addresses)
Sent from my iPad
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net <mailto:jean@bsmart- isp.net>> *Sent:* Saturday, May 31, 2025 3:17 PM *To:* Gert Doering <gert@space.net <mailto:gert@space.net>> *Cc:* members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members- discuss@ripe.net> <members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members- discuss@ripe.net>> *Subject:* [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the
month
And by the way, for those that say it has to be a flat fee because of taxes in the Netherlands or whatever. Currently there's a fee per ASN, so the LIRs pay 50 EUR ASN which isn't a flat fee. A tiered model is possible and the right thing to do (again, everyone other than RIPE does it) Only objectors are people like Gert that manage 11872 IPv4 and want to keep paying the same fees as someone that hold 256 IPs
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:45 Jean Salim, <jean@bsmart-isp.net <mailto:jean@bsmart-isp.net>> wrote:
That's not true, last time you were afraid of even putting a tiered model on the ballot while the vast majority of LIRs (which are very small LIRs) wanted to have an option to vote on a tiered model, but you didn't even have the guts to put it to vote.
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:41 Gert Doering, <gert@space.net <mailto:gert@space.net>> wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 01:36:27PM +0300, Jean Salim wrote: > We missed you Gert, I was surprised you disappeared as you're always the > one to mislead the conversation away from charging scheme. > I would like yo hear your proposal on an alternative charging scheme that > more fair to small LIRs. > I myself, as pointed out before, prefer the ARIN model.
"1 LIR, 1 vote, 1 fee for the membership" seems to be the one where most LIRs can actually *agree* on.
Every charging scheme will be unfair to some - we had categories, and that was unfair to some, we had flat fees, and those are unfair to some, and even if we introduce fee-by-/24, it will be unfair to some.
Even if we totally ignore IPv4, there will still be people that say "someone with a larger yearly budget should pay more", and "non-profit members should be free!", and maybe they are right. But if we go there, some people will have to pay more than they did the year before, and they will find this unfair.
Conclusions left as homework to the reader.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 <https://www.google.com/ maps/search/Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen+14? entry=gmail&source=g> Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.:
DE813185279
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription
options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/
As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Your projection is 3600 LIRs left 1.1.2030 (36M/10k)? The official forecasts are nowhere near this. What data are you using? Kaj ________________________________ From: Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net> Sent: Monday, June 2, 2025 11:57 To: Alexandre <alexandre-ripe-ncc@lotharedon.org> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month 100% Alexandre, the below accurately describes what has been happening and what will keep on happening if the current board doesn't take concrete action to introduce tiered charging fees. Many LIR aren't interrested by the additional services provided by the RIPE NCC. Having a fixed membership fees pushes the smallest LIR to either migrate to an other RIR, or to merge with other LIR to reduce exploitation costs. If the incencitive to make the smallest LIR to close or leave the RIPE NCC continues, that will mean increase of the membership fees for all the remaining LIR. And like that, by the end of the decade, the fees will be with 5 figures, and there will be only big players remaining, effectively owning the RIPE NCC. I'm not sure many orgs will enjoy this situation. On Mon, Jun 2, 2025 at 11:49 AM Alexandre <alexandre-ripe-ncc@lotharedon.org<mailto:alexandre-ripe-ncc@lotharedon.org>> wrote: Many LIR aren't interrested by the additional services provided by the RIPE NCC. Having a fixed membership fees pushes the smallest LIR to either migrate to an other RIR, or to merge with other LIR to reduce exploitation costs. If the incencitive to make the smallest LIR to close or leave the RIPE NCC continues, that will mean increase of the membership fees for all the remaining LIR. And like that, by the end of the decade, the fees will be with 5 figures, and there will be only big players remaining, effectively owning the RIPE NCC. I'm not sure many orgs will enjoy this situation. Kind regards, Alexandre Le 31/05/2025 à 16:05, Kaj Niemi a écrit :
ARIN offers much less ancillary services than RIPE. Imagine what would happen if RIPE's budget would be reduced and no one would have to pay more.
Anyway, I don't like the name calling that you do. It is not very professional or considerate.
Kaj
Sent from my iPad
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net<mailto:jean@bsmart-isp.net>> *Sent:* Saturday, May 31, 2025 4:45:32 PM *To:* Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net<mailto:kajtzu@basen.net>> *Cc:* Gert Doering <gert@space.net<mailto:gert@space.net>>; members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> <members- discuss@ripe.net<mailto:discuss@ripe.net>> *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month I think that small LIRs are better off moving to ARIN instead of arguing with the greedy Gerts of this world. You're leaving us no choice, pulling every trick in the book, just to avoid paying ONE additional Euro to RIPE's budget.
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 16:32 Jean Salim, <jean@bsmart-isp.net<mailto:jean@bsmart-isp.net> <mailto:jean@bsmart-isp.net<mailto:jean@bsmart-isp.net>>> wrote:
That's the ARIN fee structure, Gert, you'd end up paying 4000 EUR only while a small LIR with one /24 pays around 250 EUR Is that too much? I honestly don't comprehend why you're fighting it this much.
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 16:28 Kaj Niemi, <kajtzu@basen.net<mailto:kajtzu@basen.net> <mailto:kajtzu@basen.net<mailto:kajtzu@basen.net>>> wrote:
I think you misunderstand me.
Saying “the other RIRs do this, we must too” doesn’t make it right, fair, better, or even worse. Nothing provided supports why they’ve made that decision. Yet you're convinced it is better. Ok. I politely once again observe it'll be better for you.
You claim that tiered is better than flat. But in flat everyone pays the same. How can paying the same for membership be unfair?
I'm not the biggest fan of the RIPE NCC budget nor what it spends the funds on, as evidenced by previous posts over the years, yet here I'm arguing for it. Nuts.
Kaj (who qualified for the _extra small_ category in 2008 and every year since)
Sent from my iPad
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net<mailto:jean@bsmart-isp.net> <mailto:jean@bsmart-<mailto:jean@bsmart-> isp.net<http://isp.net/>>> *Sent:* Saturday, May 31, 2025 4:06 PM *To:* Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net<mailto:kajtzu@basen.net> <mailto:kajtzu@basen.net<mailto:kajtzu@basen.net>>> *Cc:* Gert Doering <gert@space.net<mailto:gert@space.net> <mailto:gert@space.net<mailto:gert@space.net>>>; members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> <members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>>> *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month Let me understand you well, we shouldn't have tiered charging because other LIRs are doing it and that would be copying? A tiered model is not right because it's of the benefit of the large majority of LIRs, but because it's fair. What has the cost per IP or economies of scale have anything to do with this discussion, this discussion is how to FAIRLY distribute the RIPE costs, and anyone that's 5 years or older knows that this current flat fee is very unfair for most LIRs, which are small. I don't understand why large LIRs are so much against this. Nobody's asking you to pay millions, but come on, it's only fair that you pay a bit more than LIRs with one /24 allocation are you that greedy?
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 15:53 Kaj Niemi, <kajtzu@basen.net<mailto:kajtzu@basen.net> <mailto:kajtzu@basen.net<mailto:kajtzu@basen.net>>> wrote:
Assuming Gert (or his employer) really has 11872 addresses, as you claim, the LTV is significantly higher to the organization considering what they've paid over the years.
Besides your statement, that a tiered model is the right thing to do [for your benefit is implied here], there isn't anything supporting it. There is a term for copying another someone else's charging scheme or business model. It's called cargo culting. They might have made other assumptions than what you have.
Similarly, I can claim that it cannot be a cost issue because, given current pricing, at less than two cents per day per IP address the pricing structure is certainly sustainable by anyone and thus fair given what we know about the market. Yes, if you have more addresses your cost per address will be even lower. Economies of scale and all that. What you seemingly want to do is to drive your own cost down at the expense of others. Which is far from fair.
Kaj (who doesn't have 11872 addresses)
Sent from my iPad
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net<mailto:jean@bsmart-isp.net> <mailto:jean@bsmart-<mailto:jean@bsmart-> isp.net<http://isp.net/>>> *Sent:* Saturday, May 31, 2025 3:17 PM *To:* Gert Doering <gert@space.net<mailto:gert@space.net> <mailto:gert@space.net<mailto:gert@space.net>>> *Cc:* members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> <mailto:members-<mailto:members-> discuss@ripe.net<mailto:discuss@ripe.net>> <members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> <mailto:members-<mailto:members-> discuss@ripe.net<mailto:discuss@ripe.net>>> *Subject:* [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month And by the way, for those that say it has to be a flat fee because of taxes in the Netherlands or whatever. Currently there's a fee per ASN, so the LIRs pay 50 EUR ASN which isn't a flat fee. A tiered model is possible and the right thing to do (again, everyone other than RIPE does it) Only objectors are people like Gert that manage 11872 IPv4 and want to keep paying the same fees as someone that hold 256 IPs
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:45 Jean Salim, <jean@bsmart-isp.net<mailto:jean@bsmart-isp.net> <mailto:jean@bsmart-isp.net<mailto:jean@bsmart-isp.net>>> wrote:
That's not true, last time you were afraid of even putting a tiered model on the ballot while the vast majority of LIRs (which are very small LIRs) wanted to have an option to vote on a tiered model, but you didn't even have the guts to put it to vote.
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:41 Gert Doering, <gert@space.net<mailto:gert@space.net> <mailto:gert@space.net<mailto:gert@space.net>>> wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 01:36:27PM +0300, Jean Salim wrote: > We missed you Gert, I was surprised you disappeared as you're always the > one to mislead the conversation away from charging scheme. > I would like yo hear your proposal on an alternative charging scheme that > more fair to small LIRs. > I myself, as pointed out before, prefer the ARIN model.
"1 LIR, 1 vote, 1 fee for the membership" seems to be the one where most LIRs can actually *agree* on.
Every charging scheme will be unfair to some - we had categories, and that was unfair to some, we had flat fees, and those are unfair to some, and even if we introduce fee-by-/24, it will be unfair to some.
Even if we totally ignore IPv4, there will still be people that say "someone with a larger yearly budget should pay more", and "non-profit members should be free!", and maybe they are right. But if we go there, some people will have to pay more than they did the year before, and they will find this unfair.
Conclusions left as homework to the reader.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 <https://www.google.com/ maps/search/Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen+14? entry=gmail&source=g> Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Many LIRs? I thing "few" is better word here. Each member has right to vote in many questions ultimately affects what services are provided. As a result, we vote ourselves out what RIPE does. ~20% members activelly voted (on last GM). The rest simply don't care, it doesn't bother them. From number of non-voters, it's impossible to infer their interest or disinterest. Not voting is also a way to exercise the right to vote. But let's not use the false argument that they aren't interested by additional services. There's no evidence for that. - Daniel On 6/2/25 10:43 AM, Alexandre wrote:
Many LIR aren't interrested by the additional services provided by the RIPE NCC. Having a fixed membership fees pushes the smallest LIR to either migrate to an other RIR, or to merge with other LIR to reduce exploitation costs. If the incencitive to make the smallest LIR to close or leave the RIPE NCC continues, that will mean increase of the membership fees for all the remaining LIR. And like that, by the end of the decade, the fees will be with 5 figures, and there will be only big players remaining, effectively owning the RIPE NCC. I'm not sure many orgs will enjoy this situation.
But let's not use the false argument that they aren't interested by additional services. There's no evidence for that.
My point isn't about the RIPE NCC services but the reduction of the number of members, which will mecanically increase the membership fees. The services provided by ARIN are good enough for all the LIR associated to this RIR. What makes the RIPE NCC region so special that we can't be satisfied by the ARIN services ? Especially when the fees are in a different order of magnitude. On my side, I'm aware of a big bunch of LIR ready to migrate to ARIN, especially with the LIR registration rule changes proposed this year. Yes they are probably the smallest LIR (actually not all of them, there are few notable actors), but when they will leave, how the RIPE NCC will manage the account balances in your opinion ? As a reminder, the last membership fees evolved partly because of merging and migrating LIR.
Many LIRs? I thing "few" is better word here. Each member has right to vote in many questions ultimately affects what services are provided.
"Few" in percentage is enough to start this migration. And it already started with the LIR merges this last years, else we wouldn't have this discussion now.
~20% members activelly voted (on last GM). The rest simply don't care, it doesn't bother them. From number of non-voters, it's impossible to infer their interest or disinterest. Not voting is also a way to exercise the right to vote.
The main big picture question in this aspect is : in the long run, would you prefer to make a significant part of this 20% of LIR disappear from the RIPE NCC region, with the increase fees associated, and be stuck with players bigger than you which don't care of "small" LIR like yours (unless you are AWS of Orange, you are always a small LIR compared to the biggest), or do you prefer to keep some diversity in the RIPE NCC ? Kind regards, Alexandre Le 02/06/2025 à 11:08, Daniel Suchy via members-discuss a écrit :
Many LIRs? I thing "few" is better word here. Each member has right to vote in many questions ultimately affects what services are provided.
As a result, we vote ourselves out what RIPE does.
~20% members activelly voted (on last GM). The rest simply don't care, it doesn't bother them. From number of non-voters, it's impossible to infer their interest or disinterest. Not voting is also a way to exercise the right to vote.
But let's not use the false argument that they aren't interested by additional services. There's no evidence for that.
- Daniel
On 6/2/25 10:43 AM, Alexandre wrote:
Many LIR aren't interrested by the additional services provided by the RIPE NCC. Having a fixed membership fees pushes the smallest LIR to either migrate to an other RIR, or to merge with other LIR to reduce exploitation costs. If the incencitive to make the smallest LIR to close or leave the RIPE NCC continues, that will mean increase of the membership fees for all the remaining LIR. And like that, by the end of the decade, the fees will be with 5 figures, and there will be only big players remaining, effectively owning the RIPE NCC. I'm not sure many orgs will enjoy this situation.
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members- discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/ mailman-3-migration/
Many LIRs? I thing "few" is better word here. Each member has right to vote in many questions ultimately affects what services are provided.
As a result, we vote ourselves out what RIPE does.
~20% members activelly voted (on last GM). The rest simply don't care, Really? https://labs.ripe.net/author/ilke-ilhan/gm-may-2025-a-deep-dive-into-low-tur... This GM definitely stands out with a fall in voter participation. Out of 19,713 eligible members, 1,207 registered to vote and 1,039 cast
On Mon, 2025-06-02 at 11:08 +0200, Daniel Suchy via members-discuss wrote: their votes, resulting in a 5.3% turnout.
it doesn't bother them. From number of non-voters, it's impossible to infer their interest or disinterest. Not voting is also a way to exercise the right to vote.
But let's not use the false argument that they aren't interested by additional services. There's no evidence for that.
- Daniel
On 6/2/25 10:43 AM, Alexandre wrote:
Many LIR aren't interrested by the additional services provided by the RIPE NCC. Having a fixed membership fees pushes the smallest LIR to either migrate to an other RIR, or to merge with other LIR to reduce exploitation costs. If the incencitive to make the smallest LIR to close or leave the RIPE NCC continues, that will mean increase of the membership fees for all the remaining LIR. And like that, by the end of the decade, the fees will be with 5 figures, and there will be only big players remaining, effectively owning the RIPE NCC. I'm not sure many orgs will enjoy this situation.
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
I say more... in this discussions only near 20-30 LIRs is active! It's looks like "a dead end". Serbulov Dmitry
Many LIRs? I thing "few" is better word here. Each member has right to vote in many questions ultimately affects what services are provided.
As a result, we vote ourselves out what RIPE does.
~20% members activelly voted (on last GM). The rest simply don't care, Really? https://labs.ripe.net/author/ilke-ilhan/gm-may-2025-a-deep-dive-into-low-tur... This GM definitely stands out with a fall in voter participation. Out of 19,713 eligible members, 1,207 registered to vote and 1,039 cast
On Mon, 2025-06-02 at 11:08 +0200, Daniel Suchy via members-discuss wrote: their votes, resulting in a 5.3% turnout.
it doesn't bother them. From number of non-voters, it's impossible to infer their interest or disinterest. Not voting is also a way to exercise the right to vote.
But let's not use the false argument that they aren't interested by additional services. There's no evidence for that.
- Daniel
On 6/2/25 10:43 AM, Alexandre wrote:
Many LIR aren't interrested by the additional services provided by the RIPE NCC. Having a fixed membership fees pushes the smallest LIR to either migrate to an other RIR, or to merge with other LIR to reduce exploitation costs. If the incencitive to make the smallest LIR to close or leave the RIPE NCC continues, that will mean increase of the membership fees for all the remaining LIR. And like that, by the end of the decade, the fees will be with 5 figures, and there will be only big players remaining, effectively owning the RIPE NCC. I'm not sure many orgs will enjoy this situation.
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
On 2 Jun 2025, at 20:02, sdy@a-n-t.ru wrote:
I say more... in this discussions only near 20-30 LIRs is active! It's looks like "a dead end".
That's because this thread is a repeat of last year, and possibly earlier. Partially in response to that, a task force was set up, with representatives from different types/origins of members, who wrote an excellent and thorough report. The report addresses many recurring ideas and questions, and makes clear recommendations. It feels like I should mention here that fixing IPv4 exhaustion was not within the scope or capabilities of the task force. This thread, originally a request for comments on that report, has had very few comments on the report. In fact, the mails in this giant thread make me question how many people in it have actually read the report. Which is too bad, because it's excellent work, and presents ideas on how we can actually move forward instead of in circles. Perhaps other members are simply bored of the repetition, and see no value in adding to this thread. Sasha
I agree, the report is not bad. But the report itself won't change anything. I initially made suggestions for changes, but also did not see any feedback (except for the clarification question). Serbulov Dmitry.
On 2 Jun 2025, at 20:02, sdy@a-n-t.ru wrote:
I say more... in this discussions only near 20-30 LIRs is active! It's looks like "a dead end".
That's because this thread is a repeat of last year, and possibly earlier. Partially in response to that, a task force was set up, with representatives from different types/origins of members, who wrote an excellent and thorough report. The report addresses many recurring ideas and questions, and makes clear recommendations. It feels like I should mention here that fixing IPv4 exhaustion was not within the scope or capabilities of the task force.
This thread, originally a request for comments on that report, has had very few comments on the report. In fact, the mails in this giant thread make me question how many people in it have actually read the report. Which is too bad, because it's excellent work, and presents ideas on how we can actually move forward instead of in circles.
Perhaps other members are simply bored of the repetition, and see no value in adding to this thread.
Sasha ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
----------------------------- С уважением Сербулов Дмитрий ООО "Альфа Нет Телеком" +7(498)785-8-000 раб. +7(495)940-92-11 доп. +7(925)518-10-69 сот.
We should start with the elections. I'm just thinking this out loud. 1. Elections should last 30/31 days (possibly 4 weeks/28 days) or from the 1st of the month to the end of the month. We have time, or does one of you need to know the results tomorrow? OK. 2. Bonuses for voters, e.g., credits for courses and exams. 3. Or, votes cast should be recorded as an election point, and as long as there are more "no votes" than "votes," the election must be repeated. Then it might just take a while for elections to take place. A vote below 30% is ridiculous; below 50%, an election should be declared void and restarted. Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen Walde IT-Systemhaus - CEO Dirk Walde - IT-Specialist Daniel Suchy via members-discuss schrieb:
Many LIRs? I thing "few" is better word here. Each member has right to vote in many questions ultimately affects what services are provided.
As a result, we vote ourselves out what RIPE does.
~20% members activelly voted (on last GM). The rest simply don't care, it doesn't bother them. From number of non-voters, it's impossible to infer their interest or disinterest. Not voting is also a way to exercise the right to vote.
But let's not use the false argument that they aren't interested by additional services. There's no evidence for that.
- Daniel
On 6/2/25 10:43 AM, Alexandre wrote:
Many LIR aren't interrested by the additional services provided by the RIPE NCC. Having a fixed membership fees pushes the smallest LIR to either migrate to an other RIR, or to merge with other LIR to reduce exploitation costs. If the incencitive to make the smallest LIR to close or leave the RIPE NCC continues, that will mean increase of the membership fees for all the remaining LIR. And like that, by the end of the decade, the fees will be with 5 figures, and there will be only big players remaining, effectively owning the RIPE NCC. I'm not sure many orgs will enjoy this situation.
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
You cannot force people to vote, you know. Kaj ________________________________ From: D. Walde - Walde IT-Systemhaus <walde@wcs-online.de> Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 00:01 To: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net>; Daniel Suchy <danny@danysek.cz> Subject: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month We should start with the elections. I'm just thinking this out loud. 1. Elections should last 30/31 days (possibly 4 weeks/28 days) or from the 1st of the month to the end of the month. We have time, or does one of you need to know the results tomorrow? OK. 2. Bonuses for voters, e.g., credits for courses and exams. 3. Or, votes cast should be recorded as an election point, and as long as there are more "no votes" than "votes," the election must be repeated. Then it might just take a while for elections to take place. A vote below 30% is ridiculous; below 50%, an election should be declared void and restarted. Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen Walde IT-Systemhaus - CEO Dirk Walde - IT-Specialist Daniel Suchy via members-discuss schrieb:
Many LIRs? I thing "few" is better word here. Each member has right to vote in many questions ultimately affects what services are provided.
As a result, we vote ourselves out what RIPE does.
~20% members activelly voted (on last GM). The rest simply don't care, it doesn't bother them. From number of non-voters, it's impossible to infer their interest or disinterest. Not voting is also a way to exercise the right to vote.
But let's not use the false argument that they aren't interested by additional services. There's no evidence for that.
- Daniel
On 6/2/25 10:43 AM, Alexandre wrote:
Many LIR aren't interrested by the additional services provided by the RIPE NCC. Having a fixed membership fees pushes the smallest LIR to either migrate to an other RIR, or to merge with other LIR to reduce exploitation costs. If the incencitive to make the smallest LIR to close or leave the RIPE NCC continues, that will mean increase of the membership fees for all the remaining LIR. And like that, by the end of the decade, the fees will be with 5 figures, and there will be only big players remaining, effectively owning the RIPE NCC. I'm not sure many orgs will enjoy this situation.
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailman.ripe.net%2Fmailman3%2Flists%2Fmembers-discuss.ripe.net%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C60d1a851fd98419665fe08dda2ade1bd%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638845589921463507%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=mSjdEcuc5bNWUITHrFtVWi0zyzUecq7i3kPbXKYLF1A%3D&reserved=0<https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/> As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.net%2Fmembership%2Fmail%2Fmailman-3-migration%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C60d1a851fd98419665fe08dda2ade1bd%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638845589921492301%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=sbA9AfVeGGFS83KmbBj5LF3z338GeuFf4HzJim1b%2FlY%3D&reserved=0<https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/>
To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailman.ripe.net%2Fmailman3%2Flists%2Fmembers-discuss.ripe.net%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C60d1a851fd98419665fe08dda2ade1bd%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638845589921514974%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=2v5th%2BsQ3rXKnu%2F8O%2FJv7e8Cfnkk2svCol4M2hkRqUQ%3D&reserved=0<https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/> As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.net%2Fmembership%2Fmail%2Fmailman-3-migration%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C60d1a851fd98419665fe08dda2ade1bd%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638845589921532580%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=aWX0cfZNfrUfAgEKxe8ySZWKcMseQcGFqym%2FlqbOYUQ%3D&reserved=0<https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/>
You can and you should. Countries with mandatory voting: - Australia - Belgium - Brazil - Argentina - Peru - Luxembourg - Singapore - Ecuador - Bolivia - Uruguay Australia has fines, Belgium will bar you from public employment, etc. Other countries dont have significant punishment, BUT, their last voting turnout 75%+. Non-profits? - International Trade Union Confederation - Mondragon Corporation - Amnestry international, Greenpeace and many others. Otherwise, you end up with situations like the one at RIPE, where 3.8% of voters changed the membership fee structure from category-based to a flat rate without asking many questions. On Tue, 2025-06-03 at 14:54 +0000, Kaj Niemi wrote:
You cannot force people to vote, you know.
Kaj From: D. Walde - Walde IT-Systemhaus <walde@wcs-online.de> Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 00:01 To: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net>; Daniel Suchy <danny@danysek.cz> Subject: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month
We should start with the elections.
I'm just thinking this out loud.
1. Elections should last 30/31 days (possibly 4 weeks/28 days) or from the 1st of the month to the end of the month. We have time, or does one of you need to know the results tomorrow? OK.
2. Bonuses for voters, e.g., credits for courses and exams.
3. Or, votes cast should be recorded as an election point, and as long as there are more "no votes" than "votes," the election must be repeated.
Then it might just take a while for elections to take place. A vote below 30% is ridiculous; below 50%, an election should be declared void and restarted.
Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Walde IT-Systemhaus - CEO Dirk Walde - IT-Specialist
Daniel Suchy via members-discuss schrieb:
Many LIRs? I thing "few" is better word here. Each member has right to vote in many questions ultimately affects what services are provided.
As a result, we vote ourselves out what RIPE does.
~20% members activelly voted (on last GM). The rest simply don't care, it doesn't bother them. From number of non-voters, it's impossible to infer their interest or disinterest. Not voting is also a way to exercise the right to vote.
But let's not use the false argument that they aren't interested by additional services. There's no evidence for that.
- Daniel
On 6/2/25 10:43 AM, Alexandre wrote:
Many LIR aren't interrested by the additional services provided by the RIPE NCC. Having a fixed membership fees pushes the smallest LIR to either migrate to an other RIR, or to merge with other LIR to reduce exploitation costs. If the incencitive to make the smallest LIR to close or leave the RIPE NCC continues, that will mean increase of the membership fees for all the remaining LIR. And like that, by the end of the decade, the fees will be with 5 figures, and there will be only big players remaining, effectively owning the RIPE NCC. I'm not sure many orgs will enjoy this situation.
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailman.ripe.net%2Fmailman3%2Flists%2Fmembers-discuss.ripe.net%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C60d1a851fd98419665fe08dda2ade1bd%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638845589921463507%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=mSjdEcuc5bNWUITHrFtVWi0zyzUecq7i3kPbXKYLF1A%3D&reserved=0 As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.net%2Fmembership%2Fmail%2Fmailman-3-migration%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C60d1a851fd98419665fe08dda2ade1bd%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638845589921492301%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=sbA9AfVeGGFS83KmbBj5LF3z338GeuFf4HzJim1b%2FlY%3D&reserved=0
To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit:https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F %2Fmailman.ripe.net%2Fmailman3%2Flists%2Fmembers- discuss.ripe.net%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C60d1a851fd98419665fe08dda2ade1b d%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638845589921514974%7CU nknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAi OiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=2v 5th%2BsQ3rXKnu%2F8O%2FJv7e8Cfnkk2svCol4M2hkRqUQ%3D&reserved=0 As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.net%2Fmembership%2Fmail%2Fmailman-3-migration%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C60d1a851fd98419665fe08dda2ade1bd%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638845589921532580%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=aWX0cfZNfrUfAgEKxe8ySZWKcMseQcGFqym%2FlqbOYUQ%3D&reserved=0 ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
I will stick to the fundamental democratic voting system, to have free, equal and secret voting. Actually one has roughly one and a half days to cast the vote. I do not think that the time frame stops someone from voting. Matthias Am 02.06.25 um 23:01 schrieb D. Walde - Walde IT-Systemhaus:
We should start with the elections.
I'm just thinking this out loud.
1. Elections should last 30/31 days (possibly 4 weeks/28 days) or from the 1st of the month to the end of the month. We have time, or does one of you need to know the results tomorrow? OK.
2. Bonuses for voters, e.g., credits for courses and exams.
3. Or, votes cast should be recorded as an election point, and as long as there are more "no votes" than "votes," the election must be repeated.
Then it might just take a while for elections to take place. A vote below 30% is ridiculous; below 50%, an election should be declared void and restarted.
Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen Walde IT-Systemhaus - CEO Dirk Walde - IT-Specialist
Daniel Suchy via members-discuss schrieb:
Many LIRs? I thing "few" is better word here. Each member has right to vote in many questions ultimately affects what services are provided.
As a result, we vote ourselves out what RIPE does.
~20% members activelly voted (on last GM). The rest simply don't care, it doesn't bother them. From number of non-voters, it's impossible to infer their interest or disinterest. Not voting is also a way to exercise the right to vote.
But let's not use the false argument that they aren't interested by additional services. There's no evidence for that.
- Daniel
On 6/2/25 10:43 AM, Alexandre wrote:
Many LIR aren't interrested by the additional services provided by the RIPE NCC. Having a fixed membership fees pushes the smallest LIR to either migrate to an other RIR, or to merge with other LIR to reduce exploitation costs. If the incencitive to make the smallest LIR to close or leave the RIPE NCC continues, that will mean increase of the membership fees for all the remaining LIR. And like that, by the end of the decade, the fees will be with 5 figures, and there will be only big players remaining, effectively owning the RIPE NCC. I'm not sure many orgs will enjoy this situation.
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
First of all, I would be in favor of giving people more time. We have time zones and other things to do. Start making the voting period a bit more open. Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen Matthias Brumm schrieb:
I will stick to the fundamental democratic voting system, to have free, equal and secret voting. Actually one has roughly one and a half days to cast the vote. I do not think that the time frame stops someone from voting.
Matthias
Am 02.06.25 um 23:01 schrieb D. Walde - Walde IT-Systemhaus:
We should start with the elections.
I'm just thinking this out loud.
1. Elections should last 30/31 days (possibly 4 weeks/28 days) or from the 1st of the month to the end of the month. We have time, or does one of you need to know the results tomorrow? OK.
2. Bonuses for voters, e.g., credits for courses and exams.
3. Or, votes cast should be recorded as an election point, and as long as there are more "no votes" than "votes," the election must be repeated.
Then it might just take a while for elections to take place. A vote below 30% is ridiculous; below 50%, an election should be declared void and restarted.
Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen Walde IT-Systemhaus - CEO Dirk Walde - IT-Specialist
Daniel Suchy via members-discuss schrieb:
Many LIRs? I thing "few" is better word here. Each member has right to vote in many questions ultimately affects what services are provided.
As a result, we vote ourselves out what RIPE does.
~20% members activelly voted (on last GM). The rest simply don't care, it doesn't bother them. From number of non-voters, it's impossible to infer their interest or disinterest. Not voting is also a way to exercise the right to vote.
But let's not use the false argument that they aren't interested by additional services. There's no evidence for that.
- Daniel
On 6/2/25 10:43 AM, Alexandre wrote:
Many LIR aren't interrested by the additional services provided by the RIPE NCC. Having a fixed membership fees pushes the smallest LIR to either migrate to an other RIR, or to merge with other LIR to reduce exploitation costs. If the incencitive to make the smallest LIR to close or leave the RIPE NCC continues, that will mean increase of the membership fees for all the remaining LIR. And like that, by the end of the decade, the fees will be with 5 figures, and there will be only big players remaining, effectively owning the RIPE NCC. I'm not sure many orgs will enjoy this situation.
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
I’d like to offer another perspective on this discussion: First, many members repeatedly raise the idea of leaving RIPE in favor of another RIR. Realistically, this isn’t feasible. A company operating primarily in the Middle East, for example, cannot simply register with ARIN. That path is only available to large international corporations with global incorporation. The vast majority of members must join RIPE - there was no real choice involved. Regarding voting: last year’s proposal to completely overhaul the charging scheme and abandon the flat fee model received over 900 votes - a significant number, likely representing more than half of actively engaged LIRs. It’s fair to say that many see the current model as deeply unfair. Last year, we were told that members cannot directly decide on fee levels because they are tied to the activity plan. But then it was clarified that the activity plan itself isn’t directly voted on either. This creates a governance loop that leaves members with little influence. “Start your own RIR” isn’t a viable solution. Lastly, the legal argument about Dutch law is confusing. RIPE covers a diverse region - from Israel and Lebanon to Russia and Ukraine - all under one umbrella. If the tiered model conflicts with Dutch regulations, could we not consider establishing a subsidiary in a more flexible jurisdiction (e.g., UAE)? That would better reflect the geographic and economic diversity of members.
On 3 Jun 2025, at 23:09, Matthias Brumm <matthias@brumm.net> wrote:
I will stick to the fundamental democratic voting system, to have free, equal and secret voting. Actually one has roughly one and a half days to cast the vote. I do not think that the time frame stops someone from voting.
Matthias
Am 02.06.25 um 23:01 schrieb D. Walde - Walde IT-Systemhaus: We should start with the elections.
I'm just thinking this out loud.
1. Elections should last 30/31 days (possibly 4 weeks/28 days) or from the 1st of the month to the end of the month. We have time, or does one of you need to know the results tomorrow? OK.
2. Bonuses for voters, e.g., credits for courses and exams.
3. Or, votes cast should be recorded as an election point, and as long as there are more "no votes" than "votes," the election must be repeated.
Then it might just take a while for elections to take place. A vote below 30% is ridiculous; below 50%, an election should be declared void and restarted.
Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen Walde IT-Systemhaus - CEO Dirk Walde - IT-Specialist
Daniel Suchy via members-discuss schrieb:
Many LIRs? I thing "few" is better word here. Each member has right to vote in many questions ultimately affects what services are provided.
As a result, we vote ourselves out what RIPE does.
~20% members activelly voted (on last GM). The rest simply don't care, it doesn't bother them. From number of non-voters, it's impossible to infer their interest or disinterest. Not voting is also a way to exercise the right to vote.
But let's not use the false argument that they aren't interested by additional services. There's no evidence for that.
- Daniel
On 6/2/25 10:43 AM, Alexandre wrote:
Many LIR aren't interrested by the additional services provided by the RIPE NCC. Having a fixed membership fees pushes the smallest LIR to either migrate to an other RIR, or to merge with other LIR to reduce exploitation costs. If the incencitive to make the smallest LIR to close or leave the RIPE NCC continues, that will mean increase of the membership fees for all the remaining LIR. And like that, by the end of the decade, the fees will be with 5 figures, and there will be only big players remaining, effectively owning the RIPE NCC. I'm not sure many orgs will enjoy this situation.
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Am Dienstag, 3. Juni 2025, 23:18:28 UTC+00:00:01 schrieb Mihail Fedorov:
Lastly, the legal argument about Dutch law is confusing. RIPE covers a diverse region - from Israel and Lebanon to Russia and Ukraine - all under one umbrella. If the tiered model conflicts with Dutch regulations, could we not consider establishing a subsidiary in a more flexible jurisdiction (e.g., UAE)? That would better reflect the geographic and economic diversity of members.
At least if Dutch law or EU (so called) law significantly interferes with the interests of the RIPE member community it should be an option to regularly check about relocation into a less restrictive jurisdiction (or even diversification over nultiple jurisdictions). cheers, niels. -- --- Niels Dettenbach Syndicat IT & Internet https://www.syndicat.com PGP: https://syndicat.com/pub_key.asc ---
Hi, On Wed, Jun 04, 2025 at 09:46:18AM +0200, Niels Dettenbach wrote:
At least if Dutch law or EU (so called) law significantly interferes with the interests of the RIPE member community it should be an option to regularly check about relocation into a less restrictive jurisdiction (or even diversification over nultiple jurisdictions).
I vastly prefer a *reliable* and non-discriminatory jurisdiction, even if sometimes annoying wrt GDPR or tax paying. The netherlands are a fairly good choice as far as history teaches us, other, especially non-EU countries in the RIPE service region, not so much. Some due to government stability, others due to corruption, again others due to human rights issues, general cost of living, etc. (Germany, for example, would not be a better choice than NL because you need 3 extra FTE to deal with Tax paperwork and nowadays immigration control...) Gert Doering -- long term RIPE member -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Am Freitag, 6. Juni 2025, 12:53:51 UTC+00:00:01 schrieben Sie:
(Germany, for example, would not be a better choice than NL because you need 3 extra FTE to deal with Tax paperwork and nowadays immigration control...) full ack ß)
The netherlands are a fairly good choice as far as history teaches us, other, especially non-EU countries in the RIPE service region, not so much. Some due to government stability, others due to corruption, again others due to human rights issues, general cost of living, etc. As someone who lives in EU / germany and in multiple countries of the RIPE service area i can understand why many RIPE memnbers from EU does that seems so while others (especially many from non-EU countries) have a different opinion about what they see as "reliability" or "stability" - not at least the (especially over the last decade - not to mention political games from the EU behind some of that) changed / exploded EU-regulation (which discriminates non EU citizens / companies / jurisdictions and is much higher then in many non-EU countries).
greetings from the transcaucasus, niels. -- --- Niels Dettenbach Syndicat IT & Internet https://www.syndicat.com PGP: https://syndicat.com/pub_key.asc ---
Hi,
Then it might just take a while for elections to take place. A vote below 30% is ridiculous; below 50%, an election should be declared void and restarted.
I don’t think the participation rate in RIPE NCC General Meetings is not exceptional for member-based not-for-profits in this sector. I’m aware of two IXPs that in the last week or two have had GMs with a turnout of 10% or less. One of those included a vote on a ground-up rewrite of the organisation’s MOU and a board election, plus the voting was open for a fortnight before the GM itself. I’m not saying this is desirable, I’m just saying it is not unusual. Rob
Supporting that. On Mon, 2025-06-02 at 23:01 +0200, D. Walde - Walde IT-Systemhaus wrote:
We should start with the elections.
I'm just thinking this out loud.
1. Elections should last 30/31 days (possibly 4 weeks/28 days) or from the 1st of the month to the end of the month. We have time, or does one of you need to know the results tomorrow? OK.
2. Bonuses for voters, e.g., credits for courses and exams.
3. Or, votes cast should be recorded as an election point, and as long as there are more "no votes" than "votes," the election must be repeated.
Then it might just take a while for elections to take place. A vote below 30% is ridiculous; below 50%, an election should be declared void and restarted.
Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Walde IT-Systemhaus - CEO Dirk Walde - IT-Specialist
Daniel Suchy via members-discuss schrieb:
Many LIRs? I thing "few" is better word here. Each member has right to vote in many questions ultimately affects what services are provided.
As a result, we vote ourselves out what RIPE does.
~20% members activelly voted (on last GM). The rest simply don't care, it doesn't bother them. From number of non-voters, it's impossible to infer their interest or disinterest. Not voting is also a way to exercise the right to vote.
But let's not use the false argument that they aren't interested by additional services. There's no evidence for that.
- Daniel
On 6/2/25 10:43 AM, Alexandre wrote:
Many LIR aren't interrested by the additional services provided by the RIPE NCC. Having a fixed membership fees pushes the smallest LIR to either migrate to an other RIR, or to merge with other LIR to reduce exploitation costs. If the incencitive to make the smallest LIR to close or leave the RIPE NCC continues, that will mean increase of the membership fees for all the remaining LIR. And like that, by the end of the decade, the fees will be with 5 figures, and there will be only big players remaining, effectively owning the RIPE NCC. I'm not sure many orgs will enjoy this situation.
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
I agree, but a little more, and we also need some kind of mechanism to involve all participants in important discussions. In the shared LIR space, rather than the wishes of those who voluntarily joined the mailing lists. Serbulov Dmitry.
Supporting that.
On Mon, 2025-06-02 at 23:01 +0200, D. Walde - Walde IT-Systemhaus wrote:
We should start with the elections.
I'm just thinking this out loud.
1. Elections should last 30/31 days (possibly 4 weeks/28 days) or from the 1st of the month to the end of the month. We have time, or does one of you need to know the results tomorrow? OK.
2. Bonuses for voters, e.g., credits for courses and exams.
3. Or, votes cast should be recorded as an election point, and as long as there are more "no votes" than "votes," the election must be repeated.
Then it might just take a while for elections to take place. A vote below 30% is ridiculous; below 50%, an election should be declared void and restarted.
Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Walde IT-Systemhaus - CEO Dirk Walde - IT-Specialist
Daniel Suchy via members-discuss schrieb:
Many LIRs? I thing "few" is better word here. Each member has right to vote in many questions ultimately affects what services are provided.
As a result, we vote ourselves out what RIPE does.
~20% members activelly voted (on last GM). The rest simply don't care, it doesn't bother them. From number of non-voters, it's impossible to infer their interest or disinterest. Not voting is also a way to exercise the right to vote.
But let's not use the false argument that they aren't interested by additional services. There's no evidence for that.
- Daniel
On 6/2/25 10:43 AM, Alexandre wrote:
Many LIR aren't interrested by the additional services provided by the RIPE NCC. Having a fixed membership fees pushes the smallest LIR to either migrate to an other RIR, or to merge with other LIR to reduce exploitation costs. If the incencitive to make the smallest LIR to close or leave the RIPE NCC continues, that will mean increase of the membership fees for all the remaining LIR. And like that, by the end of the decade, the fees will be with 5 figures, and there will be only big players remaining, effectively owning the RIPE NCC. I'm not sure many orgs will enjoy this situation.
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
* Serbulov Dmitry wrote:
I agree, but a little more, and we also need some kind of mechanism to involve all participants in important discussions. In the shared LIR space, rather than the wishes of those who voluntarily joined the mailing lists.
How about a biyearly face-to-face meeting in changing countries, so everybody can join? Just kidding: Please stop this debate, it leads to nowhere.
I have been participating in GM online since the opportunity arose. In 2025 year Face to face meeting around 22000 LIRs members is not good idea . If you do nothing, then nothing will change. And I see, now a lot of people agreeing on at least 2 things. 1. The payment scheme and the nature of the costs are increasingly inconsistent with the purpose of the NCC establishment. 2. The scheme of making important decisions does not allow even 50% of LIRs to be involved in their vote. I think this is bad and something needs to be done. Sorry, it's not a joke. Serbulov Dmitry
* Serbulov Dmitry wrote:
I agree, but a little more, and we also need some kind of mechanism to involve all participants in important discussions. In the shared LIR space, rather than the wishes of those who voluntarily joined the mailing lists.
How about a biyearly face-to-face meeting in changing countries, so everybody can join?
Just kidding: Please stop this debate, it leads to nowhere. ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
* Serbulov Dmitry wrote:
And I see, now a lot of people agreeing on at least 2 things.
No, you are extrapolating from a very small sample while ignoring the selection bias. Such claims are senseless.
I think this is bad and something needs to be done. Sorry, it's not a joke.
You want to change RIPE into a completely different organization, then it was founded and worked successfully for decades. I can only speculate about your reasoning behind, but I assume, that the (currently) silent majority does not agree with. So again: Please stop this debate, it leads to nowhere.
On Thursday, June 05, 2025 09:14 EEST, Lutz Donnerhacke <L.Donnerhacke@iks-service.de> wrote:
* Serbulov Dmitry wrote:
And I see, now a lot of people agreeing on at least 2 things.
No, you are extrapolating from a very small sample while ignoring the selection bias. Such claims are senseless.
I think this is bad and something needs to be done. Sorry, it's not a joke.
You want to change RIPE into a completely different organization, then it was founded and worked successfully for decades. I can only speculate about your reasoning behind, but I assume, that the (currently) silent majority does not agree with. RIPE worked successfully for decades under its original mission, but data analysis shows a clear trend of member rights erosion and declining performance in key operational areas compared to other RIRs. The organization is not adapting well to current trends and challenges. Mission adjustment isn't about destroying RIPE's legacy - it's about ensuring its continued relevance and effectiveness in today's environment. Even other RIRs, while imperfect, are outpacing RIPE NCC in several critical areas. Plus, you are claiming Dmitry have small sample, and making assumptions about silent majority without having any evidence at all.
So again: Please stop this debate, it leads to nowhere. I appreciate your perspective, but respectfully, no individual member has the authority to dictate when community debate should end. These discussions are fundamental to RIPE's democratic governance process. If you find the debate unproductive, you're welcome to disengage personally, but the community will continue discussing these important issues as long as members feel it's necessary.
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
* Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote:
RIPE worked successfully for decades under its original mission,
True.
but data analysis shows a clear trend of member rights erosion
False.
and declining performance in key operational areas compared to other RIRs.
False.
The organization is not adapting well to current trends and challenges.
False.
[...] it's about ensuring its continued relevance and effectiveness in today's environment. Even other RIRs, while imperfect, are outpacing RIPE NCC in several critical areas.
Please define "today's environment" as well as "areas", especially why other RIR are doing better. And please do not come up with anything around IPv4. This is an historic issue, which was handled in an excellent way in the RIPE region, despite a lot of bad actors gambling the policies. Nobody can change the history, we all have to deal with the present, and prepare for the future. The arguments in this thread are about member participation. There are several - unsubstantiated - claims, which tried to change something for an - undefined - purpose. As long as we are in this situation, I'll repeat myself and kindly ask you: Please stop this debate, it leads to nowhere.
If you find the debate unproductive, you're welcome to disengage personally, but the community will continue discussing these important issues as long as members feel it's necessary.
Silencing uncomfortable voices will not work either. We need a factual, rational debate. Without proper input, it repeats itself and leads to nowhere ...
Sorry Lutz, but you seem to imagine that RIPE NCC is someone's private shop. This is a community with equal rights. Even with all your desire, it is impossible to stop the processes of time. Please stop your senseless appeals. It looks like a provocation. [members-discussions] were created to discuss any topic within the bounds of decency. Your calls are completely out of place. If you want to offer something else, offer it. If you have arguments, state them.
* Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote:
RIPE worked successfully for decades under its original mission,
True.
but data analysis shows a clear trend of member rights erosion
False.
and declining performance in key operational areas compared to other RIRs.
False.
The organization is not adapting well to current trends and challenges.
False.
[...] it's about ensuring its continued relevance and effectiveness in today's environment. Even other RIRs, while imperfect, are outpacing RIPE NCC in several critical areas.
Please define "today's environment" as well as "areas", especially why other RIR are doing better.
And please do not come up with anything around IPv4. This is an historic issue, which was handled in an excellent way in the RIPE region, despite a lot of bad actors gambling the policies. Nobody can change the history, we all have to deal with the present, and prepare for the future.
The arguments in this thread are about member participation. There are several - unsubstantiated - claims, which tried to change something for an - undefined - purpose.
As long as we are in this situation, I'll repeat myself and kindly ask you: Please stop this debate, it leads to nowhere.
If you find the debate unproductive, you're welcome to disengage personally, but the community will continue discussing these important issues as long as members feel it's necessary.
Silencing uncomfortable voices will not work either. We need a factual, rational debate. Without proper input, it repeats itself and leads to nowhere ...
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
----------------------------- С уважением Сербулов Дмитрий ООО "Альфа Нет Телеком" +7(498)785-8-000 раб. +7(495)940-92-11 доп. +7(925)518-10-69 сот.
Hi, RIPE worked and still works the same way and I don't see any fundamental problem with it. And I don't see something else. Just some subjective feeling. But in this debate, I consider it a fundamental mistake to hide any argument behind the silent majority (and this argument is repeated). That is a false argument. if a real majority is dissatisfied, it will manifest itself differently. Yes, RIPE provides additional services that other RIRs don't. But mostly here is the value - for the good of the internet. Atlas is an amazing project, which helps detect problems, to anyone. Running one DNS root instance also makes sense. RIPEstat is also useful for troubleshoting routing issues. Policies in the region are determined not only by members, but by a much wider community. This allows non-members to participate. and I consider it a benefit that outside opinions can also enter the policy development process. There's no erosion in rights. Perhaps a relevant debate is some (real) split. If some regions are not satisfied, why not separate them into another (their) organization. If there;s 5 or 6-7 RIRs - that's not a problem. Of course, for RIPE, this would mean a decrease in income. And this may have an impact primarily on those services provided for the good of the internet. And of course this may lead to those who have "separated" from RIPE will lose access first. Or eventually the new RIR will start contributing himself to prevent it from happening. But I honestly don't think that this idea about split would gain wider support. And even if I mention it here, I probably wouldn't support it. TLDR: RIPE still works well... even though we may be dissatisfied with small details. but you can never satisfy everyone 100%. - Daniel On 6/5/25 11:38 AM, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote:
RIPE worked successfully for decades under its original mission, but data analysis shows a clear trend of member rights erosion and declining performance in key operational areas compared to other RIRs. The organization is not adapting well to current trends and challenges. Mission adjustment isn't about destroying RIPE's legacy - it's about ensuring its continued relevance and effectiveness in today's environment. Even other RIRs, while imperfect, are outpacing RIPE NCC in several critical areas.
Yes, with an unlimited budget, they operate very well. There’s no budget constraint. In the end, they can use whatever budget they want by simply referring to the formula “need / members”... Note important, if the member is de.telekom or the newest one. But i forgot i think, “THIS IS A MEMBER ORGANISATION”, isnt it… -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards Murat TERZIOGLU PREBITS - Premium Business IT Solutions Bochumer Str. 20 D-44866 Bochum Telefon: 0234/58825994 Telefax: 0234/58825995 www.prebits.de m.terzioglu@prebits.de USt-ID: DE315418902
Am 06.06.2025 um 10:48 schrieb Daniel Suchy via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net>:
Hi,
RIPE worked and still works the same way and I don't see any fundamental problem with it. And I don't see something else. Just some subjective feeling.
But in this debate, I consider it a fundamental mistake to hide any argument behind the silent majority (and this argument is repeated). That is a false argument. if a real majority is dissatisfied, it will manifest itself differently.
Yes, RIPE provides additional services that other RIRs don't. But mostly here is the value - for the good of the internet. Atlas is an amazing project, which helps detect problems, to anyone. Running one DNS root instance also makes sense. RIPEstat is also useful for troubleshoting routing issues.
Policies in the region are determined not only by members, but by a much wider community. This allows non-members to participate. and I consider it a benefit that outside opinions can also enter the policy development process. There's no erosion in rights.
Perhaps a relevant debate is some (real) split. If some regions are not satisfied, why not separate them into another (their) organization. If there;s 5 or 6-7 RIRs - that's not a problem.
Of course, for RIPE, this would mean a decrease in income. And this may have an impact primarily on those services provided for the good of the internet. And of course this may lead to those who have "separated" from RIPE will lose access first. Or eventually the new RIR will start contributing himself to prevent it from happening.
But I honestly don't think that this idea about split would gain wider support. And even if I mention it here, I probably wouldn't support it.
TLDR: RIPE still works well... even though we may be dissatisfied with small details. but you can never satisfy everyone 100%.
- Daniel
On 6/5/25 11:38 AM, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote: RIPE worked successfully for decades under its original mission, but data analysis shows a clear trend of member rights erosion and declining performance in key operational areas compared to other RIRs. The organization is not adapting well to current trends and challenges. Mission adjustment isn't about destroying RIPE's legacy - it's about ensuring its continued relevance and effectiveness in today's environment. Even other RIRs, while imperfect, are outpacing RIPE NCC in several critical areas.
To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Hi, Yes, RIPE is still running and providing some valuable services. But the fact that a system still functions doesn’t mean it’s in good shape — North Korea functions too. A system can keep running for a long time even if it’s outdated, inefficient, or unjust. Survival alone isn’t a sign of health — it just means collapse hasn’t arrived yet. And in any such system, those benefiting from the status quo naturally resist change. “You can’t satisfy everyone 100%” is often used to shut down criticism, but in practice, it just protects those already satisfied. It turns real concerns into background noise. As for the silent majority — silence doesn’t equal support. Most people stay quiet not because they’re happy, but because they haven’t yet been pushed past their limits. That’s not approval; it’s tolerance, often temporary. About the idea of a split — I agree that fragmentation isn’t necessarily desirable. But not all internal conflict needs to end in separation. Germany is a good example: East and West had deep divides, but eventual reform and reintegration were possible. Sometimes the better path is fixing the system from within, not walking away. Best regards, Chenyang On Jun 6, 2025, at 16:46, Daniel Suchy via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> wrote: Hi, RIPE worked and still works the same way and I don't see any fundamental problem with it. And I don't see something else. Just some subjective feeling. But in this debate, I consider it a fundamental mistake to hide any argument behind the silent majority (and this argument is repeated). That is a false argument. if a real majority is dissatisfied, it will manifest itself differently. Yes, RIPE provides additional services that other RIRs don't. But mostly here is the value - for the good of the internet. Atlas is an amazing project, which helps detect problems, to anyone. Running one DNS root instance also makes sense. RIPEstat is also useful for troubleshoting routing issues. Policies in the region are determined not only by members, but by a much wider community. This allows non-members to participate. and I consider it a benefit that outside opinions can also enter the policy development process. There's no erosion in rights. Perhaps a relevant debate is some (real) split. If some regions are not satisfied, why not separate them into another (their) organization. If there;s 5 or 6-7 RIRs - that's not a problem. Of course, for RIPE, this would mean a decrease in income. And this may have an impact primarily on those services provided for the good of the internet. And of course this may lead to those who have "separated" from RIPE will lose access first. Or eventually the new RIR will start contributing himself to prevent it from happening. But I honestly don't think that this idea about split would gain wider support. And even if I mention it here, I probably wouldn't support it. TLDR: RIPE still works well... even though we may be dissatisfied with small details. but you can never satisfy everyone 100%. - Daniel On 6/5/25 11:38 AM, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote: RIPE worked successfully for decades under its original mission, but data analysis shows a clear trend of member rights erosion and declining performance in key operational areas compared to other RIRs. The organization is not adapting well to current trends and challenges. Mission adjustment isn't about destroying RIPE's legacy - it's about ensuring its continued relevance and effectiveness in today's environment. Even other RIRs, while imperfect, are outpacing RIPE NCC in several critical areas. ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
My friend. If you don't want to discuss it, don't do it. No problem at all. But don't tell anyone else what to do or not to do. You're not the director here. Your position was clear from the first message. Don't repeat yourself in platitudes. With respect to your position, Serbulov Dmitry.
* Serbulov Dmitry wrote:
And I see, now a lot of people agreeing on at least 2 things.
No, you are extrapolating from a very small sample while ignoring the selection bias. Such claims are senseless.
I think this is bad and something needs to be done. Sorry, it's not a joke.
You want to change RIPE into a completely different organization, then it was founded and worked successfully for decades. I can only speculate about your reasoning behind, but I assume, that the (currently) silent majority does not agree with.
So again: Please stop this debate, it leads to nowhere. ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Hi Serbulov , Sorry, but at the moment, you're telling everyone else what to do and what not to do. You just received a reply telling you that you don’t speak for everyone. Do you not want to accept that? What high horse are you on? Your position is clear, yet you persist in repeating it. -- Kind regards Sebastian Becker Von: sdy@a-n-t.ru <sdy@a-n-t.ru> Datum: Freitag, 6. Juni 2025 um 10:38 An: Lutz Donnerhacke <L.Donnerhacke@iks-service.de> Cc: 'members-discuss@ripe.net' <members-discuss@ripe.net> Betreff: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month My friend. If you don't want to discuss it, don't do it. No problem at all. But don't tell anyone else what to do or not to do. You're not the director here. Your position was clear from the first message. Don't repeat yourself in platitudes. With respect to your position, Serbulov Dmitry.
* Serbulov Dmitry wrote:
And I see, now a lot of people agreeing on at least 2 things.
No, you are extrapolating from a very small sample while ignoring the selection bias. Such claims are senseless.
I think this is bad and something needs to be done. Sorry, it's not a joke.
You want to change RIPE into a completely different organization, then it was founded and worked successfully for decades. I can only speculate about your reasoning behind, but I assume, that the (currently) silent majority does not agree with.
So again: Please stop this debate, it leads to nowhere. ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://deu01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailman.ripe.net%2Fmailman3%2Flists%2Fmembers-discuss.ripe.net%2F&data=05%7C02%7CSebastian-Becker%40telekom.de%7C5bda5ac5ed7c45000a2308dda4d56f83%7Cbde4dffc4b604cf68b04a5eeb25f5c4f%7C0%7C0%7C638847958817823484%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=LDa3GE1uRzw36BTsrlp05HbWsvMOm6gkKdnXNQsh8Ys%3D&reserved=0<https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/> As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://deu01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.net%2Fmembership%2Fmail%2Fmailman-3-migration%2F&data=05%7C02%7CSebastian-Becker%40telekom.de%7C5bda5ac5ed7c45000a2308dda4d56f83%7Cbde4dffc4b604cf68b04a5eeb25f5c4f%7C0%7C0%7C638847958817850896%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=j6ccBfP036RrLxRK0glC6sfu90VYaLUSbqLL4nkB2Ac%3D&reserved=0<https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/>
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://deu01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailman.ripe.net%2Fmailman3%2Flists%2Fmembers-discuss.ripe.net%2F&data=05%7C02%7CSebastian-Becker%40telekom.de%7C5bda5ac5ed7c45000a2308dda4d56f83%7Cbde4dffc4b604cf68b04a5eeb25f5c4f%7C0%7C0%7C638847958817867067%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=7NYhaSl2X9Ys1hPJEqK%2F1828Cy1ypvDPhQzV%2FjoKcmU%3D&reserved=0<https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/> As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://deu01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.net%2Fmembership%2Fmail%2Fmailman-3-migration%2F&data=05%7C02%7CSebastian-Becker%40telekom.de%7C5bda5ac5ed7c45000a2308dda4d56f83%7Cbde4dffc4b604cf68b04a5eeb25f5c4f%7C0%7C0%7C638847958817884027%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=leh87atCBjRlxtLJ7N2xPSLGjisN7NHStp0%2BUM6ug7E%3D&reserved=0<https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/>
Hi!
Your position was clear from the first message. Don't repeat yourself in platitudes.
Can you do likewise ? I think this is what triggers the response. -- MfG/Best regards, Kurt Jaeger Now what ? Dr.-Ing. Nepustil & Co. GmbH fon +49 7123 93006-0 pi@nepustil.net Rathausstr. 3 mob +49 171 3101372 72658 Bempflingen
On 04/06/2025 10:02:21, sdy@a-n-t.ru wrote:
I agree, but a little more, and we also need some kind of mechanism to involve all participants in important discussions. In the shared LIR space, rather than the wishes of those who voluntarily joined the mailing lists.
You can't. Many do not want to be involved. To a business it does not matter than this service is provided by a not for profit with member involvement. All they want is the service to be provided without drama or rapid/radical surprise changes in policy or pricing. The higher voter turn out a few years back occurred when that stability was threatened. Generally we trust the NCC to just get on with it and go along with their suggestions, except when it was attempted to change the payment model from flat to categories which had significant failings. 1. the categories weighted the bulk of costs on lower tiers resulting in relatively small members paying more. There are only two fair models where everyone is equal - flat fee and per /24. With categories and similar you are choosing who to be unfair to. 2. it failed to account for the people who gamed the system to take lots of the final reserved v4 space and are now selling them off or consolidating the fake memberships. As they leave the costs will be split between fewer members. With the previous categories that would have resulted in the smaller members facing much larger cost increases. 3. the budget grew with those new LIRs, it is not being adjusted back down to match membership reductions, we are going to be paying more no matter how many vote for any charging scheme.
On Mon, 2025-06-02 at 23:01 +0200, D. Walde - Walde IT-Systemhaus wrote:
1. Elections should last 30/31 days (possibly 4 weeks/28 days) or from the 1st of the month to the end of the month. We have time, or does one of you need to know the results tomorrow? OK.
I don't object to longer but it likely won't affect the turn out much, the things being voted for can affect it.
3. Or, votes cast should be recorded as an election point, and as long as there are more "no votes" than "votes," the election must be repeated.
I suspect that will result in endless repeats. brandon
APNIC - Pioneer of Tiered Membership (June 1996) APNIC introduced the first tier-based membership model with "Small, Medium, Large" categories, establishing key principles that continue today: Financial sustainability: Replaced unpredictable donations with stable, self-funding revenue covering operations, registry systems, and policy development Proportional fairness: Fees scale with resource holdings (doubling approximately every 3 bits), eliminating cross-subsidization between large and small members Prudent reserves: Maintains 10-15% margin above break-even for resilience against inflation and currency fluctuations Governance alignment: Voting rights correspond to fee tiers, with special provisions for National Internet Registries Subsequent refinements (1999-2001) added mandatory tier selection and additional size categories while preserving these core principles. LACNIC - Comprehensive 23-Level System (September 2005) LACNIC adopted its tiered structure following approval at the Lima General Assembly: Independence milestone: Replaced NIC.BR startup funding with fully member-supported budget Workload-based pricing: Organizations with larger blocks (/16, /15) pay proportionally to their registry impact Accessibility focus: Entry-level tiers (starting at /24-/22) reduced barriers for small and rural operators Regional harmonization: Aligned with APNIC and RIPE NCC models to facilitate multi-region operations The current structure ranges from $600 (XS) to $365,000 (XXL) annually, maintaining LACNIC's debt-free status while keeping median fees below $1,000. ARIN - Service-Based Alternative While ARIN hasn't adopted membership tiers, its Registration Services Plan achieves similar outcomes through usage-based fees for IPv4, IPv6, and ASN resources—essentially "pay for what you use" rather than flat membership dues. All three approaches share the fundamental goal of sustainable, equitable cost recovery. When big resource holder and small - pay same flat fee - it is not fair. On Sat, 2025-05-31 at 13:28 +0000, Kaj Niemi wrote:
I think you misunderstand me.
Saying “the other RIRs do this, we must too” doesn’t make it right, fair, better, or even worse. Nothing provided supports why they’ve made that decision. Yet you're convinced it is better. Ok. I politely once again observe it'll be better for you.
You claim that tiered is better than flat. But in flat everyone pays the same. How can paying the same for membership be unfair?
I'm not the biggest fan of the RIPE NCC budget nor what it spends the funds on, as evidenced by previous posts over the years, yet here I'm arguing for it. Nuts.
Kaj (who qualified for the extra small category in 2008 and every year since)
Sent from my iPad
From: Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net> Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2025 4:06 PM To: Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> Cc: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>; members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month
Let me understand you well, we shouldn't have tiered charging because other LIRs are doing it and that would be copying? A tiered model is not right because it's of the benefit of the large majority of LIRs, but because it's fair. What has the cost per IP or economies of scale have anything to do with this discussion, this discussion is how to FAIRLY distribute the RIPE costs, and anyone that's 5 years or older knows that this current flat fee is very unfair for most LIRs, which are small. I don't understand why large LIRs are so much against this. Nobody's asking you to pay millions, but come on, it's only fair that you pay a bit more than LIRs with one /24 allocation are you that greedy?
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 15:53 Kaj Niemi, <kajtzu@basen.net> wrote:
Assuming Gert (or his employer) really has 11872 addresses, as you claim, the LTV is significantly higher to the organization considering what they've paid over the years.
Besides your statement, that a tiered model is the right thing to do [for your benefit is implied here], there isn't anything supporting it. There is a term for copying another someone else's charging scheme or business model. It's called cargo culting. They might have made other assumptions than what you have.
Similarly, I can claim that it cannot be a cost issue because, given current pricing, at less than two cents per day per IP address the pricing structure is certainly sustainable by anyone and thus fair given what we know about the market. Yes, if you have more addresses your cost per address will be even lower. Economies of scale and all that. What you seemingly want to do is to drive your own cost down at the expense of others. Which is far from fair.
Kaj (who doesn't have 11872 addresses)
Sent from my iPad
From: Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net> Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2025 3:17 PM To: Gert Doering <gert@space.net> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month
And by the way, for those that say it has to be a flat fee because of taxes in the Netherlands or whatever. Currently there's a fee per ASN, so the LIRs pay 50 EUR ASN which isn't a flat fee. A tiered model is possible and the right thing to do (again, everyone other than RIPE does it) Only objectors are people like Gert that manage 11872 IPv4 and want to keep paying the same fees as someone that hold 256 IPs
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:45 Jean Salim, <jean@bsmart-isp.net> wrote:
That's not true, last time you were afraid of even putting a tiered model on the ballot while the vast majority of LIRs (which are very small LIRs) wanted to have an option to vote on a tiered model, but you didn't even have the guts to put it to vote.
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:41 Gert Doering, <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 01:36:27PM +0300, Jean Salim wrote:
We missed you Gert, I was surprised you disappeared as you're always the one to mislead the conversation away from charging scheme. I would like yo hear your proposal on an alternative charging scheme that more fair to small LIRs. I myself, as pointed out before, prefer the ARIN model.
"1 LIR, 1 vote, 1 fee for the membership" seems to be the one where most LIRs can actually *agree* on.
Every charging scheme will be unfair to some - we had categories, and that was unfair to some, we had flat fees, and those are unfair to some, and even if we introduce fee-by-/24, it will be unfair to some.
Even if we totally ignore IPv4, there will still be people that say "someone with a larger yearly budget should pay more", and "non-profit members should be free!", and maybe they are right. But if we go there, some people will have to pay more than they did the year before, and they will find this unfair.
Conclusions left as homework to the reader.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
But please Denys, hasn’t someone already said, "if the big players pay more, they'll just leave" 😊 For example I got an enlightening idea from "Evgeniy", that I don’t need to be a LIR. I could just lease from another provider 😊 I am thinking!! The employees of BIG players, which don’t pay anything their self for membership, but talking here about charging scheme. I think their companies gave them another task to talk in members-discus to hold expenses for their companies low 😊 -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards Murat TERZIOGLU PREBITS Bochumer Str. 20 44866 Bochum Deutschland Telefon: 0234/58825994 Telefax: 0234/58825995 www.prebits.de info@prebits.de USt-ID: DE315418902 -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Denys Fedoryshchenko <nuclearcat@nuclearcat.com> Gesendet: Samstag, 31. Mai 2025 16:29 An: members-discuss@ripe.net Betreff: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month APNIC - Pioneer of Tiered Membership (June 1996) APNIC introduced the first tier-based membership model with "Small, Medium, Large" categories, establishing key principles that continue today: Financial sustainability: Replaced unpredictable donations with stable, self-funding revenue covering operations, registry systems, and policy development Proportional fairness: Fees scale with resource holdings (doubling approximately every 3 bits), eliminating cross-subsidization between large and small members Prudent reserves: Maintains 10-15% margin above break-even for resilience against inflation and currency fluctuations Governance alignment: Voting rights correspond to fee tiers, with special provisions for National Internet Registries Subsequent refinements (1999-2001) added mandatory tier selection and additional size categories while preserving these core principles. LACNIC - Comprehensive 23-Level System (September 2005) LACNIC adopted its tiered structure following approval at the Lima General Assembly: Independence milestone: Replaced NIC.BR startup funding with fully member-supported budget Workload-based pricing: Organizations with larger blocks (/16, /15) pay proportionally to their registry impact Accessibility focus: Entry-level tiers (starting at /24-/22) reduced barriers for small and rural operators Regional harmonization: Aligned with APNIC and RIPE NCC models to facilitate multi-region operations The current structure ranges from $600 (XS) to $365,000 (XXL) annually, maintaining LACNIC's debt-free status while keeping median fees below $1,000. ARIN - Service-Based Alternative While ARIN hasn't adopted membership tiers, its Registration Services Plan achieves similar outcomes through usage-based fees for IPv4, IPv6, and ASN resources—essentially "pay for what you use" rather than flat membership dues. All three approaches share the fundamental goal of sustainable, equitable cost recovery. When big resource holder and small - pay same flat fee - it is not fair. On Sat, 2025-05-31 at 13:28 +0000, Kaj Niemi wrote:
I think you misunderstand me.
Saying “the other RIRs do this, we must too” doesn’t make it right, fair, better, or even worse. Nothing provided supports why they’ve made that decision. Yet you're convinced it is better. Ok. I politely once again observe it'll be better for you.
You claim that tiered is better than flat. But in flat everyone pays the same. How can paying the same for membership be unfair?
I'm not the biggest fan of the RIPE NCC budget nor what it spends the funds on, as evidenced by previous posts over the years, yet here I'm arguing for it. Nuts.
Kaj (who qualified for the extra small category in 2008 and every year since)
Sent from my iPad
From: Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net> Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2025 4:06 PM To: Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> Cc: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>; members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month
Let me understand you well, we shouldn't have tiered charging because other LIRs are doing it and that would be copying? A tiered model is not right because it's of the benefit of the large majority of LIRs, but because it's fair. What has the cost per IP or economies of scale have anything to do with this discussion, this discussion is how to FAIRLY distribute the RIPE costs, and anyone that's 5 years or older knows that this current flat fee is very unfair for most LIRs, which are small. I don't understand why large LIRs are so much against this. Nobody's asking you to pay millions, but come on, it's only fair that you pay a bit more than LIRs with one /24 allocation are you that greedy?
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 15:53 Kaj Niemi, <kajtzu@basen.net> wrote:
Assuming Gert (or his employer) really has 11872 addresses, as you claim, the LTV is significantly higher to the organization considering what they've paid over the years.
Besides your statement, that a tiered model is the right thing to do [for your benefit is implied here], there isn't anything supporting it. There is a term for copying another someone else's charging scheme or business model. It's called cargo culting. They might have made other assumptions than what you have.
Similarly, I can claim that it cannot be a cost issue because, given current pricing, at less than two cents per day per IP address the pricing structure is certainly sustainable by anyone and thus fair given what we know about the market. Yes, if you have more addresses your cost per address will be even lower. Economies of scale and all that. What you seemingly want to do is to drive your own cost down at the expense of others. Which is far from fair.
Kaj (who doesn't have 11872 addresses)
Sent from my iPad
From: Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net> Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2025 3:17 PM To: Gert Doering <gert@space.net> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month
And by the way, for those that say it has to be a flat fee because of taxes in the Netherlands or whatever. Currently there's a fee per ASN, so the LIRs pay 50 EUR ASN which isn't a flat fee. A tiered model is possible and the right thing to do (again, everyone other than RIPE does it) Only objectors are people like Gert that manage 11872 IPv4 and want to keep paying the same fees as someone that hold 256 IPs
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:45 Jean Salim, <jean@bsmart-isp.net> wrote:
That's not true, last time you were afraid of even putting a tiered model on the ballot while the vast majority of LIRs (which are very small LIRs) wanted to have an option to vote on a tiered model, but you didn't even have the guts to put it to vote.
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:41 Gert Doering, <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 01:36:27PM +0300, Jean Salim wrote:
We missed you Gert, I was surprised you disappeared as you're always the one to mislead the conversation away from charging scheme. I would like yo hear your proposal on an alternative charging scheme that more fair to small LIRs. I myself, as pointed out before, prefer the ARIN model.
"1 LIR, 1 vote, 1 fee for the membership" seems to be the one where most LIRs can actually *agree* on.
Every charging scheme will be unfair to some - we had categories, and that was unfair to some, we had flat fees, and those are unfair to some, and even if we introduce fee-by-/24, it will be unfair to some.
Even if we totally ignore IPv4, there will still be people that say "someone with a larger yearly budget should pay more", and "non-profit members should be free!", and maybe they are right. But if we go there, some people will have to pay more than they did the year before, and they will find this unfair.
Conclusions left as homework to the reader.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Hi, If I'm not mistaken we don't own PA IP addresses, we are granted the rights to operate them by RIRs. When more rights are granted to some members, wouldn't be normal to pay more fees ? Kind regards, Le 31/05/2025 à 15:28, Kaj Niemi a écrit :
I think you misunderstand me.
Saying “the other RIRs do this, we must too” doesn’t make it right, fair, better, or even worse. Nothing provided supports why they’ve made that decision. Yet you're convinced it is better. Ok. I politely once again observe it'll be better for you.
You claim that tiered is better than flat. But in flat everyone pays the same. How can paying the same for membership be unfair?
I'm not the biggest fan of the RIPE NCC budget nor what it spends the funds on, as evidenced by previous posts over the years, yet here I'm arguing for it. Nuts.
Kaj (who qualified for the _extra small_ category in 2008 and every year since)
Sent from my iPad
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net> *Sent:* Saturday, May 31, 2025 4:06 PM *To:* Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> *Cc:* Gert Doering <gert@space.net>; members-discuss@ripe.net <members- discuss@ripe.net> *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month Let me understand you well, we shouldn't have tiered charging because other LIRs are doing it and that would be copying? A tiered model is not right because it's of the benefit of the large majority of LIRs, but because it's fair. What has the cost per IP or economies of scale have anything to do with this discussion, this discussion is how to FAIRLY distribute the RIPE costs, and anyone that's 5 years or older knows that this current flat fee is very unfair for most LIRs, which are small. I don't understand why large LIRs are so much against this. Nobody's asking you to pay millions, but come on, it's only fair that you pay a bit more than LIRs with one /24 allocation are you that greedy?
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 15:53 Kaj Niemi, <kajtzu@basen.net <mailto:kajtzu@basen.net>> wrote:
Assuming Gert (or his employer) really has 11872 addresses, as you claim, the LTV is significantly higher to the organization considering what they've paid over the years.
Besides your statement, that a tiered model is the right thing to do [for your benefit is implied here], there isn't anything supporting it. There is a term for copying another someone else's charging scheme or business model. It's called cargo culting. They might have made other assumptions than what you have.
Similarly, I can claim that it cannot be a cost issue because, given current pricing, at less than two cents per day per IP address the pricing structure is certainly sustainable by anyone and thus fair given what we know about the market. Yes, if you have more addresses your cost per address will be even lower. Economies of scale and all that. What you seemingly want to do is to drive your own cost down at the expense of others. Which is far from fair.
Kaj (who doesn't have 11872 addresses)
Sent from my iPad
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net <mailto:jean@bsmart-isp.net>> *Sent:* Saturday, May 31, 2025 3:17 PM *To:* Gert Doering <gert@space.net <mailto:gert@space.net>> *Cc:* members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members- discuss@ripe.net> <members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members- discuss@ripe.net>> *Subject:* [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month And by the way, for those that say it has to be a flat fee because of taxes in the Netherlands or whatever. Currently there's a fee per ASN, so the LIRs pay 50 EUR ASN which isn't a flat fee. A tiered model is possible and the right thing to do (again, everyone other than RIPE does it) Only objectors are people like Gert that manage 11872 IPv4 and want to keep paying the same fees as someone that hold 256 IPs
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:45 Jean Salim, <jean@bsmart-isp.net <mailto:jean@bsmart-isp.net>> wrote:
That's not true, last time you were afraid of even putting a tiered model on the ballot while the vast majority of LIRs (which are very small LIRs) wanted to have an option to vote on a tiered model, but you didn't even have the guts to put it to vote.
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:41 Gert Doering, <gert@space.net <mailto:gert@space.net>> wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 01:36:27PM +0300, Jean Salim wrote: > We missed you Gert, I was surprised you disappeared as you're always the > one to mislead the conversation away from charging scheme. > I would like yo hear your proposal on an alternative charging scheme that > more fair to small LIRs. > I myself, as pointed out before, prefer the ARIN model.
"1 LIR, 1 vote, 1 fee for the membership" seems to be the one where most LIRs can actually *agree* on.
Every charging scheme will be unfair to some - we had categories, and that was unfair to some, we had flat fees, and those are unfair to some, and even if we introduce fee-by-/24, it will be unfair to some.
Even if we totally ignore IPv4, there will still be people that say "someone with a larger yearly budget should pay more", and "non-profit members should be free!", and maybe they are right. But if we go there, some people will have to pay more than they did the year before, and they will find this unfair.
Conclusions left as homework to the reader.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 <https://www.google.com/maps/ search/Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen+14?entry=gmail&source=g> Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Конфіденційно/Confidential Hi Jean, I'm really interested in understanding your perspective. If you became an LIR 5 years ago, when there was already a fixed fee and free IPv4 addresses were practically unavailable, it's practically the same situation as now. What has changed that satisfied you then but no longer satisfies you now? P.S. In any case, if we talk about cost distribution between LIRs, the RIPE costs should be fairly distributed based on the consumed RIPE services (that bring these costs) by each LIR, not on the address allocation size for this LIR. RIPE services include different services and projects. These services are consumed by different LIRs almost independently of IPv4 allocation size. From: Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net> Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2025 4:06 PM To: Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> Cc: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month Let me understand you well, we shouldn't have tiered charging because other LIRs are doing it and that would be copying? A tiered model is not right because it's of the benefit of the large majority of LIRs, but because it's fair. What has the cost per IP or economies of scale have anything to do with this discussion, this discussion is how to FAIRLY distribute the RIPE costs, and anyone that's 5 years or older knows that this current flat fee is very unfair for most LIRs, which are small. I don't understand why large LIRs are so much against this. Nobody's asking you to pay millions, but come on, it's only fair that you pay a bit more than LIRs with one /24 allocation are you that greedy? On Sat, 31 May 2025, 15:53 Kaj Niemi, <kajtzu@basen.net<mailto:kajtzu@basen.net>> wrote: Assuming Gert (or his employer) really has 11872 addresses, as you claim, the LTV is significantly higher to the organization considering what they've paid over the years. Besides your statement, that a tiered model is the right thing to do [for your benefit is implied here], there isn't anything supporting it. There is a term for copying another someone else's charging scheme or business model. It's called cargo culting. They might have made other assumptions than what you have. Similarly, I can claim that it cannot be a cost issue because, given current pricing, at less than two cents per day per IP address the pricing structure is certainly sustainable by anyone and thus fair given what we know about the market. Yes, if you have more addresses your cost per address will be even lower. Economies of scale and all that. What you seemingly want to do is to drive your own cost down at the expense of others. Which is far from fair. Kaj (who doesn't have 11872 addresses) Sent from my iPad ________________________________ From: Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net<mailto:jean@bsmart-isp.net>> Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2025 3:17 PM To: Gert Doering <gert@space.net<mailto:gert@space.net>> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> <members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> Subject: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month And by the way, for those that say it has to be a flat fee because of taxes in the Netherlands or whatever. Currently there's a fee per ASN, so the LIRs pay 50 EUR ASN which isn't a flat fee. A tiered model is possible and the right thing to do (again, everyone other than RIPE does it) Only objectors are people like Gert that manage 11872 IPv4 and want to keep paying the same fees as someone that hold 256 IPs On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:45 Jean Salim, <jean@bsmart-isp.net<mailto:jean@bsmart-isp.net>> wrote: That's not true, last time you were afraid of even putting a tiered model on the ballot while the vast majority of LIRs (which are very small LIRs) wanted to have an option to vote on a tiered model, but you didn't even have the guts to put it to vote. On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:41 Gert Doering, <gert@space.net<mailto:gert@space.net>> wrote: Hi, On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 01:36:27PM +0300, Jean Salim wrote:
We missed you Gert, I was surprised you disappeared as you're always the one to mislead the conversation away from charging scheme. I would like yo hear your proposal on an alternative charging scheme that more fair to small LIRs. I myself, as pointed out before, prefer the ARIN model.
"1 LIR, 1 vote, 1 fee for the membership" seems to be the one where most LIRs can actually *agree* on. Every charging scheme will be unfair to some - we had categories, and that was unfair to some, we had flat fees, and those are unfair to some, and even if we introduce fee-by-/24, it will be unfair to some. Even if we totally ignore IPv4, there will still be people that say "someone with a larger yearly budget should pay more", and "non-profit members should be free!", and maybe they are right. But if we go there, some people will have to pay more than they did the year before, and they will find this unfair. Conclusions left as homework to the reader. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14<https://www.google.com/maps/search/Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen+14?entry=gmail&source=g> Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
What makes you think I was satisfied back then? It was and still is unfair. On Sat, 31 May 2025, 19:10 Evgeniy Brodskiy, <Evgeniy.Brodskiy@kyivstar.net> wrote:
Конфіденційно/Confidential
Hi Jean,
I'm really interested in understanding your perspective. If you became an LIR 5 years ago, when there was already a fixed fee and free IPv4 addresses were practically unavailable, it's practically the same situation as now. What has changed that satisfied you then but no longer satisfies you now?
P.S. In any case, if we talk about cost distribution between LIRs, the RIPE costs should be fairly distributed based on the consumed RIPE services (that bring these costs) by each LIR, not on the address allocation size for this LIR. RIPE services include different services and projects. These services are consumed by different LIRs almost independently of IPv4 allocation size.
*From:* Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net> *Sent:* Saturday, May 31, 2025 4:06 PM *To:* Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> *Cc:* Gert Doering <gert@space.net>; members-discuss@ripe.net *Subject:* [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month
Let me understand you well, we shouldn't have tiered charging because other LIRs are doing it and that would be copying?
A tiered model is not right because it's of the benefit of the large majority of LIRs, but because it's fair.
What has the cost per IP or economies of scale have anything to do with this discussion, this discussion is how to FAIRLY distribute the RIPE costs, and anyone that's 5 years or older knows that this current flat fee is very unfair for most LIRs, which are small.
I don't understand why large LIRs are so much against this. Nobody's asking you to pay millions, but come on, it's only fair that you pay a bit more than LIRs with one /24 allocation are you that greedy?
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 15:53 Kaj Niemi, <kajtzu@basen.net> wrote:
Assuming Gert (or his employer) really has 11872 addresses, as you claim, the LTV is significantly higher to the organization considering what they've paid over the years.
Besides your statement, that a tiered model is the right thing to do [for your benefit is implied here], there isn't anything supporting it. There is a term for copying another someone else's charging scheme or business model. It's called cargo culting. They might have made other assumptions than what you have.
Similarly, I can claim that it cannot be a cost issue because, given current pricing, at less than two cents per day per IP address the pricing structure is certainly sustainable by anyone and thus fair given what we know about the market. Yes, if you have more addresses your cost per address will be even lower. Economies of scale and all that. What you seemingly want to do is to drive your own cost down at the expense of others. Which is far from fair.
Kaj (who doesn't have 11872 addresses)
Sent from my iPad
------------------------------
*From:* Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net> *Sent:* Saturday, May 31, 2025 3:17 PM *To:* Gert Doering <gert@space.net> *Cc:* members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> *Subject:* [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month
And by the way, for those that say it has to be a flat fee because of taxes in the Netherlands or whatever. Currently there's a fee per ASN, so the LIRs pay 50 EUR ASN which isn't a flat fee.
A tiered model is possible and the right thing to do (again, everyone other than RIPE does it)
Only objectors are people like Gert that manage 11872 IPv4 and want to keep paying the same fees as someone that hold 256 IPs
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:45 Jean Salim, <jean@bsmart-isp.net> wrote:
That's not true, last time you were afraid of even putting a tiered model on the ballot while the vast majority of LIRs (which are very small LIRs) wanted to have an option to vote on a tiered model, but you didn't even have the guts to put it to vote.
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:41 Gert Doering, <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 01:36:27PM +0300, Jean Salim wrote:
We missed you Gert, I was surprised you disappeared as you're always the one to mislead the conversation away from charging scheme. I would like yo hear your proposal on an alternative charging scheme that more fair to small LIRs. I myself, as pointed out before, prefer the ARIN model.
"1 LIR, 1 vote, 1 fee for the membership" seems to be the one where most LIRs can actually *agree* on.
Every charging scheme will be unfair to some - we had categories, and that was unfair to some, we had flat fees, and those are unfair to some, and even if we introduce fee-by-/24, it will be unfair to some.
Even if we totally ignore IPv4, there will still be people that say "someone with a larger yearly budget should pay more", and "non-profit members should be free!", and maybe they are right. But if we go there, some people will have to pay more than they did the year before, and they will find this unfair.
Conclusions left as homework to the reader.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen+14?entry=gmail&source=g> Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Конфіденційно/Confidential I think you was satisfied because you make a decision to become a LIR. Or what motivated you to become a LIR even if you are not satisfied with the conditions existed 5 years ago ? From: Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net> Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2025 7:12 PM To: Evgeniy Brodskiy <Evgeniy.Brodskiy@kyivstar.net> Cc: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>; members-discuss@ripe.net; Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month What makes you think I was satisfied back then? It was and still is unfair. On Sat, 31 May 2025, 19:10 Evgeniy Brodskiy, <Evgeniy.Brodskiy@kyivstar.net<mailto:Evgeniy.Brodskiy@kyivstar.net>> wrote: Конфіденційно/Confidential Hi Jean, I'm really interested in understanding your perspective. If you became an LIR 5 years ago, when there was already a fixed fee and free IPv4 addresses were practically unavailable, it's practically the same situation as now. What has changed that satisfied you then but no longer satisfies you now? P.S. In any case, if we talk about cost distribution between LIRs, the RIPE costs should be fairly distributed based on the consumed RIPE services (that bring these costs) by each LIR, not on the address allocation size for this LIR. RIPE services include different services and projects. These services are consumed by different LIRs almost independently of IPv4 allocation size. From: Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net<mailto:jean@bsmart-isp.net>> Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2025 4:06 PM To: Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net<mailto:kajtzu@basen.net>> Cc: Gert Doering <gert@space.net<mailto:gert@space.net>>; members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month Let me understand you well, we shouldn't have tiered charging because other LIRs are doing it and that would be copying? A tiered model is not right because it's of the benefit of the large majority of LIRs, but because it's fair. What has the cost per IP or economies of scale have anything to do with this discussion, this discussion is how to FAIRLY distribute the RIPE costs, and anyone that's 5 years or older knows that this current flat fee is very unfair for most LIRs, which are small. I don't understand why large LIRs are so much against this. Nobody's asking you to pay millions, but come on, it's only fair that you pay a bit more than LIRs with one /24 allocation are you that greedy? On Sat, 31 May 2025, 15:53 Kaj Niemi, <kajtzu@basen.net<mailto:kajtzu@basen.net>> wrote: Assuming Gert (or his employer) really has 11872 addresses, as you claim, the LTV is significantly higher to the organization considering what they've paid over the years. Besides your statement, that a tiered model is the right thing to do [for your benefit is implied here], there isn't anything supporting it. There is a term for copying another someone else's charging scheme or business model. It's called cargo culting. They might have made other assumptions than what you have. Similarly, I can claim that it cannot be a cost issue because, given current pricing, at less than two cents per day per IP address the pricing structure is certainly sustainable by anyone and thus fair given what we know about the market. Yes, if you have more addresses your cost per address will be even lower. Economies of scale and all that. What you seemingly want to do is to drive your own cost down at the expense of others. Which is far from fair. Kaj (who doesn't have 11872 addresses) Sent from my iPad ________________________________ From: Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net<mailto:jean@bsmart-isp.net>> Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2025 3:17 PM To: Gert Doering <gert@space.net<mailto:gert@space.net>> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> <members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> Subject: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month And by the way, for those that say it has to be a flat fee because of taxes in the Netherlands or whatever. Currently there's a fee per ASN, so the LIRs pay 50 EUR ASN which isn't a flat fee. A tiered model is possible and the right thing to do (again, everyone other than RIPE does it) Only objectors are people like Gert that manage 11872 IPv4 and want to keep paying the same fees as someone that hold 256 IPs On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:45 Jean Salim, <jean@bsmart-isp.net<mailto:jean@bsmart-isp.net>> wrote: That's not true, last time you were afraid of even putting a tiered model on the ballot while the vast majority of LIRs (which are very small LIRs) wanted to have an option to vote on a tiered model, but you didn't even have the guts to put it to vote. On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:41 Gert Doering, <gert@space.net<mailto:gert@space.net>> wrote: Hi, On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 01:36:27PM +0300, Jean Salim wrote:
We missed you Gert, I was surprised you disappeared as you're always the one to mislead the conversation away from charging scheme. I would like yo hear your proposal on an alternative charging scheme that more fair to small LIRs. I myself, as pointed out before, prefer the ARIN model.
"1 LIR, 1 vote, 1 fee for the membership" seems to be the one where most LIRs can actually *agree* on. Every charging scheme will be unfair to some - we had categories, and that was unfair to some, we had flat fees, and those are unfair to some, and even if we introduce fee-by-/24, it will be unfair to some. Even if we totally ignore IPv4, there will still be people that say "someone with a larger yearly budget should pay more", and "non-profit members should be free!", and maybe they are right. But if we go there, some people will have to pay more than they did the year before, and they will find this unfair. Conclusions left as homework to the reader. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14<https://www.google.com/maps/search/Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen+14?entry=gmail&source=g> Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
I'm honestly not getting you. If you're trying to make a point, you're failing at it. If it was unfair then, and still unfair now to small LIRs. That doesn't mean it should stay as it is. On Sat, 31 May 2025, 19:20 Evgeniy Brodskiy, <Evgeniy.Brodskiy@kyivstar.net> wrote:
Конфіденційно/Confidential
I think you was satisfied because you make a decision to become a LIR.
Or what motivated you to become a LIR even if you are not satisfied with the conditions existed 5 years ago ?
*From:* Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net> *Sent:* Saturday, May 31, 2025 7:12 PM *To:* Evgeniy Brodskiy <Evgeniy.Brodskiy@kyivstar.net> *Cc:* Gert Doering <gert@space.net>; members-discuss@ripe.net; Kaj Niemi < kajtzu@basen.net> *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month
What makes you think I was satisfied back then? It was and still is unfair.
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 19:10 Evgeniy Brodskiy, < Evgeniy.Brodskiy@kyivstar.net> wrote:
Конфіденційно/Confidential
Hi Jean,
I'm really interested in understanding your perspective. If you became an LIR 5 years ago, when there was already a fixed fee and free IPv4 addresses were practically unavailable, it's practically the same situation as now. What has changed that satisfied you then but no longer satisfies you now?
P.S. In any case, if we talk about cost distribution between LIRs, the RIPE costs should be fairly distributed based on the consumed RIPE services (that bring these costs) by each LIR, not on the address allocation size for this LIR. RIPE services include different services and projects. These services are consumed by different LIRs almost independently of IPv4 allocation size.
*From:* Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net> *Sent:* Saturday, May 31, 2025 4:06 PM *To:* Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> *Cc:* Gert Doering <gert@space.net>; members-discuss@ripe.net *Subject:* [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month
Let me understand you well, we shouldn't have tiered charging because other LIRs are doing it and that would be copying?
A tiered model is not right because it's of the benefit of the large majority of LIRs, but because it's fair.
What has the cost per IP or economies of scale have anything to do with this discussion, this discussion is how to FAIRLY distribute the RIPE costs, and anyone that's 5 years or older knows that this current flat fee is very unfair for most LIRs, which are small.
I don't understand why large LIRs are so much against this. Nobody's asking you to pay millions, but come on, it's only fair that you pay a bit more than LIRs with one /24 allocation are you that greedy?
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 15:53 Kaj Niemi, <kajtzu@basen.net> wrote:
Assuming Gert (or his employer) really has 11872 addresses, as you claim, the LTV is significantly higher to the organization considering what they've paid over the years.
Besides your statement, that a tiered model is the right thing to do [for your benefit is implied here], there isn't anything supporting it. There is a term for copying another someone else's charging scheme or business model. It's called cargo culting. They might have made other assumptions than what you have.
Similarly, I can claim that it cannot be a cost issue because, given current pricing, at less than two cents per day per IP address the pricing structure is certainly sustainable by anyone and thus fair given what we know about the market. Yes, if you have more addresses your cost per address will be even lower. Economies of scale and all that. What you seemingly want to do is to drive your own cost down at the expense of others. Which is far from fair.
Kaj (who doesn't have 11872 addresses)
Sent from my iPad
------------------------------
*From:* Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net> *Sent:* Saturday, May 31, 2025 3:17 PM *To:* Gert Doering <gert@space.net> *Cc:* members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> *Subject:* [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month
And by the way, for those that say it has to be a flat fee because of taxes in the Netherlands or whatever. Currently there's a fee per ASN, so the LIRs pay 50 EUR ASN which isn't a flat fee.
A tiered model is possible and the right thing to do (again, everyone other than RIPE does it)
Only objectors are people like Gert that manage 11872 IPv4 and want to keep paying the same fees as someone that hold 256 IPs
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:45 Jean Salim, <jean@bsmart-isp.net> wrote:
That's not true, last time you were afraid of even putting a tiered model on the ballot while the vast majority of LIRs (which are very small LIRs) wanted to have an option to vote on a tiered model, but you didn't even have the guts to put it to vote.
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:41 Gert Doering, <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 01:36:27PM +0300, Jean Salim wrote:
We missed you Gert, I was surprised you disappeared as you're always the one to mislead the conversation away from charging scheme. I would like yo hear your proposal on an alternative charging scheme that more fair to small LIRs. I myself, as pointed out before, prefer the ARIN model.
"1 LIR, 1 vote, 1 fee for the membership" seems to be the one where most LIRs can actually *agree* on.
Every charging scheme will be unfair to some - we had categories, and that was unfair to some, we had flat fees, and those are unfair to some, and even if we introduce fee-by-/24, it will be unfair to some.
Even if we totally ignore IPv4, there will still be people that say "someone with a larger yearly budget should pay more", and "non-profit members should be free!", and maybe they are right. But if we go there, some people will have to pay more than they did the year before, and they will find this unfair.
Conclusions left as homework to the reader.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen+14?entry=gmail&source=g> Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hi Murat, Tells this an employee of a private isp with 3672 x /24 subnets I don't see any complaints from ISPs with 3672 x /24 about the current membership fee, so there doesn't seem to be a reason to propose them giving up the LIR status. Our internet dosnt belong only to you or companies like yours I have never said statement like this or something that can be understand as a statement like this. The internet belongs to everyone who can connect to Internet. And connectivity to internet is much more then just IPv4 address. So everyone has the right to use these resources Of course, and as soon as resources become available, RIPE distributes them among LIRs according to current policies, but to be an LIR, you need to pay membership fees. can not and should not use our common resources It is not your resources. As far as I know, there is no right to own IPv4, only to allocate them. e assigned these resources according to their intended purpose, providing customers access to the internet, and now you blame us for doing so. Btw. When did you get the right to decide who should have access to the internet and who should not? Because you dont pay for the ipv4 nothing at that time… Please explain which RIPE policy we violated and when exactly? What exactly is wrong with my suggestion to you save money on membership fees and only pay for PI sponsorship? Didn't you say that your fee is too high for you that you don’t have any benefits paying same amount of many as any other LIR and using only /24? It is logical, if you have only one /24, then PI sponsorship is cheaper. From: Murat Terzioglu | PREBITS <m.terzioglu@prebits.de> Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2025 9:54 PM To: Evgeniy Brodskiy <Evgeniy.Brodskiy@kyivstar.net> Cc: Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net>; Gert Doering <gert@space.net>; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month Tells this an employee of a private isp with 3672 x /24 subnets, which they lease for commercial gains and willing to pay for benefit maker resources only as much as a provider with /22 subnet. Why, because this is a membership organisation. Nope, this is wrong way. Our internet dosnt belong only to you or companies like yours. So everyone has the right to use these resources. But because kyivstar were estabilished years ago can not and should not use our common resources for their commercial benefit and pay nothing. Because you dont pay for the ipv4 nothing at that time… -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards Murat TERZIOGLU PREBITS - Premium Business IT Solutions Bochumer Str. 20 D-44866 Bochum Telefon: 0234/58825994 Telefax: 0234/58825995 www.prebits.de<http://www.prebits.de> m.terzioglu@prebits.de<mailto:m.terzioglu@prebits.de> USt-ID: DE315418902 Am 31.05.2025 um 19:17 schrieb Evgeniy Brodskiy via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>>: Конфіденційно/Confidential Hi Jean, I'm really interested in understanding your perspective. If you became an LIR 5 years ago, when there was already a fixed fee and free IPv4 addresses were practically unavailable, it's practically the same situation as now. What has changed that satisfied you then but no longer satisfies you now? P.S. In any case, if we talk about cost distribution between LIRs, the RIPE costs should be fairly distributed based on the consumed RIPE services (that bring these costs) by each LIR, not on the address allocation size for this LIR. RIPE services include different services and projects. These services are consumed by different LIRs almost independently of IPv4 allocation size. From: Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net<mailto:jean@bsmart-isp.net>> Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2025 4:06 PM To: Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net<mailto:kajtzu@basen.net>> Cc: Gert Doering <gert@space.net<mailto:gert@space.net>>; members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month Let me understand you well, we shouldn't have tiered charging because other LIRs are doing it and that would be copying? A tiered model is not right because it's of the benefit of the large majority of LIRs, but because it's fair. What has the cost per IP or economies of scale have anything to do with this discussion, this discussion is how to FAIRLY distribute the RIPE costs, and anyone that's 5 years or older knows that this current flat fee is very unfair for most LIRs, which are small. I don't understand why large LIRs are so much against this. Nobody's asking you to pay millions, but come on, it's only fair that you pay a bit more than LIRs with one /24 allocation are you that greedy? On Sat, 31 May 2025, 15:53 Kaj Niemi, <kajtzu@basen.net<mailto:kajtzu@basen.net>> wrote: Assuming Gert (or his employer) really has 11872 addresses, as you claim, the LTV is significantly higher to the organization considering what they've paid over the years. Besides your statement, that a tiered model is the right thing to do [for your benefit is implied here], there isn't anything supporting it. There is a term for copying another someone else's charging scheme or business model. It's called cargo culting. They might have made other assumptions than what you have. Similarly, I can claim that it cannot be a cost issue because, given current pricing, at less than two cents per day per IP address the pricing structure is certainly sustainable by anyone and thus fair given what we know about the market. Yes, if you have more addresses your cost per address will be even lower. Economies of scale and all that. What you seemingly want to do is to drive your own cost down at the expense of others. Which is far from fair. Kaj (who doesn't have 11872 addresses) Sent from my iPad ________________________________ From: Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net<mailto:jean@bsmart-isp.net>> Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2025 3:17 PM To: Gert Doering <gert@space.net<mailto:gert@space.net>> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> <members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> Subject: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month And by the way, for those that say it has to be a flat fee because of taxes in the Netherlands or whatever. Currently there's a fee per ASN, so the LIRs pay 50 EUR ASN which isn't a flat fee. A tiered model is possible and the right thing to do (again, everyone other than RIPE does it) Only objectors are people like Gert that manage 11872 IPv4 and want to keep paying the same fees as someone that hold 256 IPs On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:45 Jean Salim, <jean@bsmart-isp.net<mailto:jean@bsmart-isp.net>> wrote: That's not true, last time you were afraid of even putting a tiered model on the ballot while the vast majority of LIRs (which are very small LIRs) wanted to have an option to vote on a tiered model, but you didn't even have the guts to put it to vote. On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:41 Gert Doering, <gert@space.net<mailto:gert@space.net>> wrote: Hi, On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 01:36:27PM +0300, Jean Salim wrote:
We missed you Gert, I was surprised you disappeared as you're always the one to mislead the conversation away from charging scheme. I would like yo hear your proposal on an alternative charging scheme that more fair to small LIRs. I myself, as pointed out before, prefer the ARIN model.
"1 LIR, 1 vote, 1 fee for the membership" seems to be the one where most LIRs can actually *agree* on. Every charging scheme will be unfair to some - we had categories, and that was unfair to some, we had flat fees, and those are unfair to some, and even if we introduce fee-by-/24, it will be unfair to some. Even if we totally ignore IPv4, there will still be people that say "someone with a larger yearly budget should pay more", and "non-profit members should be free!", and maybe they are right. But if we go there, some people will have to pay more than they did the year before, and they will find this unfair. Conclusions left as homework to the reader. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14<https://www.google.com/maps/search/Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen+14?entry=gmail&source=g> Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Sorry about the fee model and the statutes, and the community can't approve of it. When community companies make such blatant profits as in the above examples. You pay €1,850 annually as a member. Renting out a /18 for €5,700 a month = 12 * €5,700 = €68,400 a year. If you can do the math = €68,400 - 1,850 = €66,550 profit just on a /18 network. Community would mean giving back the networks you don't actively use. But that's where we're at. Members don't want to pay anything, but they want to bring out sacks of money. PS: I don't have a single IPv4 network. Not even a /24. If anyone would like to sponsor me, please do. Transfer documents via Ripe are happy to accept anything from /24 to /22. I don't need anything more than /22 for myself or my company. That's only 1024 IPs. I'd also cover the transfer costs and a coffee or a beer. Or invite you to a barbecue in Solingen, NRW, Germany... You have to pay for the flight yourself, but you can sleep on my couch. Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen Walde IT-Systemhaus - CEO Dirk Walde - IT-Specialist 1
Your characterization of resource-based charging as "cargo culting" is both incorrect and dismissive. This is not about blindly copying others - it's about implementing established best practices that have been proven effective across multiple RIRs and non-profit organizations worldwide. These organizations have adopted resource-based models precisely because they recognize the fundamental unfairness of flat- rate pricing in a global context. If your only counterargument is to misapply labels rather than address the substantive issues, it suggests the weakness lies in your position, not mine. Your claim that "less than two cents per day per IP address" makes the current pricing "certainly sustainable by anyone" reveals a profound disconnect from global economic realities. This argument echoes the apocryphal 'let them eat cake' attributed to Marie Antoinette - a phrase that, regardless of its dubious origins, has become the perfect metaphor for the wealthy's inability to comprehend the struggles of those with less EUR2,000 represents several months' - or even a year's - salary in many disadvantaged countries. What you casually dismiss as pocket change can be the difference between maintaining critical internet infrastructure or shutting down services that communities depend on. Your assertion that this is "sustainable by anyone" demonstrates either willful ignorance of global economic disparities or a troubling indifference to them. Furthermore, your accusation that we want to "drive our own costs down at the expense of others" is a fundamental misrepresentation. A properly implemented resource-based charging system doesn't shift costs - it distributes them equitably based on actual resource consumption. Large address holders paying proportionally more isn't "unfair" - it's a recognition that they consume more resources, derive proportionally more value from the system, and have greater capacity to support it. The current flat-rate model is what truly drives costs "at the expense of others" - specifically, at the expense of smaller organizations in developing nations who subsidize larger entities through disproportionate fee burdens relative to their resources and usage. On Sat, 2025-05-31 at 12:53 +0000, Kaj Niemi wrote:
Assuming Gert (or his employer) really has 11872 addresses, as you claim, the LTV is significantly higher to the organization considering what they've paid over the years.
Besides your statement, that a tiered model is the right thing to do [for your benefit is implied here], there isn't anything supporting it. There is a term for copying another someone else's charging scheme or business model. It's called cargo culting. They might have made other assumptions than what you have.
Similarly, I can claim that it cannot be a cost issue because, given current pricing, at less than two cents per day per IP address the pricing structure is certainly sustainable by anyone and thus fair given what we know about the market. Yes, if you have more addresses your cost per address will be even lower. Economies of scale and all that. What you seemingly want to do is to drive your own cost down at the expense of others. Which is far from fair.
Kaj (who doesn't have 11872 addresses)
Sent from my iPad
From: Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net> Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2025 3:17 PM To: Gert Doering <gert@space.net> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month
And by the way, for those that say it has to be a flat fee because of taxes in the Netherlands or whatever. Currently there's a fee per ASN, so the LIRs pay 50 EUR ASN which isn't a flat fee. A tiered model is possible and the right thing to do (again, everyone other than RIPE does it) Only objectors are people like Gert that manage 11872 IPv4 and want to keep paying the same fees as someone that hold 256 IPs
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:45 Jean Salim, <jean@bsmart-isp.net> wrote:
That's not true, last time you were afraid of even putting a tiered model on the ballot while the vast majority of LIRs (which are very small LIRs) wanted to have an option to vote on a tiered model, but you didn't even have the guts to put it to vote.
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:41 Gert Doering, <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 01:36:27PM +0300, Jean Salim wrote:
We missed you Gert, I was surprised you disappeared as you're always the one to mislead the conversation away from charging scheme. I would like yo hear your proposal on an alternative charging scheme that more fair to small LIRs. I myself, as pointed out before, prefer the ARIN model.
"1 LIR, 1 vote, 1 fee for the membership" seems to be the one where most LIRs can actually *agree* on.
Every charging scheme will be unfair to some - we had categories, and that was unfair to some, we had flat fees, and those are unfair to some, and even if we introduce fee-by-/24, it will be unfair to some.
Even if we totally ignore IPv4, there will still be people that say "someone with a larger yearly budget should pay more", and "non- profit members should be free!", and maybe they are right. But if we go there, some people will have to pay more than they did the year before, and they will find this unfair.
Conclusions left as homework to the reader.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner- Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Last time Greedy Gert said that 2000 EUR is just the price of an SFP and we should just go with it. 2000 EUR is the yearly salary of a whole family in Syria. Just pay for two SFPs Gert and be fair to those small resource holders instead of findings twisted ways to make them subsidize your resource usage. On Sat, 31 May 2025, 17:27 Denys Fedoryshchenko, <nuclearcat@nuclearcat.com> wrote:
Your characterization of resource-based charging as "cargo culting" is both incorrect and dismissive. This is not about blindly copying others - it's about implementing established best practices that have been proven effective across multiple RIRs and non-profit organizations worldwide. These organizations have adopted resource-based models precisely because they recognize the fundamental unfairness of flat- rate pricing in a global context. If your only counterargument is to misapply labels rather than address the substantive issues, it suggests the weakness lies in your position, not mine.
Your claim that "less than two cents per day per IP address" makes the current pricing "certainly sustainable by anyone" reveals a profound disconnect from global economic realities. This argument echoes the apocryphal 'let them eat cake' attributed to Marie Antoinette - a phrase that, regardless of its dubious origins, has become the perfect metaphor for the wealthy's inability to comprehend the struggles of those with less
EUR2,000 represents several months' - or even a year's - salary in many disadvantaged countries. What you casually dismiss as pocket change can be the difference between maintaining critical internet infrastructure or shutting down services that communities depend on. Your assertion that this is "sustainable by anyone" demonstrates either willful ignorance of global economic disparities or a troubling indifference to them.
Furthermore, your accusation that we want to "drive our own costs down at the expense of others" is a fundamental misrepresentation. A properly implemented resource-based charging system doesn't shift costs - it distributes them equitably based on actual resource consumption. Large address holders paying proportionally more isn't "unfair" - it's a recognition that they consume more resources, derive proportionally more value from the system, and have greater capacity to support it.
The current flat-rate model is what truly drives costs "at the expense of others" - specifically, at the expense of smaller organizations in developing nations who subsidize larger entities through disproportionate fee burdens relative to their resources and usage.
On Sat, 2025-05-31 at 12:53 +0000, Kaj Niemi wrote:
Assuming Gert (or his employer) really has 11872 addresses, as you claim, the LTV is significantly higher to the organization considering what they've paid over the years.
Besides your statement, that a tiered model is the right thing to do [for your benefit is implied here], there isn't anything supporting it. There is a term for copying another someone else's charging scheme or business model. It's called cargo culting. They might have made other assumptions than what you have.
Similarly, I can claim that it cannot be a cost issue because, given current pricing, at less than two cents per day per IP address the pricing structure is certainly sustainable by anyone and thus fair given what we know about the market. Yes, if you have more addresses your cost per address will be even lower. Economies of scale and all that. What you seemingly want to do is to drive your own cost down at the expense of others. Which is far from fair.
Kaj (who doesn't have 11872 addresses)
Sent from my iPad
From: Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net> Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2025 3:17 PM To: Gert Doering <gert@space.net> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month
And by the way, for those that say it has to be a flat fee because of taxes in the Netherlands or whatever. Currently there's a fee per ASN, so the LIRs pay 50 EUR ASN which isn't a flat fee. A tiered model is possible and the right thing to do (again, everyone other than RIPE does it) Only objectors are people like Gert that manage 11872 IPv4 and want to keep paying the same fees as someone that hold 256 IPs
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:45 Jean Salim, <jean@bsmart-isp.net> wrote:
That's not true, last time you were afraid of even putting a tiered model on the ballot while the vast majority of LIRs (which are very small LIRs) wanted to have an option to vote on a tiered model, but you didn't even have the guts to put it to vote.
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:41 Gert Doering, <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 01:36:27PM +0300, Jean Salim wrote:
We missed you Gert, I was surprised you disappeared as you're always the one to mislead the conversation away from charging scheme. I would like yo hear your proposal on an alternative charging scheme that more fair to small LIRs. I myself, as pointed out before, prefer the ARIN model.
"1 LIR, 1 vote, 1 fee for the membership" seems to be the one where most LIRs can actually *agree* on.
Every charging scheme will be unfair to some - we had categories, and that was unfair to some, we had flat fees, and those are unfair to some, and even if we introduce fee-by-/24, it will be unfair to some.
Even if we totally ignore IPv4, there will still be people that say "someone with a larger yearly budget should pay more", and "non- profit members should be free!", and maybe they are right. But if we go there, some people will have to pay more than they did the year before, and they will find this unfair.
Conclusions left as homework to the reader.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner- Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Hi, On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 05:36:55PM +0300, Jean Salim wrote:
Last time Greedy Gert said that 2000 EUR is just the price of an SFP and we should just go with it. 2000 EUR is the yearly salary of a whole family in Syria. Just pay for two SFPs Gert and be fair to those small resource holders instead of findings twisted ways to make them subsidize your resource usage.
Not sure where you found that quote. We can not afford to buy SFPs for that price. Gert Doering -- master of confusion -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Gerd, I'd suggest you just be social and give me a /24 or /22 via ripe transfer for €50 into your coffee account plus 19% German VAT. If you don't have a problem with social responsibility among members. Since I don't have a single IPv4, and you apparently have enough. Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen Walde IT-Systemhaus - CEO Dirk Walde - IT-Specialist Gert Doering schrieb:
Hi,
On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 05:36:55PM +0300, Jean Salim wrote:
Last time Greedy Gert said that 2000 EUR is just the price of an SFP and we should just go with it. 2000 EUR is the yearly salary of a whole family in Syria. Just pay for two SFPs Gert and be fair to those small resource holders instead of findings twisted ways to make them subsidize your resource usage.
Not sure where you found that quote. We can not afford to buy SFPs for that price.
Gert Doering -- master of confusion
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Thanks for public confirmation that *YOUR* participation in this discussion about the charging scheme change is just only about you want to grab something for yourself. Just personal profit. I understand your fluustration. As a German entity you're paying to entity with Russian roots to earn your IPv4. From my point of view to speculators who found weaknesses in the distribution of the last /8 in IPv4 past years. But those rules were created by the community itself. The responsibility has different aspects. And the aspect of which supplier you choose is one of them. Especially nowadays. You always have a choice. But the solution isn't to vent your personal anger on someone who is not the speculator. Gert isn't the cause of *your* problems. - Daniel On 5/31/25 9:22 PM, D. Walde - Walde IT-Systemhaus wrote:
Gerd, I'd suggest you just be social and give me a /24 or /22 via ripe transfer for €50 into your coffee account plus 19% German VAT.
If you don't have a problem with social responsibility among members.
Since I don't have a single IPv4, and you apparently have enough.
Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen Walde IT-Systemhaus - CEO Dirk Walde - IT-Specialist
Some mistakes (and crimes) not only have no statute of limitations, but can be successfully corrected. Serbulov Dmitry
Thanks for public confirmation that *YOUR* participation in this discussion about the charging scheme change is just only about you want to grab something for yourself. Just personal profit.
I understand your fluustration. As a German entity you're paying to entity with Russian roots to earn your IPv4. From my point of view to speculators who found weaknesses in the distribution of the last /8 in IPv4 past years. But those rules were created by the community itself.
The responsibility has different aspects. And the aspect of which supplier you choose is one of them. Especially nowadays. You always have a choice. But the solution isn't to vent your personal anger on someone who is not the speculator. Gert isn't the cause of *your* problems.
- Daniel
On 5/31/25 9:22 PM, D. Walde - Walde IT-Systemhaus wrote:
Gerd, I'd suggest you just be social and give me a /24 or /22 via ripe transfer for €50 into your coffee account plus 19% German VAT.
If you don't have a problem with social responsibility among members.
Since I don't have a single IPv4, and you apparently have enough.
Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen Walde IT-Systemhaus - CEO Dirk Walde - IT-Specialist
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Sure, in your personal case, he should apologize for your country brazenly attacking a country that you yourself previously recognized as sovereign. And yes, a lot of Russians make money by speculating with IPv4. That's the harsh reality. We know about this - but we are not calling for any retroactivity in the rules. Maybe it's weakness, maybe it's just decency. But yes, it would work. Then a not entirely small part of the address space would be freed up. But "few" Russians will be sad. It's about working with information. There's a lot of it in the database. Too much. And you're betting on that. If you really had any sense, you people from Russia wouldn't really be digging into today's system. ;-) Many things can turn against you. - Daniel On 5/31/25 11:23 PM, sdy@a-n-t.ru wrote:
Some mistakes (and crimes) not only have no statute of limitations, but can be successfully corrected.
Serbulov Dmitry
Thanks for public confirmation that *YOUR* participation in this discussion about the charging scheme change is just only about you want to grab something for yourself. Just personal profit.
I understand your fluustration. As a German entity you're paying to entity with Russian roots to earn your IPv4. From my point of view to speculators who found weaknesses in the distribution of the last /8 in IPv4 past years. But those rules were created by the community itself.
The responsibility has different aspects. And the aspect of which supplier you choose is one of them. Especially nowadays. You always have a choice. But the solution isn't to vent your personal anger on someone who is not the speculator. Gert isn't the cause of *your* problems.
- Daniel
On 5/31/25 9:22 PM, D. Walde - Walde IT-Systemhaus wrote:
Gerd, I'd suggest you just be social and give me a /24 or /22 via ripe transfer for €50 into your coffee account plus 19% German VAT.
If you don't have a problem with social responsibility among members.
Since I don't have a single IPv4, and you apparently have enough.
Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen Walde IT-Systemhaus - CEO Dirk Walde - IT-Specialist
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Our task is to prevent the collapse of cooperation. However, the IPv4 situation is creating real tension in the community. The introduction of fees for scarce resources is a step towards solving the problem. And ignoring the situation is, of course, beneficial to speculators, but it will have a disastrous result. If you didn't understand, then redistributing IPv4 addresses, if necessary, is also not so difficult, however, as well as canceling them. Governments work stupid. The experience of forced transition is well known. P.S. Daniel, personaly for you and for 'like' you. Your threats are as stupid as the EU sanctions, any attempt to put pressure on the NCC participants will eventually lead to the collapse of the organization and the termination of RIPE's function as an free network association. As a result, it will not be the INTERNET, but the EURONET, the USANET, RUSNET and etc. When Euro fascism is being restored now. How are EUs doing with the production of shells and missiles? Have the armies been assembled yet? Do EUs like WWAR 3? Do EUs already have "nuclear bunkers"? Or, may be, are EUs hoping that the Russians soldiers will come to the streets of Berlin and Paris again to save Europe once again from dictators like Napoleon and Hitler? Or, that "jungles" will continue sell to "fine garden" resources the for a song? Unfortunately, those days are over. "By yourself, by yourself, by yourself... ". Learn to look for friends, not enemies. The habit of living at the expense of others is vicious. Serbulov Dmitry
Sure, in your personal case, he should apologize for your country brazenly attacking a country that you yourself previously recognized as sovereign.
And yes, a lot of Russians make money by speculating with IPv4. That's the harsh reality. We know about this - but we are not calling for any retroactivity in the rules. Maybe it's weakness, maybe it's just decency.
But yes, it would work. Then a not entirely small part of the address space would be freed up. But "few" Russians will be sad.
It's about working with information. There's a lot of it in the database. Too much. And you're betting on that.
If you really had any sense, you people from Russia wouldn't really be digging into today's system. ;-) Many things can turn against you.
- Daniel
On 5/31/25 11:23 PM, sdy@a-n-t.ru wrote:
Some mistakes (and crimes) not only have no statute of limitations, but can be successfully corrected.
Serbulov Dmitry
Thanks for public confirmation that *YOUR* participation in this discussion about the charging scheme change is just only about you want to grab something for yourself. Just personal profit.
I understand your fluustration. As a German entity you're paying to entity with Russian roots to earn your IPv4. From my point of view to speculators who found weaknesses in the distribution of the last /8 in IPv4 past years. But those rules were created by the community itself.
The responsibility has different aspects. And the aspect of which supplier you choose is one of them. Especially nowadays. You always have a choice. But the solution isn't to vent your personal anger on someone who is not the speculator. Gert isn't the cause of *your* problems.
- Daniel
On 5/31/25 9:22 PM, D. Walde - Walde IT-Systemhaus wrote:
Gerd, I'd suggest you just be social and give me a /24 or /22 via ripe transfer for €50 into your coffee account plus 19% German VAT.
If you don't have a problem with social responsibility among members.
Since I don't have a single IPv4, and you apparently have enough.
Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen Walde IT-Systemhaus - CEO Dirk Walde - IT-Specialist
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Well, here’s a true Russian. Always happy to rule the world. Kind regards, Miroslav Kozarik
01.06.25 v 3:10, sdy@a-n-t.ru:
Our task is to prevent the collapse of cooperation. However, the IPv4 situation is creating real tension in the community. The introduction of fees for scarce resources is a step towards solving the problem. And ignoring the situation is, of course, beneficial to speculators, but it will have a disastrous result.
If you didn't understand, then redistributing IPv4 addresses, if necessary, is also not so difficult, however, as well as canceling them. Governments work stupid. The experience of forced transition is well known.
P.S. Daniel, personaly for you and for 'like' you.
Your threats are as stupid as the EU sanctions, any attempt to put pressure on the NCC participants will eventually lead to the collapse of the organization and the termination of RIPE's function as an free network association. As a result, it will not be the INTERNET, but the EURONET, the USANET, RUSNET and etc.
When Euro fascism is being restored now. How are EUs doing with the production of shells and missiles? Have the armies been assembled yet? Do EUs like WWAR 3? Do EUs already have "nuclear bunkers"? Or, may be, are EUs hoping that the Russians soldiers will come to the streets of Berlin and Paris again to save Europe once again from dictators like Napoleon and Hitler? Or, that "jungles" will continue sell to "fine garden" resources the for a song? Unfortunately, those days are over. "By yourself, by yourself, by yourself... ".
Learn to look for friends, not enemies. The habit of living at the expense of others is vicious.
Serbulov Dmitry
Sure, in your personal case, he should apologize for your country brazenly attacking a country that you yourself previously recognized as sovereign.
And yes, a lot of Russians make money by speculating with IPv4. That's the harsh reality. We know about this - but we are not calling for any retroactivity in the rules. Maybe it's weakness, maybe it's just decency.
But yes, it would work. Then a not entirely small part of the address space would be freed up. But "few" Russians will be sad.
It's about working with information. There's a lot of it in the database. Too much. And you're betting on that.
If you really had any sense, you people from Russia wouldn't really be digging into today's system. ;-) Many things can turn against you.
- Daniel
On 5/31/25 11:23 PM, sdy@a-n-t.ru wrote: Some mistakes (and crimes) not only have no statute of limitations, but can be successfully corrected.
Serbulov Dmitry
Thanks for public confirmation that *YOUR* participation in this discussion about the charging scheme change is just only about you want to grab something for yourself. Just personal profit.
I understand your fluustration. As a German entity you're paying to entity with Russian roots to earn your IPv4. From my point of view to speculators who found weaknesses in the distribution of the last /8 in IPv4 past years. But those rules were created by the community itself.
The responsibility has different aspects. And the aspect of which supplier you choose is one of them. Especially nowadays. You always have a choice. But the solution isn't to vent your personal anger on someone who is not the speculator. Gert isn't the cause of *your* problems.
- Daniel
On 5/31/25 9:22 PM, D. Walde - Walde IT-Systemhaus wrote:
Gerd, I'd suggest you just be social and give me a /24 or /22 via ripe transfer for €50 into your coffee account plus 19% German VAT.
If you don't have a problem with social responsibility among members.
Since I don't have a single IPv4, and you apparently have enough.
Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen Walde IT-Systemhaus - CEO Dirk Walde - IT-Specialist
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Guess you not know, but 2 MOST holder of IPv4 in RIPE its - de.telekom and fr.orange :) Its 100% not Russian companies. If you do some DIG in LEGACY - you also find a lot of members like a UK.MotD who hold /8 IPv4 and similar ;) Moreover, these big EU holders prevent to make a charging for LEGACY resources and prevent pay by size fee :) P.S. most of LIRs in RIPE its UK, DE and TR - all countries is EU zone :) Im strongly suggest for you and other members - keep discussing as politics free place. Thanks. On 31.05.2025 21:32, Daniel Suchy via members-discuss wrote:
Sure, in your personal case, he should apologize for your country brazenly attacking a country that you yourself previously recognized as sovereign.
And yes, a lot of Russians make money by speculating with IPv4. That's the harsh reality. We know about this - but we are not calling for any retroactivity in the rules. Maybe it's weakness, maybe it's just decency.
But yes, it would work. Then a not entirely small part of the address space would be freed up. But "few" Russians will be sad.
It's about working with information. There's a lot of it in the database. Too much. And you're betting on that.
If you really had any sense, you people from Russia wouldn't really be digging into today's system. ;-) Many things can turn against you.
- Daniel
On 5/31/25 11:23 PM, sdy@a-n-t.ru wrote:
Some mistakes (and crimes) not only have no statute of limitations, but can be successfully corrected.
Serbulov Dmitry
Thanks for public confirmation that *YOUR* participation in this discussion about the charging scheme change is just only about you want to grab something for yourself. Just personal profit.
I understand your fluustration. As a German entity you're paying to entity with Russian roots to earn your IPv4. From my point of view to speculators who found weaknesses in the distribution of the last /8 in IPv4 past years. But those rules were created by the community itself.
The responsibility has different aspects. And the aspect of which supplier you choose is one of them. Especially nowadays. You always have a choice. But the solution isn't to vent your personal anger on someone who is not the speculator. Gert isn't the cause of *your* problems.
- Daniel
On 5/31/25 9:22 PM, D. Walde - Walde IT-Systemhaus wrote:
Gerd, I'd suggest you just be social and give me a /24 or /22 via ripe transfer for €50 into your coffee account plus 19% German VAT.
If you don't have a problem with social responsibility among members.
Since I don't have a single IPv4, and you apparently have enough.
Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen Walde IT-Systemhaus - CEO Dirk Walde - IT-Specialist
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Le Sun, Jun 01, 2025 at 02:43:01AM +0000, ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED a écrit :
Moreover, these big EU holders prevent to make a charging for LEGACY resources and prevent pay by size fee :)
"1 member, 1 vote" just makes it impossible for a "big" member to block a change in policy if the majority is in favor. Moreover when there is only 10% of members voting, I would say that is a chance for people in favor of change as they only need to convince 10% of the members to turn the table :) Anyway, if talking about IPv6 is not relevant to the subject, then neither talking about IPv4 is :) I find the "1 member, 1 fee" fair yet I recognized that the membership may be too expensive for some countries in the RIPE NCC servicing area. I don't have a definitive opinion about the right charging scheme. Some will say there are too many side projects (Atlas, etc.) and they should be removed or paid only by users. Or maybe have less fancy office (but I'd like the employees to have a nice work place). Or don't go to the Cloud. Or don't rework the website every year. I am sure we can find many ways to lower expenses which would be a good start. -- Denis Fondras / Liopen
Hi, On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 01:45:32PM +0300, Jean Salim wrote:
That's not true, last time you were afraid of even putting a tiered model on the ballot while the vast majority of LIRs (which are very small LIRs) wanted to have an option to vote on a tiered model, but you didn't even have the guts to put it to vote.
*I* didn't do anything, as that's vastly outside my influence. As I said, and if you're truly interested you can easily read this up - we had tiered models for a long time, and it caused quite a bit of friction and complaints about unfairness. So the members voted for a "1 lir 1 fee" model. No need to believe me there, this is all well documented. *shrug* Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hi, The record does not support the idea that tiered fees were dropped because they "caused complaints about unfairness", it was exactly opposite. • RIPE NCC Executive Board – chaired by Nigel Titley with board members Remco van Mook, Christian Kaufmann, Dmitry Burkov, etc. initiated process. • 2011-12 Charging-Scheme Task Force (4 volunteer LIRs + 2 board liaisons) urged a simple flat fee, mainly to avoid tax risk from per-IP billing. • The Executive Board therefore put as favorable "Option A – one LIR, one fee (€1 800)" on the Sep 2012 GM ballot. • At the Amsterdam GM (26-27 Sep 2012) Option A passed 197 Y / 105 N / 11 A—about 3.8 % of ~8 000 LIRs voted. Tiered Options B & C were never adopted. Flat fee took effect 1 Jan 2013 and has remained unchanged. A tiered model has simply never been given a comparable vote. On Sat, 2025-05-31 at 12:55 +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 01:45:32PM +0300, Jean Salim wrote:
That's not true, last time you were afraid of even putting a tiered model on the ballot while the vast majority of LIRs (which are very small LIRs) wanted to have an option to vote on a tiered model, but you didn't even have the guts to put it to vote.
*I* didn't do anything, as that's vastly outside my influence.
As I said, and if you're truly interested you can easily read this up - we had tiered models for a long time, and it caused quite a bit of friction and complaints about unfairness. So the members voted for a "1 lir 1 fee" model.
No need to believe me there, this is all well documented.
*shrug*
Gert Doering -- NetMaster
Unfortunately, I agree with you. It was extremely unpleasant to observe this fact. And my thinking about the reasons for this behavior does not lead to the best. Serbulov Dmirty
That's not true, last time you were afraid of even putting a tiered model on the ballot while the vast majority of LIRs (which are very small LIRs) wanted to have an option to vote on a tiered model, but you didn't even have the guts to put it to vote.
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:41 Gert Doering, <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
We missed you Gert, I was surprised you disappeared as you're always
one to mislead the conversation away from charging scheme. I would like yo hear your proposal on an alternative charging scheme
On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 01:36:27PM +0300, Jean Salim wrote: the that
more fair to small LIRs. I myself, as pointed out before, prefer the ARIN model.
"1 LIR, 1 vote, 1 fee for the membership" seems to be the one where most LIRs can actually *agree* on.
Every charging scheme will be unfair to some - we had categories, and that was unfair to some, we had flat fees, and those are unfair to some, and even if we introduce fee-by-/24, it will be unfair to some.
Even if we totally ignore IPv4, there will still be people that say "someone with a larger yearly budget should pay more", and "non-profit members should be free!", and maybe they are right. But if we go there, some people will have to pay more than they did the year before, and they will find this unfair.
Conclusions left as homework to the reader.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
It is clear: "If I got something for free, then I don't want to pay for it. Even if it is very expensive and necessary for everyone." But arguments to not pay for /24 has next problems. 1. The equality of members and their votes is fixed by the charter of the NCC and does not depend on the payment in any way - forget this issue forever. 2. Payment in accordance with the amount of resources used is not prohibited anywhere or in any way - all these arguments about Dutch law are nonsense. 3. The nature of the activity (commercial or non-commercial) is determined not by the fundraising per peers, but by its established goals and the way income is distributed among the participants. And is fixed by the charter NCC. !!! Now a little bit about the decision and the vote. !!! The most important thing we are facing right now is the passivity of 90% of NCC members. They are all full-rights participants and should take part in General meetings in a good way. But in fact, the issues are decided on GM by the votes of 600-700 members out of 22000. I see this as a purposeful approach by the core of the old NCC members (who are big resource holders) and unfortunately the NCC management. Most of the LIRs not to be subscribers on [members-discuss], do not participate in GM, and do not even understand their role and rights in the community. For a fair solution of such complex issues as the payment scheme and the prospects for the future of the NCC, it is necessary to attract the large number of LIRs. I would like the management of the NCC to take a closer look at these problems. Serbulov Dmitry.
Hi,
On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 01:36:27PM +0300, Jean Salim wrote:
We missed you Gert, I was surprised you disappeared as you're always the one to mislead the conversation away from charging scheme. I would like yo hear your proposal on an alternative charging scheme that more fair to small LIRs. I myself, as pointed out before, prefer the ARIN model.
"1 LIR, 1 vote, 1 fee for the membership" seems to be the one where most LIRs can actually *agree* on.
Every charging scheme will be unfair to some - we had categories, and that was unfair to some, we had flat fees, and those are unfair to some, and even if we introduce fee-by-/24, it will be unfair to some.
Even if we totally ignore IPv4, there will still be people that say "someone with a larger yearly budget should pay more", and "non-profit members should be free!", and maybe they are right. But if we go there, some people will have to pay more than they did the year before, and they will find this unfair.
Conclusions left as homework to the reader.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Dear Dmitry, all, Thank you for the input on the voting turnout. There are quite a few suggestions we noted from the discussions. Some seem like they could be implemented with some work, but others would require significant changes to our governance structures. We’ll review them all internally and see what’s feasible to implement. Increasing voter turnout is something we’ve worked very hard at since electronic voting was introduced. In summary, what we have done is: - Make registration and voting as easy as possible - registering takes no more than a minute or two via the LIR Portal - Provide remote options for discussions and the voting processes - Provide a recording immediately after the GM for those unable to attend or who have timezone restrictions so they can follow discussion and vote at their convenience - Publish extensive supporting documentation well in advance of the GMs, including explainers of more complicated resolutions to be voted on - Have Open Houses to allow members to interact directly with our Executive Board, candidates and RIPE NCC management on important issues - Send extensive communications and reminders on a number of channels, including a personalised mail to unregistered voters the week before the GM - Publish analyses of the voting after each GM to support discussion on the issues and the turnout Every year, we also improve our processes and the GM-related information on our website based on what we hear from members who vote. Given the above, it’s not clear to what extent changes to process will increase turnout. Although we do expect a vote on a new charging model based on the Charging Scheme Task Force’s proposed principles would see many more members exercise their voting rights. A good approach might be to see voter turnout as a shared responsibility between the RIPE NCC and its members. For instance, those members who are invested in seeing greater participation could play a big part by informing other members in their networks about the issues to be voted on, and persuading them to vote. People might well be more convinced by someone they know in their network than by an additional email from the RIPE NCC. And ensuring discussions stay positive and on-topic would also help. We lost many subscribers from members-discuss last year when discussions around the charging scheme and budget became overly heated. This caused over 500 people to unsubscribe from this mailing list, and these people will therefore not be participating in discussions or hearing what people think on important issues, including matters to be voted on. If the RIPE NCC can work on suggested improvements, and invested members can play their own part in helping to boost turnout, we could well see a much more involved and engaged membership. An excellent start would be to provide useful feedback to the Charging Scheme Task Force on the document they provided with principles for a new charging scheme model, which was the initial request that started the current discussions. Kind regards, Fergal Cunningham Head of Membership Engagement RIPE NCC On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 3:10 PM <sdy@a-n-t.ru> wrote:
It is clear: "If I got something for free, then I don't want to pay for it. Even if it is very expensive and necessary for everyone."
But arguments to not pay for /24 has next problems. 1. The equality of members and their votes is fixed by the charter of the NCC and does not depend on the payment in any way - forget this issue forever. 2. Payment in accordance with the amount of resources used is not prohibited anywhere or in any way - all these arguments about Dutch law are nonsense. 3. The nature of the activity (commercial or non-commercial) is determined not by the fundraising per peers, but by its established goals and the way income is distributed among the participants. And is fixed by the charter NCC.
!!! Now a little bit about the decision and the vote. !!!
The most important thing we are facing right now is the passivity of 90% of NCC members. They are all full-rights participants and should take part in General meetings in a good way.
But in fact, the issues are decided on GM by the votes of 600-700 members out of 22000. I see this as a purposeful approach by the core of the old NCC members (who are big resource holders) and unfortunately the NCC management. Most of the LIRs not to be subscribers on [members-discuss], do not participate in GM, and do not even understand their role and rights in the community. For a fair solution of such complex issues as the payment scheme and the prospects for the future of the NCC, it is necessary to attract the large number of LIRs. I would like the management of the NCC to take a closer look at these problems.
Serbulov Dmitry.
Hi,
On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 01:36:27PM +0300, Jean Salim wrote:
We missed you Gert, I was surprised you disappeared as you're always the one to mislead the conversation away from charging scheme. I would like yo hear your proposal on an alternative charging scheme that more fair to small LIRs. I myself, as pointed out before, prefer the ARIN model.
"1 LIR, 1 vote, 1 fee for the membership" seems to be the one where most LIRs can actually *agree* on.
Every charging scheme will be unfair to some - we had categories, and that was unfair to some, we had flat fees, and those are unfair to some, and even if we introduce fee-by-/24, it will be unfair to some.
Even if we totally ignore IPv4, there will still be people that say "someone with a larger yearly budget should pay more", and "non-profit members should be free!", and maybe they are right. But if we go there, some people will have to pay more than they did the year before, and they will find this unfair.
Conclusions left as homework to the reader.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Dear Fergal, Thank you for the detailed overview of the current efforts to increase voter turnout — they are clearly thoughtful and well-executed. From my perspective, one simple and potentially very effective measure could be to introduce a small “voting deposit” as part of the annual membership fee. For example, an additional €50 could be added to each member’s invoice as a deposit tied to voting participation. At the end of the voting period, this deposit could be redistributed in one of two ways: * Either shared equally among those who actually voted (e.g. if 2,000 out of 20,000 members voted, each would receive €500), * Or refunded only to those who voted, with unclaimed deposits contributing to the following year’s RIPE NCC budget. This approach would not only encourage participation but also reinforce a sense of shared responsibility without introducing any technical complexity. Kind regards, Chenyang On Jun 7, 2025, at 00:00, Fergal Cunningham <fergalc@ripe.net> wrote: Dear Dmitry, all, Thank you for the input on the voting turnout. There are quite a few suggestions we noted from the discussions. Some seem like they could be implemented with some work, but others would require significant changes to our governance structures. We’ll review them all internally and see what’s feasible to implement. Increasing voter turnout is something we’ve worked very hard at since electronic voting was introduced. In summary, what we have done is: * Make registration and voting as easy as possible - registering takes no more than a minute or two via the LIR Portal * Provide remote options for discussions and the voting processes * Provide a recording immediately after the GM for those unable to attend or who have timezone restrictions so they can follow discussion and vote at their convenience * Publish extensive supporting documentation well in advance of the GMs, including explainers of more complicated resolutions to be voted on * Have Open Houses to allow members to interact directly with our Executive Board, candidates and RIPE NCC management on important issues * Send extensive communications and reminders on a number of channels, including a personalised mail to unregistered voters the week before the GM * Publish analyses of the voting after each GM to support discussion on the issues and the turnout Every year, we also improve our processes and the GM-related information on our website based on what we hear from members who vote. Given the above, it’s not clear to what extent changes to process will increase turnout. Although we do expect a vote on a new charging model based on the Charging Scheme Task Force’s proposed principles would see many more members exercise their voting rights. A good approach might be to see voter turnout as a shared responsibility between the RIPE NCC and its members. For instance, those members who are invested in seeing greater participation could play a big part by informing other members in their networks about the issues to be voted on, and persuading them to vote. People might well be more convinced by someone they know in their network than by an additional email from the RIPE NCC. And ensuring discussions stay positive and on-topic would also help. We lost many subscribers from members-discuss last year when discussions around the charging scheme and budget became overly heated. This caused over 500 people to unsubscribe from this mailing list, and these people will therefore not be participating in discussions or hearing what people think on important issues, including matters to be voted on. If the RIPE NCC can work on suggested improvements, and invested members can play their own part in helping to boost turnout, we could well see a much more involved and engaged membership. An excellent start would be to provide useful feedback to the Charging Scheme Task Force on the document they provided with principles for a new charging scheme model, which was the initial request that started the current discussions. Kind regards, Fergal Cunningham Head of Membership Engagement RIPE NCC On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 3:10 PM <sdy@a-n-t.ru<mailto:sdy@a-n-t.ru>> wrote: It is clear: "If I got something for free, then I don't want to pay for it. Even if it is very expensive and necessary for everyone." But arguments to not pay for /24 has next problems. 1. The equality of members and their votes is fixed by the charter of the NCC and does not depend on the payment in any way - forget this issue forever. 2. Payment in accordance with the amount of resources used is not prohibited anywhere or in any way - all these arguments about Dutch law are nonsense. 3. The nature of the activity (commercial or non-commercial) is determined not by the fundraising per peers, but by its established goals and the way income is distributed among the participants. And is fixed by the charter NCC. !!! Now a little bit about the decision and the vote. !!! The most important thing we are facing right now is the passivity of 90% of NCC members. They are all full-rights participants and should take part in General meetings in a good way. But in fact, the issues are decided on GM by the votes of 600-700 members out of 22000. I see this as a purposeful approach by the core of the old NCC members (who are big resource holders) and unfortunately the NCC management. Most of the LIRs not to be subscribers on [members-discuss], do not participate in GM, and do not even understand their role and rights in the community. For a fair solution of such complex issues as the payment scheme and the prospects for the future of the NCC, it is necessary to attract the large number of LIRs. I would like the management of the NCC to take a closer look at these problems. Serbulov Dmitry.
Hi,
On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 01:36:27PM +0300, Jean Salim wrote:
We missed you Gert, I was surprised you disappeared as you're always the one to mislead the conversation away from charging scheme. I would like yo hear your proposal on an alternative charging scheme that more fair to small LIRs. I myself, as pointed out before, prefer the ARIN model.
"1 LIR, 1 vote, 1 fee for the membership" seems to be the one where most LIRs can actually *agree* on.
Every charging scheme will be unfair to some - we had categories, and that was unfair to some, we had flat fees, and those are unfair to some, and even if we introduce fee-by-/24, it will be unfair to some.
Even if we totally ignore IPv4, there will still be people that say "someone with a larger yearly budget should pay more", and "non-profit members should be free!", and maybe they are right. But if we go there, some people will have to pay more than they did the year before, and they will find this unfair.
Conclusions left as homework to the reader.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/ ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
On 06/06/2025 16:00:49, "Fergal Cunningham" <fergalc@ripe.net> wrote:
Increasing voter turnout is something we’ve worked very hard at since electronic voting was introduced. In summary, what we have done is:
The best way demonstrated so far is to have a high peril option that looks too risky to ignore.
Make registration and voting as easy as possible - registering takes no more than a minute or two via the LIR Portal
I have registered then later forgot vote, if you get my attention once maybe you should use it to collect my vote rather than a registration.
Given the above, it’s not clear to what extent changes to process will increase turnout.
Yes, most of the time we, and I suspect many others, just don't feel the need if there is nothing there that we object to.
Although we do expect a vote on a new charging model based on the Charging Scheme Task Force’s proposed principles would see many more members exercise their voting rights.
If you are going to try forcing another category based system that increases fees in the lower tiers and leaves them at risk of large increases as membership declines then yes we will need to turn out to say no again.
People might well be more convinced by someone they know in their network than by an additional email from the RIPE NCC.
That's how it works "oh shit, look what they have put up for vote". Really we don't need this drama. brandon
Hello Fergal and all, Thank you for outlining the steps RIPE NCC has taken to improve voter turnout. However, I believe these measures don't address the fundamental issue: the extremely low turnout creates a situation where approximately 2.46% of members can effectively change RIPE NCC policies, which raises serious questions about the legitimacy of our voting process. For context, at the Amsterdam GM (26-27 Sep 2012), Option A passed with 197 Yes / 105 No / 11 Abstain votes—representing only about 3.8% of ~8,000 LIRs. This means that the decision to implement the flat fee structure was effectively made by just 2.46% of LIRs, which is concerning for organizational health. Regarding the specific points raised: Registration and Voting Process: While the process may seem simple from a technical perspective, it presents significant barriers. Many 2FA token holders are non-technical managers or owners who find the current authentication requirements confusing and overly complex. The current TOTP/HOTP system is fundamentally flawed for voting purposes because: * The shared secret can be distributed to multiple people, creating accountability issues * There's no way to verify who actually possesses the authenticator * It requires manual code entry, which is error-prone and frustrating for non-technical users RIPE NCC should implement WebAuthn (passkeys), which offers significant advantages: * Single-click authentication that even non-technical users find intuitive * Cryptographically secure credentials that cannot be shared or extracted * Attestation capabilities that can verify the authenticity of the voting device * Support across all modern devices and browsers Registration Requirement: * Why is separate registration required at all? APNIC and LACNIC don't require this additional step—membership itself should suffice as registration to vote. * Evidence suggests that the registration requirement alone causes RIPE to lose 15-18% of potential votes annually. * If Dutch law truly requires separate registration (which I question), this warrants serious consideration of either legal clarification or structural changes(moving HQ?). Voting Window: * The 40-minute session limit is unnecessarily restrictive. Members should be able to vote at any time during the voting period. * RIPE has by far the shortest voting window among RIRs: RIPE NCC ~1.5 days vs. ARIN 8 days, APNIC ~14 days, LACNIC 7 days, and AFRINIC 7 days. This <48-hour window is a governance choice, not a technical limitation. Communication: * While I appreciate the reminder emails, RIPE NCC demonstrates much greater persistence when requesting information from members (even during wartime or government strikes) than when encouraging voting participation. Mailing List Participation: * The loss of 500 subscribers from members-discuss is indeed concerning. However, rather than accepting disengagement, RIPE NCC could offer digest options for those who prefer less frequent updates while maintaining their connection to community discussions. Participation in governance discussions should be viewed as a civic duty within our community, not an optional activity. I believe meaningful change requires addressing these structural barriers rather than placing the burden solely on engaged members to increase turnout. While I agree that providing feedback to the Charging Scheme Task Force is important, we must also address these fundamental governance issues that limit member participation. On Fri, 2025-06-06 at 17:00 +0200, Fergal Cunningham wrote:
Dear Dmitry, all,
Thank you for the input on the voting turnout. There are quite a few suggestions we noted from the discussions. Some seem like they could be implemented with some work, but others would require significant changes to our governance structures. We’ll review them all internally and see what’s feasible to implement.
Increasing voter turnout is something we’ve worked very hard at since electronic voting was introduced. In summary, what we have done is:
* Make registration and voting as easy as possible - registering takes no more than a minute or two via the LIR Portal * Provide remote options for discussions and the voting processes * Provide a recording immediately after the GM for those unable to attend or who have timezone restrictions so they can follow discussion and vote at their convenience * Publish extensive supporting documentation well in advance of the GMs, including explainers of more complicated resolutions to be voted on * Have Open Houses to allow members to interact directly with our Executive Board, candidates and RIPE NCC management on important issues * Send extensive communications and reminders on a number of channels, including a personalised mail to unregistered voters the week before the GM * Publish analyses of the voting after each GM to support discussion on the issues and the turnout
Every year, we also improve our processes and the GM-related information on our website based on what we hear from members who vote.
Given the above, it’s not clear to what extent changes to process will increase turnout. Although we do expect a vote on a new charging model based on the Charging Scheme Task Force’s proposed principles would see many more members exercise their voting rights.
A good approach might be to see voter turnout as a shared responsibility between the RIPE NCC and its members. For instance, those members who are invested in seeing greater participation could play a big part by informing other members in their networks about the issues to be voted on, and persuading them to vote. People might well be more convinced by someone they know in their network than by an additional email from the RIPE NCC.
And ensuring discussions stay positive and on-topic would also help. We lost many subscribers from members-discuss last year when discussions around the charging scheme and budget became overly heated. This caused over 500 people to unsubscribe from this mailing list, and these people will therefore not be participating in discussions or hearing what people think on important issues, including matters to be voted on.
If the RIPE NCC can work on suggested improvements, and invested members can play their own part in helping to boost turnout, we could well see a much more involved and engaged membership. An excellent start would be to provide useful feedback to the Charging Scheme Task Force on the document they provided with principles for a new charging scheme model, which was the initial request that started the current discussions.
Kind regards, Fergal Cunningham Head of Membership Engagement RIPE NCC
On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 3:10 PM <sdy@a-n-t.ru> wrote:
It is clear: "If I got something for free, then I don't want to pay for it. Even if it is very expensive and necessary for everyone."
But arguments to not pay for /24 has next problems. 1. The equality of members and their votes is fixed by the charter of the NCC and does not depend on the payment in any way - forget this issue forever. 2. Payment in accordance with the amount of resources used is not prohibited anywhere or in any way - all these arguments about Dutch law are nonsense. 3. The nature of the activity (commercial or non-commercial) is determined not by the fundraising per peers, but by its established goals and the way income is distributed among the participants. And is fixed by the charter NCC.
!!! Now a little bit about the decision and the vote. !!!
The most important thing we are facing right now is the passivity of 90% of NCC members. They are all full-rights participants and should take part in General meetings in a good way.
But in fact, the issues are decided on GM by the votes of 600-700 members out of 22000. I see this as a purposeful approach by the core of the old NCC members (who are big resource holders) and unfortunately the NCC management. Most of the LIRs not to be subscribers on [members-discuss], do not participate in GM, and do not even understand their role and rights in the community. For a fair solution of such complex issues as the payment scheme and the prospects for the future of the NCC, it is necessary to attract the large number of LIRs. I would like the management of the NCC to take a closer look at these problems.
Serbulov Dmitry.
Hi,
On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 01:36:27PM +0300, Jean Salim wrote:
We missed you Gert, I was surprised you disappeared as you're always the one to mislead the conversation away from charging scheme. I would like yo hear your proposal on an alternative charging scheme that more fair to small LIRs. I myself, as pointed out before, prefer the ARIN model.
"1 LIR, 1 vote, 1 fee for the membership" seems to be the one where most LIRs can actually *agree* on.
Every charging scheme will be unfair to some - we had categories, and that was unfair to some, we had flat fees, and those are unfair to some, and even if we introduce fee-by-/24, it will be unfair to some.
Even if we totally ignore IPv4, there will still be people that say "someone with a larger yearly budget should pay more", and "non- profit members should be free!", and maybe they are right. But if we go there, some people will have to pay more than they did the year before, and they will find this unfair.
Conclusions left as homework to the reader.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner- Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Hi Fergal, all, On 6/6/25 5:00 PM, Fergal Cunningham wrote:
And ensuring discussions stay positive and on-topic would also help. We lost many subscribers from members-discuss last year when discussions around the charging scheme and budget became overly heated. This caused over 500 people to unsubscribe from this mailing list, and these people will therefore not be participating in discussions or hearing what people think on important issues, including matters to be voted on.
Yes, the discussions was heated. But in general, loosing 500 people from list doesn't mean loosing 500 members from 20 000 in total (and if so, it's still a small number). And we don't even know how many of that people unsubscribed just because they're not interested in such discussion at all. And also the data alone on how many people left the discussion does not tell us how many LIRs are no longer participating in the discussion. The number based on the number of people is a bit manipulative here. Yes, if we have 20,000 members, even if everyone only commented once in discussion, there will be tons of emails. That's a fact you can't do anything about, this is expectable... yes potentially losing 2% of the opinion is not ideal, but it's not a disaster - just the choice. Yes, it is debatable whether to limit how many emails single sender can write at a period of time (day, week). But experience tells us that every limit can be circumvented somehow if there is some interest. But yes, we can introduce some limits some reducing chat. And when it comes to member discussion, actually identify LIRs - and not just count people without any link. RIPE NCC member discussions are not the same as other RIPE discussions - non-members can't discuss here. And yes, the limit can have dynamic parameters - the first comment in a given time interval is not subject to moderation, the next one is. But please, in these discussions, let's also consider the fact that there're thousands of members. In this context, email count from this list can be huge - by design... - Daniel
Am Samstag, dem 31.05.2025 um 13:28 +0300 schrieb Jean Salim:
Please stop changing the conversation from charging scheme to IPv6. You're intentionally trying to hijack it in a clear disinformation campaign.
This was an answer to the "IPv6 id complicated and expensive" thread within this discussion. I have made my remarks to the parallel discussion threads. And fear not; I have not mentioned IPv6 there... Matthias
participants (29)
-
Alexandre -
Alexey Berezhnev -
Brandon Butterworth -
Brandon Butterworth -
Brett Sheffield -
D. Walde - Walde IT-Systemhaus -
Daniel Pearson -
Daniel Suchy -
Denis Fondras - Liopen -
Denys Fedoryshchenko -
Evgeniy Brodskiy -
Fergal Cunningham -
Gao Chenyang -
Gert Doering -
Jean Salim -
Kai Siering -
Kaj Niemi -
Kurt Jaeger -
Lutz Donnerhacke -
Matthias Brumm -
Mihail Fedorov -
Murat Terzioglu | PREBITS -
Niels Dettenbach -
Rob Evans -
ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED -
Sasha Romijn -
sdy＠a-n-t.ru -
Sebastian-Becker＠telekom.de -
Мирослав Козарик