Regarding RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Two Options to Vote On
Hi, +1 from me. Volume based billing is a legit option to discuss but 50€ per objects doesn't really equals to that. Why not considering the actual ammount of addresses? Regards, Lennart Am 17.04.2019 um 19:04 schrieb Alexandru Doszlop:
Hello,
I just read the email regarding the charging scheme for 2020 option B. Are you kidding me? Are you really naming it "volume based billing"?
Let's say one isp has only one /12 ipv4 PA. It will pay 1150 euro + 50 euro. The other LIR that wants to help small companies and has 50 /24 assignments, will pay 1150 + 50*50=3650 euro. All new lirs that receive smaller than /22 assignments will pay more than than the big isp. Where is the volume here?
Unbelievable...
Regards, Alex
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Gwen van Berne <gvanberne@ripe.net> Date: Apr 17, 2019 18:08 Subject: [ncc-announce] [GM] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Two Options to Vote On To: ncc-announce@ripe.net Cc:
Dear colleagues,
Members will vote on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 at the General Meeting from 22-24 May. In response to requests from members, the Executive Board is proposing two charging scheme options that the members can choose from at the GM.
An overview of the two options is also available that explains the two models in more detail. The overview and the two charging schemes are available at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2019/supporting-do...
In short, the options that members will choose between are:
Option A: The RIPE NCC will maintain the existing charging scheme, according to which members pay an annual fee of EUR 1,400 plus an extra EUR 50 per independent number resource assignment.
Option B: The RIPE NCC will switch to a new volume-based, per registration charging scheme. This would involve lowering the annual fee to EUR 1,150 whilst broadening the applicability of the separate EUR 50 charge to all number registrations held by the member. See the full list of registrations that would be charged in the document.
The existing sign-up fee of EUR 2,000 will apply to both options.
We encourage members to discuss the options on the Member Discuss mailing list at <members-discuss@ripe.net>. The Executive Board and the RIPE NCC Management will follow discussions closely ahead of the GM.
If you have not yet registered for the GM, we strongly encourage you to do so and make sure you have your say on which of two distinct charging scheme options should be adopted in May. Full participation and voting options are available for all members. You can register now via the LIR Portal at: https://www.ripe.net/s/gm-registration-may-2019
All details on the GM, including the draft agenda, are available from: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2019/
Kind regards,
Gwen van Berne Chief Financial Officer RIPE NCC
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/mail%40lseitz.de
-- Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Lennart Seitz PGP-Schlüssel: 0x00165284eb3f775d (https://pgp.lseitz.de/key.asc) --
+1. There should be a fee of 50€ per 1024 addresses or something like this, not per resource. On 17.04.19 19:04, Alexandru Doszlop wrote:
Hello,
I just read the email regarding the charging scheme for 2020 option B. Are you kidding me? Are you really naming it "volume based billing"?
Let's say one isp has only one /12 ipv4 PA. It will pay 1150 euro + 50 euro. The other LIR that wants to help small companies and has 50 /24 assignments, will pay 1150 + 50*50=3650 euro. All new lirs that receive smaller than /22 assignments will pay more than than the big isp. Where is the volume here?
Unbelievable...
Regards, Alex
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Gwen van Berne <gvanberne@ripe.net> Date: Apr 17, 2019 18:08 Subject: [ncc-announce] [GM] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Two Options to Vote On To: ncc-announce@ripe.net Cc:
Dear colleagues,
Members will vote on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 at the General Meeting from 22-24 May. In response to requests from members, the Executive Board is proposing two charging scheme options that the members can choose from at the GM.
An overview of the two options is also available that explains the two models in more detail. The overview and the two charging schemes are available at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2019/supporting-do...
In short, the options that members will choose between are:
Option A: The RIPE NCC will maintain the existing charging scheme, according to which members pay an annual fee of EUR 1,400 plus an extra EUR 50 per independent number resource assignment.
Option B: The RIPE NCC will switch to a new volume-based, per registration charging scheme. This would involve lowering the annual fee to EUR 1,150 whilst broadening the applicability of the separate EUR 50 charge to all number registrations held by the member. See the full list of registrations that would be charged in the document.
The existing sign-up fee of EUR 2,000 will apply to both options.
We encourage members to discuss the options on the Member Discuss mailing list at <members-discuss@ripe.net>. The Executive Board and the RIPE NCC Management will follow discussions closely ahead of the GM.
If you have not yet registered for the GM, we strongly encourage you to do so and make sure you have your say on which of two distinct charging scheme options should be adopted in May. Full participation and voting options are available for all members. You can register now via the LIR Portal at: https://www.ripe.net/s/gm-registration-may-2019
All details on the GM, including the draft agenda, are available from: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2019/
Kind regards,
Gwen van Berne Chief Financial Officer RIPE NCC
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/lists%40velder.li
Hello, I am agree with Patrick. Best Regards, Jean-Guillaume Le 17 avr. 2019 à 19:29, à 19:29, Patrick Velder <lists@velder.li> a écrit:
+1. There should be a fee of 50€ per 1024 addresses or something like this,
not per resource.
Hello,
I just read the email regarding the charging scheme for 2020 option B. Are you kidding me? Are you really naming it "volume based billing"?
Let's say one isp has only one /12 ipv4 PA. It will pay 1150 euro + 50 euro. The other LIR that wants to help small companies and has 50 /24 assignments, will pay 1150 + 50*50=3650 euro. All new lirs that receive smaller than /22 assignments will pay more than than the big isp. Where is the volume here?
Unbelievable...
Regards, Alex
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Gwen van Berne <gvanberne@ripe.net> Date: Apr 17, 2019 18:08 Subject: [ncc-announce] [GM] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Two Options to Vote On To: ncc-announce@ripe.net Cc:
Dear colleagues,
Members will vote on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 at the General Meeting from 22-24 May. In response to requests from members, the Executive Board is proposing two charging scheme options that the members can choose from at the GM.
An overview of the two options is also available that explains
On 17.04.19 19:04, Alexandru Doszlop wrote: the
two models in more detail. The overview and the two charging schemes
are
available at:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2019/supporting-do...
In short, the options that members will choose between are:
Option A: The RIPE NCC will maintain the existing charging
scheme,
according to which members pay an annual fee of EUR 1,400 plus an extra EUR 50 per independent number resource assignment.
Option B: The RIPE NCC will switch to a new volume-based, per registration charging scheme. This would involve lowering the annual fee to EUR 1,150 whilst broadening the applicability of the separate EUR 50 charge to all number registrations held by the member. See the full list of registrations that would be charged in the document.
The existing sign-up fee of EUR 2,000 will apply to both options.
We encourage members to discuss the options on the Member Discuss mailing list at <members-discuss@ripe.net>. The Executive Board and the RIPE NCC Management will follow discussions closely ahead of the
GM.
If you have not yet registered for the GM, we strongly encourage you to do so and make sure you have your say on which of two distinct charging scheme options should be adopted in May. Full participation and voting options are available for all members. You can register now via the LIR Portal at: https://www.ripe.net/s/gm-registration-may-2019
All details on the GM, including the draft agenda, are available from: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2019/
Kind regards,
Gwen van Berne Chief Financial Officer RIPE NCC
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe:
https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/lists%40velder.li
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/jean-guillaume.dubuis...
Yes, It is only one fair policy, pay for amount of IPv4.. and one /22 should be in basic. Then, I guess there will be strong will to transfer to IPv6 There is a lot of small member, so if we make an force together, we can change these rules! Odesláno z iPhonu 17. 4. 2019 v 19:28, Patrick Velder <lists@velder.li>:
+1. There should be a fee of 50€ per 1024 addresses or something like this, not per resource.
On 17.04.19 19:04, Alexandru Doszlop wrote: Hello,
I just read the email regarding the charging scheme for 2020 option B. Are you kidding me? Are you really naming it "volume based billing"?
Let's say one isp has only one /12 ipv4 PA. It will pay 1150 euro + 50 euro. The other LIR that wants to help small companies and has 50 /24 assignments, will pay 1150 + 50*50=3650 euro. All new lirs that receive smaller than /22 assignments will pay more than than the big isp. Where is the volume here?
Unbelievable...
Regards, Alex
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Gwen van Berne <gvanberne@ripe.net> Date: Apr 17, 2019 18:08 Subject: [ncc-announce] [GM] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Two Options to Vote On To: ncc-announce@ripe.net Cc:
Dear colleagues,
Members will vote on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 at the General Meeting from 22-24 May. In response to requests from members, the Executive Board is proposing two charging scheme options that the members can choose from at the GM.
An overview of the two options is also available that explains the two models in more detail. The overview and the two charging schemes are available at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2019/supporting-do...
In short, the options that members will choose between are:
Option A: The RIPE NCC will maintain the existing charging scheme, according to which members pay an annual fee of EUR 1,400 plus an extra EUR 50 per independent number resource assignment.
Option B: The RIPE NCC will switch to a new volume-based, per registration charging scheme. This would involve lowering the annual fee to EUR 1,150 whilst broadening the applicability of the separate EUR 50 charge to all number registrations held by the member. See the full list of registrations that would be charged in the document.
The existing sign-up fee of EUR 2,000 will apply to both options.
We encourage members to discuss the options on the Member Discuss mailing list at <members-discuss@ripe.net>. The Executive Board and the RIPE NCC Management will follow discussions closely ahead of the GM.
If you have not yet registered for the GM, we strongly encourage you to do so and make sure you have your say on which of two distinct charging scheme options should be adopted in May. Full participation and voting options are available for all members. You can register now via the LIR Portal at: https://www.ripe.net/s/gm-registration-may-2019
All details on the GM, including the draft agenda, are available from: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2019/
Kind regards,
Gwen van Berne Chief Financial Officer RIPE NCC
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/lists%40velder.li
members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/tomas.tyll%40amigonet...
To the person (185.65.119.17 and 73.44.39.27) who is trying to reset my password / removing me from this list: Whats wrong with you? If there's a problem, please contact me by email. Thanks. On 17.04.19 19:28, Patrick Velder wrote:
+1. There should be a fee of 50€ per 1024 addresses or something like this, not per resource.
On 17.04.19 19:04, Alexandru Doszlop wrote:
Hello,
I just read the email regarding the charging scheme for 2020 option B. Are you kidding me? Are you really naming it "volume based billing"?
Let's say one isp has only one /12 ipv4 PA. It will pay 1150 euro + 50 euro. The other LIR that wants to help small companies and has 50 /24 assignments, will pay 1150 + 50*50=3650 euro. All new lirs that receive smaller than /22 assignments will pay more than than the big isp. Where is the volume here?
Unbelievable...
Regards, Alex
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Gwen van Berne <gvanberne@ripe.net> Date: Apr 17, 2019 18:08 Subject: [ncc-announce] [GM] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Two Options to Vote On To: ncc-announce@ripe.net Cc:
Dear colleagues,
Members will vote on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 at the General Meeting from 22-24 May. In response to requests from members, the Executive Board is proposing two charging scheme options that the members can choose from at the GM.
An overview of the two options is also available that explains the two models in more detail. The overview and the two charging schemes are available at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2019/supporting-do...
In short, the options that members will choose between are:
Option A: The RIPE NCC will maintain the existing charging scheme, according to which members pay an annual fee of EUR 1,400 plus an extra EUR 50 per independent number resource assignment.
Option B: The RIPE NCC will switch to a new volume-based, per registration charging scheme. This would involve lowering the annual fee to EUR 1,150 whilst broadening the applicability of the separate EUR 50 charge to all number registrations held by the member. See the full list of registrations that would be charged in the document.
The existing sign-up fee of EUR 2,000 will apply to both options.
We encourage members to discuss the options on the Member Discuss mailing list at <members-discuss@ripe.net>. The Executive Board and the RIPE NCC Management will follow discussions closely ahead of the GM.
If you have not yet registered for the GM, we strongly encourage you to do so and make sure you have your say on which of two distinct charging scheme options should be adopted in May. Full participation and voting options are available for all members. You can register now via the LIR Portal at: https://www.ripe.net/s/gm-registration-may-2019
All details on the GM, including the draft agenda, are available from: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2019/
Kind regards,
Gwen van Berne Chief Financial Officer RIPE NCC
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe:https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/lists%40velder.li
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/lists%40velder.li
Hi, Can anyone tell me what is the scope to change the charging scheme? DISTRIBUTION From my small experience i understand that the MAIN problem is the IPs distribution. The are company that have a lot of unused IPs And company that don’t have enought IPs CRAZY BUSINESS of PUBLIC RESOURCE The company with more IPs that they really use, PULL these IPs to the market and make money and business with this PUBLIC resource. It is incredible! We see a lot of incredible things in Italy...we are so famous for Mafia, Cosa Nostra.... but that a private company (like a provider) can sell PUBLIC resource it win on everything. CHANGE RULE Before to speak about charging scheme, the RIPE should change the assignment rule with the scope to get back not used IPs (or brokered ips). An ISP or Cloud Provider should get income around $50-$100/year per IP If my company have income around $500.000 and we have 10.000 IPs probably we are really using the IPs for REAL isp/cloud business 500.000 : 10.000=50 that is the minimum per IPs income per IP If my company have income around $500.000 and we have 20.000 IPs....probably we are not internal using these IP and we are selling around 10.000 IPs to broker.... 50.000:20.000 = 25 $25 income per IP is too low For me is not a problem to pay for example 1000 euro/year to RIPE for each 1024 IP I think that this not a problem for each company that make business with the “internet”. My problem is that, if i need IPs...i need to go in the “underground” market and pay unknow/untrusted company/broker. RIPE should find a way to regulate this issue Regards Roberto
Members will vote on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 at the General Meeting from 22-24 May. In response to requests from members, the Executive Board is proposing two charging scheme options that the members can choose from at the GM.
Saluti Roberto
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Gwen van Berne <gvanberne@ripe.net> Date: Apr 17, 2019 18:08 Subject: [ncc-announce] [GM] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Two Options to Vote On To: ncc-announce@ripe.net Cc:
Dear colleagues,
Members will vote on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 at the General Meeting from 22-24 May. In response to requests from members, the Executive Board is proposing two charging scheme options that the members can choose from at the GM.
An overview of the two options is also available that explains the two models in more detail. The overview and the two charging schemes are available at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2019/supporting-do...
In short, the options that members will choose between are:
Option A: The RIPE NCC will maintain the existing charging scheme, according to which members pay an annual fee of EUR 1,400 plus an extra EUR 50 per independent number resource assignment.
Option B: The RIPE NCC will switch to a new volume-based, per registration charging scheme. This would involve lowering the annual fee to EUR 1,150 whilst broadening the applicability of the separate EUR 50 charge to all number registrations held by the member. See the full list of registrations that would be charged in the document.
The existing sign-up fee of EUR 2,000 will apply to both options.
We encourage members to discuss the options on the Member Discuss mailing list at <members-discuss@ripe.net>. The Executive Board and the RIPE NCC Management will follow discussions closely ahead of the GM.
If you have not yet registered for the GM, we strongly encourage you to do so and make sure you have your say on which of two distinct charging scheme options should be adopted in May. Full participation and voting options are available for all members. You can register now via the LIR Portal at: https://www.ripe.net/s/gm-registration-may-2019
All details on the GM, including the draft agenda, are available from: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2019/
Kind regards,
Gwen van Berne Chief Financial Officer RIPE NCC
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/lists%40velder.li
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/lists%40velder.li
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/roberto.beneduci%40co...
Hello, I think the point that is most "wrong" in this charging scheme is that IPv6 resources are treated the same as IPv4. This is a) not in relation to scarcity and b) does not give any motivation for IPv6 deployements. I suggest that either any IPv6 resource is for free or that "up to" some amount of IPv6 resources it stays free and even after that the increase should be lower than IPv4. That said, I agree with Alex that if the objective is to support smaller ISPs, it should be charged on volume, not number. My counter proposal to B would be -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Same base fee as option B - All IPv6 resources are free - Charge x per 256 IPv4 addresses - Charge y per ASN, after the 5th ASN -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The key x would have to be determined by RIPE and could be derived from the current allocations such that the new membership fee sum = the current sum. For the key y I don't have a good estimate at the moment, but 50 Euro/y does not sound unreasonable. Also most LIRs will never exceed the included number of ASNs. Best, Nico Alexandru Doszlop <alexandru.doszlop@netprotect.ro> writes:
Hello,
I just read the email regarding the charging scheme for 2020 option B. Are you kidding me? Are you really naming it "volume based billing"?
Let's say one isp has only one /12 ipv4 PA. It will pay 1150 euro + 50 euro. The other LIR that wants to help small companies and has 50 /24 assignments, will pay 1150 + 50*50=3650 euro. All new lirs that receive smaller than /22 assignments will pay more than than the big isp. Where is the volume here?
Unbelievable...
Regards, Alex
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Gwen van Berne <gvanberne@ripe.net> Date: Apr 17, 2019 18:08 Subject: [ncc-announce] [GM] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Two Options to Vote On To: ncc-announce@ripe.net Cc:
Dear colleagues,
Members will vote on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 at the General Meeting from 22-24 May. In response to requests from members, the Executive Board is proposing two charging scheme options that the members can choose from at the GM.
An overview of the two options is also available that explains the two models in more detail. The overview and the two charging schemes are available at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2019/supporting-do...
In short, the options that members will choose between are:
Option A: The RIPE NCC will maintain the existing charging scheme, according to which members pay an annual fee of EUR 1,400 plus an extra EUR 50 per independent number resource assignment.
Option B: The RIPE NCC will switch to a new volume-based, per registration charging scheme. This would involve lowering the annual fee to EUR 1,150 whilst broadening the applicability of the separate EUR 50 charge to all number registrations held by the member. See the full list of registrations that would be charged in the document.
The existing sign-up fee of EUR 2,000 will apply to both options.
We encourage members to discuss the options on the Member Discuss mailing list at <members-discuss@ripe.net>. The Executive Board and the RIPE NCC Management will follow discussions closely ahead of the GM.
If you have not yet registered for the GM, we strongly encourage you to do so and make sure you have your say on which of two distinct charging scheme options should be adopted in May. Full participation and voting options are available for all members. You can register now via the LIR Portal at: https://www.ripe.net/s/gm-registration-may-2019
All details on the GM, including the draft agenda, are available from: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2019/
Kind regards,
Gwen van Berne Chief Financial Officer RIPE NCC
-- Your Swiss, Open Source and IPv6 Virtual Machine. Now on www.datacenterlight.ch.
Hi. Charging for *any* resource, especially ASNs, is just plain stupid. It's not like it costs anything to take care of the resources. Personally I'm in favour of option A, perhaps lower it by 100-200€/yr for first 1-2 years for startups and such. Regards, Sebastian On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 7:55 PM Nico Schottelius <info@ungleich.ch> wrote:
Hello,
I think the point that is most "wrong" in this charging scheme is that IPv6 resources are treated the same as IPv4. This is a) not in relation to scarcity and b) does not give any motivation for IPv6 deployements.
I suggest that either any IPv6 resource is for free or that "up to" some amount of IPv6 resources it stays free and even after that the increase should be lower than IPv4.
That said, I agree with Alex that if the objective is to support smaller ISPs, it should be charged on volume, not number.
My counter proposal to B would be
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Same base fee as option B - All IPv6 resources are free - Charge x per 256 IPv4 addresses - Charge y per ASN, after the 5th ASN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The key x would have to be determined by RIPE and could be derived from the current allocations such that the new membership fee sum = the current sum.
For the key y I don't have a good estimate at the moment, but 50 Euro/y does not sound unreasonable. Also most LIRs will never exceed the included number of ASNs.
Best,
Nico
Alexandru Doszlop <alexandru.doszlop@netprotect.ro> writes:
Hello,
I just read the email regarding the charging scheme for 2020 option B. Are you kidding me? Are you really naming it "volume based billing"?
Let's say one isp has only one /12 ipv4 PA. It will pay 1150 euro + 50 euro. The other LIR that wants to help small companies and has 50 /24 assignments, will pay 1150 + 50*50=3650 euro. All new lirs that receive smaller than /22 assignments will pay more than than the big isp. Where is the volume here?
Unbelievable...
Regards, Alex
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Gwen van Berne <gvanberne@ripe.net> Date: Apr 17, 2019 18:08 Subject: [ncc-announce] [GM] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Two Options to Vote On To: ncc-announce@ripe.net Cc:
Dear colleagues,
Members will vote on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 at the General Meeting from 22-24 May. In response to requests from members, the Executive Board is proposing two charging scheme options that the members can choose from at the GM.
An overview of the two options is also available that explains the two models in more detail. The overview and the two charging schemes are available at:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2019/supporting-do...
In short, the options that members will choose between are:
Option A: The RIPE NCC will maintain the existing charging scheme, according to which members pay an annual fee of EUR 1,400 plus an extra EUR 50 per independent number resource assignment.
Option B: The RIPE NCC will switch to a new volume-based, per registration charging scheme. This would involve lowering the annual fee to EUR 1,150 whilst broadening the applicability of the separate EUR 50 charge to all number registrations held by the member. See the full list of registrations that would be charged in the document.
The existing sign-up fee of EUR 2,000 will apply to both options.
We encourage members to discuss the options on the Member Discuss mailing list at <members-discuss@ripe.net>. The Executive Board and the RIPE NCC Management will follow discussions closely ahead of the GM.
If you have not yet registered for the GM, we strongly encourage you to do so and make sure you have your say on which of two distinct charging scheme options should be adopted in May. Full participation and voting options are available for all members. You can register now via the LIR Portal at: https://www.ripe.net/s/gm-registration-may-2019
All details on the GM, including the draft agenda, are available from: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2019/
Kind regards,
Gwen van Berne Chief Financial Officer RIPE NCC
-- Your Swiss, Open Source and IPv6 Virtual Machine. Now on www.datacenterlight.ch.
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/malek%40malek.li
Hello All, I've readed the policy, and i'm clearly to keep the old policy of 1400€ / year + 50 per PI except asn. As an example, a lir with the basic things got charged like that: 1150€ 50€ asn 50€ /22 50€ /29 v6 ------ 1300€ That's mean, 100€ less. Now let's imagine a lir who hold multiple ASN or multiple PA. That can cost alot for nothing, specificly for 32 bit ASN ... At the end, that add extra fee to all people who got sponsored asn (from onetime fee to yearly fee). Than create a big asn collapse in next years. For me it's 100% sure, i vote option A and i'm already registered at GM to vote since i receive email from RIPE. Thanks Cedric Le 17-04-19 à 19:45, Nico Schottelius a écrit :
Hello,
I think the point that is most "wrong" in this charging scheme is that IPv6 resources are treated the same as IPv4. This is a) not in relation to scarcity and b) does not give any motivation for IPv6 deployements.
I suggest that either any IPv6 resource is for free or that "up to" some amount of IPv6 resources it stays free and even after that the increase should be lower than IPv4.
That said, I agree with Alex that if the objective is to support smaller ISPs, it should be charged on volume, not number.
My counter proposal to B would be
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Same base fee as option B - All IPv6 resources are free - Charge x per 256 IPv4 addresses - Charge y per ASN, after the 5th ASN --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The key x would have to be determined by RIPE and could be derived from the current allocations such that the new membership fee sum = the current sum.
For the key y I don't have a good estimate at the moment, but 50 Euro/y does not sound unreasonable. Also most LIRs will never exceed the included number of ASNs.
Best,
Nico
Alexandru Doszlop <alexandru.doszlop@netprotect.ro> writes:
Hello,
I just read the email regarding the charging scheme for 2020 option B. Are you kidding me? Are you really naming it "volume based billing"?
Let's say one isp has only one /12 ipv4 PA. It will pay 1150 euro + 50 euro. The other LIR that wants to help small companies and has 50 /24 assignments, will pay 1150 + 50*50=3650 euro. All new lirs that receive smaller than /22 assignments will pay more than than the big isp. Where is the volume here?
Unbelievable...
Regards, Alex
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Gwen van Berne <gvanberne@ripe.net> Date: Apr 17, 2019 18:08 Subject: [ncc-announce] [GM] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Two Options to Vote On To: ncc-announce@ripe.net Cc:
Dear colleagues,
Members will vote on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 at the General Meeting from 22-24 May. In response to requests from members, the Executive Board is proposing two charging scheme options that the members can choose from at the GM.
An overview of the two options is also available that explains the two models in more detail. The overview and the two charging schemes are available at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2019/supporting-do...
In short, the options that members will choose between are:
Option A: The RIPE NCC will maintain the existing charging scheme, according to which members pay an annual fee of EUR 1,400 plus an extra EUR 50 per independent number resource assignment.
Option B: The RIPE NCC will switch to a new volume-based, per registration charging scheme. This would involve lowering the annual fee to EUR 1,150 whilst broadening the applicability of the separate EUR 50 charge to all number registrations held by the member. See the full list of registrations that would be charged in the document.
The existing sign-up fee of EUR 2,000 will apply to both options.
We encourage members to discuss the options on the Member Discuss mailing list at <members-discuss@ripe.net>. The Executive Board and the RIPE NCC Management will follow discussions closely ahead of the GM.
If you have not yet registered for the GM, we strongly encourage you to do so and make sure you have your say on which of two distinct charging scheme options should be adopted in May. Full participation and voting options are available for all members. You can register now via the LIR Portal at: https://www.ripe.net/s/gm-registration-may-2019
All details on the GM, including the draft agenda, are available from: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2019/
Kind regards,
Gwen van Berne Chief Financial Officer RIPE NCC
-- Your Swiss, Open Source and IPv6 Virtual Machine. Now on www.datacenterlight.ch.
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ml%40servperso.com
Hello, I Agree with everyone who wrote by now. If we want working volume base charging scheme, it must be based networks and ASNs the LIR or Legacy Holders holds. By me to can cover current situation and all possibilities must be based on: IPV4: /24 network (256 addresses) IPV6: /29 network (huge number of addresses) ASN: 1 ASN In one LIR annual fee to be included: 1 x /24 IPv4 (covering future when IPV4 will be exhaused) 1 x /29 IPV6 (for small - middle range ISP absolutely enough I think) 1 x ASN (even big ISP can operate with only one ASN) For every extra 1 x IPV4 /24 , 1 x IPV6 /29 , 1 x 1 ASN , the LIR or Legacy holder who holds it have to pay extra fee. 10 Euro for one extra IPV4 /24 (RIPE NCC holds 43 x /8 IPV4 networks? if so nearly +30m euro extra income from IPV4 address space) 1 Euro for one extra IPV6 /29 ( Must be low to stimulate deploying IPV6 ) 50 Euro for 1 extra ASN (Resonable price) The annual LIR/Legacy Holder fee can be lowered from 1150 Euro to 500 Euro or less, because incomes from IPV4 adress space will cover a lot of the budget. RIPE NCC can do better and more exact calculations than me becuase they have all and right numbers. Ivaylo Josifov On Wed, 17 Apr 2019, Nico Schottelius wrote:
Hello,
I think the point that is most "wrong" in this charging scheme is that IPv6 resources are treated the same as IPv4. This is a) not in relation to scarcity and b) does not give any motivation for IPv6 deployements.
I suggest that either any IPv6 resource is for free or that "up to" some amount of IPv6 resources it stays free and even after that the increase should be lower than IPv4.
That said, I agree with Alex that if the objective is to support smaller ISPs, it should be charged on volume, not number.
My counter proposal to B would be
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Same base fee as option B - All IPv6 resources are free - Charge x per 256 IPv4 addresses - Charge y per ASN, after the 5th ASN --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The key x would have to be determined by RIPE and could be derived from the current allocations such that the new membership fee sum = the current sum.
For the key y I don't have a good estimate at the moment, but 50 Euro/y does not sound unreasonable. Also most LIRs will never exceed the included number of ASNs.
Best,
Nico
Alexandru Doszlop <alexandru.doszlop@netprotect.ro> writes:
Hello,
I just read the email regarding the charging scheme for 2020 option B. Are you kidding me? Are you really naming it "volume based billing"?
Let's say one isp has only one /12 ipv4 PA. It will pay 1150 euro + 50 euro. The other LIR that wants to help small companies and has 50 /24 assignments, will pay 1150 + 50*50=3650 euro. All new lirs that receive smaller than /22 assignments will pay more than than the big isp. Where is the volume here?
Unbelievable...
Regards, Alex
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Gwen van Berne <gvanberne@ripe.net> Date: Apr 17, 2019 18:08 Subject: [ncc-announce] [GM] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Two Options to Vote On To: ncc-announce@ripe.net Cc:
Dear colleagues,
Members will vote on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 at the General Meeting from 22-24 May. In response to requests from members, the Executive Board is proposing two charging scheme options that the members can choose from at the GM.
An overview of the two options is also available that explains the two models in more detail. The overview and the two charging schemes are available at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2019/supporting-do...
In short, the options that members will choose between are:
Option A: The RIPE NCC will maintain the existing charging scheme, according to which members pay an annual fee of EUR 1,400 plus an extra EUR 50 per independent number resource assignment.
Option B: The RIPE NCC will switch to a new volume-based, per registration charging scheme. This would involve lowering the annual fee to EUR 1,150 whilst broadening the applicability of the separate EUR 50 charge to all number registrations held by the member. See the full list of registrations that would be charged in the document.
The existing sign-up fee of EUR 2,000 will apply to both options.
We encourage members to discuss the options on the Member Discuss mailing list at <members-discuss@ripe.net>. The Executive Board and the RIPE NCC Management will follow discussions closely ahead of the GM.
If you have not yet registered for the GM, we strongly encourage you to do so and make sure you have your say on which of two distinct charging scheme options should be adopted in May. Full participation and voting options are available for all members. You can register now via the LIR Portal at: https://www.ripe.net/s/gm-registration-may-2019
All details on the GM, including the draft agenda, are available from: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2019/
Kind regards,
Gwen van Berne Chief Financial Officer RIPE NCC
-- Your Swiss, Open Source and IPv6 Virtual Machine. Now on www.datacenterlight.ch.
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ivaylo%40bglans.net
On 17/04/2019 19:04, Alexandru Doszlop wrote:
All new lirs that receive smaller than /22 assignments will pay more than than the big isp.
Definitely creates a skewed model. If /22 and e.g. /16 gets charged € 50, regardless of the size. But only count as € 50 per '1 resource assignment'
Where is the volume here?
... Not really anywhere (objectively looking). -- Christoffer
Hello, It will be interesting to hear those who proposed Scheme B. I mean those who was mentioned in the letter : "In response to requests from members" Otherwise it looks to me like manipulation. Look: Everything was quiet. Majority got used to the current charging scheme. Now Scheme B is proposed .. with the word "Volume" Off course many members will be against this change and with clear logic propose scheme based on quantity of ip addresses , not the number of resources. There will be hype .. and after that "good pill" will be proposed. "Good pill" means charges based on quantity and many people will be happy with that. But wait. What problem is solved ? Why we need to change anything? So i repeat. It will be interesting to listen to someone who can describe his logic in proposed scheme B. I myself will vote for scheme A. Thanks! Andrejs
Hi, On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 10:42:15PM +0300, Andrejs Guba wrote:
So i repeat. It will be interesting to listen to someone who can describe his logic in proposed scheme B.
I didn't propose it, but I like scheme B. Why? Because it creates incentives to return unused ASNs, unused PI assignment (or sell them off), etc - instead of just having them lie around, unused. If you *need* something, 50 EUR is ok, but "just to have it", it might be annoying enough to give it back. (I returned one of my ASNs when they did still cost money, back before we changed the charging scheme last time - exactly because) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Why? Because it creates incentives to return unused ASNs, unused PI assignment (or sell them off), etc - instead of just having them lie around, unused. If you *need* something, 50 EUR is ok, but "just to have it", it might be annoying enough to give it back.
No because it will charge the same for a /16 as for a /24. And it’s not fair that after you pay 4k euros for a /24 to pay 50 euros more yearly, unlike some older LIRs that paid next to nothing for a /20 let’s say. If we keep option B we might as well divide the LIRs into two separate types: pre-exaustion (have to pay the 50 euros) post-exaution (exempt from paying the 50 euros) Thanks — Petru Bunea / CEO suport@bunea.eu <mailto:suport@bunea.eu> / +40752481282 <tel:+40752481282> Bunea TELECOM / DATACENTER / APP DEVELOPMENT http://www.bunea.eu <http://www.bunea.eu/> / +40745495495 <tel:+40745495495>
On 17 Apr 2019, at 23:06, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 10:42:15PM +0300, Andrejs Guba wrote:
So i repeat. It will be interesting to listen to someone who can describe his logic in proposed scheme B.
I didn't propose it, but I like scheme B.
Why? Because it creates incentives to return unused ASNs, unused PI assignment (or sell them off), etc - instead of just having them lie around, unused. If you *need* something, 50 EUR is ok, but "just to have it", it might be annoying enough to give it back.
(I returned one of my ASNs when they did still cost money, back before we changed the charging scheme last time - exactly because)
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/suport%40bunea.eu
On 2019-04-17, at 23:10:40, Bunea TELECOM wrote:
Why? Because it creates incentives to return unused ASNs, unused PI assignment (or sell them off), etc - instead of just having them lie around, unused. If you *need* something, 50 EUR is ok, but "just to have it", it might be annoying enough to give it back.
No because it will charge the same for a /16 as for a /24. And it’s not fair that after you pay 4k euros for a /24 to pay 50 euros more yearly, unlike some older LIRs that paid next to nothing for a /20 let’s say.
Argument in favor of Scheme B vs per-IPv4-cost: - Early adopters of ISP businesses gets benefits - good for early adopters who on average have much, much larger allocations than larger sets of /22s or /24s. - Potentially easier for RIPE NCC to implement as it is based on resource without the level of detail of what resource it is Arguments in favor of per-IPv4-cost vs Scheme B: - RIPE NCC should not give competetive advantage to early adopters / incumbents - there is anti trust regulation that potentially comes into play in EU around these things. - Per IPv4 address costing is much more fair obviously, and gives incentives forr holders of the larger allocations (which ought to account for the vast majority of RIPE NCC space) to optimize and return space they do not use. - RIPE NCC implementation is a technical implementation question, and not a policy/governance question. Per-IPv4-cost is not one of the presented choices however. The existing flat fee (option A) is much more simple and less unfair than option B. I have missed the logic for option B as an attempt to solve the cost issues. Considering the level of rebates RIPE NCC is handing out since there is so vast surpluses of the budget, I wonder why fee just isn't lowered instead? I've heard the argument "It shouldn't be too cheap", but I disagree with that. It's a bit silly to transfer large amounts of money to RIPE NCC only for them to transfer it back, and it doesn't incentivize cost efficiency within the NCC either, I imagine. I'll advise the handful of LIRs I'm involved with to go for option A, not because it saves them money but because option B tilts the entire LIR world. Best, -- Martin Millnert BrainMill AB https://www.brainmill.com
If we keep option B we might as well divide the LIRs into two separate types:
pre-exaustion (have to pay the 50 euros) post-exaution (exempt from paying the 50 euros)
Thanks —
Petru Bunea / CEO suport@bunea.eu <mailto:suport@bunea.eu> / +40752481282 <tel:+40752481282> Bunea TELECOM / DATACENTER / APP DEVELOPMENT http://www.bunea.eu <http://www.bunea.eu/> / +40745495495 <tel:+40745495495>
On 17 Apr 2019, at 23:06, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 10:42:15PM +0300, Andrejs Guba wrote:
So i repeat. It will be interesting to listen to someone who can describe his logic in proposed scheme B.
I didn't propose it, but I like scheme B.
Why? Because it creates incentives to return unused ASNs, unused PI assignment (or sell them off), etc - instead of just having them lie around, unused. If you *need* something, 50 EUR is ok, but "just to have it", it might be annoying enough to give it back.
(I returned one of my ASNs when they did still cost money, back before we changed the charging scheme last time - exactly because)
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/suport%40bunea.eu
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/martin.millnert%40bra...
I am more likely to lean Martins way. -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Martin Millnert Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 12:24 AM To: Bunea TELECOM <suport@bunea.eu> Cc: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Regarding RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Two Options to Vote On On 2019-04-17, at 23:10:40, Bunea TELECOM wrote:
Why? Because it creates incentives to return unused ASNs, unused PI assignment (or sell them off), etc - instead of just having them lie around, unused. If you *need* something, 50 EUR is ok, but "just to have it", it might be annoying enough to give it back.
No because it will charge the same for a /16 as for a /24. And it’s not fair that after you pay 4k euros for a /24 to pay 50 euros more yearly, unlike some older LIRs that paid next to nothing for a /20 let’s say.
Argument in favor of Scheme B vs per-IPv4-cost: - Early adopters of ISP businesses gets benefits - good for early adopters who on average have much, much larger allocations than larger sets of /22s or /24s. - Potentially easier for RIPE NCC to implement as it is based on resource without the level of detail of what resource it is Arguments in favor of per-IPv4-cost vs Scheme B: - RIPE NCC should not give competetive advantage to early adopters / incumbents - there is anti trust regulation that potentially comes into play in EU around these things. - Per IPv4 address costing is much more fair obviously, and gives incentives forr holders of the larger allocations (which ought to account for the vast majority of RIPE NCC space) to optimize and return space they do not use. - RIPE NCC implementation is a technical implementation question, and not a policy/governance question. Per-IPv4-cost is not one of the presented choices however. The existing flat fee (option A) is much more simple and less unfair than option B. I have missed the logic for option B as an attempt to solve the cost issues. Considering the level of rebates RIPE NCC is handing out since there is so vast surpluses of the budget, I wonder why fee just isn't lowered instead? I've heard the argument "It shouldn't be too cheap", but I disagree with that. It's a bit silly to transfer large amounts of money to RIPE NCC only for them to transfer it back, and it doesn't incentivize cost efficiency within the NCC either, I imagine. I'll advise the handful of LIRs I'm involved with to go for option A, not because it saves them money but because option B tilts the entire LIR world. Best, -- Martin Millnert BrainMill AB https://www.brainmill.com
If we keep option B we might as well divide the LIRs into two separate types:
pre-exaustion (have to pay the 50 euros) post-exaution (exempt from paying the 50 euros)
Thanks —
Petru Bunea / CEO suport@bunea.eu <mailto:suport@bunea.eu> / +40752481282 <tel:+40752481282> Bunea TELECOM / DATACENTER / APP DEVELOPMENT http://www.bunea.eu <http://www.bunea.eu/> / +40745495495 <tel:+40745495495>
On 17 Apr 2019, at 23:06, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 10:42:15PM +0300, Andrejs Guba wrote:
So i repeat. It will be interesting to listen to someone who can describe his logic in proposed scheme B.
I didn't propose it, but I like scheme B.
Why? Because it creates incentives to return unused ASNs, unused PI assignment (or sell them off), etc - instead of just having them lie around, unused. If you *need* something, 50 EUR is ok, but "just to have it", it might be annoying enough to give it back.
(I returned one of my ASNs when they did still cost money, back before we changed the charging scheme last time - exactly because)
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/suport%40bune a.eu
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/martin.millnert%40bra...
Hello Money is one of the best consultants in the world. This is a two edged sword, the basics of community like Ripe NCC is not to make money nor to have "forced" members in uneven status. This applis both to the membership fee but also to the allocation (service) provided. But as money is such a good consultant it would be beneficial to draw the attention of CFO:s to IP costs so that technical people cant just keep hands on all the IP:s just for future possibilities, fun to have such a big allocations etc reasons. Dont say it would be easy to give up allocations even if you would know you wont need it for several years 😊 So who wants my power of attorney paper to vote for a change in the Ripe summit 😊 ? I dont have time to attend. Would someone be interested to put up a poll about this matter to maybe decrease the amount of opinions expressed on this email list and a link to the poll to this list of course? For example there could be the following 3 options, 1) Current 2) Ripe B option 3) C-class based costs (100 euros per C-class), minimum on 1000 euros if less than 10 c-classes. Examples: -> A - class owner (dont think ripe ncc members have any ? But World has and maybe good ideas spread 😊) : Approx 6 million euros/year. -> B- class owner: Approx 25 500 euros (allready quite little!) / year -> 50 c-classes: : 5000 euros / year Lets say one legacy user would own several B -classes it would draw the attention of economy department when the bill arrives and atleast internal discussion. Maybe this pricing would still be a bit low and i think there should anyway be a minimum membership fee. Best regards, Hans Govenius -----Alkuperäinen viesti----- Lähettäjä: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> Puolesta Martin Millnert Lähetetty: keskiviikko 17. huhtikuuta 2019 23.24 Vastaanottaja: Bunea TELECOM <suport@bunea.eu> Kopio: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>; members-discuss@ripe.net Aihe: Re: [members-discuss] Regarding RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Two Options to Vote On On 2019-04-17, at 23:10:40, Bunea TELECOM wrote:
Why? Because it creates incentives to return unused ASNs, unused PI assignment (or sell them off), etc - instead of just having them lie around, unused. If you *need* something, 50 EUR is ok, but "just to have it", it might be annoying enough to give it back.
No because it will charge the same for a /16 as for a /24. And it’s not fair that after you pay 4k euros for a /24 to pay 50 euros more yearly, unlike some older LIRs that paid next to nothing for a /20 let’s say.
Argument in favor of Scheme B vs per-IPv4-cost: - Early adopters of ISP businesses gets benefits - good for early adopters who on average have much, much larger allocations than larger sets of /22s or /24s. - Potentially easier for RIPE NCC to implement as it is based on resource without the level of detail of what resource it is Arguments in favor of per-IPv4-cost vs Scheme B: - RIPE NCC should not give competetive advantage to early adopters / incumbents - there is anti trust regulation that potentially comes into play in EU around these things. - Per IPv4 address costing is much more fair obviously, and gives incentives forr holders of the larger allocations (which ought to account for the vast majority of RIPE NCC space) to optimize and return space they do not use. - RIPE NCC implementation is a technical implementation question, and not a policy/governance question. Per-IPv4-cost is not one of the presented choices however. The existing flat fee (option A) is much more simple and less unfair than option B. I have missed the logic for option B as an attempt to solve the cost issues. Considering the level of rebates RIPE NCC is handing out since there is so vast surpluses of the budget, I wonder why fee just isn't lowered instead? I've heard the argument "It shouldn't be too cheap", but I disagree with that. It's a bit silly to transfer large amounts of money to RIPE NCC only for them to transfer it back, and it doesn't incentivize cost efficiency within the NCC either, I imagine. I'll advise the handful of LIRs I'm involved with to go for option A, not because it saves them money but because option B tilts the entire LIR world. Best, -- Martin Millnert BrainMill AB https://www.brainmill.com
If we keep option B we might as well divide the LIRs into two separate types:
pre-exaustion (have to pay the 50 euros) post-exaution (exempt from paying the 50 euros)
Thanks —
Petru Bunea / CEO suport@bunea.eu <mailto:suport@bunea.eu> / +40752481282 <tel:+40752481282> Bunea TELECOM / DATACENTER / APP DEVELOPMENT http://www.bunea.eu <http://www.bunea.eu/> / +40745495495 <tel:+40745495495>
On 17 Apr 2019, at 23:06, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 10:42:15PM +0300, Andrejs Guba wrote:
So i repeat. It will be interesting to listen to someone who can describe his logic in proposed scheme B.
I didn't propose it, but I like scheme B.
Why? Because it creates incentives to return unused ASNs, unused PI assignment (or sell them off), etc - instead of just having them lie around, unused. If you *need* something, 50 EUR is ok, but "just to have it", it might be annoying enough to give it back.
(I returned one of my ASNs when they did still cost money, back before we changed the charging scheme last time - exactly because)
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/suport%40bune a.eu
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/martin.millnert%40bra...
Hi, On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 06:43:14AM +0000, Hans Govenius wrote:
So who wants my power of attorney paper to vote for a change in the Ripe summit ???? ? I dont have time to attend.
You can do electronic voting and follow the AGM remotely. So, no need to attend in person. (And if you do not want to follow the AGM life stream, voting can be done over a period of 36 hours, if I remember correctly, so in whatever timezone you can find 10 minutes, it will work out) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hello, My opinion is that if RIPE will move on with volume based billing, it will completely lose any legacy holder who wishes to become member. They will simply not become members and big chunks of used IPv4 will remain legacy forever in the database. Regards, Alex On 18.04.2019 09:43, Hans Govenius wrote: > Hello > > > Money is one of the best consultants in the world. > > This is a two edged sword, the basics of community like Ripe NCC is not to make money nor to have "forced" members in uneven status. This applis both to the membership fee but also to the allocation (service) provided. > > But as money is such a good consultant it would be beneficial to draw the attention of CFO:s to IP costs so that technical people cant just keep hands on all the IP:s just for future possibilities, fun to have such a big allocations etc reasons. Dont say it would be easy to give up allocations even if you would know you wont need it for several years 😊 > > So who wants my power of attorney paper to vote for a change in the Ripe summit 😊 ? I dont have time to attend. > > Would someone be interested to put up a poll about this matter to maybe decrease the amount of opinions expressed on this email list and a link to the poll to this list of course? > > For example there could be the following 3 options, > 1) Current > 2) Ripe B option > 3) C-class based costs (100 euros per C-class), minimum on 1000 euros if less than 10 c-classes. > Examples: > -> A - class owner (dont think ripe ncc members have any ? But World has and maybe good ideas spread 😊) : Approx 6 million euros/year. > -> B- class owner: Approx 25 500 euros (allready quite little!) / year > -> 50 c-classes: : 5000 euros / year > > > Lets say one legacy user would own several B -classes it would draw the attention of economy department when the bill arrives and atleast internal discussion. Maybe this pricing would still be a bit low and i think there should anyway be a minimum membership fee. > > Best regards, > > Hans Govenius > > -----Alkuperäinen viesti----- > Lähettäjä: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> Puolesta Martin Millnert > Lähetetty: keskiviikko 17. huhtikuuta 2019 23.24 > Vastaanottaja: Bunea TELECOM <suport@bunea.eu> > Kopio: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>; members-discuss@ripe.net > Aihe: Re: [members-discuss] Regarding RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Two Options to Vote On > > On 2019-04-17, at 23:10:40, Bunea TELECOM wrote: >>> Why? Because it creates incentives to return unused ASNs, unused PI >>> assignment (or sell them off), etc - instead of just having them lie >>> around, unused. If you *need* something, 50 EUR is ok, but "just to >>> have it", it might be annoying enough to give it back. >> >> No because it will charge the same for a /16 as for a /24. And it’s not fair that after you pay 4k euros for a /24 to pay 50 euros more yearly, unlike some older LIRs that paid next to nothing for a /20 let’s say. > Argument in favor of Scheme B vs per-IPv4-cost: > - Early adopters of ISP businesses gets benefits - good for early > adopters who on average have much, much larger allocations than > larger sets of /22s or /24s. > - Potentially easier for RIPE NCC to implement as it is based on > resource without the level of detail of what resource it is > > Arguments in favor of per-IPv4-cost vs Scheme B: > - RIPE NCC should not give competetive advantage to early adopters / > incumbents - there is anti trust regulation that potentially comes > into play in EU around these things. > - Per IPv4 address costing is much more fair obviously, and gives > incentives forr holders of the larger allocations (which ought to > account for the vast majority of RIPE NCC space) to optimize and > return space they do not use. > - RIPE NCC implementation is a technical implementation question, and > not a policy/governance question. > > > Per-IPv4-cost is not one of the presented choices however. The existing flat fee (option A) is much more simple and less unfair than option B. > > I have missed the logic for option B as an attempt to solve the cost issues. Considering the level of rebates RIPE NCC is handing out since there is so vast surpluses of the budget, I wonder why fee just isn't lowered instead? I've heard the argument "It shouldn't be too cheap", but I disagree with that. It's a bit silly to transfer large amounts of money to RIPE NCC only for them to transfer it back, and it doesn't incentivize cost efficiency within the NCC either, I imagine. > > > I'll advise the handful of LIRs I'm involved with to go for option A, not because it saves them money but because option B tilts the entire LIR world. > > Best, > -- > Martin Millnert > BrainMill AB > https://www.brainmill.com > > >> If we keep option B we might as well divide the LIRs into two separate types: >> >> pre-exaustion (have to pay the 50 euros) post-exaution (exempt from >> paying the 50 euros) >> >> Thanks >> — >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Petru Bunea / CEO >> suport@bunea.eu <mailto:suport@bunea.eu> / +40752481282 >> <tel:+40752481282> Bunea TELECOM / DATACENTER / APP DEVELOPMENT >> http://www.bunea.eu <http://www.bunea.eu/> / +40745495495 >> <tel:+40745495495> >> >>> On 17 Apr 2019, at 23:06, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 10:42:15PM +0300, Andrejs Guba wrote: >>>> So i repeat. It will be interesting to listen to someone who can >>>> describe his logic in proposed scheme B. >>> I didn't propose it, but I like scheme B. >>> >>> Why? Because it creates incentives to return unused ASNs, unused PI >>> assignment (or sell them off), etc - instead of just having them lie >>> around, unused. If you *need* something, 50 EUR is ok, but "just to >>> have it", it might be annoying enough to give it back. >>> >>> (I returned one of my ASNs when they did still cost money, back >>> before we changed the charging scheme last time - exactly because) >>> >>> Gert Doering >>> -- NetMaster >>> -- >>> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? >>> >>> SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer >>> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann >>> D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) >>> Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> members-discuss mailing list >>> members-discuss@ripe.net >>> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss >>> Unsubscribe: >>> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/suport%40bune >>> a.eu >> _______________________________________________ >> members-discuss mailing list >> members-discuss@ripe.net >> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss >> Unsubscribe: >> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/martin.millnert%40brainmill.com > > _______________________________________________ > members-discuss mailing list > members-discuss@ripe.net > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/alexandru.doszlop%40netprotect.ro
Hello If there is a service provided by co-opeartive like Ripe there is no legal obligation to provide that service to non-members and such legacy rights can be corrected by forcing any instance using any of Ripes services, that such service user, must be a member. Or am i wrong here? Is there a legal obligation to do so ? And if someone says there is i would like to see the legal text assosiated with this. But as i said it would be interesting to see the real support for different options as anyone can speak loudly but who actually have the support. So vote would be great! Regards, Hans -----Alkuperäinen viesti----- Lähettäjä: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> Puolesta Alexandru Doszlop Lähetetty: torstai 18. huhtikuuta 2019 11.55 Vastaanottaja: members-discuss@ripe.net Aihe: Re: [members-discuss] Regarding RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Two Options to Vote On Hello, My opinion is that if RIPE will move on with volume based billing, it will completely lose any legacy holder who wishes to become member. They will simply not become members and big chunks of used IPv4 will remain legacy forever in the database. Regards, Alex On 18.04.2019 09:43, Hans Govenius wrote: > Hello > > > Money is one of the best consultants in the world. > > This is a two edged sword, the basics of community like Ripe NCC is not to make money nor to have "forced" members in uneven status. This applis both to the membership fee but also to the allocation (service) provided. > > But as money is such a good consultant it would be beneficial to draw the attention of CFO:s to IP costs so that technical people cant just keep hands on all the IP:s just for future possibilities, fun to have such a big allocations etc reasons. Dont say it would be easy to give up allocations even if you would know you wont need it for several years 😊 > > So who wants my power of attorney paper to vote for a change in the Ripe summit 😊 ? I dont have time to attend. > > Would someone be interested to put up a poll about this matter to maybe decrease the amount of opinions expressed on this email list and a link to the poll to this list of course? > > For example there could be the following 3 options, > 1) Current > 2) Ripe B option > 3) C-class based costs (100 euros per C-class), minimum on 1000 euros if less than 10 c-classes. > Examples: > -> A - class owner (dont think ripe ncc members have any ? But World has and maybe good ideas spread 😊) : Approx 6 million euros/year. > -> B- class owner: Approx 25 500 euros (allready quite little!) / year > -> 50 c-classes: : 5000 euros / year > > > Lets say one legacy user would own several B -classes it would draw the attention of economy department when the bill arrives and atleast internal discussion. Maybe this pricing would still be a bit low and i think there should anyway be a minimum membership fee. > > Best regards, > > Hans Govenius > > -----Alkuperäinen viesti----- > Lähettäjä: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> Puolesta Martin Millnert > Lähetetty: keskiviikko 17. huhtikuuta 2019 23.24 > Vastaanottaja: Bunea TELECOM <suport@bunea.eu> > Kopio: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>; members-discuss@ripe.net > Aihe: Re: [members-discuss] Regarding RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Two Options to Vote On > > On 2019-04-17, at 23:10:40, Bunea TELECOM wrote: >>> Why? Because it creates incentives to return unused ASNs, unused PI >>> assignment (or sell them off), etc - instead of just having them lie >>> around, unused. If you *need* something, 50 EUR is ok, but "just to >>> have it", it might be annoying enough to give it back. >> >> No because it will charge the same for a /16 as for a /24. And it’s not fair that after you pay 4k euros for a /24 to pay 50 euros more yearly, unlike some older LIRs that paid next to nothing for a /20 let’s say. > Argument in favor of Scheme B vs per-IPv4-cost: > - Early adopters of ISP businesses gets benefits - good for early > adopters who on average have much, much larger allocations than > larger sets of /22s or /24s. > - Potentially easier for RIPE NCC to implement as it is based on > resource without the level of detail of what resource it is > > Arguments in favor of per-IPv4-cost vs Scheme B: > - RIPE NCC should not give competetive advantage to early adopters / > incumbents - there is anti trust regulation that potentially comes > into play in EU around these things. > - Per IPv4 address costing is much more fair obviously, and gives > incentives forr holders of the larger allocations (which ought to > account for the vast majority of RIPE NCC space) to optimize and > return space they do not use. > - RIPE NCC implementation is a technical implementation question, and > not a policy/governance question. > > > Per-IPv4-cost is not one of the presented choices however. The existing flat fee (option A) is much more simple and less unfair than option B. > > I have missed the logic for option B as an attempt to solve the cost issues. Considering the level of rebates RIPE NCC is handing out since there is so vast surpluses of the budget, I wonder why fee just isn't lowered instead? I've heard the argument "It shouldn't be too cheap", but I disagree with that. It's a bit silly to transfer large amounts of money to RIPE NCC only for them to transfer it back, and it doesn't incentivize cost efficiency within the NCC either, I imagine. > > > I'll advise the handful of LIRs I'm involved with to go for option A, not because it saves them money but because option B tilts the entire LIR world. > > Best, > -- > Martin Millnert > BrainMill AB > https://www.brainmill.com > > >> If we keep option B we might as well divide the LIRs into two separate types: >> >> pre-exaustion (have to pay the 50 euros) post-exaution (exempt from >> paying the 50 euros) >> >> Thanks >> — >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Petru Bunea / CEO >> suport@bunea.eu <mailto:suport@bunea.eu> / +40752481282 >> <tel:+40752481282> Bunea TELECOM / DATACENTER / APP DEVELOPMENT >> http://www.bunea.eu <http://www.bunea.eu/> / +40745495495 >> <tel:+40745495495> >> >>> On 17 Apr 2019, at 23:06, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 10:42:15PM +0300, Andrejs Guba wrote: >>>> So i repeat. It will be interesting to listen to someone who can >>>> describe his logic in proposed scheme B. >>> I didn't propose it, but I like scheme B. >>> >>> Why? Because it creates incentives to return unused ASNs, unused PI >>> assignment (or sell them off), etc - instead of just having them lie >>> around, unused. If you *need* something, 50 EUR is ok, but "just to >>> have it", it might be annoying enough to give it back. >>> >>> (I returned one of my ASNs when they did still cost money, back >>> before we changed the charging scheme last time - exactly because) >>> >>> Gert Doering >>> -- NetMaster >>> -- >>> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? >>> >>> SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer >>> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann >>> D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) >>> Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> members-discuss mailing list >>> members-discuss@ripe.net >>> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss >>> Unsubscribe: >>> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/suport%40bune >>> a.eu >> _______________________________________________ >> members-discuss mailing list >> members-discuss@ripe.net >> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss >> Unsubscribe: >> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/martin.millnert%40brainmill.com > > _______________________________________________ > members-discuss mailing list > members-discuss@ripe.net > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/alexandru.doszlop%40netprotect.ro _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/hans.govenius%40devnet.fi
On 18/04/2019 10:55, Alexandru Doszlop wrote:
They will simply not become members and big chunks of used IPv4 will remain legacy forever in the database.
And they will never get a legitimate holder, thus no certificate, thus no ROA, thus no RPKI validation. As a holder of a lot of legacy space, that is handled in the lir-portal, and is certified and has ROAs.. Option B basically makes securing the internet a very costly exercise. Jac
Regards,
Alex
On 18.04.2019 09:43, Hans Govenius wrote:
Hello
Money is one of the best consultants in the world.
This is a two edged sword, the basics of community like Ripe NCC is not to make money nor to have "forced" members in uneven status. This applis both to the membership fee but also to the allocation (service) provided.
But as money is such a good consultant it would be beneficial to draw the attention of CFO:s to IP costs so that technical people cant just keep hands on all the IP:s just for future possibilities, fun to have such a big allocations etc reasons. Dont say it would be easy to give up allocations even if you would know you wont need it for several years 😊
So who wants my power of attorney paper to vote for a change in the Ripe summit 😊 ? I dont have time to attend.
Would someone be interested to put up a poll about this matter to maybe decrease the amount of opinions expressed on this email list and a link to the poll to this list of course?
For example there could be the following 3 options, 1) Current 2) Ripe B option 3) C-class based costs (100 euros per C-class), minimum on 1000 euros if less than 10 c-classes. Examples: -> A - class owner (dont think ripe ncc members have any ? But World has and maybe good ideas spread 😊) : Approx 6 million euros/year. -> B- class owner: Approx 25 500 euros (allready quite little!) / year -> 50 c-classes: : 5000 euros / year
Lets say one legacy user would own several B -classes it would draw the attention of economy department when the bill arrives and atleast internal discussion. Maybe this pricing would still be a bit low and i think there should anyway be a minimum membership fee.
Best regards,
Hans Govenius
-----Alkuperäinen viesti----- Lähettäjä: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> Puolesta Martin Millnert Lähetetty: keskiviikko 17. huhtikuuta 2019 23.24 Vastaanottaja: Bunea TELECOM <suport@bunea.eu> Kopio: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>; members-discuss@ripe.net Aihe: Re: [members-discuss] Regarding RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Two Options to Vote On
On 2019-04-17, at 23:10:40, Bunea TELECOM wrote:
Why? Because it creates incentives to return unused ASNs, unused PI assignment (or sell them off), etc - instead of just having them lie around, unused. If you *need* something, 50 EUR is ok, but "just to have it", it might be annoying enough to give it back.
No because it will charge the same for a /16 as for a /24. And it’s not fair that after you pay 4k euros for a /24 to pay 50 euros more yearly, unlike some older LIRs that paid next to nothing for a /20 let’s say. Argument in favor of Scheme B vs per-IPv4-cost: - Early adopters of ISP businesses gets benefits - good for early adopters who on average have much, much larger allocations than larger sets of /22s or /24s. - Potentially easier for RIPE NCC to implement as it is based on resource without the level of detail of what resource it is
Arguments in favor of per-IPv4-cost vs Scheme B: - RIPE NCC should not give competetive advantage to early adopters / incumbents - there is anti trust regulation that potentially comes into play in EU around these things. - Per IPv4 address costing is much more fair obviously, and gives incentives forr holders of the larger allocations (which ought to account for the vast majority of RIPE NCC space) to optimize and return space they do not use. - RIPE NCC implementation is a technical implementation question, and not a policy/governance question.
Per-IPv4-cost is not one of the presented choices however. The existing flat fee (option A) is much more simple and less unfair than option B.
I have missed the logic for option B as an attempt to solve the cost issues. Considering the level of rebates RIPE NCC is handing out since there is so vast surpluses of the budget, I wonder why fee just isn't lowered instead? I've heard the argument "It shouldn't be too cheap", but I disagree with that. It's a bit silly to transfer large amounts of money to RIPE NCC only for them to transfer it back, and it doesn't incentivize cost efficiency within the NCC either, I imagine.
I'll advise the handful of LIRs I'm involved with to go for option A, not because it saves them money but because option B tilts the entire LIR world.
Best, -- Martin Millnert BrainMill AB https://www.brainmill.com
If we keep option B we might as well divide the LIRs into two separate types:
pre-exaustion (have to pay the 50 euros) post-exaution (exempt from paying the 50 euros)
Thanks —
Petru Bunea / CEO suport@bunea.eu <mailto:suport@bunea.eu> / +40752481282 <tel:+40752481282> Bunea TELECOM / DATACENTER / APP DEVELOPMENT http://www.bunea.eu <http://www.bunea.eu/> / +40745495495 <tel:+40745495495>
On 17 Apr 2019, at 23:06, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 10:42:15PM +0300, Andrejs Guba wrote:
So i repeat. It will be interesting to listen to someone who can describe his logic in proposed scheme B. I didn't propose it, but I like scheme B.
Why? Because it creates incentives to return unused ASNs, unused PI assignment (or sell them off), etc - instead of just having them lie around, unused. If you *need* something, 50 EUR is ok, but "just to have it", it might be annoying enough to give it back.
(I returned one of my ASNs when they did still cost money, back before we changed the charging scheme last time - exactly because)
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/suport%40bune a.eu
members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/martin.millnert%40bra...
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/alexandru.doszlop%40n...
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/jac.kloots%40surfnet....
-- Jac Kloots Teamlead Network Services Network Department SURFnet
Hi, On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 11:10:40PM +0300, Bunea TELECOM wrote:
Why? Because it creates incentives to return unused ASNs, unused PI assignment (or sell them off), etc - instead of just having them lie around, unused. If you *need* something, 50 EUR is ok, but "just to have it", it might be annoying enough to give it back.
No because it will charge the same for a /16 as for a /24. And it???s not fair that after you pay 4k euros for a /24 to pay 50 euros more yearly, unlike some older LIRs that paid next to nothing for a /20 let???s say.
Life is not fair if you exhaust some common resource. No matter how you twist it, it will still not be fair. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
On 17/04/2019 22:36, Gert Doering wrote:
Life is not fair if you exhaust some common resource. No matter how you twist it, it will still not be fair.
"Life is never fair, and perhaps it is a good thing for most of us that it is not." - Oscar Wilde
That's not a reason, RIPE is a non profit and have to be fair with any members. If they review theyr copy about charge based on v4 ip and not on number of PA/PI, maybe i can vote for it. Cedric Le 17-04-19 à 22:51, Hansen, Christoffer a écrit :
On 17/04/2019 22:36, Gert Doering wrote:
Life is not fair if you exhaust some common resource. No matter how you twist it, it will still not be fair. "Life is never fair, and perhaps it is a good thing for most of us that it is not." - Oscar Wilde
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ml%40servperso.com
On 17/04/2019 22:55, Cedric R via members-discuss wrote:
RIPE is a non profit and have to be fair with any members.
Agreed.
If they review their copy about charge based on IPv4 and not on number of PA/PI, maybe i can vote for it.
With you there. I agreed with Doering about the charge for ASNs. If you are being charged for having unused ASNs lying around 'just in case'. I am of the same opinion he is. >>Just return it.<< It's like Right and Left wing opinions. (Much like Politics.) [I need the Middle Ground C-option] -- Christoffer
Woudl be good idea to add third options: "Against all"... Because i don't see most requested option - pay in proportion to the number of ip's to be used. But, RIPE was against this as far as i could know. Regards Azer
Hello Gert, To return unused ASN maybe .. but they are strongly asked to return anyway. PI , no - the cost will remain the same according to both schemes.
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 10:42:15PM +0300, Andrejs Guba wrote:
So i repeat. It will be interesting to listen to someone who can describe his logic in proposed scheme B.
I didn't propose it, but I like scheme B.
Why? Because it creates incentives to return unused ASNs, unused PI assignment (or sell them off), etc - instead of just having them lie around, unused. If you *need* something, 50 EUR is ok, but "just to have it", it might be annoying enough to give it back.
(I returned one of my ASNs when they did still cost money, back before we changed the charging scheme last time - exactly because)
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Gert, please, don't try to open Pandora box again... Or we are membership association or service provider with all potential ... regards, Dima On 4/17/19 11:06 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 10:42:15PM +0300, Andrejs Guba wrote:
So i repeat. It will be interesting to listen to someone who can describe his logic in proposed scheme B. I didn't propose it, but I like scheme B.
Why? Because it creates incentives to return unused ASNs, unused PI assignment (or sell them off), etc - instead of just having them lie around, unused. If you *need* something, 50 EUR is ok, but "just to have it", it might be annoying enough to give it back.
(I returned one of my ASNs when they did still cost money, back before we changed the charging scheme last time - exactly because)
Gert Doering -- NetMaster
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/dburk%40burkov.aha.ru
Hi, On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 12:55:03AM +0300, Dmitry Burkov wrote:
Gert,
please,
don't try to open Pandora box again...
Or we are membership association or service provider with all potential ...
Huh? I did not bring up the new charging scheme, and I can't see how expressing support for one of the new options proposed can be considered "open Pandora box"... Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Dear colleagues, there are many users discussing about per ipv4 payments for a long time. I does not have to be most wanted option, but I believe, it is most discussed option last years. So if we decide to make voting about charging scheme, it should include the most discussed option. We will see if it win or not. Voting without this option is misleading. Organizations with huge allocations love actual schema (optiona A) and small organizations with symbolic alocation of /22 are definitely not going to vote for option B (very simplified it means: the less you have to buy on expensive ipv4 market the less you have to pay RIPE annualy). Please * Add option C (per-ipv4 fee) to choices or * Cancel this voting. Results of voting with announced options will be very misleading. Thanks, M. Prokeš
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Gwen van Berne <gvanberne@ripe.net> Date: Apr 17, 2019 18:08 Subject: [ncc-announce] [GM] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Two Options to Vote On To: ncc-announce@ripe.net Cc:
Dear colleagues,
Members will vote on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 at the General Meeting from 22-24 May. In response to requests from members, the Executive Board is proposing two charging scheme options that the members can choose from at the GM.
An overview of the two options is also available that explains the two models in more detail. The overview and the two charging schemes are available at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2019/supporting-do...
In short, the options that members will choose between are:
Option A: The RIPE NCC will maintain the existing charging scheme, according to which members pay an annual fee of EUR 1,400 plus an extra EUR 50 per independent number resource assignment.
Option B: The RIPE NCC will switch to a new volume-based, per registration charging scheme. This would involve lowering the annual fee to EUR 1,150 whilst broadening the applicability of the separate EUR 50 charge to all number registrations held by the member. See the full list of registrations that would be charged in the document.
The existing sign-up fee of EUR 2,000 will apply to both options.
We encourage members to discuss the options on the Member Discuss mailing list at <members-discuss@ripe.net>. The Executive Board and the RIPE NCC Management will follow discussions closely ahead of the GM.
If you have not yet registered for the GM, we strongly encourage you to do so and make sure you have your say on which of two distinct charging scheme options should be adopted in May. Full participation and voting options are available for all members. You can register now via the LIR Portal at: https://www.ripe.net/s/gm-registration-may-2019
All details on the GM, including the draft agenda, are available from: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2019/
Kind regards,
Gwen van Berne Chief Financial Officer RIPE NCC
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/michal.prokes%40hdata...
-- Michal Prokeš, Internetová síť wosa.cz H-data, spol. s r.o., Václavská 4, 603 00 Brno Infolinka: +420 534 001 200 Email: info@wosa.cz
I agree, this vote does not make sense to me. It seems to me that the board does not want a volume-based pricing, and so suggests an option that few will vote for. Then they can say "you see, people do not want volume-based pricing"... An issue with most suggested "Option C" schemes is that final income will be too high. Here is a spreadsheet to help do the math and see the impact on each LIR. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oVAQ7ADW3UY17GPUgJl2T8AhMwHaDiuCb8a9... (feel free to make a copy and do you own math) For instance, if we estimate RIPE needed budget to 32M€, and decide to charge half via flat fee, half via number of IPs, that gives 740€ + 2.7cents / IPv4 address or IPv6/32 prefix. (see tab n°2 of spreadsheet) Alexis Hanicotte VelumWare SAS On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 10:23 AM Michal Prokeš <michal.prokes@hdata.cz> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
there are many users discussing about per ipv4 payments for a long time. I does not have to be most wanted option, but I believe, it is most discussed option last years.
So if we decide to make voting about charging scheme, it should include the most discussed option. We will see if it win or not. Voting without this option is misleading. Organizations with huge allocations love actual schema (optiona A) and small organizations with symbolic alocation of /22 are definitely not going to vote for option B (very simplified it means: the less you have to buy on expensive ipv4 market the less you have to pay RIPE annualy).
Please
* Add option C (per-ipv4 fee) to choices
or
* Cancel this voting.
Results of voting with announced options will be very misleading.
Thanks,
M. Prokeš
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Gwen van Berne <gvanberne@ripe.net> <gvanberne@ripe.net> Date: Apr 17, 2019 18:08 Subject: [ncc-announce] [GM] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Two Options to Vote On To: ncc-announce@ripe.net Cc:
Dear colleagues,
Members will vote on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 at the General Meeting from 22-24 May. In response to requests from members, the Executive Board is proposing two charging scheme options that the members can choose from at the GM.
An overview of the two options is also available that explains the two models in more detail. The overview and the two charging schemes are available at:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2019/supporting-do...
In short, the options that members will choose between are:
Option A: The RIPE NCC will maintain the existing charging scheme, according to which members pay an annual fee of EUR 1,400 plus an extra EUR 50 per independent number resource assignment.
Option B: The RIPE NCC will switch to a new volume-based, per registration charging scheme. This would involve lowering the annual fee to EUR 1,150 whilst broadening the applicability of the separate EUR 50 charge to all number registrations held by the member. See the full list of registrations that would be charged in the document.
The existing sign-up fee of EUR 2,000 will apply to both options.
We encourage members to discuss the options on the Member Discuss mailing list at <members-discuss@ripe.net> <members-discuss@ripe.net>. The Executive Board and the RIPE NCC Management will follow discussions closely ahead of the GM.
If you have not yet registered for the GM, we strongly encourage you to do so and make sure you have your say on which of two distinct charging scheme options should be adopted in May. Full participation and voting options are available for all members. You can register now via the LIR Portal at: https://www.ripe.net/s/gm-registration-may-2019
All details on the GM, including the draft agenda, are available from: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2019/
Kind regards,
Gwen van Berne Chief Financial Officer RIPE NCC
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing listmembers-discuss@ripe.nethttps://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/michal.prokes%40hdata...
-- Michal Prokeš, Internetová síť wosa.cz
H-data, spol. s r.o., Václavská 4, 603 00 Brno Infolinka: +420 534 001 200 Email: info@wosa.cz
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/alexis%40velumware.co...
Despite the fact you're not counting the amount earn via new members Sign-up fee, i think your scheme would work better than any other that was already presented. On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 9:37 AM Alexis Hanicotte <alexis@velumware.com> wrote:
I agree, this vote does not make sense to me. It seems to me that the board does not want a volume-based pricing, and so suggests an option that few will vote for. Then they can say "you see, people do not want volume-based pricing"...
An issue with most suggested "Option C" schemes is that final income will be too high. Here is a spreadsheet to help do the math and see the impact on each LIR.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oVAQ7ADW3UY17GPUgJl2T8AhMwHaDiuCb8a9... (feel free to make a copy and do you own math)
For instance, if we estimate RIPE needed budget to 32M€, and decide to charge half via flat fee, half via number of IPs, that gives 740€ + 2.7cents / IPv4 address or IPv6/32 prefix. (see tab n°2 of spreadsheet)
Alexis Hanicotte VelumWare SAS
On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 10:23 AM Michal Prokeš <michal.prokes@hdata.cz> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
there are many users discussing about per ipv4 payments for a long time. I does not have to be most wanted option, but I believe, it is most discussed option last years.
So if we decide to make voting about charging scheme, it should include the most discussed option. We will see if it win or not. Voting without this option is misleading. Organizations with huge allocations love actual schema (optiona A) and small organizations with symbolic alocation of /22 are definitely not going to vote for option B (very simplified it means: the less you have to buy on expensive ipv4 market the less you have to pay RIPE annualy).
Please
* Add option C (per-ipv4 fee) to choices
or
* Cancel this voting.
Results of voting with announced options will be very misleading.
Thanks,
M. Prokeš
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Gwen van Berne <gvanberne@ripe.net> <gvanberne@ripe.net> Date: Apr 17, 2019 18:08 Subject: [ncc-announce] [GM] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Two Options to Vote On To: ncc-announce@ripe.net Cc:
Dear colleagues,
Members will vote on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 at the General Meeting from 22-24 May. In response to requests from members, the Executive Board is proposing two charging scheme options that the members can choose from at the GM.
An overview of the two options is also available that explains the two models in more detail. The overview and the two charging schemes are available at:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2019/supporting-do...
In short, the options that members will choose between are:
Option A: The RIPE NCC will maintain the existing charging scheme, according to which members pay an annual fee of EUR 1,400 plus an extra EUR 50 per independent number resource assignment.
Option B: The RIPE NCC will switch to a new volume-based, per registration charging scheme. This would involve lowering the annual fee to EUR 1,150 whilst broadening the applicability of the separate EUR 50 charge to all number registrations held by the member. See the full list of registrations that would be charged in the document.
The existing sign-up fee of EUR 2,000 will apply to both options.
We encourage members to discuss the options on the Member Discuss mailing list at <members-discuss@ripe.net> <members-discuss@ripe.net>. The Executive Board and the RIPE NCC Management will follow discussions closely ahead of the GM.
If you have not yet registered for the GM, we strongly encourage you to do so and make sure you have your say on which of two distinct charging scheme options should be adopted in May. Full participation and voting options are available for all members. You can register now via the LIR Portal at: https://www.ripe.net/s/gm-registration-may-2019
All details on the GM, including the draft agenda, are available from: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2019/
Kind regards,
Gwen van Berne Chief Financial Officer RIPE NCC
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing listmembers-discuss@ripe.nethttps://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/michal.prokes%40hdata...
-- Michal Prokeš, Internetová síť wosa.cz
H-data, spol. s r.o., Václavská 4, 603 00 Brno Infolinka: +420 534 001 200 Email: info@wosa.cz
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/alexis%40velumware.co...
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/teotonio.ricardo%40we...
Hi All, As a large operator (former telco) who has been in the internet business since the beginning of it and with millions of customers, either option A or B will not solve the shortage of IPv4 blocks. A large operator also needs “free space” to make huge changes to networks, build new ones in parallel and upgrade to new techniques. So I do not believe that charging more will return “huge” amounts of IPv4, even if they would be “free” at the moment. Ripe being a non-profit organization will because of this either have to lower the annual fee, or return large parts of the extra income this option B might bring in, or will have to pay large amounts of profit tax to the Dutch tax system. The executive board last year suggested a more simple billing system, and this was implemented in a way that membership fees will be billed only yearly. This option B will again make the billing again more complicated. I helped my customer set up a lir, and had a look in the portal’s billing section. After the initial setup fee and after the refund of last year the annual fee was just a little over 800 euros. I can tell ours is a lot higher since we “sponsor” PI customers etc etc. What problem are we trying to solve with option B ? * billing will get more complicated, this is opposite of what was intended. * option B does not satisfy everyone, neither does option A * v4 will not become more available. It may not surprise you that of these 2 options to choose from the one equal to all is the one I support (Option A). (And this is of course with my private hat on..) Rgds, Ray
Hello all, I just checked Alexis's spreadsheet. If I'm sorting it by IPv4 block numbers I'm the 5th biggest with 233 blocks. (81408 IPs) !!! With Option B I will pay at least 13000 euro. The biggest LIR, de.telekom, will pay a little over 2700 euro for 28.972.032 IP addresses. I just don't understand the reasoning behind the "volume" here. In earlier discussions from the last 2 years here on members-discuss, the RIPE representatives kept telling us that the annual fee is a member fee and not a price for the resources used. Now, I see a 180 degrees shift in their reasoning. They are telling us that this Option B is the more fairest because it takes into account the number of allocations because this is somehow representing the resources used by a LIR. But why not take into account all types of objects from the database? Contact persons, route objects, domains, roles, organizations and many more ... Regards, Alex P.S. I'm so angry at RIPE right now! On 18.04.2019 11:37, Alexis Hanicotte wrote:
I agree, this vote does not make sense to me. It seems to me that the board does not want a volume-based pricing, and so suggests an option that few will vote for. Then they can say "you see, people do not want volume-based pricing"...
An issue with most suggested "Option C" schemes is that final income will be too high. Here is a spreadsheet to help do the math and see the impact on each LIR. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oVAQ7ADW3UY17GPUgJl2T8AhMwHaDiuCb8a9... (feel free to make a copy and do you own math)
For instance, if we estimate RIPE needed budget to 32M€, and decide to charge half via flat fee, half via number of IPs, that gives 740€ + 2.7cents / IPv4 address or IPv6/32 prefix. (see tab n°2 of spreadsheet)
Alexis Hanicotte VelumWare SAS
On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 10:23 AM Michal Prokeš <michal.prokes@hdata.cz <mailto:michal.prokes@hdata.cz>> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
there are many users discussing about per ipv4 payments for a long time. I does not have to be most wanted option, but I believe, it is most discussed option last years.
So if we decide to make voting about charging scheme, it should include the most discussed option. We will see if it win or not. Voting without this option is misleading. Organizations with huge allocations love actual schema (optiona A) and small organizations with symbolic alocation of /22 are definitely not going to vote for option B (very simplified it means: the less you have to buy on expensive ipv4 market the less you have to pay RIPE annualy).
Please
* Add option C (per-ipv4 fee) to choices
or
* Cancel this voting.
Results of voting with announced options will be very misleading.
Thanks,
M. Prokeš
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Gwen van Berne <gvanberne@ripe.net> <mailto:gvanberne@ripe.net> Date: Apr 17, 2019 18:08 Subject: [ncc-announce] [GM] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Two Options to Vote On To: ncc-announce@ripe.net <mailto:ncc-announce@ripe.net> Cc:
Dear colleagues,
Members will vote on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 at the General Meeting from 22-24 May. In response to requests from members, the Executive Board is proposing two charging scheme options that the members can choose from at the GM.
An overview of the two options is also available that explains the two models in more detail. The overview and the two charging schemes are available at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2019/supporting-do...
In short, the options that members will choose between are:
Option A: The RIPE NCC will maintain the existing charging scheme, according to which members pay an annual fee of EUR 1,400 plus an extra EUR 50 per independent number resource assignment.
Option B: The RIPE NCC will switch to a new volume-based, per registration charging scheme. This would involve lowering the annual fee to EUR 1,150 whilst broadening the applicability of the separate EUR 50 charge to all number registrations held by the member. See the full list of registrations that would be charged in the document.
The existing sign-up fee of EUR 2,000 will apply to both options.
We encourage members to discuss the options on the Member Discuss mailing list at <members-discuss@ripe.net> <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>. The Executive Board and the RIPE NCC Management will follow discussions closely ahead of the GM.
If you have not yet registered for the GM, we strongly encourage you to do so and make sure you have your say on which of two distinct charging scheme options should be adopted in May. Full participation and voting options are available for all members. You can register now via the LIR Portal at: https://www.ripe.net/s/gm-registration-may-2019
All details on the GM, including the draft agenda, are available from: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2019/
Kind regards,
Gwen van Berne Chief Financial Officer RIPE NCC
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe:https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/michal.prokes%40hdata...
-- Michal Prokeš, Internetová síťwosa.cz <http://wosa.cz>
H-data, spol. s r.o., Václavská 4, 603 00 Brno Infolinka: +420 534 001 200 Email:info@wosa.cz <mailto:info@wosa.cz>
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/alexis%40velumware.co...
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/alexandru.doszlop%40n...
Hey Alexandru, Don't worry! If the Option B gets approved, i'm more than happy to pay those fees for your if you don't want to retain the 233 blocks! :) Now seriously... this example only proves that Option B isn't the best "volume based billing" option. On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 8:31 PM Alexandru Doszlop < alexandru.doszlop@netprotect.ro> wrote:
Hello all,
I just checked Alexis's spreadsheet.
If I'm sorting it by IPv4 block numbers I'm the 5th biggest with 233 blocks. (81408 IPs) !!!
With Option B I will pay at least 13000 euro.
The biggest LIR, de.telekom, will pay a little over 2700 euro for 28.972.032 IP addresses.
I just don't understand the reasoning behind the "volume" here.
In earlier discussions from the last 2 years here on members-discuss, the RIPE representatives kept telling us that the annual fee is a member fee and not a price for the resources used.
Now, I see a 180 degrees shift in their reasoning.
They are telling us that this Option B is the more fairest because it takes into account the number of allocations because this is somehow representing the resources used by a LIR. But why not take into account all types of objects from the database?
Contact persons, route objects, domains, roles, organizations and many more ...
Regards,
Alex
P.S. I'm so angry at RIPE right now!
On 18.04.2019 11:37, Alexis Hanicotte wrote:
I agree, this vote does not make sense to me. It seems to me that the board does not want a volume-based pricing, and so suggests an option that few will vote for. Then they can say "you see, people do not want volume-based pricing"...
An issue with most suggested "Option C" schemes is that final income will be too high. Here is a spreadsheet to help do the math and see the impact on each LIR.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oVAQ7ADW3UY17GPUgJl2T8AhMwHaDiuCb8a9... (feel free to make a copy and do you own math)
For instance, if we estimate RIPE needed budget to 32M€, and decide to charge half via flat fee, half via number of IPs, that gives 740€ + 2.7cents / IPv4 address or IPv6/32 prefix. (see tab n°2 of spreadsheet)
Alexis Hanicotte VelumWare SAS
On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 10:23 AM Michal Prokeš <michal.prokes@hdata.cz> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
there are many users discussing about per ipv4 payments for a long time. I does not have to be most wanted option, but I believe, it is most discussed option last years.
So if we decide to make voting about charging scheme, it should include the most discussed option. We will see if it win or not. Voting without this option is misleading. Organizations with huge allocations love actual schema (optiona A) and small organizations with symbolic alocation of /22 are definitely not going to vote for option B (very simplified it means: the less you have to buy on expensive ipv4 market the less you have to pay RIPE annualy).
Please
* Add option C (per-ipv4 fee) to choices
or
* Cancel this voting.
Results of voting with announced options will be very misleading.
Thanks,
M. Prokeš
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Gwen van Berne <gvanberne@ripe.net> <gvanberne@ripe.net> Date: Apr 17, 2019 18:08 Subject: [ncc-announce] [GM] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Two Options to Vote On To: ncc-announce@ripe.net Cc:
Dear colleagues,
Members will vote on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 at the General Meeting from 22-24 May. In response to requests from members, the Executive Board is proposing two charging scheme options that the members can choose from at the GM.
An overview of the two options is also available that explains the two models in more detail. The overview and the two charging schemes are available at:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2019/supporting-do...
In short, the options that members will choose between are:
Option A: The RIPE NCC will maintain the existing charging scheme, according to which members pay an annual fee of EUR 1,400 plus an extra EUR 50 per independent number resource assignment.
Option B: The RIPE NCC will switch to a new volume-based, per registration charging scheme. This would involve lowering the annual fee to EUR 1,150 whilst broadening the applicability of the separate EUR 50 charge to all number registrations held by the member. See the full list of registrations that would be charged in the document.
The existing sign-up fee of EUR 2,000 will apply to both options.
We encourage members to discuss the options on the Member Discuss mailing list at <members-discuss@ripe.net> <members-discuss@ripe.net>. The Executive Board and the RIPE NCC Management will follow discussions closely ahead of the GM.
If you have not yet registered for the GM, we strongly encourage you to do so and make sure you have your say on which of two distinct charging scheme options should be adopted in May. Full participation and voting options are available for all members. You can register now via the LIR Portal at: https://www.ripe.net/s/gm-registration-may-2019
All details on the GM, including the draft agenda, are available from: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2019/
Kind regards,
Gwen van Berne Chief Financial Officer RIPE NCC
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing listmembers-discuss@ripe.nethttps://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/michal.prokes%40hdata...
-- Michal Prokeš, Internetová síť wosa.cz
H-data, spol. s r.o., Václavská 4, 603 00 Brno Infolinka: +420 534 001 200 Email: info@wosa.cz
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/alexis%40velumware.co...
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing listmembers-discuss@ripe.nethttps://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/alexandru.doszlop%40n...
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/teotonio.ricardo%40we...
participants (24)
-
Alexandru Doszlop -
Alexis Hanicotte -
Andrejs Guba -
Azer Karyagdy -
Bunea TELECOM -
Cedric R -
Dmitry Burkov -
Gert Doering -
Hans Govenius -
Hansen, Christoffer -
ivaylo -
Jac Kloots -
Jean-Guillaume Dubuis -
Jetten Raymond -
Lennart Seitz -
Martin Millnert -
Michal Prokeš -
Nico Schottelius -
Patrick Velder -
Roberto Beneduci -
Sebastian Malek -
Teotonio Ricardo -
Timothy Roy -
Tomáš Tyll - AMG