Hi,

Could you clarify what policy you are referring to?

The 2007-01 policy proposal that introduced it for all independent resources: IPv4, IPv6 and ASNs. Cheers, Sander

Sander I have to agree with this. While the NCC does serve the community the liability is towards the membership. Legally the membership has to ratify whatever the board does. The membership is definitely part of the community but the law only observes the relationship with the membership. If you would like to see charges for ASNs and others in the community who are also members support this, then a discussion on here is definitely the first step but you will eventually have to add it to the agenda of the GM for discussion and voting. Personally I don't think the members will vote for it. Fahad. Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.   Original Message   From: Sascha Luck [ml] Sent: Tuesday, 24 March 2015 20:01 To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016 On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 04:04:07PM +0100, Sander Steffann wrote:

Hi,

...

Could you clarify what policy you are referring to?

The 2007-01 policy proposal that introduced it for all independent resources: IPv4, IPv6 and ASNs.

2007-01 called for a charge for PI resources, in the case of ASNs, the Board has decided - and the membership has voted for some years now - to set this charge at zero. I don't want a situation where policy determines the charges the members have to pay. This should always be a decision of the board and the membership. rgds, Sascha Luck ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/ Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.

Understood ‎but it was also dropped until the NCC came up with a charging scheme and announced it just now. If it was an issue it should have been continued and a formal move to include it for discussion and a vote at the next GM be made by the membership. That hasn't happened. I feel introducing it now is a bit unfair if the expectation is for the board to revise the current proposed charging scheme and present additional options immediately. However, if it IS an issue, I say propose to add it to next GM for the next-next charging scheme if a vote passes. And please accept the proposed next charging scheme as is. Because to be honest, I would like to see the board turn their immediate attention to other issues that are a bit more relevant than extra revenue to the community and the membership.  Not saying I oppose the ASN charges (not saying I support the charges either to be honest ‎I feel they won't have a significant impact one way or another on the vast majority of members because unlike PI there aren't that many LIRs with a massive number of ASNs each that a charge would significantly impact the operational revenues of the NCC and thus the general LIR fee charged). All am saying is: give the board guidance through formal means and time to implement. A more relevant question to ask would be: WOULD an ASN charge have substantial revenue impact? Say if we charge 50 euros per ASN? Would the membership fee then drop by more than 55 Euros for budget target to be met?  Fahad.  Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.   Original Message   From: Sander Steffann Sent: Tuesday, 24 March 2015 23:43 To: Fahad AlShirawi Cc: Sascha Luck [ml]; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016 Hi Fahad,

If you would like to see charges for ASNs and others in the community who are also members support this, then a discussion on here is definitely the first step but you will eventually have to add it to the agenda of the GM for discussion and voting.

The discussion was started at the last SYN by Nick Hilliard. This is just a continuation of that :) Cheers, Sander

Fair enough. My memory isn't what it used to be am getting old and working on a phone means I can't reference stuff easily :)   So what's the general feeling here?   Fahad. Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.   Original Message   From: Sander Steffann Sent: Wednesday, 25 March 2015 02:29 To: Fahad AlShirawi Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016 Hi Fahad,

Understood ‎but it was also dropped until the NCC came up with a charging scheme and announced it just now. If it was an issue it should have been continued and a formal move to include it for discussion and a vote at the next GM be made by the membership. That hasn't happened. I feel introducing it now is a bit unfair if the expectation is for the board to revise the current proposed charging scheme and present additional options immediately.

Ok, I think there is some confusion here. The issue wasn't dropped, it was waiting on the draft charging scheme to be sent out for discussion, which Nigel has done yesterday...

However, if it IS an issue, I say propose to add it to next GM for the next-next charging scheme if a vote passes.

No, we just got asked by the board to discuss this draft now until the first of April.

And please accept the proposed next charging scheme as is. Because to be honest, I would like to see the board turn their immediate attention to other issues that are a bit more relevant than extra revenue to the community and the membership.

I don't really care about extra revenue. The cost for an ASN can be one cent. It's just that I want to discuss the lost garbage collection feature that we used to have but got removed. Nick Hilliard brought it up for discussion last AGM and it was agreed to discuss it now.

[...] All am saying is: give the board guidance through formal means and time to implement. [...]

I fully agree, and we're right in the middle of that now ☺ Cheers! Sander

:) we are both getting older maybe? Alright so... charging scheme stays, and we open an agenda point to consider how best to clean the garbage at the next meeting?  Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.   Original Message   From: Sander Steffann Sent: Wednesday, 25 March 2015 03:25 To: Fahad AlShirawi Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016 Hi,

Fair enough. My memory isn't what it used to be am getting old and working on a phone means I can't reference stuff easily :)

So what's the general feeling here?

Well, after all the feedback I think we're trying to solve this problem the wrong way. There must be better ways than fiddling with the charging scheme. See my message to Sascha. Cheers! Sander P.S. Yes, I know, I seem to be changing my mind a bit, how did that happen? :)

Hi, not sure if this message will get to the mailing list (a previous one did not because I was subscribed with an other -generic- e-mail address to the members-discuss mailing list). A charge per ASN is, from my point of view, not a very effective garbage collection mechanism. Additionally, changing the charging scheme again by adding a fee in 2016, after it was initially added in 2009 and removed in 2012 shows only an inconsistent Board with not a clear idea of the charging scheme. Once we (the members) have taken a decision, let's not change it (because some policy may in the future be otherwise abused) unless something has happened to request us to rethink the charging scheme. I think we need to find a method by which the RIPE NCC and/or the LIR can do the garbage collection/cleanup. One simple method I can think of is by asking the RIPE NCC to contact the (Sponsoring) LIR when an ASN disappears from the global routing table and ask if that ASN can be deleted/returned/reclaimed/reused. This could easily be done in the LIR portal (automated process) or by e-mail (human - IPRA). I do not want to mandate the NCC to chase every ASN not visible in the routing table, I am suggesting to mandate the NCC to politely contact the (Sponsoring) LIR, maybe once a year, and ask them if any of their (or their customers') not in use ASNs could be returned to the free pool. my 2 cents /elvis Excuse the briefness of this mail, it was sent from a mobile device.

On 25 Mar 2015, at 01:33, Fahad AlShirawi <fahad@gccix.net> wrote:

:) we are both getting older maybe? Alright so... charging scheme stays, and we open an agenda point to consider how best to clean the garbage at the next meeting?

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone. Original Message From: Sander Steffann Sent: Wednesday, 25 March 2015 03:25 To: Fahad AlShirawi Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016

Hi,

...

Fair enough. My memory isn't what it used to be am getting old and working on a phone means I can't reference stuff easily :)

So what's the general feeling here?

Well, after all the feedback I think we're trying to solve this problem the wrong way. There must be better ways than fiddling with the charging scheme. See my message to Sascha.

Cheers! Sander

P.S. Yes, I know, I seem to be changing my mind a bit, how did that happen? :)

---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/

Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.

Hi All and Elvis, I have to agree with Elvis in his below 2 cents. -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Elvis Daniel Velea Sent: 25 March 2015 04:55 To: Fahad AlShirawi Cc: Sander Steffann; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016 Hi, not sure if this message will get to the mailing list (a previous one did not because I was subscribed with an other -generic- e-mail address to the members-discuss mailing list). A charge per ASN is, from my point of view, not a very effective garbage collection mechanism. Additionally, changing the charging scheme again by adding a fee in 2016, after it was initially added in 2009 and removed in 2012 shows only an inconsistent Board with not a clear idea of the charging scheme. Once we (the members) have taken a decision, let's not change it (because some policy may in the future be otherwise abused) unless something has happened to request us to rethink the charging scheme. I think we need to find a method by which the RIPE NCC and/or the LIR can do the garbage collection/cleanup. One simple method I can think of is by asking the RIPE NCC to contact the (Sponsoring) LIR when an ASN disappears from the global routing table and ask if that ASN can be deleted/returned/reclaimed/reused. This could easily be done in the LIR portal (automated process) or by e-mail (human - IPRA). I do not want to mandate the NCC to chase every ASN not visible in the routing table, I am suggesting to mandate the NCC to politely contact the (Sponsoring) LIR, maybe once a year, and ask them if any of their (or their customers') not in use ASNs could be returned to the free pool. my 2 cents /elvis Excuse the briefness of this mail, it was sent from a mobile device.

On 25 Mar 2015, at 01:33, Fahad AlShirawi <fahad@gccix.net> wrote:

:) we are both getting older maybe? Alright so... charging scheme stays, and we open an agenda point to consider how best to clean the garbage at the next meeting?

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone. Original Message From: Sander Steffann Sent: Wednesday, 25 March 2015 03:25 To: Fahad AlShirawi Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016

Hi,

...

Fair enough. My memory isn't what it used to be am getting old and working on a phone means I can't reference stuff easily :)

So what's the general feeling here?

Well, after all the feedback I think we're trying to solve this problem the wrong way. There must be better ways than fiddling with the charging scheme. See my message to Sascha.

Cheers! Sander

P.S. Yes, I know, I seem to be changing my mind a bit, how did that happen? :)

---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/

Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.

---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/ Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.

Hi Nick, I understand your reasoning and we had this discussion at the GM at the previous meeting. On 25/03/15 12:59, Nick Hilliard wrote:

Elvis,

the past history of charging/not charging for ASNs is unfortunate, but what happened in the past cannot be changed. What's important now is putting in a stable long-term mechanism for the future. We have a different understanding of what is important. To me, what is important is that we do not keep changing from one year to an other (or every 3 years) the charging scheme. Doing so will only say that the RIPE NCC Board is unpredictable in what they will do with the charging scheme and will affect businesses of all the members of the RIPE NCC.

If things change every few years, off course, the LIRs will blame it on the RIPE NCC (and not the Board or some of it's members) and that will lead to the NCC having a bad name amongs the LIR's customers.

Mandating the NCC to chase sponsoring LIRs about their customers' ASN usage habits is massively inefficient from an organisational point of view and from the point of view of a LIR, it sounds like yet more irritation and hassle. If you like irritation and hassle, fine. Personally I could do with less in my life.

Let's agree to disagree. I think it will be more efficient if the RIPE NCC will ping (maybe yearly) the Sponsoring LIRs of ASNs not in use and ask them if any of those customers will want to return the unused resources.

We can all acknowledge that no garbage collection mechanism is going to be 100% efficient. Charging a minimal fee is a pretty good balance between end-goal efficiency and cost recovery.

Again, I do not agree with this point of view and it seems that from the feedback at the GM, the discussions on the hallway and the e-mails on this mailing list - there is no consensus on your suggestion. It is not only me saying this, it is also the Board.

It also creates the situation that the decision to return unused ASNs is entirely up to the LIR /end-user and that the NCC doesn't need to get involved in that decision making process. Well, the decision to return unused ASNs will always be the one of the organisation to which the ASN was assigned to. Either way, their Sponsoring LIR will still need to open a ticket with the RIPE NCC and the organisation will be required to confirm the return of the resource. If the RIPE NCC does the first step or if the LIR does the first step, it does not really matter.

Furthermore, I am not sure if you are aware of the current procedures and the inefficient way the RIPE NCC handles independent resource returns/reclaims/de-registrations at this moment. Let me tell you my experience.. Let's say we do as you recommend and we add a charge per ASN. Then a company stops paying for the maintenance of an ASN to an LIR. The LIR will notify the RIPE NCC that they do not want to be the Sponsoring LIR for the resource (because the end user stopped paying). From that moment, you are saying that the garbage collection mechanism should start. The RIPE NCC will notify the end user that they need to find an other Sponsoring LIR (and pay for the maintenance) and give the end user about a month (I think it's 20 working days) to do so. Then, the RIPE NCC will start a de-registration process that requires continuous messages sent to the end user, then to anyone that may have their contact details - a process that lasts 3 months and takes a lot of time from the RIPE NCC's IPRAs. Do you really think this process will be better than the one where the RIPE NCC notifies the involved parties that an ASN is not in use and could be returned and leave it for those parties to reply and decide? The NCC currently chases the independent resource holders and that process is painful for all the parties, my suggestion is not to create the same hassle for ASNs and instead ask the NCC to just ping the organisations that do not use the ASNs that were assigned.. just ping and not chase..

Please bear in mind that the RIPE NCC is a registry, not a nanny.

noted :) Regards, Elvis

Nick

On 25/03/2015 00:55, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote:

...

Hi,

not sure if this message will get to the mailing list (a previous one did not because I was subscribed with an other -generic- e-mail address to the members-discuss mailing list).

A charge per ASN is, from my point of view, not a very effective garbage collection mechanism.

Additionally, changing the charging scheme again by adding a fee in 2016, after it was initially added in 2009 and removed in 2012 shows only an inconsistent Board with not a clear idea of the charging scheme. Once we (the members) have taken a decision, let's not change it (because some policy may in the future be otherwise abused) unless something has happened to request us to rethink the charging scheme.

I think we need to find a method by which the RIPE NCC and/or the LIR can do the garbage collection/cleanup. One simple method I can think of is by asking the RIPE NCC to contact the (Sponsoring) LIR when an ASN disappears from the global routing table and ask if that ASN can be deleted/returned/reclaimed/reused. This could easily be done in the LIR portal (automated process) or by e-mail (human - IPRA). I do not want to mandate the NCC to chase every ASN not visible in the routing table, I am suggesting to mandate the NCC to politely contact the (Sponsoring) LIR, maybe once a year, and ask them if any of their (or their customers') not in use ASNs could be returned to the free pool.

my 2 cents /elvis

Excuse the briefness of this mail, it was sent from a mobile device.

...

On 25 Mar 2015, at 01:33, Fahad AlShirawi <fahad@gccix.net> wrote:

:) we are both getting older maybe? Alright so... charging scheme stays, and we open an agenda point to consider how best to clean the garbage at the next meeting?

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone. Original Message From: Sander Steffann Sent: Wednesday, 25 March 2015 03:25 To: Fahad AlShirawi Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016

Hi,

...

Fair enough. My memory isn't what it used to be am getting old and working on a phone means I can't reference stuff easily :)

So what's the general feeling here? Well, after all the feedback I think we're trying to solve this problem the wrong way. There must be better ways than fiddling with the charging scheme. See my message to Sascha.

Cheers! Sander

P.S. Yes, I know, I seem to be changing my mind a bit, how did that happen? :)

---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/

Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.

---

If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/

Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.

-- <http://v4escrow.net> Elvis Daniel Velea Chief Executive Officer Email: elvis@V4Escrow.net <mailto:elvis@v4escrow.net> US Phone: +1 (702) 475 5914 EU Phone: +31 (0) 61458 1914 Recognised IPv4 Broker/Facilitator in: This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original.Any other use of this email is strictly prohibited.

On 25 Mar 2015, at 02:45, rob.golding@astutium.com wrote:

It could be my memory failing, or that I misunderstood, but I thought (for want of a betterdescription) a per-resource charging scheme had been introduced - simply that the charge (initially, and proposed to continue) for an ASN was zero

Fellow members, As a small lir, and an outsider to most of the RIPE daily discussions, there is something I fail to understand? Why would there be a recurring fee per ASN, if there ins’t a recurring fee per (at least ipv4) PA block? Imagine 3 lirs: lirA, lirB and lirC who “own” these resources: * lir A: 2 PI /23 blocks, 1 /21 PA v4, and 2 ASNs * lir B: 2 PI /23 blocks, 3 /16 PA v4s and 1 ASN * lir C: 0 PI blocks, 5 /12 PA v4s and 2 ASNs. In the current scheme, lir C pays the same as lir A, and both pay more than lir B. Is that what we think is fair? In the proposed change (charge for ASNs as well), it gets even worse: lir C would pay least of while, while lic C is the “biggest” LIR, and uses most of the available resources. Maybe I am missing a point here, but it feels wierd to talk about charging per ASN, while the elephant in the room is that there is no charge for more or bigger PA blocks. I understand the arguments for a “all members are equal” fee (I feel it it unfair, but I understand the arguments pro). I understand the arguments for a “per per resources used” fee. However, I do not understand the current system and the proposed changed. Regards, Frank Louwers AS30961

Hi, Yes, the idea was that we couldn't set any specific fee. But the intention was that there would be *some* fee... Cheers, Sander

Op 24 mrt. 2015 om 21:09 heeft Piotr Strzyzewski <Piotr.Strzyzewski@polsl.pl> het volgende geschreven:

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 04:04:07PM +0100, Sander Steffann wrote:

...

...

Could you clarify what policy you are referring to?

The 2007-01 policy proposal that introduced it for all independent resources: IPv4, IPv6 and ASNs.

From the https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-01

"Any specific details of possible fees for such End Users are also out the scope of this proposal. This needs to be developed by the RIPE NCC Board in the same manner that LIR fees are proposed and developed."

Piotr

-- gucio -> Piotr Strzyżewski E-mail: Piotr.Strzyzewski@polsl.pl

Hi,

And it seems that this idea has been lost in the wording. "Any specific details" could easily mean waiving the fee.

Yeah, I agree. The wording at the end of the process was not as clear as it should have been... Cheers, Sander

Liman, There is no cost for IP. IP is allocated on a need basis. The cost is for the membership. This is an important distinction to observe :)  Fahad. Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.   Original Message   From: Lars-Johan Liman Sent: Wednesday, 25 March 2015 00:34 To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016 Hi! sander@steffann.nl:

Yes, the idea was that we couldn't set any specific fee. But the intention was that there would be *some* fee...

Well ... My SEK 0,02. The NCC budget has to be fed money, and the membership has the task of finding that balance of income for various services and express it at the GM. It actually does precisely that. It has decided that the prices for ASNs should be zero, which pushes the cost for IP# instead. Zero is not a special case, it's just the end of the scale and the GM knows how to move the marker. *IF* one moves it, the cost for IP# will be adjusted accordingly*. And moving the marker to or from the end of the scale is not a policy decision. Cheers, /Liman * I leave it as an exercise to the reader to find the mathematical function that describes the multi-dimensional curve that describes the relationship between the variables. :-) #---------------------------------------------------------------------- # Lars-Johan Liman, M.Sc. ! E-mail: liman@netnod.se # Senior Systems Specialist ! Tel: +46 8 - 562 860 12 # Netnod Internet Exchange, Stockholm ! http://www.netnod.se/ #---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/ Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.

Hi, On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 04:10:12PM -0500, Lars-Johan Liman wrote:

And moving the marker to or from the end of the scale is not a policy decision.

There I differ (and obviously the board does so, too). Having a yearly recurring price on resources, namely independent resources that are covered by policy proposal 2007-01, is an instrument that affects "garbage collection" of unused resources ("if I do not need this AS number anymore, why should I bother to pay something for it every year?" - it does not particularily matter if this is 5 EUR or 100 EUR, it is "I have to bother"). "Zero" is not "the same as an arbitrary small number". The address policy working group achieved consensus on this, and the board and AGM implemented the charging scheme accordingly, with a per-unit price on PI assignments and AS numbers. Then the charging scheme was changed to waive the price on AS numbers, without a mandate from the community. I am aware that the AGM can just do so (as the community has no formal mandate on charging and AGM decisions), but *now* coming up with "we don't want to change it *back* because it would be making policy" has a funny smell... Gert Doering -- speaking as a paying member and as a part of the community -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

Hi Sascha,

There have been unfortunate conflicts between community and membership before. In my opinion, policy should be made in a way so it can stand without infringing on the freedom of the board and membership to manage their financial matters. In that respect, yes, 2001-07 was flawed too.

Agree. We're focusing too much on the money side here. I think the objections to the charging scheme have nothing to do with money. It is all about having some downside to keeping unused resources, and the default way we got to think about that is to charge money for it. And that is really a matter for the NCC and its members. But it is an implementation detail, not a goal by itself. I think that the community wants (needs to be checked) to have a garbage correction mechanism and maybe rate limiter so that people don't request resources that they don't really need. That is what we should focus on, not whether we do that with money or by making someone fill in a captcha every year for every resource or by something else. We're circling around a balance point here. The address policy WG wants to make policies easy and simple, but if they become too easy then abuse and negligence is feared so we try to put a limit on that. The current trends is to do this by making the NCC charge the holders, but there had to be a better way. One that keeps us from constantly getting into silly conflicts over this. If I only new what... Maybe that captcha idea isn't so weird after all... :) Cheers, Sander

Hi,

Yes, I was a bit surprised to read this. I remeber the discussion to be more about wether you should get a limited number for free or not, but also of course that it is not up to Adress Policy WG to adjust the charing scheme.

I was not talking about a proposed policy, I was talking about the 2007-01 proposal that was accepted years ago. It doesn't mandate a specific fee per resources resource but it does say it should be there for garbage collection etc. Cheers, Sander

Hi, On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 10:53:56AM +0100, Hans Petter Holen wrote:

On 24.03.15 16.07, Sander Steffann wrote:

...

I was not talking about a proposed policy, I was talking about the 2007-01 proposal that was accepted years ago. It doesn't mandate a specific fee per resources resource but it does say it should be there for garbage collection etc.

Sander, Please remember that thee was a taskforce on the charging scheme, and a change of the scheme by the RIPE GA in September 2012, long after 2007-1.

We do remember. And I should have put up a fight there against the change regarding the AS numbers, but was feeling too tired. But anyway, given that the board is obviously feeling free to change policy-relevant bits of the charging scheme without consulting with the AP community, I find it even more surprising to read the claim *now* that they do not want to change this *back*, because it would be affecting policy... Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

P.S. When and if they screw up or start ignoring I will be the first to call them out on it. But they aren't so let's be fair. This is a member discussion where members have conflicting views. They haven't weighed in either way. Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.   Original Message   From: Fahad AlShirawi Sent: Saturday, 28 March 2015 15:46 To: Gert Doering; Hans Petter Holen Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016 Gert, In this whole discussion the board hasn't said a single word. They are listening to try and determine what's the way forward. It surprises me that you would outright attack them like this? As someone who chose to step down from that same exact board, I find the accusation that they aren't trying to do what the membership wants, and where aligned, what the community wants, a little hurtful. My experience is that the board has never ignored.  Fahad. Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.   Original Message   From: Gert Doering Sent: Saturday, 28 March 2015 15:31 To: Hans Petter Holen Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016 Hi, On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 10:53:56AM +0100, Hans Petter Holen wrote:

On 24.03.15 16.07, Sander Steffann wrote:

...

I was not talking about a proposed policy, I was talking about the 2007-01 proposal that was accepted years ago. It doesn't mandate a specific fee per resources resource but it does say it should be there for garbage collection etc.

Sander, Please remember that thee was a taskforce on the charging scheme, and a change of the scheme by the RIPE GA in September 2012, long after 2007-1.

We do remember. And I should have put up a fight there against the change regarding the AS numbers, but was feeling too tired. But anyway, given that the board is obviously feeling free to change policy-relevant bits of the charging scheme without consulting with the AP community, I find it even more surprising to read the claim *now* that they do not want to change this *back*, because it would be affecting policy... Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

Hi I really think the RIPE fee are low enough that not even getting to be considered to be part of business expense(almost 100 euro/month, my personal gym member fee was like that), consider the large growth of member base for upcoming years and Ripe has no plan to increase staff as far as I hard from what said in last GM, the fee will keep dropping, I think most member would agree there is no real need to change it in term of financial reason. On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:

Hi,

On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 03:46:26PM +0300, Fahad AlShirawi wrote:

...

In this whole discussion the board hasn't said a single word. They are listening to try and determine what's the way forward. It surprises me that you would outright attack them like this? As someone who chose to step down from that same exact board, I find the accusation that they aren't trying to do what the membership wants, and where aligned, what the community wants, a little hurtful. My experience is that the board has never ignored.

This is exactly the problem: the change in 2012 was based solely on what a (small, but loud) part of the *membership* wanted, and it was changing policy-relevant parts of the AGM without involving the AP *community* on this.

I am fairly sure I said it back then as well: the way new charging schemes are usually presented ("take this or leave it") does not actually help - if people overall agree with the changes, like "it will get cheaper for me!", but still disagree with the policy implications, what are they supposed to vote for?

My memory of specific events and "who said what" is getting muddled, though, and as I said, I was just too tired back in 2012 to put up a bigger fight.

(The whole way all aspects of 2007-01 were handled by the board did not exactly feel like "gettings support" anyway - it more felt like "wading through morasses of subtle hindrance")

Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/

Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.

-- This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.

Hi Gert: I fully understand your point, but I also feel a bit tried of seeing this huge "fee" discussion every year in which might be good idea just to leave it as it is. p.s. I still get ticket system reply while sending to member list, but seems it has getting much better(I only got 2 reply instead of 6 or 7 replies in the past). On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:

Hi,

On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 02:06:17PM +0100, Lu Heng wrote:

...

I really think the RIPE fee are low enough that not even getting to be considered to be part of business expense(almost 100 euro/month, my personal gym member fee was like that), consider the large growth of member base for upcoming years and Ripe has no plan to increase staff as far as I hard from what said in last GM, the fee will keep dropping, I think most member would agree there is no real need to change it in term of financial reason.

The total amount is actually not what Sander and I are upset about.

It's really about the inherent conflict between the RIPE NCC being tasked to implement community policy and at the same time being paid by commercial members, which might have a different view on priorities, and the NCC board being caught in between.

(And to a certain part, frustration with the actual community that always needs financial incentives to do the right thing, namely: return unused resources, like AS numbers)

Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

-- This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.

 other then educating members to be caution and require what they need Best education method is an invoice. I sure that all memebers know that resurces are limited.

-- Aleksei Ivanov LeaderTelecom 28.03.2015 16:35 - Lu Heng wrote: And for unused resources, it has been discussed heavily in the past as well but we all know how it ends up in reality, other then educating members to be caution and require what they need, I didn't think there is a practical way to get these unused AS number back. On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Lu Heng <h.lu@outsideheaven.com> wrote:

Hi Gert:

I fully understand your point, but I also feel a bit tried of seeing this huge "fee" discussion every year in which might be good idea just to leave it as it is.

p.s. I still get ticket system reply while sending to member list, but seems it has getting much better(I only got 2 reply instead of 6 or 7 replies in the past).

On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:

...

Hi,

On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 02:06:17PM +0100, Lu Heng wrote:

...

I really think the RIPE fee are low enough that not even getting to be considered to be part of business expense(almost 100 euro/month, my personal gym member fee was like that), consider the large growth of member base for upcoming years and Ripe has no plan to increase staff as far as I hard from what said in last GM, the fee will keep dropping, I think most member would agree there is no real need to change it in term of financial reason.

The total amount is actually not what Sander and I are upset about.

It's really about the inherent conflict between the RIPE NCC being tasked to implement community policy and at the same time being paid by commercial members, which might have a different view on priorities, and the NCC board being caught in between.

(And to a certain part, frustration with the actual community that always needs financial incentives to do the right thing, namely: return unused resources, like AS numbers)

Gert Doering          -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

-- This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.

-- This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received. ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: [1]https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/ Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. [1] https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/

On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 01:55:45PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:

I am fairly sure I said it back then as well: the way new charging schemes are usually presented ("take this or leave it") does not actually help - if people overall agree with the changes, like "it will get cheaper for me!", but still disagree with the policy implications, what are they supposed to vote for?

I'm not sure it would be possible to vote on CC items separately - I guess it would have to be different options (eg if ASN charge of nEUR then membership fee is xEUR, etc) to make the CC match the Budget in all cases. I wouldn't bet on the outcome either - I can think of a few LIRs who'd want the PI charge to be zero too, let alone ASN charges... rgds, Sascha Luck

Folks Just to say that we are indeed listening, if not saying much. My experience is that is is better to let the heat go out of an argument rather than wading in in the middle. But I would very gently remind folk that the board did present a charging scheme back in 2012, which took into account an ASN charge and which the membership voted down. Nigel On 28/03/15 12:46, Fahad AlShirawi wrote:

Gert,

In this whole discussion the board hasn't said a single word. They are listening to try and determine what's the way forward. It surprises me that you would outright attack them like this? As someone who chose to step down from that same exact board, I find the accusation that they aren't trying to do what the membership wants, and where aligned, what the community wants, a little hurtful. My experience is that the board has never ignored.

On 28/03/2015 18:28, Nigel Titley wrote:

But I would very gently remind folk that the board did present a charging scheme back in 2012, which took into account an ASN charge and which the membership voted down.

Nigel, as I pointed out in my email of earlier today, the charging scheme options in the General Meeting of 2012 were structured in such a way that the only way to retain an ASN charge would have been for the membership to have voted down all the alternative options - all of which were more favourable in nearly every other respect. This does not reasonably reflect membership opinion on whether there should be a separate charge for ASNs. Nick

On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 12:11:35AM +0300, Fahad AlShirawi wrote:

NCC gives us an estimate of any costs directly associated with ASN billing, risk assessment if any, and we vote on whether or not we want the NCC to pursue another option in the future that is ASN billing related. Yes?

There is nothing to stop the board from proposing a CS option with an ASN charge >0 now. Do I understand you correctly in that this vote should determine whether the NCC will *always* have to present a CS option with ASN charge >0 or just for the next CS proposal? rgds, Sascha Luck

On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 10:37:27PM +0000, Nigel Titley wrote:

I think it is unwise to bind the NCC/Board for all time (and I don't actually think this is possible anyway).

"Unwise" is putting it politely :) It would be undemocratic and possibly even unconstitutional to bind future boards and future memberships in perpetuity. IANAL, but I could see a court declaring that void. rgds, Sascha Luck

 I disagree. At least, some members were satisfied with ASN charge abolishment. And please, find some new arguments before introducing ASN charge again. Garbage collection is not so important in terms of AS numbers.

Sergey, I support your idea. Doesn't make sense to change anything regards payments for ASN. Billing is more easy for RIPE NCC. And this discussion started from garbage collection of ASN. -- Aleksei Ivanov LeaderTelecom 29.03.2015 00:20 - Sergey Myasoedov wrote: I disagree. At least, some members were satisfied with ASN charge abolishment. And please, find some new arguments before introducing ASN charge again. Garbage collection is not so important in terms of AS numbers. -- Kind regards, Sergey Myasoedov

This does not reasonably reflect membership opinion on whether there should be a separate charge for ASNs.

---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: [1]https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/ Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. [1] https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/

On 28/03/2015 23:13, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote:

Firstly, the internet is using ~65K ASNs while the supply is 2MM. We still have 64K*65K before we should really worry about garbage collection.

Elvis, a network which requires functional BGP community support cannot feasibly be run on an ASN32. I have tried it in production and it is operationally nonviable. There is no complete ASN32-compatible solution to this situation in the short or medium term. In the long term - well beyond the point of ASN16 resource exhaustion - it is possible that this situation may be resolved. However this is a long term possibility rather than the short term certainty that we are facing impending depletion of ASN16s. It is for this reason that ASN16 resource depletion and consequently garbage collection has important operational implications for RIPE NCC members who plan to run their own ASNs. Nick

On 28/03/2015 09:53, Hans Petter Holen wrote:

Please remember that thee was a taskforce on the charging scheme, and a change of the scheme by the RIPE GA in September 2012, long after 2007-1.

More to the point, the voting mechanism for the 2013 charging scheme was structured so that all of the new proposals explicitly wrote out charging for ASNs. This meant that the only way to retain charging for ASNs was for the NCC membership to reject all of the new proposals and default back to the ancient, byzantine charging mechanism:

https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/september-2012/agenda

I.e. there was not a viable option for the membership to express an opinion either way on charging for ASNs. Nick