Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
Hi Simon Jan,
Model 2: A category-based model that charges per member (not per LIR account) and is based on resources registered and that also charges for independent resources, ASNs, transfers and changes in business structure such as Mergers & Acquisitions.
I feel this model double-charges for PI and ASN. LIRs with many of those resources both pay €50 per resource, and also run the risk of being pushed up into a higher category. I strongly feel that PI and ASN should be excluded from the category score calculation. On a side note, I also feel that the RIPE NCC’s budget is getting a bit out of control. RIPE NCC is primarily an Internet Registry, and I would like to see focus concentrating on Registration Services, and less on anything else. I understand that the RIPE NCC is in a useful position to do nice research projects, represent the internet community etc. But looking at the budget it looks like the rest of the organisation is growing much faster than the registry function. I therefore also object to the €450 price increase in model 1. Cheers, Sander
i can see that the ncc has projected significannt budget risk. welcome to the current epoch. and this is indeed likely exacerbated by the sad behavior during v4 run-out and its likely consequence over the next year or three. we foresaw this the last time we were in rotterdam. a graded scheme finally admits the realities of the ipv4 market that we denied for so long. that it might be a shock is a consequence of that denial. such is life. as we see from the discussion on list, having a step function be coarse causes pain. perhaps finer granularity, something closer to the the per /24 suggestion, would cause less pain, or at least be more fair. while i have socio-political sympathy for ideas which lighten the load on (especially smaller) LIRs in weaker economies, this path has waaay too much and too contentious measurement and judgment to be realistic. yes, an income statement has an expense side; and that should be looked at as well. but i suspect that we all have our favorite babies to throw out with the bathwater [0]. i will spare you hearing my list. such a discussion is unlikely to resolve in any reasonable time. excuse that i am probably too terse as usual and too long at the same time. that takes talent :). randy --- [0] sorry for the idiom. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_throw_the_baby_out_with_the_bathwater
On 08/03/2023 16:14, Sander Steffann wrote:
On a side note, I also feel that the RIPE NCC’s budget is getting a bit out of control. RIPE NCC is primarily an Internet Registry, and I would like to see focus concentrating on Registration Services, and less on anything else. I understand that the RIPE NCC is in a useful position to do nice research projects, represent the internet community etc. But looking at the budget it looks like the rest of the organisation is growing much faster than the registry function. I therefore also object to the €450 price increase in model 1.
Another well written reasoning that I totally agree with. -Hank
On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 2:28 PM Hank Nussbacher <hank@interall.co.il> wrote:
On 08/03/2023 16:14, Sander Steffann wrote:
On a side note, I also feel that the RIPE NCC’s budget is getting a bit out of control. RIPE NCC is primarily an Internet Registry, and I would like to see focus concentrating on Registration Services, and less on anything else. I understand that the RIPE NCC is in a useful position to do nice research projects, represent the internet community etc. But looking at the budget it looks like the rest of the organisation is growing much faster than the registry function. I therefore also object to the €450 price increase in model 1.
Another well written reasoning that I totally agree with.
Have to agree on this one... I object to any schemes that actual increase RIPE NCCs budget. Maybe it's time to considering to scale RIPE NCC down a bit, not growing but actual cuts in the budget and some cuts on all the nice things that's being done. In such a scenario, actual cuts, downsizing of staff are probably necessary, sadly. We, as members can't keep paying more and more just because it's nice to use money on nice projects. For any definition of nice being things slightly on the side of RIPE NCC registry and internet stability tasks. There are limits for what kind of LIR expenses I can justify for my CFO/CEO's, they don't accept to pay more just because RIPE NCC want to keep doing nice projects. -- Roger Jørgensen CTO, advisor/manager of several company's LIR
Maybe it's time to considering to scale RIPE NCC down a bit, not growing but actual cuts in the budget and some cuts on all the nice things that's being done. In such a scenario, actual cuts, downsizing of staff are probably necessary, sadly.
Hello everyone, I totally agree with that comment and none of the models is good: - First: RIPE should cut off costs, maintain a budget and do more arbitrages like we all do on a daily basis for business or personally. - Second: I disagree that non profit organisation should pay less. It will create more work at RIPE to distinguish who's who etc. On top of that, people living in "poor" countries could claim that the price is unfair for them since what you can do with 1000€ in these countries is not the same with what you can do in Switzerland. So the billing should be the same for everyone. - Third: The pricing should be based on the consumption - Fourth: There should be a pricing penalty on IPv4 ressources (not on BGP ASN, not on IPv6) We are talking about IPv4 exhaustion, some new entrants cannot get 1 x /24 prefix for compatibility with IPv4 clients only. But others have lot of IPv4 because they were here first and because of that they are not motivated in moving to IPv6. So in case, some money has to be found (after the RIPE spare money process), that should be on IPv4 resources. The price of IPv6 resources should be decreased. Once again, the goal here is to make everyone to communicate on with another. If one has an IPv4 resource then he/she cannot. The annual fee should be no more than 1000€, some say 500€ and include the equivalent up to a /24 IPv4 and one IPv6 resource. It should try to cover the work RIPE has to do for the annual billing and things like that. Regards
Hi, on 10.03.23 14:42, Mikael Jirari via members-discuss wrote:
I totally agree with that comment and none of the models is good:
[,,,]
- Third: The pricing should be based on the consumption
[...]
The annual fee should be no more than 1000€, some say 500€ and include the equivalent up to a /24 IPv4 and one IPv6 resource. It should try to cover the work RIPE has to do for the annual billing and things like that.
We're talking about the membership fee of an association that does *not* *own* any of the ressources we're all interessted in. So it's either a single fee for everyone – as it's now –, maybe plus a general "service fee" per maintained object (like there is already for some, like PI). Or the total cost of running that association should be distributed per "unit maintained per member". To alleviate the effect of time, unit's should be "smallest usable unit", i. e. ASN, domain, /24 equivalents, /48 equivalents. (I would skip the first two, though.) Creating only a handful of categories is way to few given the discrepancies between the members, and before fiddling with 20+ categories, one should go all the way to a "bill per unit"-modell. Commenting from the view of an v4/23+v4/23+v6/29 LIR, -kai -- Kai Siering Senior System Engineer mail.de GmbH Münsterstraße 3 D-33330 Gütersloh Tel.: +49 (0) 5241 / 74 34 986 Fax: +49 (0) 5241 / 74 34 987 E-Mail: k.siering@team.mail.de Web: https://mail.de/ Geschäftsführender Gesellschafter: Fabian Bock Sitz der Gesellschaft Nordhastedt Handelsregister Pinneberg HRB 8007 PI Steuernummer 18 293 20020
On 3/8/23 15:14, Sander Steffann wrote: Hi folks,
Model 2: A category-based model that charges per member (not per LIR account) and is based on resources registered and that also charges for independent resources, ASNs, transfers and changes in business structure such as Mergers & Acquisitions.
I feel this model double-charges for PI and ASN. LIRs with many of those resources both pay €50 per resource, and also run the risk of being pushed up into a higher category. I strongly feel that PI and ASN should be excluded from the category score calculation.
Absolutely! I'm also wondering why out of the sudden there should be a fee for ASNs - to the best of my knowledge they aren't as scarce resources, not even the 16bit ASNs. So I strongly object to introducing charges for ASNs here and also strongly object to having sponsored resources count into the number of resources used to decide which category an LIR falls into (IF this was considered a good way forward)
On a side note, I also feel that the RIPE NCC’s budget is getting a bit out of control. RIPE NCC is primarily an Internet Registry, and I would like to see focus concentrating on Registration Services, and less on anything else. I understand that the RIPE NCC is in a useful position to do nice research projects, represent the internet community etc. But looking at the budget it looks like the rest of the organisation is growing much faster than the registry function. I therefore also object to the €450 price increase in model 1.
I fully agree with Sander here. Did I miss any efforts to reduce spending and reaching out to the membership with ideas to reduce costs in the light of the LIR count to fall down? If I did not I'd really like to see something along those lines. Thanks for providing the spreadsheet to visualize how things would look like - that made it easier to understand. As of today I have to say "No" to both proposals though, as I don't see how just increasing costs and thereby impacting smaller LIRs (who might sponsor a number of resources) can be a way forward. Thanks, Max
On Sat, 11 Mar 2023, at 21:14, Maximilian Wilhelm wrote:
On 3/8/23 15:14, Sander Steffann wrote:
I feel this model double-charges for PI and ASN. LIRs with many of those resources both pay €50 per resource, and also run the risk of being pushed up into a higher category. I strongly feel that PI and ASN should be excluded from the category score calculation.
Absolutely!
This looks like double charge to me as well.
I'm also wondering why out of the sudden there should be a fee for ASNs - to the best of my knowledge they aren't as scarce resources, not even the 16bit ASNs.
So I strongly object to introducing charges for ASNs here and also strongly object to having sponsored resources count into the number of resources used to decide which category an LIR falls into (IF this was considered a good way forward)
this is something not quite obvious from the calculator and description -- would like NCC to clarify. Are we going to count other parties’ resources when assessing our fees?
As of today I have to say "No" to both proposals though, as I don't see how just increasing costs and thereby impacting smaller LIRs (who might sponsor a number of resources) can be a way forward.
Likewise.
Hi,
On a side note, I also feel that the RIPE NCC’s budget is getting a bit out of control. RIPE NCC is primarily an Internet Registry, and I would like to see focus concentrating on Registration Services, and less on anything else. I understand that the RIPE NCC is in a useful position to do nice research projects, represent the internet community etc. But looking at the budget it looks like the rest of the organisation is growing much faster than the registry function. I therefore also object to the €450 price increase in model 1.
I had a chat with Hans Petter the other day, and he informed me that a significant part of the budget increase is caused by increasing staff salaries. Considering the recent inflation and economic circumstances I fully approve that. So if the fee increase is used to improve working conditions for RIPE NCC Staff, which are an important part of our community, I am perfectly fine with that! Cheers, Sander
Hi Sander, I'd highly recommend you review the budgets for the last few years. 2020 - Ripe had 165 Employees 2021 - Ripe had 170 Employees 2022 - Ripe had 186 Employees 2023 - Ripe has/is proposing 191 Employees That is an additional 26 employees for someone concerned about creating fewer LIR accounts. The overall workload is significantly smaller from 2020 to 2023 based on exhausted ipv4 resources. Sure, inflation and staff costs have gone up, but the staff size has also grown, and for what purpose? On 3/12/23 15:34, Sander Steffann wrote:
Hi,
On a side note, I also feel that the RIPE NCC’s budget is getting a bit out of control. RIPE NCC is primarily an Internet Registry, and I would like to see focus concentrating on Registration Services, and less on anything else. I understand that the RIPE NCC is in a useful position to do nice research projects, represent the internet community etc. But looking at the budget it looks like the rest of the organisation is growing much faster than the registry function. I therefore also object to the €450 price increase in model 1. I had a chat with Hans Petter the other day, and he informed me that a significant part of the budget increase is caused by increasing staff salaries. Considering the recent inflation and economic circumstances I fully approve that. So if the fee increase is used to improve working conditions for RIPE NCC Staff, which are an important part of our community, I am perfectly fine with that!
Cheers, Sander
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/daniel%40privatesyste...
On 13/03/2023 12:59, Daniel Pearson wrote:
Hi Sander,
I'd highly recommend you review the budgets for the last few years.
2020 - Ripe had 165 Employees 2021 - Ripe had 170 Employees 2022 - Ripe had 186 Employees 2023 - Ripe has/is proposing 191 Employees
That is an additional 26 employees for someone concerned about creating fewer LIR accounts.
The overall workload is significantly smaller from 2020 to 2023 based on exhausted ipv4 resources.
Sure, inflation and staff costs have gone up, but the staff size has also grown, and for what purpose?
Totally agree. -Hank
Hi, the RIPE NCC budget has increased yearly for the past 10+ years. A non-for-profit registry that could operate with less than €20mil ten years ago needs more than twice the amount of money ten years later. Something has gone wrong if the organization spends twice as much money to offer similar services (sometimes of a poorer quality) to its members. Most of the members NEED to pay a membership fee to the RIPE NCC because they can not get the registration services anywhere else. The non-for-proffit organization called the RIPE NCC is a monopoly that now spends €40m a year. So, today members are forced by the NCC to choose from a bad charging scheme and an even worse one. They will pay more yearly regardless of whether they need more or less services from the NCC. I really believe a better accountability on what the NCC is planning to spend €40mil/year is needed before we vote on new charging schemes or price increases. FYI, I looked at the budget the NCC had over the past 10+ years, collected the number of FTEs and the CAPEX: 2012, ripe-544: 129 FTEs, 19,16 mEUR 2013, ripe-558: 135 FTEs, 18,5 mEUR 2014, ripe-598: 136 FTEs, 20,8 mEUR 2015, ripe-630: 136.1 FTEs, 20,66 mEUR 2016, ripe-662: 141 FTEs, 22,32 mEUR 2017, ripe-671: 148.5 FTEs, 25,11 mEUR 2018, ripe-693: 155.2 FTEs, 26,89 mEUR 2019, ripe-711: 165.1 FTEs, 31,60 mEUR 2020, ripe-735: 165.1 FTEs, 34,44 mEUR 2021, ripe-750: 170 FTEs, 33,56 mEUR 2022, ripe-773: 186 FTEs, 35,60 mEUR 2023, ripe-786: 190.6 FTEs, 40,00 mEUR Something happened in 2016-2017 that caused the NCC to increase the amount of money they need, dramatically. And since then, as no one seemed to make enough noise, the NCC and the Board kept increasing the budget until we got to this amount… €40mil. So, the budget doubled in 2023 when compared to 2015, I wonder why... At every RIPE Meeting there’s at least one person asking the NCC to find a way to spend less, and then the NCC and the Board ignore all that ‘noise’. Why a registry of IP addresses and AS Numbers needs to spend 40 million EUR per year is beyond my comprehension. Why the NCC needs 200 FTEs in 2023 when they were doing just fine (or even better) doing a similar job in 2013 with just 135 is also unknown. I’d suggest to the MD, the CFO and the Board to go back to the drawing board and figure out why the budget keeps going up. The services offered (those that 99% of the membership care for) are less and less (no one can get IPv4 anymore, they ask for an IPv6 allocation and an ASN and never come back to bother the NCC again… the price paid for membership should go down and not up. I understand and agree that staff’s salaries should be increased because of the galloping inflation. What I do not understand is why the budget increased from €20m to €40m in less than 10 years… there must have been other reasons too. I reject both charging scheme proposals. my 2 cents, Elvis On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 02:02 Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> wrote:
Hi,
On a side note, I also feel that the RIPE NCC’s budget is getting a bit out of control. RIPE NCC is primarily an Internet Registry, and I would like to see focus concentrating on Registration Services, and less on anything else. I understand that the RIPE NCC is in a useful position to do nice research projects, represent the internet community etc. But looking at the budget it looks like the rest of the organisation is growing much faster than the registry function. I therefore also object to the €450 price increase in model 1.
I had a chat with Hans Petter the other day, and he informed me that a significant part of the budget increase is caused by increasing staff salaries. Considering the recent inflation and economic circumstances I fully approve that. So if the fee increase is used to improve working conditions for RIPE NCC Staff, which are an important part of our community, I am perfectly fine with that!
Cheers, Sander
_______________________________________________ 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/elvis%40v4escrow.net
-- This message was sent from a mobile device. Some typos may be possible.
While the bottom line in RIPE-768 is 40M you really need to back out the depreciation and bad debt as they're non-cash expenses. So you end up with 38.9M EUR or so. But otherwise, yeah. Kaj Sent from my iPhone ________________________________ From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Elvis Daniel Velea <elvis@v4escrow.net> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2023 8:30 PM To: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Cc: Simon Jan Haytink <simon@ripe.net>; <members-discuss@ripe.net> <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 Hi, the RIPE NCC budget has increased yearly for the past 10+ years. A non-for-profit registry that could operate with less than €20mil ten years ago needs more than twice the amount of money ten years later. Something has gone wrong if the organization spends twice as much money to offer similar services (sometimes of a poorer quality) to its members. Most of the members NEED to pay a membership fee to the RIPE NCC because they can not get the registration services anywhere else. The non-for-proffit organization called the RIPE NCC is a monopoly that now spends €40m a year. So, today members are forced by the NCC to choose from a bad charging scheme and an even worse one. They will pay more yearly regardless of whether they need more or less services from the NCC. I really believe a better accountability on what the NCC is planning to spend €40mil/year is needed before we vote on new charging schemes or price increases. FYI, I looked at the budget the NCC had over the past 10+ years, collected the number of FTEs and the CAPEX: 2012, ripe-544: 129 FTEs, 19,16 mEUR 2013, ripe-558: 135 FTEs, 18,5 mEUR 2014, ripe-598: 136 FTEs, 20,8 mEUR 2015, ripe-630: 136.1 FTEs, 20,66 mEUR 2016, ripe-662: 141 FTEs, 22,32 mEUR 2017, ripe-671: 148.5 FTEs, 25,11 mEUR 2018, ripe-693: 155.2 FTEs, 26,89 mEUR 2019, ripe-711: 165.1 FTEs, 31,60 mEUR 2020, ripe-735: 165.1 FTEs, 34,44 mEUR 2021, ripe-750: 170 FTEs, 33,56 mEUR 2022, ripe-773: 186 FTEs, 35,60 mEUR 2023, ripe-786: 190.6 FTEs, 40,00 mEUR Something happened in 2016-2017 that caused the NCC to increase the amount of money they need, dramatically. And since then, as no one seemed to make enough noise, the NCC and the Board kept increasing the budget until we got to this amount… €40mil. So, the budget doubled in 2023 when compared to 2015, I wonder why... At every RIPE Meeting there’s at least one person asking the NCC to find a way to spend less, and then the NCC and the Board ignore all that ‘noise’. Why a registry of IP addresses and AS Numbers needs to spend 40 million EUR per year is beyond my comprehension. Why the NCC needs 200 FTEs in 2023 when they were doing just fine (or even better) doing a similar job in 2013 with just 135 is also unknown. I’d suggest to the MD, the CFO and the Board to go back to the drawing board and figure out why the budget keeps going up. The services offered (those that 99% of the membership care for) are less and less (no one can get IPv4 anymore, they ask for an IPv6 allocation and an ASN and never come back to bother the NCC again… the price paid for membership should go down and not up. I understand and agree that staff’s salaries should be increased because of the galloping inflation. What I do not understand is why the budget increased from €20m to €40m in less than 10 years… there must have been other reasons too. I reject both charging scheme proposals. my 2 cents, Elvis On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 02:02 Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl<mailto:sander@steffann.nl>> wrote: Hi,
On a side note, I also feel that the RIPE NCC’s budget is getting a bit out of control. RIPE NCC is primarily an Internet Registry, and I would like to see focus concentrating on Registration Services, and less on anything else. I understand that the RIPE NCC is in a useful position to do nice research projects, represent the internet community etc. But looking at the budget it looks like the rest of the organisation is growing much faster than the registry function. I therefore also object to the €450 price increase in model 1.
I had a chat with Hans Petter the other day, and he informed me that a significant part of the budget increase is caused by increasing staff salaries. Considering the recent inflation and economic circumstances I fully approve that. So if the fee increase is used to improve working conditions for RIPE NCC Staff, which are an important part of our community, I am perfectly fine with that! Cheers, Sander _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C01%7C%7C90f86df3cd724327e12608db24ba2bf7%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638144154249758941%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=DwFO59ppE6VCoAZfkMGmnNsnGJJzkz1x%2BDy5FgsB6eI%3D&reserved=0> Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/elvis%40v4escrow.net<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Felvis%2540v4escrow.net&data=05%7C01%7C%7C90f86df3cd724327e12608db24ba2bf7%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638144154249758941%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=td9yfUMM9hX%2BDPhQvvqXwz%2FdPcUdq65I4nEjwzk8IYc%3D&reserved=0> -- This message was sent from a mobile device. Some typos may be possible.
The listing does not show capital expenditure but operational expenditure. The latter cover costs within a fiscal year and includes things such as salaries, outside services, rent, travel, etc. Capex is spend that, upon acquisition of an asset (the investment) becomes part of the balance sheet and tends to have long-term use. Unlike opex, capex can be depreciated (get its value reduced) over a time period (or per some unit of manufacturing if in a factory). The sum of depreciation then tends to be shown on the income statement provide a fairer view for that fiscal year. Once acquired and paid off, however, the investment itself does not affect cash flow. The process of depreciating only moves value from the balance sheet to the income statement. Hope this helps. :) Kaj Sent from my iPhone ________________________________ From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Elvis Daniel Velea <elvis@v4escrow.net> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2023 8:30 PM To: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Cc: Simon Jan Haytink <simon@ripe.net>; <members-discuss@ripe.net> <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 Hi, the RIPE NCC budget has increased yearly for the past 10+ years. A non-for-profit registry that could operate with less than €20mil ten years ago needs more than twice the amount of money ten years later. Something has gone wrong if the organization spends twice as much money to offer similar services (sometimes of a poorer quality) to its members. Most of the members NEED to pay a membership fee to the RIPE NCC because they can not get the registration services anywhere else. The non-for-proffit organization called the RIPE NCC is a monopoly that now spends €40m a year. So, today members are forced by the NCC to choose from a bad charging scheme and an even worse one. They will pay more yearly regardless of whether they need more or less services from the NCC. I really believe a better accountability on what the NCC is planning to spend €40mil/year is needed before we vote on new charging schemes or price increases. FYI, I looked at the budget the NCC had over the past 10+ years, collected the number of FTEs and the CAPEX: 2012, ripe-544: 129 FTEs, 19,16 mEUR 2013, ripe-558: 135 FTEs, 18,5 mEUR 2014, ripe-598: 136 FTEs, 20,8 mEUR 2015, ripe-630: 136.1 FTEs, 20,66 mEUR 2016, ripe-662: 141 FTEs, 22,32 mEUR 2017, ripe-671: 148.5 FTEs, 25,11 mEUR 2018, ripe-693: 155.2 FTEs, 26,89 mEUR 2019, ripe-711: 165.1 FTEs, 31,60 mEUR 2020, ripe-735: 165.1 FTEs, 34,44 mEUR 2021, ripe-750: 170 FTEs, 33,56 mEUR 2022, ripe-773: 186 FTEs, 35,60 mEUR 2023, ripe-786: 190.6 FTEs, 40,00 mEUR Something happened in 2016-2017 that caused the NCC to increase the amount of money they need, dramatically. And since then, as no one seemed to make enough noise, the NCC and the Board kept increasing the budget until we got to this amount… €40mil. So, the budget doubled in 2023 when compared to 2015, I wonder why... At every RIPE Meeting there’s at least one person asking the NCC to find a way to spend less, and then the NCC and the Board ignore all that ‘noise’. Why a registry of IP addresses and AS Numbers needs to spend 40 million EUR per year is beyond my comprehension. Why the NCC needs 200 FTEs in 2023 when they were doing just fine (or even better) doing a similar job in 2013 with just 135 is also unknown. I’d suggest to the MD, the CFO and the Board to go back to the drawing board and figure out why the budget keeps going up. The services offered (those that 99% of the membership care for) are less and less (no one can get IPv4 anymore, they ask for an IPv6 allocation and an ASN and never come back to bother the NCC again… the price paid for membership should go down and not up. I understand and agree that staff’s salaries should be increased because of the galloping inflation. What I do not understand is why the budget increased from €20m to €40m in less than 10 years… there must have been other reasons too. I reject both charging scheme proposals. my 2 cents, Elvis On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 02:02 Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl<mailto:sander@steffann.nl>> wrote: Hi,
On a side note, I also feel that the RIPE NCC’s budget is getting a bit out of control. RIPE NCC is primarily an Internet Registry, and I would like to see focus concentrating on Registration Services, and less on anything else. I understand that the RIPE NCC is in a useful position to do nice research projects, represent the internet community etc. But looking at the budget it looks like the rest of the organisation is growing much faster than the registry function. I therefore also object to the €450 price increase in model 1.
I had a chat with Hans Petter the other day, and he informed me that a significant part of the budget increase is caused by increasing staff salaries. Considering the recent inflation and economic circumstances I fully approve that. So if the fee increase is used to improve working conditions for RIPE NCC Staff, which are an important part of our community, I am perfectly fine with that! Cheers, Sander _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C01%7C%7C90f86df3cd724327e12608db24ba2bf7%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638144154249758941%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=DwFO59ppE6VCoAZfkMGmnNsnGJJzkz1x%2BDy5FgsB6eI%3D&reserved=0> Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/elvis%40v4escrow.net<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Felvis%2540v4escrow.net&data=05%7C01%7C%7C90f86df3cd724327e12608db24ba2bf7%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638144154249758941%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=td9yfUMM9hX%2BDPhQvvqXwz%2FdPcUdq65I4nEjwzk8IYc%3D&reserved=0> -- This message was sent from a mobile device. Some typos may be possible.
participants (11)
-
Daniel Pearson -
Dmitry Kohmanyuk -
Elvis Daniel Velea -
Hank Nussbacher -
Kai Siering -
Kaj Niemi -
Maximilian Wilhelm -
Mikael Jirari -
Randy Bush -
Roger Jørgensen -
Sander Steffann