[ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024
Hello, It's great to see that member feedback has been taken into account when developing these models. However, I would like to reiterate my concerns regarding Model C and propose that it should be excluded from the final selection. In summary, Model C introduces transfer fees, which, as I mentioned earlier, bring potential challenges, such as unpredictability in the RIPE NCC's annual budget, payment difficulties for sanctioned countries, increased administrative burdens, complexities related to PI blocks and ASNs transfers, etc. These factors could negatively affect the RIPE NCC and its members. Considering the potential issues with Model C, I suggest that focusing on Models A and B would be a more reasonable approach. Both models provide sufficient options for the members and maintain their respective merits without the risks associated with Model C. By excluding Model C from the final proposals, the voting process will be more focused, enabling members to make a well-informed decision between the two remaining models. This strategy would prevent Model C from diluting the decision-making process and ensure the adoption of a more suitable and sustainable charging scheme. Furthermore, Model B represents a familiar charging scheme for the members, ensuring stability and continuity. In contrast, Model A offers an alternative, category-based system catering to the diverse needs of the membership base, promoting fairness and adaptability within the RIPE NCC community. Model C, on the other hand, only adds uncertainty by introducing transfer fees, which could negatively affect the RIPE NCC's financial stability. As this model doesn't provide any significant benefits over Models A and B, it would be more advantageous to concentrate on refining Models A and B, ensuring a well-balanced charging scheme for the RIPE NCC community. Regards, Victor
Dear RIPE NCC members,
I want to thank all those who contributed to the consultation so far on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 and the model we should use for the coming years.
We can now share three draft models that we developed based on input from the members on the Members Discuss mailing list and in the Charging Scheme Open House, as well as from the discussions at the recent Executive Board Meeting.
The result is that we are proposing three draft charging scheme models: one category-based and two that are based on the previous "one LIR account, one fee" model. We hope to receive feedback on these models by 19 April so the Executive Board can propose the final versions on 26 April. The members will then vote on those three models at the upcoming General Meeting on 24-26 May.
The three models all aim to fulfil a budget that is roughly the same as 2023 plus general cost increases including inflation, so EUR 42-45 million. By doing this, we can ensure that we can meet the potential budgetary requirements for 2024 while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contributions should we receive excess funds. The Activity Plan and Budget will be discussed with members this coming Autumn.
The three models are available to review at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/cha...
We also provide an updated calculator where members can see for themselves how much they might pay under the draft models: https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/new...
To summarise the main features of the three models:
Model A - Category Model
This model has ten categories to provide greater granularity. It also charges separately for independent and legacy resources in exactly the same way as in previous years. Additionally, a separate 50 EUR ASN assignment fee has been added. Both separately charged resources do not contribute to the category scores. This means there is no double charging and no specific charging for transfers or administrative work carried out by the RIPE NCC. There is a New /24 IPv4 administration fee to ensure there is a financial consequence to joining the IPv4 Waiting List. The fee would be payable upon receipt of the /24, and members joining the waiting list who do not have an eligible LIR account, would pay the new LIR sign-up fee to open a new LIR account and join the waiting list.
With this model, approximately 68% of members would pay less than the current annual fee, with the remaining 32% paying more.
The discussion with members helped us to see that a category-based model would receive significant support from members if the version was simplified. Should members see the need to charge for other elements, then that can be incorporated into the category model in the coming years. Any such additional charges could potentially then reduce the fees per category.
Model B - Price increase and ASN fee
This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there is a price increase of EUR 150 and a 50 EUR ASN fee to ensure we can meet our budgetary requirements while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contribution should we receive excess funds.
Model C - Transfer fee and ASN fee
This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there is a charge of EUR 1,000 per transfer to be paid by the receiving party and a 50 EUR ASN fee to ensure we can meet our budgetary requirements while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contribution should we receive excess funds.
Further information on the charging scheme models is provided at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/cha...
The RIPE NCC Executive Board believes that a category-based model is the best option to help address uncertainty that might be caused by consolidation with multiple LIRs and to provide greater flexibility and fairness in how we charge members in the coming years.
On 26 April, the final versions of the charging schemes that members will vote on will be published for the members to consider and discuss. If you have comments on the draft charging schemes, we therefore ask you to comment on the members-discuss mailing list by 19 April so we have time to incorporate any feedback if necessary.
Importantly, we ask all members to register for the RIPE NCC General Meeting where the final decision will be in your hands. Register to participate and vote at: https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active
Simon-Jan Haytink Chief Financial Officer RIPE NCC
Model A doesn't promote “fairness and adaptability” at all, really. What it does is divide members into various classes based on how many addresses they have been allocated in the past. The classes seem to be somewhat are arbitrarily chosen. Pricing is based on ladders that probably fit some financial model but based on the excel magic it's about as fair as your average country's income tax system. Unless you're in one of those that don't have income tax or have a flat tax rate. ;) There shouldn’t be any extra work or burden from a member with a /23 compared to a member with two or three /21s. Neither should there be much of a burden for any existing IPv4 allocations to be honest…………. Model C introduces transfer costs which could just as well be even higher. People xferring addresses could just as well pay cost plus (actual cost + set margin) due to complexity of xfers, verifying documents, etc. etc. Organizations selling/buying and/or gaming the system would just factor this in their market prices. After all, those who buy must buy, those who sell want to sell. Anyone on the waiting list thinking of easy profit speculating can easily solve the equation at what point it isn't worth to sit on the waitlist. If NCC is concerned with work, a model which is based on costing (as with transfers) should be the way to go. So far nobody has suggested paying per opened ticket (by customer). Of course, NCC is really concerned with making the revenue tie to the projected budget so models that result in fixed, guaranteed revenue are of course better for the organization. One would imagine that payment difficulties for sanctioned countries are just as difficult for any financial transaction rather than for xfers. Kaj Sent from my iPhone ________________________________ From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of i7 NOC <noc@i7.net> Sent: Friday, April 14, 2023 6:19 PM To: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024 Hello, It's great to see that member feedback has been taken into account when developing these models. However, I would like to reiterate my concerns regarding Model C and propose that it should be excluded from the final selection. In summary, Model C introduces transfer fees, which, as I mentioned earlier, bring potential challenges, such as unpredictability in the RIPE NCC's annual budget, payment difficulties for sanctioned countries, increased administrative burdens, complexities related to PI blocks and ASNs transfers, etc. These factors could negatively affect the RIPE NCC and its members. Considering the potential issues with Model C, I suggest that focusing on Models A and B would be a more reasonable approach. Both models provide sufficient options for the members and maintain their respective merits without the risks associated with Model C. By excluding Model C from the final proposals, the voting process will be more focused, enabling members to make a well-informed decision between the two remaining models. This strategy would prevent Model C from diluting the decision-making process and ensure the adoption of a more suitable and sustainable charging scheme. Furthermore, Model B represents a familiar charging scheme for the members, ensuring stability and continuity. In contrast, Model A offers an alternative, category-based system catering to the diverse needs of the membership base, promoting fairness and adaptability within the RIPE NCC community. Model C, on the other hand, only adds uncertainty by introducing transfer fees, which could negatively affect the RIPE NCC's financial stability. As this model doesn't provide any significant benefits over Models A and B, it would be more advantageous to concentrate on refining Models A and B, ensuring a well-balanced charging scheme for the RIPE NCC community. Regards, Victor
Dear RIPE NCC members,
I want to thank all those who contributed to the consultation so far on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 and the model we should use for the coming years.
We can now share three draft models that we developed based on input from the members on the Members Discuss mailing list and in the Charging Scheme Open House, as well as from the discussions at the recent Executive Board Meeting.
The result is that we are proposing three draft charging scheme models: one category-based and two that are based on the previous "one LIR account, one fee" model. We hope to receive feedback on these models by 19 April so the Executive Board can propose the final versions on 26 April. The members will then vote on those three models at the upcoming General Meeting on 24-26 May.
The three models all aim to fulfil a budget that is roughly the same as 2023 plus general cost increases including inflation, so EUR 42-45 million. By doing this, we can ensure that we can meet the potential budgetary requirements for 2024 while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contributions should we receive excess funds. The Activity Plan and Budget will be discussed with members this coming Autumn.
We also provide an updated calculator where members can see for themselves how much they might pay under the draft models: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.net%2Fparticipate%2Fmail%2Fmember-and-community-consultations%2Fnew-calculator-charging-scheme-2024.xlsx&data=05%7C01%7C%7C386a163c44774a1c8e1a08db3cfb9741%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638170823497103045%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=bsYv1vj3sUk409ouNrJV8Wj2CuNgZDEfqa66WMywl%2FI%3D&reserved=0<https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/new-calculator-charging-scheme-2024.xlsx>
To summarise the main features of the three models:
Model A - Category Model
This model has ten categories to provide greater granularity. It also charges separately for independent and legacy resources in exactly the same way as in previous years. Additionally, a separate 50 EUR ASN assignment fee has been added. Both separately charged resources do not contribute to the category scores. This means there is no double charging and no specific charging for transfers or administrative work carried out by the RIPE NCC. There is a New /24 IPv4 administration fee to ensure there is a financial consequence to joining the IPv4 Waiting List. The fee would be payable upon receipt of the /24, and members joining the waiting list who do not have an eligible LIR account, would pay the new LIR sign-up fee to open a new LIR account and join the waiting list.
With this model, approximately 68% of members would pay less than the current annual fee, with the remaining 32% paying more.
The discussion with members helped us to see that a category-based model would receive significant support from members if the version was simplified. Should members see the need to charge for other elements, then that can be incorporated into the category model in the coming years. Any such additional charges could potentially then reduce the fees per category.
Model B - Price increase and ASN fee
This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there is a price increase of EUR 150 and a 50 EUR ASN fee to ensure we can meet our budgetary requirements while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contribution should we receive excess funds.
Model C - Transfer fee and ASN fee
This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there is a charge of EUR 1,000 per transfer to be paid by the receiving party and a 50 EUR ASN fee to ensure we can meet our budgetary requirements while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contribution should we receive excess funds.
Further information on the charging scheme models is provided at: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.net%2Fparticipate%2Fmail%2Fmember-and-community-consultations%2Fcharging-scheme-2024-consultation%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7C386a163c44774a1c8e1a08db3cfb9741%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638170823497103045%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=bcddjY74vlnA3xUatVOciyyfW2o2EKpKYCpdeWdS4xY%3D&reserved=0<https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/charging-scheme-2024-consultation/>
The RIPE NCC Executive Board believes that a category-based model is the best option to help address uncertainty that might be caused by consolidation with multiple LIRs and to provide greater flexibility and fairness in how we charge members in the coming years.
On 26 April, the final versions of the charging schemes that members will vote on will be published for the members to consider and discuss. If you have comments on the draft charging schemes, we therefore ask you to comment on the members-discuss mailing list by 19 April so we have time to incorporate any feedback if necessary.
Importantly, we ask all members to register for the RIPE NCC General Meeting where the final decision will be in your hands. Register to participate and vote at: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmy.ripe.net%2F%23%2Fmeetings%2Factive&data=05%7C01%7C%7C386a163c44774a1c8e1a08db3cfb9741%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638170823497103045%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=WJ5u1zAAWyp6d6qCTGBvBlQYTcwnmyCyFtXcTQC9dW0%3D&reserved=0<https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active>
Simon-Jan Haytink Chief Financial Officer RIPE NCC
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C01%7C%7C386a163c44774a1c8e1a08db3cfb9741%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638170823497103045%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=SfO8RKY0S26sBF%2FOPtqKkRVg%2F4rf973%2BPnyAeHYS6%2FI%3D&reserved=0<https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss> Unsubscribe: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fkajtzu%2540basen.net&data=05%7C01%7C%7C386a163c44774a1c8e1a08db3cfb9741%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638170823497103045%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=RQ23qpNjW1FQCGtkw4a%2Fk1QNRLJTNcOhxMsru2u%2BE%2Bo%3D&reserved=0<https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/kajtzu%40basen.net>
Hello, As far as i understand there is also option number 4 (if you decide not to choose any of A/B/C), which will kep everything like it is now. But somehow it is not widely discussed and might be not obvious to members. Andrey
Hello,
It's great to see that member feedback has been taken into account when developing these models. However, I would like to reiterate my concerns regarding Model C and propose that it should be excluded from the final selection.
In summary, Model C introduces transfer fees, which, as I mentioned earlier, bring potential challenges, such as unpredictability in the RIPE NCC's annual budget, payment difficulties for sanctioned countries, increased administrative burdens, complexities related to PI blocks and ASNs transfers, etc. These factors could negatively affect the RIPE NCC and its members.
Considering the potential issues with Model C, I suggest that focusing on Models A and B would be a more reasonable approach. Both models provide sufficient options for the members and maintain their respective merits without the risks associated with Model C.
By excluding Model C from the final proposals, the voting process will be more focused, enabling members to make a well-informed decision between the two remaining models. This strategy would prevent Model C from diluting the decision-making process and ensure the adoption of a more suitable and sustainable charging scheme.
Furthermore, Model B represents a familiar charging scheme for the members, ensuring stability and continuity. In contrast, Model A offers an alternative, category-based system catering to the diverse needs of the membership base, promoting fairness and adaptability within the RIPE NCC community.
Model C, on the other hand, only adds uncertainty by introducing transfer fees, which could negatively affect the RIPE NCC's financial stability. As this model doesn't provide any significant benefits over Models A and B, it would be more advantageous to concentrate on refining Models A and B, ensuring a well-balanced charging scheme for the RIPE NCC community.
Regards, Victor
Dear RIPE NCC members,
I want to thank all those who contributed to the consultation so far on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 and the model we should use for the coming years.
We can now share three draft models that we developed based on input from the members on the Members Discuss mailing list and in the Charging Scheme Open House, as well as from the discussions at the recent Executive Board Meeting.
The result is that we are proposing three draft charging scheme models: one category-based and two that are based on the previous "one LIR account, one fee" model. We hope to receive feedback on these models by 19 April so the Executive Board can propose the final versions on 26 April. The members will then vote on those three models at the upcoming General Meeting on 24-26 May.
The three models all aim to fulfil a budget that is roughly the same as 2023 plus general cost increases including inflation, so EUR 42-45 million. By doing this, we can ensure that we can meet the potential budgetary requirements for 2024 while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contributions should we receive excess funds. The Activity Plan and Budget will be discussed with members this coming Autumn.
The three models are available to review at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/cha...
We also provide an updated calculator where members can see for themselves how much they might pay under the draft models: https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/new...
To summarise the main features of the three models:
Model A - Category Model
This model has ten categories to provide greater granularity. It also charges separately for independent and legacy resources in exactly the same way as in previous years. Additionally, a separate 50 EUR ASN assignment fee has been added. Both separately charged resources do not contribute to the category scores. This means there is no double charging and no specific charging for transfers or administrative work carried out by the RIPE NCC. There is a New /24 IPv4 administration fee to ensure there is a financial consequence to joining the IPv4 Waiting List. The fee would be payable upon receipt of the /24, and members joining the waiting list who do not have an eligible LIR account, would pay the new LIR sign-up fee to open a new LIR account and join the waiting list.
With this model, approximately 68% of members would pay less than the current annual fee, with the remaining 32% paying more.
The discussion with members helped us to see that a category-based model would receive significant support from members if the version was simplified. Should members see the need to charge for other elements, then that can be incorporated into the category model in the coming years. Any such additional charges could potentially then reduce the fees per category.
Model B - Price increase and ASN fee
This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there is a price increase of EUR 150 and a 50 EUR ASN fee to ensure we can meet our budgetary requirements while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contribution should we receive excess funds.
Model C - Transfer fee and ASN fee
This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there is a charge of EUR 1,000 per transfer to be paid by the receiving party and a 50 EUR ASN fee to ensure we can meet our budgetary requirements while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contribution should we receive excess funds.
Further information on the charging scheme models is provided at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/cha...
The RIPE NCC Executive Board believes that a category-based model is the best option to help address uncertainty that might be caused by consolidation with multiple LIRs and to provide greater flexibility and fairness in how we charge members in the coming years.
On 26 April, the final versions of the charging schemes that members will vote on will be published for the members to consider and discuss. If you have comments on the draft charging schemes, we therefore ask you to comment on the members-discuss mailing list by 19 April so we have time to incorporate any feedback if necessary.
Importantly, we ask all members to register for the RIPE NCC General Meeting where the final decision will be in your hands. Register to participate and vote at: https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active
Simon-Jan Haytink 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/andrejs.guba%40lvnet....
participants (3)
-
Andrejs Guba -
i7 NOC -
Kaj Niemi