Yes, this discussion is missing one absolutely key point: why the hell are the total fees so high? Why does RIPE need so much money? RIPE’s role today is much more limited than it used to be. IPv4 has already been handed out — often based on made-up addressing plans — so why does RIPE today need the same, or even more, money than it did 10 years ago? IPv6 is “infinite”. What are so many people and so much money needed for — just to click through IPv4 transfers? Let’s have a serious discussion: why are RIPE fees several times higher than, for example, ARIN’s, and why does RIPE need more than one fifth of its current headcount at all? ------ Původní zpráva ------ Od "Emanuele Roserba (Tinext) via members-discuss" <members-discuss@ripe.net> Komu "members-discuss@ripe.net" <members-discuss@ripe.net> Datum 23.04.2026 17:43:01 Předmět [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Proposals Announced

Completely agree. the discussion is focusing on the charging scheme, but to me the real culprit is that RIPE budget has exploded over the years, and only a small percentage of it comes back in the form of the core services that are supposed to represent the organization's mission.

--

Tinext Cloud

Emanuele Roserba Head of Operations Emanuele.Roserba@tinext.com

direct: +41 91 612 2224 <tel:+41 91 612 2224> Tinext Cloud globe.png <https://cloud.tinext.com> linkedin.png <https://www.linkedin.com/company/tinext-cloud> CONFIDENTIALITY: this message (including any attachments transmitted with it) contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named herein. If you are not the herein named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute, copy or otherwise make use of this message. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake, and delete it from your systems.

-----Original Message----- From: Akayo <ripe@akayo.eu> Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2026 4:43 PM To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Proposals Announced

Dear colleagues!

Just a few thoughts. I have

- 7 x IPv4 /22 PA - 1 x IPv4 /24 PA - 4 ASNs

which is equivalent to 29 x IPv4 /24. Therefore I am not a very small LIR, but between small and medium sized. As very small LIR I would consider a LIR with less than a IPv4 /22 equivalent.

With Option B, the Category Model, I will pay €2,567. With Option A, the One LIR Account-One Fee Model, I will pay €2,044.

Before redistribution: In 2022 I paid €1,400. In 2023 I paid €1,550. In 2025 I paid €2,000.

In three years, the fees raised by 43% (2022-2025). If option B is selected, the fees raised totally by 83% in five years (2022-2027).

Even if option A is selected, we have a total change of 46% in five years (2022-2027).

While it is my opinion, that a very small LIR should pay less than me, the main concern here is that the costs of the RIPE NCC are just too high:

How much shall I pay after the 2027-2031 period? Will I pay €5,000 then in 2032? Will very small LIRs then also pay €1,700 or so, so that the change (which first looked good for them) was useless, especially since it is likely that they received resources in the meantime?

The RIPE NCC may still forget that this may cause many LIRs to sell their resources to large companies.

Thanks for your time.

--Kayo

To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details.

Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription.

Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/

All, Just slightly off topic, but I got this from someone earlier in the year, on the US side of the pond, regarding some /24's that were needing to be located - "We had basically rented these two /24’s to them several years ago, but our cost to have these registered w/ARIN now is $4,410/year. So we will either need to xfer these or sell them before April." So, to me those charges look way higher that what I'd be paying. Stephen -----Original Message----- From: Jeroen Massar via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2026 1:17 PM To: Michal Krajčírovič <michal@krajcirovic.cz> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Proposals Announced

On 25 Apr 2026, at 13:34, Michal Krajčírovič via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> wrote: [..] Let’s have a serious discussion: why are RIPE fees several times higher than, for example, ARIN’s, and why does RIPE need more than one fifth of its current headcount at all?

Please do check the actual ARIN budget[1], how many people work there and how it is spent. Then check the RIPE budget[2], check the same. Then check how much members pay in ARIN and how much they would pay in RIPE for the 30k/year categories and which entities it are. Do you see those entities complain? Nope, as eh, it is more a waste of their time to discuss this than that number. Now you have done that, can you retract the above message? :) Also note that many of the larger resource holders where involved in the committee that came up with the proposal. Also, see the budget: we are getting soooooooooo much more from RIPE NCC for about the same amount of money that ARIN has (and charges to their members). Kudos to the awesome people at the RIPE NCC. Regards, Jeroen For your convience: [1] https://www.arin.net/about/corporate/planning/ [2] https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-850/ => https://www.ripe.net/documents/4184/ripe-850.pdf To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details. Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription. Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/ Unless otherwise stated, this email has been sent from Fujitsu Services Limited (registered in England No 96056); Fujitsu EMEA PLC (registered in England No 2216100) both with registered offices at: Lovelace Road, Bracknell, Berkshire RG12 8SN; PFU (EMEA) Limited, (registered in England No 1578652) registered offices at: Belmont, Belmont Road, Uxbridge, England, UB8 1HE and Fujitsu Research of Europe Ltd (registered in England No. 4153469) 4th Floor, Building 3, Hyde Park Hayes, 11 Millington Road, Hayes, UB3 4AZ. This email is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a duty of confidence and may be privileged. Fujitsu does not guarantee that this email has not been intercepted and amended or that it is virus-free.

Hi All!!! It's never happened before, and it's happened again :-) !!! Do you still not understand the reasons for the failure of the category model? Active NCC members do not need low payments. They need guarantees of equal access to scarce resources and their effective use and management! The categorical model is a dead end. It freezes the current catastrophic situation with IPv4 and actually creates a group of "IPv4 neo-feudalists" who will pay pennies and receive billions. Obviously, the most NCC participants are not satisfied with this. And only the leadership of the NCC and the "self-nascent" initiative groups ignore this again and again. Why? ---- Dmitry Serbulov.

It's appearing that the charging model is staying as is -

[cid:image001.png@01DCE9E4.9C582570]

But the question must be asked, as it was mentioned in the meeting that 75% of members would be better off, so as an interim measure could the charging be a 50/50 split, it could even be over more year’s thirds ? quarters ?

So, a member pays half of the flat fee and half of the category fee – as I could see some members having a large increase in their fees if 75% are better off – and that ‘jump’ may not be budgeted for.

Stephen

Unless otherwise stated, this email has been sent from Fujitsu Services Limited (registered in England No 96056); Fujitsu EMEA PLC (registered in England No 2216100) both with registered offices at: Lovelace Road, Bracknell, Berkshire RG12 8SN; PFU (EMEA) Limited, (registered in England No 1578652) registered offices at: Belmont, Belmont Road, Uxbridge, England, UB8 1HE and Fujitsu Research of Europe Ltd (registered in England No. 4153469) 4th Floor, Building 3, Hyde Park Hayes, 11 Millington Road, Hayes, UB3 4AZ.

This email is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a duty of confidence and may be privileged. Fujitsu does not guarantee that this email has not been intercepted and amended or that it is virus-free. To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details.

Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription.

Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/

Precisely. What is important now is for the result to be accepted and move on. Arriving at either of the options in the 2027 Charging Scheme Proposal was the culmination of a great deal of effort and refinement of recent previous attempts. It became THE Vote. The big one! Could this be the one where the category model finally wins? No. To be asked to vote again on this within the next few years should be considered disrespectful to the membership and the vote they hold. I strongly suspect that irrespective on which side of the coin you are, most don’t want to be asked again any time soon either. Brian Brian Storey Principal; Data Products & Network Planning Tel: 0333 240 3481 Mobile: 07436 101 378 Email: Brian.Storey@gamma.co.uk This is an email from Gamma Telecom Ltd, trading as “Gamma”. The contents of this email are confidential to the ordinary user of the email address to which it was addressed. This email is not intended to create any legal relationship. No one else may place any reliance upon it, or copy or forward all or any of it in any form (unless otherwise notified). If you receive this email in error, please accept our apologies, we would be obliged if you would telephone our postmaster on +44 (0) 808 178 9652 or email postmaster@gamma.co.uk Gamma Telecom Limited, a company incorporated in England and Wales, with limited liability, with registered number 04340834, and whose registered office is at Arbeta, 11 Northampton Road, Manchester, M40 5BP and whose principal place of business is at Kings House, Kings Road West, Newbury, Berkshire, RG14 5BY. From: Andy Davidson <Andy.Davidson@ask4.com> Sent: 22 May 2026 15:55 To: Stephen Carter (Fujitsu) <stephen.carter2@fujitsu.com>; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Proposals - result announced. On 22 May 2026, at 13:20, Stephen Carter (Fujitsu) via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> wrote:

So, a member pays half of the flat fee and half of the category fee – as I could see some members having a large increase in their fees if 75% are better off – and that ‘jump’ may not be budgeted for.

No. The option B was the voting scheme with large jumps and it did not pass. The meeting was asked to reach a decision. It decided that in this membership of equals, we should contribute equally and be treated equally. Rare that I am the majority side of a 51/49 split in a referendum, but I really do feel the answer reached is the right one, for a membership organisation, in the long term. Andy This email and its contents may be confidential. Access is only authorised by the intended recipient. The contents of this email may not be disclosed to, or used by, anyone other than the intended recipient, or stored or copied in any medium. If you are not the intended recipient, please advise the sender immediately. ASK4 Ltd. Registered in England & Wales with company number 3980594. Registered Address: Devonshire Green House, 14 Fitzwilliam Street, Sheffield, S1 4JL. ASK4 Ltd is part of the ASK4 Group which operates in Europe through various local branches and/or separate and distinct legal entities.

Hi Alexandra, What is your message? Do you have any idea how the ‘large IPv4 owners’ voted? I doubt it. It's a democratic decision — that's how voting works. In fact, this means that both models work, and there was a slight majority for one of them. Those who did not vote have to automatically accept that. Adoption of IPv6 is even more prevalent on the service side nowadays. None of the ISPs can get rid of any IPv4 space unless they are also offering their services in IPv6. Nevertheless, projects are still starting out as IPv4-only. Do IPv6 first. Stop complaining about the IPv4 shortage. -- Kind regards Sebastian Becker Von: Alexandre <alexandre-ripe-ncc@lotharedon.org> Datum: Mittwoch, 27. Mai 2026 um 09:17 An: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Betreff: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Proposals - result announced. I'm really enjoying all of this messages from large IPv4 pool owners, stating as obvious to keep a flat charging scheme. But this vote tells an other story : having a 51/49% split means none of the proposed model was attractive enough to make a large member approbation. Stating otherwise would be very disrespectful toward the voting members. But please, don't fail to notice that all of this discussions about charging schemes are because many large service providers and ISP don't put enough work into their IPv6 adoption. As displayed during a previous RIPE meeting, small IPv4 operators have an higher IPv6 adoption rate than bigger ones. So if one doesn't want to fell disrespected again with new discussions about charging schemes, they know what they should do. Regards, Alexandre Le 26/05/2026 à 13:21, Brian Storey via members-discuss a écrit :

Precisely.

What is important now is for the result to be accepted and move on. Arriving at either of the options in the 2027 Charging Scheme Proposal was the culmination of a great deal of effort and refinement of recent previous attempts. It became THE Vote. The big one! Could this be the one where the category model finally wins? No.

To be asked to vote again on this within the next few years should be considered disrespectful to the membership and the vote they hold. I strongly suspect that irrespective on which side of the coin you are, most don’t want to be asked again any time soon either.

Brian

Brian Storey

Principal; Data Products & Network Planning

Tel:

0333 240 3481 <tel:0333%20240%203481>

Mobile:

07436 101 378 <tel:07436%20101%20378>

Email:

Brian.Storey@gamma.co.uk <mailto:Brian.Storey@gamma.co.uk>

This is an email from Gamma Telecom Ltd, trading as “Gamma”. The contents of this email are confidential to the ordinary user of the email address to which it was addressed. This email is not intended to create any legal relationship. No one else may place any reliance upon it, or copy or forward all or any of it in any form (unless otherwise notified). If you receive this email in error, please accept our apologies, we would be obliged if you would telephone our postmaster on +44 (0) 808 178 9652 or email postmaster@gamma.co.uk

Gamma Telecom Limited, a company incorporated in England and Wales, with limited liability, with registered number 04340834, and whose registered office is at Arbeta, 11 Northampton Road, Manchester, M40 5BP and whose principal place of business is at Kings House, Kings Road West, Newbury, Berkshire, RG14 5BY.

​​​​

*From:*Andy Davidson <Andy.Davidson@ask4.com> *Sent:* 22 May 2026 15:55 *To:* Stephen Carter (Fujitsu) <stephen.carter2@fujitsu.com>; members- discuss@ripe.net *Subject:* [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Proposals - result announced.

On 22 May 2026, at 13:20, Stephen Carter (Fujitsu) via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> wrote:

...

So, a member pays half of the flat fee and half of the category fee

...

– as I could see some members having a large increase in their

...

fees if 75% are better off – and that ‘jump’ may not be budgeted for.

No. The option B was the voting scheme with large jumps and it did not pass.

The meeting was asked to reach a decision. It decided that in this membership of equals, we should contribute equally and be treated equally.

Rare that I am the majority side of a 51/49 split in a referendum, but I really do feel the answer reached is the right one, for a membership organisation, in the long term.

Andy

This email and its contents may be confidential. Access is only authorised by the intended recipient. The contents of this email may not be disclosed to, or used by, anyone other than the intended recipient, or stored or copied in any medium. If you are not the intended recipient, please advise the sender immediately. ASK4 Ltd. Registered in England & Wales with company number 3980594. Registered Address: Devonshire Green House, 14 Fitzwilliam Street, Sheffield, S1 4JL. ASK4 Ltd is part of the ASK4 Group which operates in Europe through various local branches and/or separate and distinct legal entities.

To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://deu01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmy.ripe.net%2F%23%2Faccount-details&data=05%7C02%7CSebastian-Becker%40telekom.de%7C79fe0e8fdb284561edbc08debbbff01d%7Cbde4dffc4b604cf68b04a5eeb25f5c4f%7C0%7C0%7C639154630213682101%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=p7pHwpysLB0KNJHYiWS35X7%2F4QfB5xVnmchW6Ex6Q2I%3D&reserved=0<https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details>.

Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription.

Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at: https://deu01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.net%2Fs%2Fmembers-discuss-subscription-options%2F&data=05%7C02%7CSebastian-Becker%40telekom.de%7C79fe0e8fdb284561edbc08debbbff01d%7Cbde4dffc4b604cf68b04a5eeb25f5c4f%7C0%7C0%7C639154630213717511%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=wBRdIb7K2JQ3H6fINVo5ZirNpABheimsLVlxwpWFj7s%3D&reserved=0<https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/>

To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://deu01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmy.ripe.net%2F%23%2Faccount-details&data=05%7C02%7CSebastian-Becker%40telekom.de%7C79fe0e8fdb284561edbc08debbbff01d%7Cbde4dffc4b604cf68b04a5eeb25f5c4f%7C0%7C0%7C639154630213738373%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=vTWAabV1p3LECKPsczZe5G3rKz1o7GCywxG4RZMLUmk%3D&reserved=0<https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details>. Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription. Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at: https://deu01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.net%2Fs%2Fmembers-discuss-subscription-options%2F&data=05%7C02%7CSebastian-Becker%40telekom.de%7C79fe0e8fdb284561edbc08debbbff01d%7Cbde4dffc4b604cf68b04a5eeb25f5c4f%7C0%7C0%7C639154630213762024%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=uUgtkGAzf7N8AhhYCvrD2fjkAoRAM89TK9A6HqYrziM%3D&reserved=0<https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/>

On 27/05/2026 10:05:20, "Mihail Fedorov via members-discuss" <members-discuss@ripe.net> wrote:

I'd like to object to how this vote is being framed. This isn't how voting is supposed to work.

I’d like to object to all those objecting :) The vote is done and it repeats the result from each of the previous attempts to force in categories. This time despite it being arranged to incentivise 75% of members to choose it. Next time is it a reduction for 90% at the expense of the remainder?

A tiered model is supposed to distribute expenses evenly across members in proportion to their size, and consumer size is reasonably well estimated by the size of the IPv4 space in use - that, and only that, is why IPv4 sizing is relevant to this discussion.

That is bad logic, there are many where IPv4 size is not a reasonable proxy for organisation size and financial situation. The flat rate does however distribute expenses evenly across members so it is at least founded on a reasonable premise.

this model simply shifts expenses away from completely empty LIRs onto everyone else

Any category system does that. They are fudge between a flat rate and a per prefix rate, the only two fair systems. Categories intentionally introduce some inequity. This system added a new peril, the categories incentivise merging of LIR for a significant saving, which other members who cannot do that would pay for instead. There may be a case for a different membership class/fee for the absolutlely tiny members though. Say a v6 only membership that encourages the personal LIRs to migrate, and maybe for a single v4 /24 too.

A real tiered model, in my opinion, would make huge international Tier-1 operators pay six- to seven-figure fees, while a regional LIR with a couple of nets would pay less than it does today. Proportionally. I see this as the only legitimate and fair model.

Proportianal is not tiered, it is just proportional.

It would help the discussion a great deal if members here recognised that IPv4 plays a small role in it - purely as an indicator of LIR size.

A bad indicator and one that will no longer work as IPv6 take up grows, then we are back to a mostly flat allocation so a flat fee. Why have this argument each year until then. brandon

On 27/05/2026 18:17:55, alexandre-ripe-ncc@lotharedon.org wrote:

You wrote "This system added a new peril, the categories incentivise merging of LIR for a significant saving, which other members who cannot do that would pay for instead. "

That's even more the case with flat fees : outside of the ones in the IPv4 allocation waiting list, it looks it would be in the interrests of the smallest members to merge their LIR with others, and especially the not lucrative ones. And then fees will raise with the decreasing number of members, making the less small members in the same situation, etc.

Yes, this was the case with the previous proposed categories too. Category 4 includes the /8 runout lottery winners. If they were to sell/consolidate/switch to a sponsoring LIR then there would be a significant budget shift to others. RIPE mentioned this risk to member numbers. Splitting the impact evenly in the flat model seemed a safer bet than categories where we don't know how it would be implemented but the middle categories seem more likely to be impacted most. Reasoning: desire to keep lower categories cheap (can't do a reduction to win a vote then reverse it), few in higher categories so limited scope without a massive increase each. Result - ceased members fees move to the categories just above the 75% get a reduction line. brandon

Hi Sebastian,

Hi Alexandra,

Please, stay respecful to others by getting their name right and not bending their gender. I'm pretty sure that's not how you would like to represent your company.

What is your message? Do you have any idea how the ‘large IPv4 owners’ voted? I doubt it.

"large IPv4 pool owners, stating as obvious to keep a flat charging scheme". Please, don't forget half of the sentence, a colon isn't a dot. And to answer you, yes, I'm getting an idea from the messages they sent on this mailing list. The large IPv4 owners which don't participate here, or have different opinions, I can't say. But once again, I wasn't talking about them.

It's a democratic decision — that's how voting works. In fact, this means that both models work, and there was a slight majority for one of them. Those who did not vote have to automatically accept that.

Different words, same idea. Both obviously "work" for the RIPE NCC budget else they wouldn't have been voting options. And both "work" for different LIR profile, but none was attractive enough to make a large member approbation.

Adoption of IPv6 is even more prevalent on the service side nowadays. None of the ISPs can get rid of any IPv4 space unless they are also offering their services in IPv6. Nevertheless, projects are still starting out as IPv4-only. Do IPv6 first. Stop complaining about the IPv4 shortage.

As for this, thanks again for rewording my message. But I don't get where you saw I was complaining about IPv4 shortage. Regards, Alexandre

-- Kind regards

Sebastian Becker

*Von: *Alexandre <alexandre-ripe-ncc@lotharedon.org> *Datum: *Mittwoch, 27. Mai 2026 um 09:17 *An: *members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> *Betreff: *[members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Proposals - result announced.

I'm really enjoying all of this messages from large IPv4 pool owners, stating as obvious to keep a flat charging scheme. But this vote tells an other story : having a 51/49% split means none of the proposed model was attractive enough to make a large member approbation. Stating otherwise would be very disrespectful toward the voting members.

But please, don't fail to notice that all of this discussions about charging schemes are because many large service providers and ISP don't put enough work into their IPv6 adoption. As displayed during a previous RIPE meeting, small IPv4 operators have an higher IPv6 adoption rate than bigger ones. So if one doesn't want to fell disrespected again with new discussions about charging schemes, they know what they should do.

Regards, Alexandre

Le 26/05/2026 à 13:21, Brian Storey via members-discuss a écrit :

...

Precisely.

What is important now is for the result to be accepted and move on. Arriving at either of the options in the 2027 Charging Scheme Proposal was the culmination of a great deal of effort and refinement of recent previous attempts. It became THE Vote. The big one! Could this be the one where the category model finally wins? No.

To be asked to vote again on this within the next few years should be considered disrespectful to the membership and the vote they hold. I strongly suspect that irrespective on which side of the coin you are, most don’t want to be asked again any time soon either.

Brian

Brian Storey

Principal; Data Products & Network Planning

Tel:

0333 240 3481 <tel:0333%20240%203481>

Mobile:

07436 101 378 <tel:07436%20101%20378>

Email:

Brian.Storey@gamma.co.uk <mailto:Brian.Storey@gamma.co.uk <mailto:Brian.Storey@gamma.co.uk>>

This is an email from Gamma Telecom Ltd, trading as “Gamma”. The contents of this email are confidential to the ordinary user of the email address to which it was addressed. This email is not intended to create any legal relationship. No one else may place any reliance upon it, or copy or forward all or any of it in any form (unless otherwise notified). If you receive this email in error, please accept our apologies, we would be obliged if you would telephone our postmaster on +44 (0) 808 178 9652 or email postmaster@gamma.co.uk

Gamma Telecom Limited, a company incorporated in England and Wales, with limited liability, with registered number 04340834, and whose registered office is at Arbeta, 11 Northampton Road, Manchester, M40 5BP and whose principal place of business is at Kings House, Kings Road West, Newbury, Berkshire, RG14 5BY.

        ​​​​

*From:*Andy Davidson <Andy.Davidson@ask4.com> *Sent:* 22 May 2026 15:55 *To:* Stephen Carter (Fujitsu) <stephen.carter2@fujitsu.com>; members- discuss@ripe.net *Subject:* [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Proposals - result announced.

On 22 May 2026, at 13:20, Stephen Carter (Fujitsu) via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>>> wrote:

...

So, a member pays half of the flat fee and half of the category fee

...

– as I could see some members having a large increase in their

...

fees if 75% are better off – and that ‘jump’ may not be budgeted for.

No.  The option B was the voting scheme with large jumps and it did not pass.

The meeting was asked to reach a decision. It decided that in this membership of equals, we should contribute equally and be treated equally.

Rare that I am the majority side of a 51/49 split in a referendum, but I really do feel the answer reached is the right one, for a membership organisation, in the long term.

Andy

This email and its contents may be confidential. Access is only authorised by the intended recipient. The contents of this email may not be disclosed to, or used by, anyone other than the intended recipient, or stored or copied in any medium. If you are not the intended recipient, please advise the sender immediately. ASK4 Ltd. Registered in England & Wales with company number 3980594. Registered Address: Devonshire Green House, 14 Fitzwilliam Street, Sheffield, S1 4JL. ASK4 Ltd is part of the ASK4 Group which operates in Europe through various local branches and/or separate and distinct legal entities.

To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://deu01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/? url=https%3A%2F%2Fmy.ripe.net%2F%23%2Faccount- details&data=05%7C02%7CSebastian- Becker%40telekom.de%7C79fe0e8fdb284561edbc08debbbff01d%7Cbde4dffc4b604cf68b04a5eeb25f5c4f%7C0%7C0%7C639154630213682101%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=p7pHwpysLB0KNJHYiWS35X7%2F4QfB5xVnmchW6Ex6Q2I%3D&reserved=0 <https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details>.

Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members- discuss' subscription.

Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at: https://deu01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/? url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.net%2Fs%2Fmembers-discuss-subscription- options%2F&data=05%7C02%7CSebastian- Becker%40telekom.de%7C79fe0e8fdb284561edbc08debbbff01d%7Cbde4dffc4b604cf68b04a5eeb25f5c4f%7C0%7C0%7C639154630213717511%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=wBRdIb7K2JQ3H6fINVo5ZirNpABheimsLVlxwpWFj7s%3D&reserved=0 <https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/>

To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://deu01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/? url=https%3A%2F%2Fmy.ripe.net%2F%23%2Faccount- details&data=05%7C02%7CSebastian- Becker%40telekom.de%7C79fe0e8fdb284561edbc08debbbff01d%7Cbde4dffc4b604cf68b04a5eeb25f5c4f%7C0%7C0%7C639154630213738373%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=vTWAabV1p3LECKPsczZe5G3rKz1o7GCywxG4RZMLUmk%3D&reserved=0 <https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details>.

Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription.

Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at: https://deu01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/? url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.net%2Fs%2Fmembers-discuss-subscription- options%2F&data=05%7C02%7CSebastian- Becker%40telekom.de%7C79fe0e8fdb284561edbc08debbbff01d%7Cbde4dffc4b604cf68b04a5eeb25f5c4f%7C0%7C0%7C639154630213762024%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=uUgtkGAzf7N8AhhYCvrD2fjkAoRAM89TK9A6HqYrziM%3D&reserved=0 <https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/>

Le Wed, May 27, 2026 at 06:50:30PM +0000, Sebastian-Becker--- via members-discuss a écrit :

I think you missed the point that a special group worked out these charging scheme options, and that maybe both are equally attractive, which is why the vote was so close. Votes are sometimes close with no overwhelming majority, and that is how democratic processes work. Look at most countries in Europe. And yes, sometimes compromise will not make everyone happy. Still, the decision has been made.

I am probably wrong but I thought RIPE was working out of consensus. Is it only for the community and not NCC ? -- Denis Fondras / Liopen

Hi, On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 10:45:52AM +0200, Denis Fondras - Liopen via members-discuss wrote:

I am probably wrong but I thought RIPE was working out of consensus. Is it only for the community and not NCC ?

As soon as money is involved, that is, "membership issues", legal requirements for an association require voting for all sort of decision making. The NCC board is voted for, the charging scheme is voting for, etc. (*RIPE* works on consensus, the *RIPE NCC* is an association with members and money and voting - I guess you know that, and are just trying to make some point that I am missing) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: Dr. Frank Thiäner D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

On 22/05/2026 17:55, Andy Davidson wrote:

On 22 May 2026, at 13:20, Stephen Carter (Fujitsu) via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> wrote:

...

So, a member pays half of the flat fee and half of the category fee – as I could see some members having a large increase in their fees if 75% are better off – and that ‘jump’ may not be budgeted for.

No.  The option B was the voting scheme with large jumps and it did not pass. My LIR paid 2500 Euro in 2026 and will have to pay 4019 Euro in 2027. I would say that is a large jump for option A (option B would have just been a jump to 3371 Euro).

Regards, Hank

As an individual internet user I think that the idea of the category model is good. Modest membership fee and then you pay for the resources you use. But as a representative of my business I could not vote for a model that would double my yearly RIPE fee. So flat fee it was. Kari Likovuori Category 6 -----Alkuperäinen viesti----- Lähettäjä: Sébastien Brossier <sebastien@brossier.org> Lähetetty: lauantai 23. toukokuuta 2026 13.09 Vastaanottaja: members-discuss@ripe.net Aihe: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Proposals - result announced. HUOM! Ulkoinen lähettäjä. Älä avaa linkkejä tai liitteitä, ellet tunnista lähettäjää. OBS! Extern avsändare. Öppna inte länkar eller bilagor om du inte känner igen avsändaren. NOTE! External sender. Do not open links or attachments unless you recognize the sender. On 22/05/2026 13:15, Stephen Carter (Fujitsu) via members-discuss wrote:

It's appearing that the charging model is staying as is -

But the question must be asked, as it was mentioned in the meeting that 75% of members would be better off, so as an interim measure could the charging be a 50/50 split, it could even be over more year’s thirds ? quarters ?

So, a member pays half of the flat fee and half of the category fee – as I could see some members having a large increase in their fees if 75% are better off – and that ‘jump’ may not be budgeted for.

Hi, The members have voted and we must respect that choice. We'll probably keep the same model for the foreseeable future. I'm now expecting the see renewed calls to decrease the budget, given that fees are bound to increase significantly every year (inflation + decreasing number of members). Best regards, Sebastien Brossier To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details. Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription. Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/

You can certainly believe that I was in favor of Option B—but we simply fell short by 80 votes. Unfortunately, 400 of our registered voters didn't show up to cast their ballots. That’s a shame, but we are on the right track. However, next year we really ought to rethink the whole process and see if we can find a voting format that offers more options or incentives to participate. We have 20,000 members, yet only 3,000 actually turned out. That alone clearly shows where the problem begins. Regards, Dirk. P.S.: I won't bother calculating the exact participation percentage right now; suffice it to say that while the overall voter turnout was technically high, for a club of our size, it remains—quite frankly—a stain on our record. Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen Walde IT-Systemhaus - CEO Dirk Walde - IT-Specialist Mangenberger Str. 76 - D-42655 Solingen - Germany +49(0)212-3833235 - info@walde-it.de - http://www.walde-it.de NETWORK AS203226 + AS199679 + AS199681 / ABUSE: abuse@waldeit.de ** RIPE NCC Full Member - RIPE LIR Service ** DREG ID: 11/075 (§6 TKG) - TAX ID: DE159795091 Stephen Carter (Fujitsu) via members-discuss schrieb:

It's appearing that the charging model is staying as is -

But the question must be asked, as it was mentioned in the meeting that 75% of members would be better off, so as an interim measure could the charging be a 50/50 split, it could even be over more year’s thirds ? quarters ?

So, a member pays half of the flat fee and half of the category fee – as I could see some members having a large increase in their fees if 75% are better off – and that ‘jump’ may not be budgeted for.

Stephen

Unless otherwise stated, this email has been sent from Fujitsu Services Limited (registered in England No 96056); Fujitsu EMEA PLC (registered in England No 2216100) both with registered offices at: Lovelace Road, Bracknell, Berkshire RG12 8SN; PFU (EMEA) Limited, (registered in England No 1578652) registered offices at: Belmont, Belmont Road, Uxbridge, England, UB8 1HE and Fujitsu Research of Europe Ltd (registered in England No. 4153469) 4th Floor, Building 3, Hyde Park Hayes, 11 Millington Road, Hayes, UB3 4AZ.

This email is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a duty of confidence and may be privileged. Fujitsu does not guarantee that this email has not been intercepted and amended or that it is virus-free.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details.

Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription.

Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/

I agree, we must *fully accept this decision*. But it means a lot of work now. We have opted for equal membership, but many members do not have enough addresses for their operations, while others have many and are even offering them for sale. So let’s find a way to *encourage the return of unused IPv4 addresses and allocate them to equal members* who are in short supply. Best regards M. Prokeš Dne 26.05.2026 v 10:57 Kaiser, Karl napsal(a):

Hi!

We’ve had a vote – now we have a result.

It does not matter if you like it or not – deal with it.

Best regards,

Karl

*Von:*D. Walde - Walde IT-Systemhaus <walde@wcs-online.de> *Gesendet:* Sonntag, 24. Mai 2026 22:29 *An:* Stephen Carter (Fujitsu) <stephen.carter2@fujitsu.com>; members-discuss@ripe.net *Betreff:* [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Proposals - result announced.

You can certainly believe that I was in favor of Option B—but we simply fell short by 80 votes. Unfortunately, 400 of our registered voters didn't show up to cast their ballots. That’s a shame, but we are on the right track.

However, next year we really ought to rethink the whole process and see if we can find a voting format that offers more options or incentives to participate. We have 20,000 members, yet only 3,000 actually turned out. That alone clearly shows where the problem begins. Regards, Dirk.

P.S.: I won't bother calculating the exact participation percentage right now; suffice it to say that while the overall voter turnout was technically high, for a club of our size, it remains—quite frankly—a stain on our record.

Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen Walde IT-Systemhaus - CEO Dirk Walde - IT-Specialist Mangenberger Str. 76 - D-42655 Solingen - Germany +49(0)212-3833235 -info@walde-it.de -http://www.walde-it.de NETWORK AS203226 + AS199679 + AS199681 / ABUSE:abuse@waldeit.de ** RIPE NCC Full Member - RIPE LIR Service ** DREG ID: 11/075 (§6 TKG) - TAX ID: DE159795091

Stephen Carter (Fujitsu) via members-discuss schrieb:

It's appearing that the charging model is staying as is -

But the question must be asked, as it was mentioned in the meeting that 75% of members would be better off, so as an interim measure could the charging be a 50/50 split, it could even be over more year’s thirds ? quarters ?

So, a member pays half of the flat fee and half of the category fee – as I could see some members having a large increase in their fees if 75% are better off – and that ‘jump’ may not be budgeted for.

Stephen

Unless otherwise stated, this email has been sent from Fujitsu Services Limited (registered in England No 96056); Fujitsu EMEA PLC (registered in England No 2216100) both with registered offices at: Lovelace Road, Bracknell, Berkshire RG12 8SN; PFU (EMEA) Limited, (registered in England No 1578652) registered offices at: Belmont, Belmont Road, Uxbridge, England, UB8 1HE and Fujitsu Research of Europe Ltd (registered in England No. 4153469) 4th Floor, Building 3, Hyde Park Hayes, 11 Millington Road, Hayes, UB3 4AZ.

This email is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a duty of confidence and may be privileged. Fujitsu does not guarantee that this email has not been intercepted and amended or that it is virus-free.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your

RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page:

https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details.

Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription.

Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription

can be found at:https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/

------------------------------------------------------------------------ Notice: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, notify the sender immediately, destroy all copies from your system and do not disclose or use the information for any purpose.

Diese E-Mail inklusive aller Anhaenge ist vertraulich und koennte bevorrechtigtem Schutz unterliegen. Wenn Sie nicht der beabsichtigte Adressat sind, informieren Sie bitte den Absender unverzueglich, loeschen Sie alle Kopien von Ihrem System und veroeffentlichen Sie oder nutzen Sie die Information keinesfalls, gleich zu welchem Zweck.

Think before you print!

MAGENTA TELEKOM (T-Mobile Austria GmbH) Geschaeftsführung: Mag. Thomas Kicker (Vorsitzender), Aufsichtsrat: Kyra Orth (Vorsitzende)

Firmenbuch: Handelsgericht Wien FN 171112 k, UID ATU 45011703 Konto: UniCredit Bank Austria AG IBAN: AT93 1200 0528 4407 2301, BIC: BKAUATWW ------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details.

Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription.

Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at:https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/

A new charging scheme will NEVER change this. The only thing it’ll change, is the market prices of IPv4 addresses. Perhaps all the energy spent discussing how we can game the charging scheme, in a way that IPv4 addresses will be returned to RIPE, they never will, as many regards them as assets, thanks to the current renting/transfer market, would be better spent on campaigning for better and more broad IPv6 adoption. Once IPv6 is broadly adopted, the issue will solve itself, and then what? The charging scheme should fund RIPEs activities, not be used as a futile attempt at releasing more IPv4 addresses. The IPv4 train left the station long ago. We’ve known about this problem for 30 years, and the solution already exists. Every time it time for the general meeting, and the charging scheme is on the agenda, the mailing list lights up like a Christmas tree, with people complaining about lack of IPv4, and how they believe the charging scheme can be used to free the resources, they desperately needs. And as for the missing voter turnout, apparently, I’ve been so busy recently, I forgot to register for voting, I usually does vote, but this year, I had other things to do, and it slipped my mind. But in short, instead of complaining about the fees to RIPE, which in many cases is less a year, than an average employee would cost in a month, try investing all that energy into IPv6 adoption, it will be MUCH better spent there. - Chano Andersen From: Michal Prokes via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> Date: Tuesday, 26 May 2026 at 13.31 To: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Proposals - result announced. I agree, we must fully accept this decision. But it means a lot of work now. We have opted for equal membership, but many members do not have enough addresses for their operations, while others have many and are even offering them for sale. So let’s find a way to encourage the return of unused IPv4 addresses and allocate them to equal members who are in short supply. Best regards M. Prokeš Dne 26.05.2026 v 10:57 Kaiser, Karl napsal(a): Hi! We’ve had a vote – now we have a result. It does not matter if you like it or not – deal with it. Best regards, Karl Von: D. Walde - Walde IT-Systemhaus <walde@wcs-online.de><mailto:walde@wcs-online.de> Gesendet: Sonntag, 24. Mai 2026 22:29 An: Stephen Carter (Fujitsu) <stephen.carter2@fujitsu.com><mailto:stephen.carter2@fujitsu.com>; members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Betreff: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Proposals - result announced. You can certainly believe that I was in favor of Option B—but we simply fell short by 80 votes. Unfortunately, 400 of our registered voters didn't show up to cast their ballots. That’s a shame, but we are on the right track. However, next year we really ought to rethink the whole process and see if we can find a voting format that offers more options or incentives to participate. We have 20,000 members, yet only 3,000 actually turned out. That alone clearly shows where the problem begins. Regards, Dirk. P.S.: I won't bother calculating the exact participation percentage right now; suffice it to say that while the overall voter turnout was technically high, for a club of our size, it remains—quite frankly—a stain on our record. Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen Walde IT-Systemhaus - CEO Dirk Walde - IT-Specialist Mangenberger Str. 76 - D-42655 Solingen - Germany +49(0)212-3833235 - info@walde-it.de<mailto:info@walde-it.de> - http://www.walde-it.de<http://www.walde-it.de/> NETWORK AS203226 + AS199679 + AS199681 / ABUSE: abuse@waldeit.de<mailto:abuse@waldeit.de> ** RIPE NCC Full Member - RIPE LIR Service ** DREG ID: 11/075 (§6 TKG) - TAX ID: DE159795091 Stephen Carter (Fujitsu) via members-discuss schrieb: It's appearing that the charging model is staying as is - [cid:part1.hhcusuFh.j0iKLty0@hdata.cz] But the question must be asked, as it was mentioned in the meeting that 75% of members would be better off, so as an interim measure could the charging be a 50/50 split, it could even be over more year’s thirds ? quarters ? So, a member pays half of the flat fee and half of the category fee – as I could see some members having a large increase in their fees if 75% are better off – and that ‘jump’ may not be budgeted for. Stephen Unless otherwise stated, this email has been sent from Fujitsu Services Limited (registered in England No 96056); Fujitsu EMEA PLC (registered in England No 2216100) both with registered offices at: Lovelace Road, Bracknell, Berkshire RG12 8SN; PFU (EMEA) Limited, (registered in England No 1578652) registered offices at: Belmont, Belmont Road, Uxbridge, England, UB8 1HE and Fujitsu Research of Europe Ltd (registered in England No. 4153469) 4th Floor, Building 3, Hyde Park Hayes, 11 Millington Road, Hayes, UB3 4AZ. This email is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a duty of confidence and may be privileged. Fujitsu does not guarantee that this email has not been intercepted and amended or that it is virus-free. ________________________________ To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details. Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription. Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/ ________________________________ Notice: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, notify the sender immediately, destroy all copies from your system and do not disclose or use the information for any purpose. Diese E-Mail inklusive aller Anhaenge ist vertraulich und koennte bevorrechtigtem Schutz unterliegen. Wenn Sie nicht der beabsichtigte Adressat sind, informieren Sie bitte den Absender unverzueglich, loeschen Sie alle Kopien von Ihrem System und veroeffentlichen Sie oder nutzen Sie die Information keinesfalls, gleich zu welchem Zweck. Think before you print! MAGENTA TELEKOM (T-Mobile Austria GmbH) Geschaeftsführung: Mag. Thomas Kicker (Vorsitzender), Aufsichtsrat: Kyra Orth (Vorsitzende) Firmenbuch: Handelsgericht Wien FN 171112 k, UID ATU 45011703 Konto: UniCredit Bank Austria AG IBAN: AT93 1200 0528 4407 2301, BIC: BKAUATWW ________________________________ To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details. Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription. Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/

Sorry but why on earth are you concerned about that tiny number? The RIPE membership as a whole does not actively participate in votes. Now that is not uncommon or particularly unusual, but rather than trying to blame a voting system that works just fine you’d be better off putting your energy into trying to get more of the membership to engage. But when you see some of the “discourse” on this subject on this list it’s easy to understand why so many don’t - it’s simply not a good use of their time or energy Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072<tel:+353599183072> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090<tel:+353599183090> Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 I have sent this email at a time that is convenient for me. I do not expect you to respond to it outside of your usual working hours. From: ivaylo <ivaylo@bglans.net> Date: Tuesday, 26 May 2026 at 11:22 To: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Proposals - result announced. [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Please use caution when opening attachments from unrecognised sources. Out of 3,421 members registered to vote, 3,049 cast their ballots. This means 10.87% failed to vote, which is a very high percentage and likely indicates a flaw in the voting procedure. Were all members well-informed about the exact voting window? Did all registered voters receive emails announcing when the voting pool opened (for the next XXX hours) and when it closed? If it were 1.087%, we could consider it normal, but 10.87% definitely points to serious mistakes. Why must active members register to vote at all, if voting is already included in their membership rights? Having less than 15% of eligible members actually vote is a definitive sign of a system failure. Personally, I would like to see a more detailed breakdown of the voting results by country. It would be interesting to know how many members from each country in the region registered, how many actually voted, and what their choices were in each category. Ivaylo Josifov VarnaIX / Varteh LTD +359 52 969393 Varna, Bulgaria On Sun, 24 May 2026, D. Walde - Walde IT-Systemhaus wrote:

You can certainly believe that I was in favor of Option B—but we simply fell short by 80 votes. Unfortunately, 400 of our registered voters didn't show up to cast their ballots. That’s a shame, but we are on the right track.

However, next year we really ought to rethink the whole process and see if we can find a voting format that offers more options or incentives to participate. We have 20,000 members, yet only 3,000 actually turned out. That alone clearly shows where the problem begins. Regards, Dirk.

P.S.: I won't bother calculating the exact participation percentage right now; suffice it to say that while the overall voter turnout was technically high, for a club of our size, it remains—quite frankly—a stain on our record.

Best regards / Mit freundlichen Gr??en Walde IT-Systemhaus - CEO Dirk Walde - IT-Specialist

Mangenberger Str. 76 - D-42655 Solingen - Germany +49(0)212-3833235 - info@walde-it.de - http://www.walde-it.de

NETWORK AS203226 + AS199679 + AS199681 / ABUSE: abuse@waldeit.de

** RIPE NCC Full Member - RIPE LIR Service ** DREG ID: 11/075 (§6 TKG) - TAX ID: DE159795091

Stephen Carter (Fujitsu) via members-discuss schrieb:

...

It's appearing that the charging model is staying as is -

But the question must be asked, as it was mentioned in the meeting that 75% of members would be better off, so as an interim measure could the charging be a 50/50 split, it could even be over more year’s thirds ? quarters ?

So, a member pays half of the flat fee and half of the category fee – as I could see some members having a large increase in their fees if 75% are better off – and that ‘jump’ may not be budgeted for.

Stephen

Unless otherwise stated, this email has been sent from Fujitsu Services Limited (registered in England No 96056); Fujitsu EMEA PLC (registered in England No 2216100) both with registered offices at: Lovelace Road, Bracknell, Berkshire RG12 8SN; PFU (EMEA) Limited, (registered in England No 1578652) registered offices at: Belmont, Belmont Road, Uxbridge, England, UB8 1HE and Fujitsu Research of Europe Ltd (registered in England No. 4153469) 4th Floor, Building 3, Hyde Park Hayes, 11 Millington Road, Hayes, UB3 4AZ.

This email is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a duty of confidence and may be privileged. Fujitsu does not guarantee that this email has not been intercepted and amended or that it is virus-free.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details.

Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription.

Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/

Hi,

Were all members well-informed about the exact voting window?

I registered for Voting, And I wanted to vote. As I was on a business trip I tried to find out how long the voting period is in advance, but was not able to do because this was not on the RIPE information page about the General Meeting, nor it was stated in any registration emails. Unfortunately because I was very busy and did not had constant access on my mobile phone during the GM I have not seen the other emails that were only sent DURING the GM about the voting where a date was mentioned. So I was not able to cast my vote which would be option B. If the voting window would be known I could have arranged a specific time to vote. I personally think the time window to vote is too short. This should be at least one or two weeks. An announcement inside of GM is not required. The important thing shoult be that really every member get the chance to vote if they want to. The numbers already tell that the votes are not from a majority of the members. This is in fact the second time that I was not able to vote, but wanted to vote. I am a very small LIR and RIPE is one of the biggest costs in my company. The costs have increased now every year, If this continues I need to quit my membership because i cannot afford it anymore. Michael -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: ivaylo <ivaylo@bglans.net> Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Mai 2026 11:37 An: members-discuss@ripe.net Betreff: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Proposals - result announced. Out of 3,421 members registered to vote, 3,049 cast their ballots. This means 10.87% failed to vote, which is a very high percentage and likely indicates a flaw in the voting procedure. Were all members well-informed about the exact voting window? Did all registered voters receive emails announcing when the voting pool opened (for the next XXX hours) and when it closed? If it were 1.087%, we could consider it normal, but 10.87% definitely points to serious mistakes. Why must active members register to vote at all, if voting is already included in their membership rights? Having less than 15% of eligible members actually vote is a definitive sign of a system failure. Personally, I would like to see a more detailed breakdown of the voting results by country. It would be interesting to know how many members from each country in the region registered, how many actually voted, and what their choices were in each category. Ivaylo Josifov VarnaIX / Varteh LTD +359 52 969393 Varna, Bulgaria On Sun, 24 May 2026, D. Walde - Walde IT-Systemhaus wrote:

You can certainly believe that I was in favor of Option B—but we simply fell short by 80 votes. Unfortunately, 400 of our registered voters didn't show up to cast their ballots. That’s a shame, but we are on the right track.

However, next year we really ought to rethink the whole process and see if we can find a voting format that offers more options or incentives to participate. We have 20,000 members, yet only 3,000 actually turned out. That alone clearly shows where the problem begins. Regards, Dirk.

P.S.: I won't bother calculating the exact participation percentage right now; suffice it to say that while the overall voter turnout was technically high, for a club of our size, it remains—quite frankly—a stain on our record.

Best regards / Mit freundlichen Gr??en Walde IT-Systemhaus - CEO Dirk Walde - IT-Specialist

Mangenberger Str. 76 - D-42655 Solingen - Germany +49(0)212-3833235 - info@walde-it.de - http://www.walde-it.de

NETWORK AS203226 + AS199679 + AS199681 / ABUSE: abuse@waldeit.de

** RIPE NCC Full Member - RIPE LIR Service ** DREG ID: 11/075 (§6 TKG) - TAX ID: DE159795091

Stephen Carter (Fujitsu) via members-discuss schrieb:

...

It's appearing that the charging model is staying as is -

But the question must be asked, as it was mentioned in the meeting that 75% of members would be better off, so as an interim measure could the charging be a 50/50 split, it could even be over more year’s thirds ? quarters ?

So, a member pays half of the flat fee and half of the category fee – as I could see some members having a large increase in their fees if 75% are better off – and that ‘jump’ may not be budgeted for.

Stephen

Unless otherwise stated, this email has been sent from Fujitsu Services Limited (registered in England No 96056); Fujitsu EMEA PLC (registered in England No 2216100) both with registered offices at: Lovelace Road, Bracknell, Berkshire RG12 8SN; PFU (EMEA) Limited, (registered in England No 1578652) registered offices at: Belmont, Belmont Road, Uxbridge, England, UB8 1HE and Fujitsu Research of Europe Ltd (registered in England No. 4153469) 4th Floor, Building 3, Hyde Park Hayes, 11 Millington Road, Hayes, UB3 4AZ.

This email is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a duty of confidence and may be privileged. Fujitsu does not guarantee that this email has not been intercepted and amended or that it is virus-free.

--------------------------------------------------------------------- ---

To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details.

Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription.

Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/

Michael,

-----Original Message----- From: cowmedia.de <info@cowmedia.de> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 12:42 To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Proposals - result announced.

This is in fact the second time that I was not able to vote, but wanted to vote.

With all due respect, the RIPE electronic voting procedure hasn't changed significantly since RIPE has introduced electronic voting I think some 10 or more years ago. - AGMs are always held twice a year during RIPE Meetings, always on Wednesday late afternoon - you register for the AGM in your RIPE LIR portal (left side menu, under "General Meeting"), separately and independently of the RIPE Meeting registration - electronic voting starts as soon as the AGM is adjourned that Wednesday and continues to be accessible until Friday morning 09:00 local RIPE meeting time - that mean you always have well over 36 hours to vote - if you know your choices, voting doesn't even take 10 minutes None of this has changed in the last 10 years. All I read is excuses and not being able to accept a democratic decision.

Michael

Beste Grüße/Best regards, -- Ulf Kieber xoo networks consulting

Hi, I wasn't able to cast my vote because I only received email #2 and not email #1. I've written to support several times without receiving a response. This, in my opinion, isn't correct. Nicola Il 26/05/2026 11:37, ivaylo ha scritto:

Out of 3,421 members registered to vote, 3,049 cast their ballots. This means 10.87% failed to vote, which is a very high percentage and likely indicates a flaw in the voting procedure. Were all members well-informed about the exact voting window? Did all registered voters receive emails announcing when the voting pool opened (for the next XXX hours) and when it closed? If it were 1.087%, we could consider it normal, but 10.87% definitely points to serious mistakes.

Why must active members register to vote at all, if voting is already included in their membership rights? Having less than 15% of eligible members actually vote is a definitive sign of a system failure.

Personally, I would like to see a more detailed breakdown of the voting results by country. It would be interesting to know how many members from each country in the region registered, how many actually voted, and what their choices were in each category.

Ivaylo Josifov VarnaIX / Varteh LTD +359 52 969393 Varna, Bulgaria

On Sun, 24 May 2026, D. Walde - Walde IT-Systemhaus wrote:

...

You can certainly believe that I was in favor of Option B—but we simply fell short by 80 votes. Unfortunately, 400 of our registered voters didn't show up to cast their ballots. That’s a shame, but we are on the right track.

However, next year we really ought to rethink the whole process and see if we can find a voting format that offers more options or incentives to participate. We have 20,000 members, yet only 3,000 actually turned out. That alone clearly shows where the problem begins. Regards, Dirk.

P.S.: I won't bother calculating the exact participation percentage right now; suffice it to say that while the overall voter turnout was technically high, for a club of our size, it remains—quite frankly—a stain on our record.

Best regards / Mit freundlichen Gr??en Walde IT-Systemhaus - CEO Dirk Walde - IT-Specialist

Mangenberger Str. 76 - D-42655 Solingen - Germany +49(0)212-3833235 - info@walde-it.de - http://www.walde-it.de

NETWORK AS203226 + AS199679 + AS199681 / ABUSE: abuse@waldeit.de

** RIPE NCC Full Member - RIPE LIR Service ** DREG ID: 11/075 (§6 TKG) - TAX ID: DE159795091

Stephen Carter (Fujitsu) via members-discuss schrieb:

...

It's appearing that the charging model is staying as is -

But the question must be asked, as it was mentioned in the meeting that 75% of members would be better off, so as an interim measure could the charging be a 50/50 split, it could even be over more year’s thirds ? quarters ?

So, a member pays half of the flat fee and half of the category fee – as I could see some members having a large increase in their fees if 75% are better off – and that ‘jump’ may not be budgeted for.

Stephen

Unless otherwise stated, this email has been sent from Fujitsu Services Limited (registered in England No 96056); Fujitsu EMEA PLC (registered in England No 2216100) both with registered offices at: Lovelace Road, Bracknell, Berkshire RG12 8SN; PFU (EMEA) Limited, (registered in England No 1578652) registered offices at: Belmont, Belmont Road, Uxbridge, England, UB8 1HE and Fujitsu Research of Europe Ltd (registered in England No. 4153469) 4th Floor, Building 3, Hyde Park Hayes, 11 Millington Road, Hayes, UB3 4AZ.

This email is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a duty of confidence and may be privileged. Fujitsu does not guarantee that this email has not been intercepted and amended or that it is virus-free.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details.

Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription.

Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/

To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details.

Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription.

Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at:https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/

-- T.R.C. Toscana Radio Comunicazioni S.r.l. AVVISO PRIVACY: Con riferimento alla normativa sul trattamento dei dati personali (Regolamento UE 2016/679 “GDPR”), si precisa che ogni circostanza inerente alla presente email (il suo contenuto, gli eventuali allegati, etc.) è un dato la cui conoscenza è riservata al/i solo/i destinatario/i indicati dallo scrivente. Se il messaggio Le è giunto per errore, è tenuta/o a cancellarlo, ogni altra operazione è illecita. Le sarei comunque grato se potesse darmene notizia. La informiamo che utilizziamo i Suoi dati personali - anche tramite collaboratori esterni - per nostre finalità amministrative e contabili, anche quando li comunichiamo a terzi. A riguardo, l’informativa completa, con indicazioni in merito ai Suoi diritti, è disponibile su apposita sezione del nostro sito web www.trclink.it

On 2026-05-26 13:52, Niels Dettenbach via members-discuss wrote:

nor on the website

https://www.ripe.net/membership/gm/meetings/may-2026/how-to-vote/ -- Bengt Gördén Resilans AB

Dear all, Thanks for the input on the voting. We are analysing the data and we will provide a comprehensive article based on the voting numbers. We’re monitoring the discussion and we’ll also use that to provide some new insights based on what you’re asking for. I also attach a screenshot here showing the percentage who registered and voted for the past 20 GMs - as you can see, the percentage who registered but didn’t vote at this GM is about the same as for every GM. We also take note of those who felt we should have directly communicated the voting period more clearly. We will do this in future. There is a lot of information that could be added to every email about the GM. Rather than including everything in our emails, we direct people to the GM webpages where this information is located. But given people are saying this caused problems, we will address it. I would note that we opened registration for this GM earlier than usual because of the importance of the charging scheme vote. We communicated many times with members on various channels. We announced the charging scheme calculator to everyone twice. We also sent a personalised mail to all member contacts, including billing contacts, one week before the GM with information about how much members would pay under each model if it was approved by the membership. Discussion on the charging topic would also have been seen many times by the people subscribed to this list, and we sent several mails in those discussions urging people to remember to register. In short, the people who did not vote received exactly the same information as the people who did vote. It is not clear to us what exactly makes the difference - we are always eager to hear suggestions on how to improve the voting numbers. Once we have completed analysis on all these aspects and more, and published the article on RIPE Labs, I will inform the list. Kind regards, Fergal Cunningham Head of Membership Engagement RIPE NCC On Fri, May 22, 2026 at 2:17 PM Stephen Carter (Fujitsu) via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> wrote:

It's appearing that the charging model is staying as is -

But the question must be asked, as it was mentioned in the meeting that 75% of members would be better off, so as an interim measure could the charging be a 50/50 split, it could even be over more year’s thirds ? quarters ?

So, a member pays half of the flat fee and half of the category fee – as I could see some members having a large increase in their fees if 75% are better off – and that ‘jump’ may not be budgeted for.

Stephen

Unless otherwise stated, this email has been sent from Fujitsu Services Limited (registered in England No 96056); Fujitsu EMEA PLC (registered in England No 2216100) both with registered offices at: Lovelace Road, Bracknell, Berkshire RG12 8SN; PFU (EMEA) Limited, (registered in England No 1578652) registered offices at: Belmont, Belmont Road, Uxbridge, England, UB8 1HE and Fujitsu Research of Europe Ltd (registered in England No. 4153469) 4th Floor, Building 3, Hyde Park Hayes, 11 Millington Road, Hayes, UB3 4AZ.

This email is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a duty of confidence and may be privileged. Fujitsu does not guarantee that this email has not been intercepted and amended or that it is virus-free. To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details.

Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription.

Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/

Hi Markus, Yes, we’ve already done some initial analysis there. We can only know information about the members who registered - we don’t know which of those registered cast their votes (i.e. which ones were the 2% who did not cast votes) or how they cast their votes. But already looking at the registered members is interesting. About 59% of registered members would have paid less by voting for Option B. Given the outcome saw only 49% in favour of Option B, we can assume quite a few did not vote just thinking of lower fees and were motivated by other concerns. We saw some members argue that all members should contribute equally in a membership association, so perhaps this was more important for some. If there were other reasons, I (and I’m sure many more) would be very interested to hear them. Kind regards, Fergal On Wed, May 27, 2026 at 9:32 AM Zeilinger Markus <Markus.Zeilinger@fh-hagenberg.at> wrote:

Hi Fergal and all,

thanks for the statement!

I was quite surprised by the outcome of the vote, especially since many members—including some of the larger ones—had spoken out in favor of the category-based model during the General Meeting (GM). Both before and during the GM, it was mentioned that 75% of members would pay less under the category-based model, while only 25% would pay more than before. It would be interesting to see what the ratio of these two groups is among those who voted. Can RIPE NCC provide data on this?

Ultimately, the current result means to me that there should be no further discussion about the NCC funding model for the next few years. And obviously, the issue itself seems not to be relevant to a large majority of members, because otherwise they would have participated in the GM and the vote. I cannot understand any criticism regarding a lack of information on the topic beforehand or during the GM, or more generally about the NCC and the funding model since the NCC literally spammed us with information on this subject. Guys, we work in the Internet industry! We are the Internet industry! We should be able to stay informed and participate in digital decision-making processes, shouldn't we?

Best regards Markus

________________________________________ From: Fergal Cunningham <fergalc@ripe.net> Sent: Tuesday, 26 May 2026 17:00 Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: [members-discuss] Re: [comms-circle] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Proposals - result announced.

Dear all,

Thanks for the input on the voting. We are analysing the data and we will provide a comprehensive article based on the voting numbers. We’re monitoring the discussion and we’ll also use that to provide some new insights based on what you’re asking for. I also attach a screenshot here showing the percentage who registered and voted for the past 20 GMs - as you can see, the percentage who registered but didn’t vote at this GM is about the same as for every GM.

We also take note of those who felt we should have directly communicated the voting period more clearly. We will do this in future. There is a lot of information that could be added to every email about the GM. Rather than including everything in our emails, we direct people to the GM webpages where this information is located. But given people are saying this caused problems, we will address it.

I would note that we opened registration for this GM earlier than usual because of the importance of the charging scheme vote. We communicated many times with members on various channels. We announced the charging scheme calculator to everyone twice. We also sent a personalised mail to all member contacts, including billing contacts, one week before the GM with information about how much members would pay under each model if it was approved by the membership. Discussion on the charging topic would also have been seen many times by the people subscribed to this list, and we sent several mails in those discussions urging people to remember to register. In short, the people who did not vote received exactly the same information as the people who did vote. It is not clear to us what exactly makes the difference - we are always eager to hear suggestions on how to improve the voting numbers.

Once we have completed analysis on all these aspects and more, and published the article on RIPE Labs, I will inform the list.

Kind regards,

Fergal Cunningham

Head of Membership Engagement

RIPE NCC

On Fri, May 22, 2026 at 2:17 PM Stephen Carter (Fujitsu) via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> wrote:

It's appearing that the charging model is staying as is -

[cid:ii_19e64cb45cc4cff311]

But the question must be asked, as it was mentioned in the meeting that 75% of members would be better off, so as an interim measure could the charging be a 50/50 split, it could even be over more year’s thirds ? quarters ?

So, a member pays half of the flat fee and half of the category fee – as I could see some members having a large increase in their fees if 75% are better off – and that ‘jump’ may not be budgeted for.

Stephen

Unless otherwise stated, this email has been sent from Fujitsu Services Limited (registered in England No 96056); Fujitsu EMEA PLC (registered in England No 2216100) both with registered offices at: Lovelace Road, Bracknell, Berkshire RG12 8SN; PFU (EMEA) Limited, (registered in England No 1578652) registered offices at: Belmont, Belmont Road, Uxbridge, England, UB8 1HE and Fujitsu Research of Europe Ltd (registered in England No. 4153469) 4th Floor, Building 3, Hyde Park Hayes, 11 Millington Road, Hayes, UB3 4AZ.

This email is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a duty of confidence and may be privileged. Fujitsu does not guarantee that this email has not been intercepted and amended or that it is virus-free.

To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details<https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details>.

Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription.

Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/<https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/>