RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Board Reasoning
Dear members, First of all, I'd like to thank you for the feedback we received from everyone so far, and special thanks to the people who gave some more context and explanation. Trying to arrive at a charging scheme that will please everyone is not an easy task. The reason the board proposes two charging schemes is because some members requested a real alternative and difference to the existing "one LIR account-one fee" version we have right now and that is more volume based. This came up previously in the charging scheme task force discussions but also from individual members via emails or through personal contact. Nigel and I promised at the last two GMs that we would present a new one before the May GM this year. So what was the board's thinking in proposing these two models? Firstly, many people like the existing model and the board believes that it covers the spirit of what some members want by maintaining the financial stability of the NCC while keeping fairness and equality in mind. The board also does not want a price per IP model because this would have tax implications (the RIPE NCC does not sell IP addresses and the charging scheme should reflect this) and we feel it is not in keeping with the idea of a membership association. We have also found in the past that having more than two options does not work well from a voting perspective. This would add considerable complexity to the voting in which resolutions must be approved by more than 50% of voters to be adopted. The second charging scheme option is one that the board believes offers a real alternative while staying away from the price per IP aspect. The board's thinking in making the Option B proposal is that every registry entry consumes resources such as customer support time, database memory, registration time, etc. regardless of the size of the allocation. A /24 and a /12 are not so different in this regard so we see this as fair in terms of the work required by the RIPE NCC to maintain the registry. The reason we suggest to charge IPv4 and IPv6 in the same way follows the same logic - there is no tax designed to move people to IPv6. We did not want to have a political, policy-driven charging scheme because the board believes this is the work of community rather than for the board or membership to decide on. I understand that the "volume-based" description could be seen as misleading and I apologise for the misunderstanding here. The proposed model is based on registrations and not per IP as we do not want to indicate that IP is a sellable product but rather the RIPE NCC should charge members for the registry services it provides. The new charging scheme was also not proposed so that the RIPE NCC could make more money - it takes the current budget and calculates backwards to achieve the amount required to run the RIPE NCC. It is just a different model to share the current cost among members. Despite concerns that were raised on this list, the board took the request of some members to propose a new model very seriously and we spent quite some time to discuss and model the current scenario by trying to be as fair as possible and sticking with the principles of a membership organisation. Again, we are very thankful for your input and the feedback on the two models. We will continue to monitor discussions and we will of course present on the Charging Scheme 2020 at the upcoming GM. We encourage you to register your vote so you can have the final say on the two proposals. Best regards, Christian Kaufmann RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman
Thank you, this reasoning was really missing from the original call to vote. That helps a lot understanding of the constraints a charging scheme have to comply to. Bests, Alexis Hanicotte VelumWare SAS On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 6:20 PM Christian Kaufmann <exec-board@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear members,
First of all, I'd like to thank you for the feedback we received from everyone so far, and special thanks to the people who gave some more context and explanation. Trying to arrive at a charging scheme that will please everyone is not an easy task.
The reason the board proposes two charging schemes is because some members requested a real alternative and difference to the existing "one LIR account-one fee" version we have right now and that is more volume based.
This came up previously in the charging scheme task force discussions but also from individual members via emails or through personal contact. Nigel and I promised at the last two GMs that we would present a new one before the May GM this year.
So what was the board's thinking in proposing these two models?
Firstly, many people like the existing model and the board believes that it covers the spirit of what some members want by maintaining the financial stability of the NCC while keeping fairness and equality in mind. The board also does not want a price per IP model because this would have tax implications (the RIPE NCC does not sell IP addresses and the charging scheme should reflect this) and we feel it is not in keeping with the idea of a membership association.
We have also found in the past that having more than two options does not work well from a voting perspective. This would add considerable complexity to the voting in which resolutions must be approved by more than 50% of voters to be adopted.
The second charging scheme option is one that the board believes offers a real alternative while staying away from the price per IP aspect.
The board's thinking in making the Option B proposal is that every registry entry consumes resources such as customer support time, database memory, registration time, etc. regardless of the size of the allocation. A /24 and a /12 are not so different in this regard so we see this as fair in terms of the work required by the RIPE NCC to maintain the registry. The reason we suggest to charge IPv4 and IPv6 in the same way follows the same logic - there is no tax designed to move people to IPv6. We did not want to have a political, policy-driven charging scheme because the board believes this is the work of community rather than for the board or membership to decide on.
I understand that the "volume-based" description could be seen as misleading and I apologise for the misunderstanding here. The proposed model is based on registrations and not per IP as we do not want to indicate that IP is a sellable product but rather the RIPE NCC should charge members for the registry services it provides.
The new charging scheme was also not proposed so that the RIPE NCC could make more money - it takes the current budget and calculates backwards to achieve the amount required to run the RIPE NCC. It is just a different model to share the current cost among members.
Despite concerns that were raised on this list, the board took the request of some members to propose a new model very seriously and we spent quite some time to discuss and model the current scenario by trying to be as fair as possible and sticking with the principles of a membership organisation.
Again, we are very thankful for your input and the feedback on the two models. We will continue to monitor discussions and we will of course present on the Charging Scheme 2020 at the upcoming GM. We encourage you to register your vote so you can have the final say on the two proposals.
Best regards,
Christian Kaufmann RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/alexis%40velumware.co...
Hello, Scheme B will work good and fair to all only with one condition - If ripe split IPV4 ALLOCATED PA blocks dedicated to LIRs in maximum /22 (better /24) blocks. Example: Now LIR-1 have ALLOCATED-PA 10.0.0.0/20 After split LIR-1 will have ALLOCATED-PA 10.0.0.0/22 10.0.4.0/22 10.0.8.0/22 10.0.12.0/22 For IPV6 same splir but based on /32 allocated-pa blocks
From technical point of view this automatic split can be done easy. Then Scheme B will be fair for all, and will cover what many of us talking for charging scheme based on IP resources. Also will cover that RIPE NCC do not "sell" IPV4
Ivaylo Josifov Varteh LTD On Thu, 18 Apr 2019, Christian Kaufmann wrote:
Dear members,
First of all, I'd like to thank you for the feedback we received from everyone so far, and special thanks to the people who gave some more context and explanation. Trying to arrive at a charging scheme that will please everyone is not an easy task.
The reason the board proposes two charging schemes is because some members requested a real alternative and difference to the existing "one LIR account-one fee" version we have right now and that is more volume based.
This came up previously in the charging scheme task force discussions but also from individual members via emails or through personal contact. Nigel and I promised at the last two GMs that we would present a new one before the May GM this year.
So what was the board's thinking in proposing these two models?
Firstly, many people like the existing model and the board believes that it covers the spirit of what some members want by maintaining the financial stability of the NCC while keeping fairness and equality in mind. The board also does not want a price per IP model because this would have tax implications (the RIPE NCC does not sell IP addresses and the charging scheme should reflect this) and we feel it is not in keeping with the idea of a membership association.
We have also found in the past that having more than two options does not work well from a voting perspective. This would add considerable complexity to the voting in which resolutions must be approved by more than 50% of voters to be adopted.
The second charging scheme option is one that the board believes offers a real alternative while staying away from the price per IP aspect.
The board's thinking in making the Option B proposal is that every registry entry consumes resources such as customer support time, database memory, registration time, etc. regardless of the size of the allocation. A /24 and a /12 are not so different in this regard so we see this as fair in terms of the work required by the RIPE NCC to maintain the registry. The reason we suggest to charge IPv4 and IPv6 in the same way follows the same logic - there is no tax designed to move people to IPv6. We did not want to have a political, policy-driven charging scheme because the board believes this is the work of community rather than for the board or membership to decide on.
I understand that the "volume-based" description could be seen as misleading and I apologise for the misunderstanding here. The proposed model is based on registrations and not per IP as we do not want to indicate that IP is a sellable product but rather the RIPE NCC should charge members for the registry services it provides.
The new charging scheme was also not proposed so that the RIPE NCC could make more money - it takes the current budget and calculates backwards to achieve the amount required to run the RIPE NCC. It is just a different model to share the current cost among members.
Despite concerns that were raised on this list, the board took the request of some members to propose a new model very seriously and we spent quite some time to discuss and model the current scenario by trying to be as fair as possible and sticking with the principles of a membership organisation.
Again, we are very thankful for your input and the feedback on the two models. We will continue to monitor discussions and we will of course present on the Charging Scheme 2020 at the upcoming GM. We encourage you to register your vote so you can have the final say on the two proposals.
Best regards,
Christian Kaufmann RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ivaylo%40bglans.net
From a networking point of view, this would be extremely idiotic, you would fill up routers' memory with routes and take down the internet if you did this. Splitting blocks is just idiotic. - Cynthia On 2019-04-19 11:03, ivaylo wrote:
Hello,
Scheme B will work good and fair to all only with one condition - If ripe split IPV4 ALLOCATED PA blocks dedicated to LIRs in maximum /22 (better /24) blocks.
Example: Now LIR-1 have ALLOCATED-PA 10.0.0.0/20
After split LIR-1 will have ALLOCATED-PA 10.0.0.0/22 10.0.4.0/22 10.0.8.0/22 10.0.12.0/22
For IPV6 same splir but based on /32 allocated-pa blocks
From technical point of view this automatic split can be done easy. Then Scheme B will be fair for all, and will cover what many of us talking for charging scheme based on IP resources. Also will cover that RIPE NCC do not "sell" IPV4
Ivaylo Josifov Varteh LTD
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019, Christian Kaufmann wrote:
Dear members,
First of all, I'd like to thank you for the feedback we received from everyone so far, and special thanks to the people who gave some more context and explanation. Trying to arrive at a charging scheme that will please everyone is not an easy task.
The reason the board proposes two charging schemes is because some members requested a real alternative and difference to the existing "one LIR account-one fee" version we have right now and that is more volume based.
This came up previously in the charging scheme task force discussions but also from individual members via emails or through personal contact. Nigel and I promised at the last two GMs that we would present a new one before the May GM this year.
So what was the board's thinking in proposing these two models?
Firstly, many people like the existing model and the board believes that it covers the spirit of what some members want by maintaining the financial stability of the NCC while keeping fairness and equality in mind. The board also does not want a price per IP model because this would have tax implications (the RIPE NCC does not sell IP addresses and the charging scheme should reflect this) and we feel it is not in keeping with the idea of a membership association.
We have also found in the past that having more than two options does not work well from a voting perspective. This would add considerable complexity to the voting in which resolutions must be approved by more than 50% of voters to be adopted.
The second charging scheme option is one that the board believes offers a real alternative while staying away from the price per IP aspect.
The board's thinking in making the Option B proposal is that every registry entry consumes resources such as customer support time, database memory, registration time, etc. regardless of the size of the allocation. A /24 and a /12 are not so different in this regard so we see this as fair in terms of the work required by the RIPE NCC to maintain the registry. The reason we suggest to charge IPv4 and IPv6 in the same way follows the same logic - there is no tax designed to move people to IPv6. We did not want to have a political, policy-driven charging scheme because the board believes this is the work of community rather than for the board or membership to decide on.
I understand that the "volume-based" description could be seen as misleading and I apologise for the misunderstanding here. The proposed model is based on registrations and not per IP as we do not want to indicate that IP is a sellable product but rather the RIPE NCC should charge members for the registry services it provides.
The new charging scheme was also not proposed so that the RIPE NCC could make more money - it takes the current budget and calculates backwards to achieve the amount required to run the RIPE NCC. It is just a different model to share the current cost among members.
Despite concerns that were raised on this list, the board took the request of some members to propose a new model very seriously and we spent quite some time to discuss and model the current scenario by trying to be as fair as possible and sticking with the principles of a membership organisation.
Again, we are very thankful for your input and the feedback on the two models. We will continue to monitor discussions and we will of course present on the Charging Scheme 2020 at the upcoming GM. We encourage you to register your vote so you can have the final say on the two proposals.
Best regards,
Christian Kaufmann RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ivaylo%40bglans.net
_______________________________________________ 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/me%40cynthia.re
From network point of view nothing will change, Cynthia.
You can still aggregate your announces. See this document point 7.2 https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-399 Ivaylo Josifov Varteh LTD On Fri, 19 Apr 2019, Cynthia Revstr?m wrote:
From a networking point of view, this would be extremely idiotic, you would fill up routers' memory with routes and take down the internet if you did this.
Splitting blocks is just idiotic.
- Cynthia
On 2019-04-19 11:03, ivaylo wrote:
Hello,
Scheme B will work good and fair to all only with one condition - If ripe split IPV4 ALLOCATED PA blocks dedicated to LIRs in maximum /22 (better /24) blocks.
Example: Now LIR-1 have ALLOCATED-PA 10.0.0.0/20
After split LIR-1 will have ALLOCATED-PA 10.0.0.0/22 10.0.4.0/22 10.0.8.0/22 10.0.12.0/22
For IPV6 same splir but based on /32 allocated-pa blocks
From technical point of view this automatic split can be done easy. Then Scheme B will be fair for all, and will cover what many of us talking for charging scheme based on IP resources. Also will cover that RIPE NCC do not "sell" IPV4
Ivaylo Josifov Varteh LTD
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019, Christian Kaufmann wrote:
Dear members,
First of all, I'd like to thank you for the feedback we received from everyone so far, and special thanks to the people who gave some more context and explanation. Trying to arrive at a charging scheme that will please everyone is not an easy task.
The reason the board proposes two charging schemes is because some members requested a real alternative and difference to the existing "one LIR account-one fee" version we have right now and that is more volume based.
This came up previously in the charging scheme task force discussions but also from individual members via emails or through personal contact. Nigel and I promised at the last two GMs that we would present a new one before the May GM this year.
So what was the board's thinking in proposing these two models?
Firstly, many people like the existing model and the board believes that it covers the spirit of what some members want by maintaining the financial stability of the NCC while keeping fairness and equality in mind. The board also does not want a price per IP model because this would have tax implications (the RIPE NCC does not sell IP addresses and the charging scheme should reflect this) and we feel it is not in keeping with the idea of a membership association.
We have also found in the past that having more than two options does not work well from a voting perspective. This would add considerable complexity to the voting in which resolutions must be approved by more than 50% of voters to be adopted.
The second charging scheme option is one that the board believes offers a real alternative while staying away from the price per IP aspect.
The board's thinking in making the Option B proposal is that every registry entry consumes resources such as customer support time, database memory, registration time, etc. regardless of the size of the allocation. A /24 and a /12 are not so different in this regard so we see this as fair in terms of the work required by the RIPE NCC to maintain the registry. The reason we suggest to charge IPv4 and IPv6 in the same way follows the same logic - there is no tax designed to move people to IPv6. We did not want to have a political, policy-driven charging scheme because the board believes this is the work of community rather than for the board or membership to decide on.
I understand that the "volume-based" description could be seen as misleading and I apologise for the misunderstanding here. The proposed model is based on registrations and not per IP as we do not want to indicate that IP is a sellable product but rather the RIPE NCC should charge members for the registry services it provides.
The new charging scheme was also not proposed so that the RIPE NCC could make more money - it takes the current budget and calculates backwards to achieve the amount required to run the RIPE NCC. It is just a different model to share the current cost among members.
Despite concerns that were raised on this list, the board took the request of some members to propose a new model very seriously and we spent quite some time to discuss and model the current scenario by trying to be as fair as possible and sticking with the principles of a membership organisation.
Again, we are very thankful for your input and the feedback on the two models. We will continue to monitor discussions and we will of course present on the Charging Scheme 2020 at the upcoming GM. We encourage you to register your vote so you can have the final say on the two proposals.
Best regards,
Christian Kaufmann RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ivaylo%40bglans.net
_______________________________________________ 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/me%40cynthia.re
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ivaylo%40bglans.net
In my opinion we should keep the current scheme. Splitting allocations in the RIPE DB just for this reason makes *no* sense. If you want to charge per IP or per allocation, it would be better to take the IP count from the LIR portal and calculate the fee based on that. Regards, Sebastian On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 11:53 AM ivaylo <ivaylo@bglans.net> wrote:
From network point of view nothing will change, Cynthia.
You can still aggregate your announces. See this document point 7.2 https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-399
Ivaylo Josifov Varteh LTD
On Fri, 19 Apr 2019, Cynthia Revstr?m wrote:
From a networking point of view, this would be extremely idiotic, you would fill up routers' memory with routes and take down the internet if you did this.
Splitting blocks is just idiotic.
- Cynthia
On 2019-04-19 11:03, ivaylo wrote:
Hello,
Scheme B will work good and fair to all only with one condition - If
split IPV4 ALLOCATED PA blocks dedicated to LIRs in maximum /22 (better /24) blocks.
Example: Now LIR-1 have ALLOCATED-PA 10.0.0.0/20
After split LIR-1 will have ALLOCATED-PA 10.0.0.0/22 10.0.4.0/22 10.0.8.0/22 10.0.12.0/22
For IPV6 same splir but based on /32 allocated-pa blocks
From technical point of view this automatic split can be done easy. Then Scheme B will be fair for all, and will cover what many of us talking for charging scheme based on IP resources. Also will cover that RIPE NCC do not "sell" IPV4
Ivaylo Josifov Varteh LTD
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019, Christian Kaufmann wrote:
Dear members,
First of all, I'd like to thank you for the feedback we received from everyone so far, and special thanks to the people who gave some more context and explanation. Trying to arrive at a charging scheme that will please everyone is not an easy task.
The reason the board proposes two charging schemes is because some members requested a real alternative and difference to the existing "one LIR account-one fee" version we have right now and that is more volume based.
This came up previously in the charging scheme task force discussions but also from individual members via emails or through personal contact. Nigel and I promised at the last two GMs that we would present a new one before the May GM this year.
So what was the board's thinking in proposing these two models?
Firstly, many people like the existing model and the board believes
it covers the spirit of what some members want by maintaining the financial stability of the NCC while keeping fairness and equality in mind. The board also does not want a price per IP model because this would have tax implications (the RIPE NCC does not sell IP addresses and the charging scheme should reflect this) and we feel it is not in keeping with the idea of a membership association.
We have also found in the past that having more than two options does not work well from a voting perspective. This would add considerable complexity to the voting in which resolutions must be approved by more than 50% of voters to be adopted.
The second charging scheme option is one that the board believes offers a real alternative while staying away from the price per IP aspect.
The board's thinking in making the Option B proposal is that every registry entry consumes resources such as customer support time, database memory, registration time, etc. regardless of the size of the allocation. A /24 and a /12 are not so different in this regard so we see this as fair in terms of the work required by the RIPE NCC to maintain the registry. The reason we suggest to charge IPv4 and IPv6 in the same way follows the same logic - there is no tax designed to move people to IPv6. We did not want to have a political, policy-driven charging scheme because the board believes this is the work of community rather than for the board or membership to decide on.
I understand that the "volume-based" description could be seen as misleading and I apologise for the misunderstanding here. The proposed model is based on registrations and not per IP as we do not want to indicate that IP is a sellable product but rather the RIPE NCC should charge members for the registry services it provides.
The new charging scheme was also not proposed so that the RIPE NCC could make more money - it takes the current budget and calculates backwards to achieve the amount required to run the RIPE NCC. It is just a different model to share the current cost among members.
Despite concerns that were raised on this list, the board took the request of some members to propose a new model very seriously and we spent quite some time to discuss and model the current scenario by trying to be as fair as possible and sticking with the principles of a membership organisation.
Again, we are very thankful for your input and the feedback on the two models. We will continue to monitor discussions and we will of course present on the Charging Scheme 2020 at the upcoming GM. We encourage you to register your vote so you can have the final say on the two
ripe that proposals.
Best regards,
Christian Kaufmann RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe:
https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ivaylo%40bglans.net
_______________________________________________ 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/me%40cynthia.re
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe:
https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ivaylo%40bglans.net
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/malek%40malek.li
All option B would do is increase revenue. Nobody is going to return a block for the sake of 50 Euros, given their current value with IPv4 demand so high. All this will do is sting the newest members who have had to buy blocks to build up IP space. Regards, Stuart. From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Sebastian Malek Sent: Friday, 19 April 2019 10:56 To: ivaylo <ivaylo@bglans.net> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Board Reasoning In my opinion we should keep the current scheme. Splitting allocations in the RIPE DB just for this reason makes *no* sense. If you want to charge per IP or per allocation, it would be better to take the IP count from the LIR portal and calculate the fee based on that. Regards, Sebastian On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 11:53 AM ivaylo <ivaylo@bglans.net<mailto:ivaylo@bglans.net>> wrote: From network point of view nothing will change, Cynthia. You can still aggregate your announces. See this document point 7.2 https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-399 Ivaylo Josifov Varteh LTD On Fri, 19 Apr 2019, Cynthia Revstr?m wrote:
From a networking point of view, this would be extremely idiotic, you would fill up routers' memory with routes and take down the internet if you did this.
Splitting blocks is just idiotic.
- Cynthia
On 2019-04-19 11:03, ivaylo wrote:
Hello,
Scheme B will work good and fair to all only with one condition - If ripe split IPV4 ALLOCATED PA blocks dedicated to LIRs in maximum /22 (better /24) blocks.
Example: Now LIR-1 have ALLOCATED-PA 10.0.0.0/20<http://10.0.0.0/20>
After split LIR-1 will have ALLOCATED-PA 10.0.0.0/22<http://10.0.0.0/22> 10.0.4.0/22<http://10.0.4.0/22> 10.0.8.0/22<http://10.0.8.0/22> 10.0.12.0/22<http://10.0.12.0/22>
For IPV6 same splir but based on /32 allocated-pa blocks
From technical point of view this automatic split can be done easy. Then Scheme B will be fair for all, and will cover what many of us talking for charging scheme based on IP resources. Also will cover that RIPE NCC do not "sell" IPV4
Ivaylo Josifov Varteh LTD
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019, Christian Kaufmann wrote:
Dear members,
First of all, I'd like to thank you for the feedback we received from everyone so far, and special thanks to the people who gave some more context and explanation. Trying to arrive at a charging scheme that will please everyone is not an easy task.
The reason the board proposes two charging schemes is because some members requested a real alternative and difference to the existing "one LIR account-one fee" version we have right now and that is more volume based.
This came up previously in the charging scheme task force discussions but also from individual members via emails or through personal contact. Nigel and I promised at the last two GMs that we would present a new one before the May GM this year.
So what was the board's thinking in proposing these two models?
Firstly, many people like the existing model and the board believes that it covers the spirit of what some members want by maintaining the financial stability of the NCC while keeping fairness and equality in mind. The board also does not want a price per IP model because this would have tax implications (the RIPE NCC does not sell IP addresses and the charging scheme should reflect this) and we feel it is not in keeping with the idea of a membership association.
We have also found in the past that having more than two options does not work well from a voting perspective. This would add considerable complexity to the voting in which resolutions must be approved by more than 50% of voters to be adopted.
The second charging scheme option is one that the board believes offers a real alternative while staying away from the price per IP aspect.
The board's thinking in making the Option B proposal is that every registry entry consumes resources such as customer support time, database memory, registration time, etc. regardless of the size of the allocation. A /24 and a /12 are not so different in this regard so we see this as fair in terms of the work required by the RIPE NCC to maintain the registry. The reason we suggest to charge IPv4 and IPv6 in the same way follows the same logic - there is no tax designed to move people to IPv6. We did not want to have a political, policy-driven charging scheme because the board believes this is the work of community rather than for the board or membership to decide on.
I understand that the "volume-based" description could be seen as misleading and I apologise for the misunderstanding here. The proposed model is based on registrations and not per IP as we do not want to indicate that IP is a sellable product but rather the RIPE NCC should charge members for the registry services it provides.
The new charging scheme was also not proposed so that the RIPE NCC could make more money - it takes the current budget and calculates backwards to achieve the amount required to run the RIPE NCC. It is just a different model to share the current cost among members.
Despite concerns that were raised on this list, the board took the request of some members to propose a new model very seriously and we spent quite some time to discuss and model the current scenario by trying to be as fair as possible and sticking with the principles of a membership organisation.
Again, we are very thankful for your input and the feedback on the two models. We will continue to monitor discussions and we will of course present on the Charging Scheme 2020 at the upcoming GM. We encourage you to register your vote so you can have the final say on the two proposals.
Best regards,
Christian Kaufmann RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ivaylo%40bglans.net
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/me%40cynthia.re
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ivaylo%40bglans.net
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/malek%40malek.li
Hi all, scheme B will be better for very small LIRs with just a v4 /22 and a v6 assignment, since (if I understand the new scheme the right way) it will grant a saving of 150€/year (1250€/year vs 1400€/year). It’s a small saving but it’s a saving anyway. Br, Francesco. [cid:image001.png@01D4F6AD.B5E70BA0] Francesco Cristofori Solution Design & PM Manager T +39 059 7470500 @francesco.cristofori@adcgroup.com<mailto:francesco.cristofori@adcgroup.com> AD Consulting S.p.A. Via Natalia Ginzburg, 40 41123 Modena www.adcgroupspa.com<http://www.adcgroupspa.com/> From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Stuart Willet Sent: venerdì 19 aprile 2019 12:01 To: Sebastian Malek <malek@malek.li>; ivaylo <ivaylo@bglans.net> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Board Reasoning All option B would do is increase revenue. Nobody is going to return a block for the sake of 50 Euros, given their current value with IPv4 demand so high. All this will do is sting the newest members who have had to buy blocks to build up IP space. Regards, Stuart. From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Sebastian Malek Sent: Friday, 19 April 2019 10:56 To: ivaylo <ivaylo@bglans.net<mailto:ivaylo@bglans.net>> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Board Reasoning In my opinion we should keep the current scheme. Splitting allocations in the RIPE DB just for this reason makes *no* sense. If you want to charge per IP or per allocation, it would be better to take the IP count from the LIR portal and calculate the fee based on that. Regards, Sebastian On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 11:53 AM ivaylo <ivaylo@bglans.net<mailto:ivaylo@bglans.net>> wrote: From network point of view nothing will change, Cynthia. You can still aggregate your announces. See this document point 7.2 https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-399 Ivaylo Josifov Varteh LTD On Fri, 19 Apr 2019, Cynthia Revstr?m wrote:
From a networking point of view, this would be extremely idiotic, you would fill up routers' memory with routes and take down the internet if you did this.
Splitting blocks is just idiotic.
- Cynthia
On 2019-04-19 11:03, ivaylo wrote:
Hello,
Scheme B will work good and fair to all only with one condition - If ripe split IPV4 ALLOCATED PA blocks dedicated to LIRs in maximum /22 (better /24) blocks.
Example: Now LIR-1 have ALLOCATED-PA 10.0.0.0/20<http://10.0.0.0/20>
After split LIR-1 will have ALLOCATED-PA 10.0.0.0/22<http://10.0.0.0/22> 10.0.4.0/22<http://10.0.4.0/22> 10.0.8.0/22<http://10.0.8.0/22> 10.0.12.0/22<http://10.0.12.0/22>
For IPV6 same splir but based on /32 allocated-pa blocks
From technical point of view this automatic split can be done easy. Then Scheme B will be fair for all, and will cover what many of us talking for charging scheme based on IP resources. Also will cover that RIPE NCC do not "sell" IPV4
Ivaylo Josifov Varteh LTD
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019, Christian Kaufmann wrote:
Dear members,
First of all, I'd like to thank you for the feedback we received from everyone so far, and special thanks to the people who gave some more context and explanation. Trying to arrive at a charging scheme that will please everyone is not an easy task.
The reason the board proposes two charging schemes is because some members requested a real alternative and difference to the existing "one LIR account-one fee" version we have right now and that is more volume based.
This came up previously in the charging scheme task force discussions but also from individual members via emails or through personal contact. Nigel and I promised at the last two GMs that we would present a new one before the May GM this year.
So what was the board's thinking in proposing these two models?
Firstly, many people like the existing model and the board believes that it covers the spirit of what some members want by maintaining the financial stability of the NCC while keeping fairness and equality in mind. The board also does not want a price per IP model because this would have tax implications (the RIPE NCC does not sell IP addresses and the charging scheme should reflect this) and we feel it is not in keeping with the idea of a membership association.
We have also found in the past that having more than two options does not work well from a voting perspective. This would add considerable complexity to the voting in which resolutions must be approved by more than 50% of voters to be adopted.
The second charging scheme option is one that the board believes offers a real alternative while staying away from the price per IP aspect.
The board's thinking in making the Option B proposal is that every registry entry consumes resources such as customer support time, database memory, registration time, etc. regardless of the size of the allocation. A /24 and a /12 are not so different in this regard so we see this as fair in terms of the work required by the RIPE NCC to maintain the registry. The reason we suggest to charge IPv4 and IPv6 in the same way follows the same logic - there is no tax designed to move people to IPv6. We did not want to have a political, policy-driven charging scheme because the board believes this is the work of community rather than for the board or membership to decide on.
I understand that the "volume-based" description could be seen as misleading and I apologise for the misunderstanding here. The proposed model is based on registrations and not per IP as we do not want to indicate that IP is a sellable product but rather the RIPE NCC should charge members for the registry services it provides.
The new charging scheme was also not proposed so that the RIPE NCC could make more money - it takes the current budget and calculates backwards to achieve the amount required to run the RIPE NCC. It is just a different model to share the current cost among members.
Despite concerns that were raised on this list, the board took the request of some members to propose a new model very seriously and we spent quite some time to discuss and model the current scenario by trying to be as fair as possible and sticking with the principles of a membership organisation.
Again, we are very thankful for your input and the feedback on the two models. We will continue to monitor discussions and we will of course present on the Charging Scheme 2020 at the upcoming GM. We encourage you to register your vote so you can have the final say on the two proposals.
Best regards,
Christian Kaufmann RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ivaylo%40bglans.net
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/me%40cynthia.re
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ivaylo%40bglans.net
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/malek%40malek.li
As I understand it, RIPE are going through a cost cutting exercise to reduce overheads (the removal of quarterly billing for example due to “complexity” and reducing manpower requirements) …. Obviously this is laudable (if not annoying for those of us with tiny cashflows)… and perhaps they should look at some of the internal projects which have previously burned through cash for limited benefit (I’m thinking the RPKI project which cost over €500,000 and was then shelved in favour of another solution developed elsewhere?) Perhaps more attention should be focussed on the continuing reduction of RIPE operating costs … reducing the number of staff required, reducing the wage bill, reducing the size of the board and reducing costs there … again passing those savings on to the membership. RIPE are already returning funds to the LIRs because they have too much cash … Perhaps they should be looking at reducing costs and the cost of being an LIR by reducing the fees we’re paying, not coming up with charging scheme which will actually increase revenues … RIPE repeatedly state that IP assignments are not billable resources, that they cannot (for tax reasons) charge for IP addresses … which is fine They’re basing costs on the amount of paperwork (resource requests) a member makes … they should therefore (imho) be basing any fees on the number of requests a member makes each year .. the more prolific a user of the system, the more that member should pay As a small ISP we make very little use of RIPE and tbh €1400 seems a lot to pay for membership, but it seems we have no choice as without membership we lose our assignments? I think on the basis of requests we’ve made of the last few years, we’re probably paying on average about €2500 a request .. which seems crazy Personally, I would prefer to see a scheme which meant that those using the system were paying for it and those who rarely use the system aren’t penalised … I would certainly like to see the Small ISP membership fee reduce, probably to about €200 a year. Even if we have to pay a fee for any new resources, if and when we request them … even if this were €50 a request …. It would still mean our RIPE costs were more in line with our usage of the system that’s there I don’t like the idea that we’re basically subsidising the Larger ISPs who are making hundreds or thousands of requests a year Just my 2c Jon Morby FidoNet AS8282
On 19 Apr 2019, at 11:43, Francesco Cristofori <Francesco.Cristofori@adcgroup.com> wrote:
Hi all,
scheme B will be better for very small LIRs with just a v4 /22 and a v6 assignment, since (if I understand the new scheme the right way) it will grant a saving of 150€/year (1250€/year vs 1400€/year).
It’s a small saving but it’s a saving anyway.
Br, Francesco.
<image001.png> Francesco Cristofori Solution Design & PM Manager T +39 059 7470500 @francesco.cristofori@adcgroup.com <mailto:francesco.cristofori@adcgroup.com>
AD Consulting S.p.A. Via Natalia Ginzburg, 40 41123 Modena www.adcgroupspa.com <http://www.adcgroupspa.com/>
From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Stuart Willet Sent: venerdì 19 aprile 2019 12:01 To: Sebastian Malek <malek@malek.li>; ivaylo <ivaylo@bglans.net> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Board Reasoning
All option B would do is increase revenue. Nobody is going to return a block for the sake of 50 Euros, given their current value with IPv4 demand so high. All this will do is sting the newest members who have had to buy blocks to build up IP space.
Regards, Stuart.
From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>] On Behalf Of Sebastian Malek Sent: Friday, 19 April 2019 10:56 To: ivaylo <ivaylo@bglans.net <mailto:ivaylo@bglans.net>> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Board Reasoning
In my opinion we should keep the current scheme.
Splitting allocations in the RIPE DB just for this reason makes *no* sense.
If you want to charge per IP or per allocation, it would be better to take the IP count from the LIR portal and calculate the fee based on that.
Regards, Sebastian
On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 11:53 AM ivaylo <ivaylo@bglans.net <mailto:ivaylo@bglans.net>> wrote:
From network point of view nothing will change, Cynthia.
You can still aggregate your announces. See this document point 7.2 https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-399 <https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-399>
Ivaylo Josifov Varteh LTD
On Fri, 19 Apr 2019, Cynthia Revstr?m wrote:
From a networking point of view, this would be extremely idiotic, you would fill up routers' memory with routes and take down the internet if you did this.
Splitting blocks is just idiotic.
- Cynthia
On 2019-04-19 11:03, ivaylo wrote:
Hello,
Scheme B will work good and fair to all only with one condition - If ripe split IPV4 ALLOCATED PA blocks dedicated to LIRs in maximum /22 (better /24) blocks.
Example: Now LIR-1 have ALLOCATED-PA 10.0.0.0/20 <http://10.0.0.0/20>
After split LIR-1 will have ALLOCATED-PA 10.0.0.0/22 <http://10.0.0.0/22> 10.0.4.0/22 <http://10.0.4.0/22> 10.0.8.0/22 <http://10.0.8.0/22> 10.0.12.0/22 <http://10.0.12.0/22>
For IPV6 same splir but based on /32 allocated-pa blocks
From technical point of view this automatic split can be done easy. Then Scheme B will be fair for all, and will cover what many of us talking for charging scheme based on IP resources. Also will cover that RIPE NCC do not "sell" IPV4
Ivaylo Josifov Varteh LTD
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019, Christian Kaufmann wrote:
Dear members,
First of all, I'd like to thank you for the feedback we received from everyone so far, and special thanks to the people who gave some more context and explanation. Trying to arrive at a charging scheme that will please everyone is not an easy task.
The reason the board proposes two charging schemes is because some members requested a real alternative and difference to the existing "one LIR account-one fee" version we have right now and that is more volume based.
This came up previously in the charging scheme task force discussions but also from individual members via emails or through personal contact. Nigel and I promised at the last two GMs that we would present a new one before the May GM this year.
So what was the board's thinking in proposing these two models?
Firstly, many people like the existing model and the board believes that it covers the spirit of what some members want by maintaining the financial stability of the NCC while keeping fairness and equality in mind. The board also does not want a price per IP model because this would have tax implications (the RIPE NCC does not sell IP addresses and the charging scheme should reflect this) and we feel it is not in keeping with the idea of a membership association.
We have also found in the past that having more than two options does not work well from a voting perspective. This would add considerable complexity to the voting in which resolutions must be approved by more than 50% of voters to be adopted.
The second charging scheme option is one that the board believes offers a real alternative while staying away from the price per IP aspect.
The board's thinking in making the Option B proposal is that every registry entry consumes resources such as customer support time, database memory, registration time, etc. regardless of the size of the allocation. A /24 and a /12 are not so different in this regard so we see this as fair in terms of the work required by the RIPE NCC to maintain the registry. The reason we suggest to charge IPv4 and IPv6 in the same way follows the same logic - there is no tax designed to move people to IPv6. We did not want to have a political, policy-driven charging scheme because the board believes this is the work of community rather than for the board or membership to decide on.
I understand that the "volume-based" description could be seen as misleading and I apologise for the misunderstanding here. The proposed model is based on registrations and not per IP as we do not want to indicate that IP is a sellable product but rather the RIPE NCC should charge members for the registry services it provides.
The new charging scheme was also not proposed so that the RIPE NCC could make more money - it takes the current budget and calculates backwards to achieve the amount required to run the RIPE NCC. It is just a different model to share the current cost among members.
Despite concerns that were raised on this list, the board took the request of some members to propose a new model very seriously and we spent quite some time to discuss and model the current scenario by trying to be as fair as possible and sticking with the principles of a membership organisation.
Again, we are very thankful for your input and the feedback on the two models. We will continue to monitor discussions and we will of course present on the Charging Scheme 2020 at the upcoming GM. We encourage you to register your vote so you can have the final say on the two proposals.
Best regards,
Christian Kaufmann RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss> Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ivaylo%40bglans.net <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ivaylo%40bglans.net>
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss> Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/me%40cynthia.re <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/me%40cynthia.re>
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss> Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ivaylo%40bglans.net <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ivaylo%40bglans.net>
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss> Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/malek%40malek.li <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/malek%40malek.li>_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/jon%40fido.net
Hello everyone, I would like to challenge two claims from the board: "The board also does not want a price per IP model because this would have tax implications (the RIPE NCC does not sell IP addresses and the charging scheme should reflect this) and we feel it is not in keeping with the idea of a membership association." In my opinion RIPE is renting out IP addresses. Whether that was not the original spirit, it is the de facto status. Whether renting out resources does have a tax impact should in my opinion by secondary question. Which brings me to the second claim that is even more important: "The reason we suggest to charge IPv4 and IPv6 in the same way follows the same logic - there is no tax designed to move people to IPv6. We did not want to have a political, policy-driven charging scheme because the board believes this is the work of community rather than for the board or membership to decide on." I think as a RIR, RIPE does carry the responsibility to help all of its members. I also understand that early adaptors do have a huge advantage by "owning"/"renting" huge IPv4 blocks for a rather small price. While one can argue against or for keeping this advantage, I think it is also not fair to penalise early adaptors, who have been doing business for long. However, treating IPv6 the same as IPv4 clearly gives the wrong message. I think RIPE carries responsibility to support the growth and support of IPv6. Not only by organising workshops, but also politically. For this reason I propose that in ANY upcoming charging scheme, IPv6 resources will be either for free or at a significant lower price. Two summarise: - challenge 1: Clarify whether RIPE does (not) rent out IP addresses officially and any implications that come with the decisions? - challenge 2: Clarify whether RIPE should or should not take clear political standpoint for IPv6 adaption including actions based in the charging scheme? Best, Nico p.s.: If this is the wrong plattform for discussing those items, please point me to the right place. -- Your Swiss, Open Source and IPv6 Virtual Machine. Now on www.datacenterlight.ch.
Hi, On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 04:20:04PM +0100, Jon Morby wrote:
I???m thinking the RPKI project which cost over ???500,000 and was then shelved in favour of another solution developed elsewhere?
Interesting rumor, and far from true. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
I think that this way of "charging per number of delegated IP addresses" is the fairest one. It could be based on v4 address usage in a way where v6 addresses would be less "expensive" and will therefore (although I read and agree with previous comments that the price should not be the primary incentive for v4-to-v6 migration) motivate quicker migration to v6. LIRs that have more addresses, provide more services and are able to pay more. Regards, Matej Serc Sebastian Malek je 19.4.2019 ob 11:56 napisal:
In my opinion we should keep the current scheme.
Splitting allocations in the RIPE DB just for this reason makes *no* sense.
If you want to charge per IP or per allocation, it would be better to take the IP count from the LIR portal and calculate the fee based on that.
Regards, Sebastian
On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 11:53 AM ivaylo <ivaylo@bglans.net <mailto:ivaylo@bglans.net>> wrote:
>From network point of view nothing will change, Cynthia.
You can still aggregate your announces. See this document point 7.2 https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-399
Ivaylo Josifov Varteh LTD
On Fri, 19 Apr 2019, Cynthia Revstr?m wrote:
> From a networking point of view, this would be extremely idiotic, you would > fill up routers' memory with routes and take down the internet if you did > this. > > Splitting blocks is just idiotic. > > - Cynthia > > On 2019-04-19 11:03, ivaylo wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> Scheme B will work good and fair to all only with one condition - If ripe >> split IPV4 ALLOCATED PA blocks dedicated to LIRs in maximum /22 (better >> /24) blocks. >> >> Example: >> Now LIR-1 have ALLOCATED-PA >> 10.0.0.0/20 <http://10.0.0.0/20> >> >> After split LIR-1 will have ALLOCATED-PA >> 10.0.0.0/22 <http://10.0.0.0/22> >> 10.0.4.0/22 <http://10.0.4.0/22> >> 10.0.8.0/22 <http://10.0.8.0/22> >> 10.0.12.0/22 <http://10.0.12.0/22> >> >> For IPV6 same splir but based on /32 allocated-pa blocks >> >> From technical point of view this automatic split can be done easy. >> Then Scheme B will be fair for all, and will cover what many of us talking >> for charging scheme based on IP resources. Also will cover that RIPE NCC do >> not "sell" IPV4 >> >> Ivaylo Josifov >> Varteh LTD >> >> >> On Thu, 18 Apr 2019, Christian Kaufmann wrote: >> >>> Dear members, >>> >>> First of all, I'd like to thank you for the feedback we received from >>> everyone so far, and special thanks to the people who gave some more >>> context and explanation. Trying to arrive at a charging scheme that will >>> please everyone is not an easy task. >>> >>> The reason the board proposes two charging schemes is because some >>> members requested a real alternative and difference to the existing "one >>> LIR account-one fee" version we have right now and that is more volume >>> based. >>> >>> This came up previously in the charging scheme task force discussions >>> but also from individual members via emails or through personal contact. >>> Nigel and I promised at the last two GMs that we would present a new one >>> before the May GM this year. >>> >>> So what was the board's thinking in proposing these two models? >>> >>> Firstly, many people like the existing model and the board believes that >>> it covers the spirit of what some members want by maintaining the >>> financial stability of the NCC while keeping fairness and equality in >>> mind. The board also does not want a price per IP model because this >>> would have tax implications (the RIPE NCC does not sell IP addresses and >>> the charging scheme should reflect this) and we feel it is not in >>> keeping with the idea of a membership association. >>> >>> We have also found in the past that having more than two options does >>> not work well from a voting perspective. This would add considerable >>> complexity to the voting in which resolutions must be approved by more >>> than 50% of voters to be adopted. >>> >>> The second charging scheme option is one that the board believes offers >>> a real alternative while staying away from the price per IP aspect. >>> >>> The board's thinking in making the Option B proposal is that every >>> registry entry consumes resources such as customer support time, >>> database memory, registration time, etc. regardless of the size of the >>> allocation. A /24 and a /12 are not so different in this regard so we >>> see this as fair in terms of the work required by the RIPE NCC to >>> maintain the registry. The reason we suggest to charge IPv4 and IPv6 in >>> the same way follows the same logic - there is no tax designed to move >>> people to IPv6. We did not want to have a political, policy-driven >>> charging scheme because the board believes this is the work of community >>> rather than for the board or membership to decide on. >>> >>> I understand that the "volume-based" description could be seen as >>> misleading and I apologise for the misunderstanding here. The proposed >>> model is based on registrations and not per IP as we do not want to >>> indicate that IP is a sellable product but rather the RIPE NCC should >>> charge members for the registry services it provides. >>> >>> The new charging scheme was also not proposed so that the RIPE NCC could >>> make more money - it takes the current budget and calculates backwards >>> to achieve the amount required to run the RIPE NCC. It is just a >>> different model to share the current cost among members. >>> >>> Despite concerns that were raised on this list, the board took the >>> request of some members to propose a new model very seriously and we >>> spent quite some time to discuss and model the current scenario by >>> trying to be as fair as possible and sticking with the principles of a >>> membership organisation. >>> >>> Again, we are very thankful for your input and the feedback on the two >>> models. We will continue to monitor discussions and we will of course >>> present on the Charging Scheme 2020 at the upcoming GM. We encourage you >>> to register your vote so you can have the final say on the two proposals. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Christian Kaufmann >>> RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> members-discuss mailing list >>> members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> >>> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss >>> Unsubscribe: >>> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ivaylo%40bglans.net >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> members-discuss mailing list >> members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> >> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss >> Unsubscribe: >> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/me%40cynthia.re > > _______________________________________________ > members-discuss mailing list > members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ivaylo%40bglans.net >
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/malek%40malek.li
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/matej.serc%40elmitel....
-- Matej Šerc ELMITEL d.o.o. Orehovci 1a SI-9250 Gornja Radgona T: +386 (0)2 564 88 60 M: +386 (0)40 167 589 F: +386 (0)2 564 88 61 Company W: www.elmitel.com E: matej.serc@elmitel.com
On Thu, Apr 18, 2019, at 18:19, Christian Kaufmann wrote:
The board's thinking in making the Option B proposal is that every registry entry consumes resources such as customer support time, database memory, registration time, etc. regardless of the size of the allocation. A /24 and a /12 are not so different in this regard so we
Hi, I only partly agree. Database-wise it is only valid at allocation-by-NCC time. A /24 can further generate up to 256 inetnums, supposing somebody crazy/motivated enough to create an inetnum object for every IP address (if that's even possible). A /12 can further generate a lot more inetnum objects, 4096 if the average size of a declared object is a /24. Obviously, this only applies for "ALLOCATED PA"/"ALLOCATED BY RIR", which can contain more specific "assignments". So the fact that all allocations are the same is open to some more debate. But I do understand the idea behind the rest of the argument for "option B". -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
Dear Christian, Thanks for your explanations. You most certainly know that, for now, LIR's incomes derive primarily from the amount of IPv4 space they can rent to their customers. Any notion of "volume based" fairness between members must therefore take this into account and factor it in directly. Otherwise it's just saying that a someone with a small garden behind his house has to pay the same taxes that someone who owns half the country. Even worse, the small-garden-guy who also has an allotment garden will pay twice as much as the rich land lord. In what european country would that be fair, I beg you to tell me ? Or perhaps the RIPE returned in the 18th century ? Not only is your volume-based proposal unfair, it is also quite dangerous. It lead people to think that the RIPE has moved to some kind of nobility/gentry/aristocratic way of seeing things, only defending the big LIR interests when most of the LIRs financing the RIPE are small LIRs (or am I mistaken here ?). It also means that we, small LIRs, have to go buy legacy space if we want to ensure our business stability in the future, because one day, the option to "keep the current plan" might not be there. Given the recent examples of own *un*understanding the RIPE legal department have become over time, I can understand that some LIRs might feel threatened in their business and their future by such poor proposals. I would like to share my opinion on a plan that would be more consensual and fair without being so disruptive : From my point of view, volume-based fees should count only for a small amount of the membership fees, at least at first, because : - we should leave time for the members to adapt to this change, it just wouldn't be fair either to them to disrupt the current model in less than a year's time - causing large unused ressources holders to return large pools of IPv4 won't be beneficial for the move to IPv6 - we don't want to scare away legacy ressource holders and prevent/hinder the move to ROA/RPKI We could start with something as low as €0.01 per /24 of IPv4 and announce that we will increase it each year (€0.02 then 0.05 then 0.10 then ....), letting us time to see if it suits the majority. Even for de.telekom, it would only be 1132€ volume based fees per year, which is quite literaly a drop in the ocean for them (and will still be in 4 years at €0.10 per /24 IPv4). And yet it would set things moving in a "more fairness between members" direction. IPv6 should IMO follow the same rules. /32 ? /29 ? /48 ? I have no idea, these are too big numbers/factors to get a proper idea. Perhaps /32 at €0.001 ? Other allocated ressources/DB entries (ASN, ORG, etc..) should IMO be considered part of the membership, with limit at a certain amount per LIR in order to prevent abuse. Prices are just examples that I thought were reasonable, but can be changed/adjusted, you get the idea. Regarding your other arguments : You say that you are not willing to indicate that IP is a sellable product, yet you provide links to the brokers on the RIPE website : https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-transfers-and-mergers/brok... Not only do they (re)sell IPv4 but they also make money from it and get (free?) referal service from the RIPE. You imply that RIPE costs are directly related to the numer of database entries. Do you have some backing numbers on the amount of requests ? Whois for example ? I guess you're likely to receive on average 256 more whois request on a /16 that on a /24, even if the /16 is a single entry in the database. Maybe small LIRs "cost" more on support/training and big LIRs "cost" more on database requests ? Seing the actual numbers would perhaps help calm things down, I think. Best regards, Arnaud Le 2019-04-18 18:14, Christian Kaufmann a écrit :
Dear members,
First of all, I'd like to thank you for the feedback we received from everyone so far, and special thanks to the people who gave some more context and explanation. Trying to arrive at a charging scheme that will please everyone is not an easy task.
The reason the board proposes two charging schemes is because some members requested a real alternative and difference to the existing "one LIR account-one fee" version we have right now and that is more volume based.
This came up previously in the charging scheme task force discussions but also from individual members via emails or through personal contact. Nigel and I promised at the last two GMs that we would present a new one before the May GM this year.
So what was the board's thinking in proposing these two models?
Firstly, many people like the existing model and the board believes that it covers the spirit of what some members want by maintaining the financial stability of the NCC while keeping fairness and equality in mind. The board also does not want a price per IP model because this would have tax implications (the RIPE NCC does not sell IP addresses and the charging scheme should reflect this) and we feel it is not in keeping with the idea of a membership association.
We have also found in the past that having more than two options does not work well from a voting perspective. This would add considerable complexity to the voting in which resolutions must be approved by more than 50% of voters to be adopted.
The second charging scheme option is one that the board believes offers a real alternative while staying away from the price per IP aspect.
The board's thinking in making the Option B proposal is that every registry entry consumes resources such as customer support time, database memory, registration time, etc. regardless of the size of the allocation. A /24 and a /12 are not so different in this regard so we see this as fair in terms of the work required by the RIPE NCC to maintain the registry. The reason we suggest to charge IPv4 and IPv6 in the same way follows the same logic - there is no tax designed to move people to IPv6. We did not want to have a political, policy-driven charging scheme because the board believes this is the work of community rather than for the board or membership to decide on.
I understand that the "volume-based" description could be seen as misleading and I apologise for the misunderstanding here. The proposed model is based on registrations and not per IP as we do not want to indicate that IP is a sellable product but rather the RIPE NCC should charge members for the registry services it provides.
The new charging scheme was also not proposed so that the RIPE NCC could make more money - it takes the current budget and calculates backwards to achieve the amount required to run the RIPE NCC. It is just a different model to share the current cost among members.
Despite concerns that were raised on this list, the board took the request of some members to propose a new model very seriously and we spent quite some time to discuss and model the current scenario by trying to be as fair as possible and sticking with the principles of a membership organisation.
Again, we are very thankful for your input and the feedback on the two models. We will continue to monitor discussions and we will of course present on the Charging Scheme 2020 at the upcoming GM. We encourage you to register your vote so you can have the final say on the two proposals.
Best regards,
Christian Kaufmann RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman
_______________________________________________ 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/arnaud.brand--ripencc...
* Arnaud BRAND <arnaud.brand--ripencc@tib.cc> [2019-04-19 17:03]:
Dear Christian,
Thanks for your explanations.
You most certainly know that, for now, LIR's incomes derive primarily from the amount of IPv4 space they can rent to their customers.
That is completely untrue. We do not make any relevant amount of money by renting IPv4 addresses. This is purely a problem for people who do exactly that: Renting IPv4 space for money. This is not a "classic" LIR in any way. Regards Sebastian
When I provide internet access to my customers (eyeballs or content providers), I provide 2 services : - transit - IPv4 addresses Transit is sold, I cannot "take back the bits that have been sent". But IPv4 space is "rented" as the end user never "owns" the addresses and I can reuse the IPv4 for other customers once his contract ends. Of course I didn't mean renting whole blocks to other LIRs or something like that. Sorry if it was misleading/bad wording. I agree with you that almost all our benefits/margins come from the bandwidth part of the service. In fact I think the "renting" fees we bill for IPv4 addresses do not even pay for our RIPE membership. They're just there so customers don't ask for 100IP each. So, no we do not make any money from renting IPv4 addresses neither. But it is also quite clear that the more IPv4 addresses you have, the more customers you can serve and the more money you can make on the services provided via these IPv4 addresses. So it seems like a good index on which to base LIR fees, doesn't it ? That was my point/way of thinking. And I proposed very low fees (€0.01 per /24 per year) which should not have any impact on the financial stability of our fellow LIRs. Even those sitting on these public resources like anti-competitive speculators. So, why not ? Best regards, Arnaud Le 2019-04-23 11:13, Sebastian Wiesinger a écrit :
* Arnaud BRAND <arnaud.brand--ripencc@tib.cc> [2019-04-19 17:03]:
Dear Christian,
Thanks for your explanations.
You most certainly know that, for now, LIR's incomes derive primarily from the amount of IPv4 space they can rent to their customers.
That is completely untrue. We do not make any relevant amount of money by renting IPv4 addresses. This is purely a problem for people who do exactly that: Renting IPv4 space for money. This is not a "classic" LIR in any way.
Regards
Sebastian
_______________________________________________ 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/arnaud.brand--ripencc...
* Arnaud BRAND <arnaud.brand--ripencc@tib.cc> [2019-04-23 15:08]:
I agree with you that almost all our benefits/margins come from the bandwidth part of the service. In fact I think the "renting" fees we bill for IPv4 addresses do not even pay for our RIPE membership.
They're just there so customers don't ask for 100IP each. So, no we do not make any money from renting IPv4 addresses neither.
So why do you say in your first mail that "LIR's incomes derive primarily from the amount of IPv4 space they can rent to their customers"? You now say that the amount your customer pays does not even cover the RIPE membership.
But it is also quite clear that the more IPv4 addresses you have, the more customers you can serve and the more money you can make on the services provided via these IPv4 addresses. So it seems like a good index on which to base LIR fees, doesn't it ? That was my point/way of thinking.
To be honest, no. It is not a good index. If your business growth depends on availability of IPv4 addresses it will fail. What exactly is the point on basing the fees on IPv4 blocks now? What is the goal this would achieve? IPv4 is over. People are fighting for scraps instead of thinking of solutions (like moving to IPv6). Yes you can rent IPv4 space to your customers and if you need more space you can get it at the transfer market. The price should then be reflected in the price your customer pays. You could also use IPv6 and DS-Lite and cut the costs. But IPv4 will not magically turn up when you change the RIPE NCC charging scheme.
And I proposed very low fees (€0.01 per /24 per year) which should not have any impact on the financial stability of our fellow LIRs. Even those sitting on these public resources like anti-competitive speculators. So, why not ?
If it has no impact what exactly is the goal of this then? RIPE NCC is a membership organisation, not a shop for IPv4 space. Regards Sebastian
Hi Sebastian, [...]
To be honest, no. It is not a good index. If your business growth depends on availability of IPv4 addresses it will fail. What exactly is the point on basing the fees on IPv4 blocks now? What is the goal this would achieve? IPv4 is over. People are fighting for scraps instead of thinking of solutions (like moving to IPv6).
Actually I think it shouldn't read "fees based on IPv4-Blocks" but "fees based on resources". Actually the point is that several "persons" created "$MANY" LIR (to receive more IPv4) and currently paid $MANY LIR-Fees. Now that the transfer-block-period is over now, they'd probably merge their LIR and suddenly pay only 1 LIR Fee instead of $MANY. Billing based on resources would mean that these kind of business stays less attractive by making it more expensive.
[...]
If it has no impact what exactly is the goal of this then? RIPE NCC is a membership organisation, not a shop for IPv4 space.
Please replace IS with "IS MEANT TO BE". Unfortunately some think setting up LIR and renting/selling IPv4 is a real business. Looking on the prices currently being paid for selling/buying IPv4 brings up this idea. Therefore I'd really appreciate a billing scheme based on "per IP" (either per single IPv4 or per /48 IPv6) held by a LIR. I am pretty sure, that if every single IPv4 would increase costs for LIR, we'd suddenly have at least the amount of one /8 back in the pool within one year. This would destroy this "selling" of a resource which was actually never "bought" and make it easy to serve people which enter the business with a real internet related business. Yes, I am also a real big fan of IPv6 ... but unfortunately there are still many many services not running V6 out there (e.g. lots of the bigger SIP-Providers). Best regards Jens
Regards
Sebastian
_______________________________________________ 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/ripe%40opteamax.de
-- Jens Ott Geschäftsführer Opteamax GmbH Simrockstr. 4b 53619 Rheinbreitbach Tel.: +49 2224 969500 Fax: +49 2224 97691059 Email: jo@opteamax.de HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur Geschäftsführer: Jens Ott Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989
I guess in order to get some good result of this discussion would be best if board manager add third option into list: "I am not satisfied with option a) and b) and want contnue discuss." Otherwise, not agreed members lost rights to use own voice and silently "confirm" a) or b) option which is not good and true. As here many times announced that ip volume based calculation is not suitable for setting RIPE membership fee i think we need discuss how resource based fee might set. Let's say that such fee setting procedure may include posiive/negative factors which allow set price for each member more clear way. For example there is real difference between small or new LIR who need more ipv4 to provide services to end users and old or big LIR. It is really unfair when big LIR with /20 or even more network will pay per resource same price like new or small LIR. Another way - to prevent unwanted discussion about old and new or small or big LIR's use resouce volume based fee's. Let's say LIR use 20 /24 resources and pay 10 Euro per each while another LIR with 100 /24 resources pay 4 Euro per each resource. That's fee listed only for example, board manager's should check how such sum's related with real situation. Main idea is that total amount of membership fee's should at least cover operational costs. With such fee's it is important to way of dividing big range to small. I guess dividing by netnum would be good and fair enough. Best Regards. Azer
Hi,
I guess in order to get some good result of this discussion would be best if board manager add third option into list: "I am not satisfied with option a) and b) and want contnue discuss."
I guess an abstention could indicate that you don't want to vote for the options given. If a lot of people abstain then that would be a significant message to the board. Cheers, Sander
W dniu 24.04.2019 o 22:11, Sander Steffann pisze:
Hi,
I guess in order to get some good result of this discussion would be best if board manager add third option into list: "I am not satisfied with option a) and b) and want contnue discuss." I guess an abstention could indicate that you don't want to vote for the options given. If a lot of people abstain then that would be a significant message to the board.
Cheers, Sander
Please remember, that by low voter turnout, often win options that we would not really like. In this particular situation witch charging scheme potential abstentions should vote for the status quo. Otherwise, a "abstain" vote means tipping the scales to one side, not necessarily the real will of the majority. Best regards, Tomasz Śląski pl.ip4isp, pl.skonet, pl.tsla-1
On Apr 24, 2019, at 23:11, Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> wrote:
Hi,
Hi,
I guess in order to get some good result of this discussion would be best if board manager add third option into list: "I am not satisfied with option a) and b) and want contnue discuss."
I guess an abstention could indicate that you don't want to vote for the options given. If a lot of people abstain then that would be a significant message to the board.
There are more than 20000 LIRs. Usually voting at GM shows less than 2000 votes. What exactly message does make this percent of voters to the board?
Cheers, Sander
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/tasic%40hostmaster.ua
-- Best regards Taras Heichenko tasic@hostmaster.ua
Hello, This 2000 voters are mostly new LIRs with one ASN and one /22 ? Because if this is the case, they will surely vote for option B. Regards, Alex On 25.04.2019 11:26, Taras Heichenko wrote:
On Apr 24, 2019, at 23:11, Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> wrote:
Hi, Hi,
I guess in order to get some good result of this discussion would be best if board manager add third option into list: "I am not satisfied with option a) and b) and want contnue discuss." I guess an abstention could indicate that you don't want to vote for the options given. If a lot of people abstain then that would be a significant message to the board. There are more than 20000 LIRs. Usually voting at GM shows less than 2000 votes. What exactly message does make this percent of voters to the board?
Cheers, Sander
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/tasic%40hostmaster.ua -- Best regards
Taras Heichenko tasic@hostmaster.ua
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/alexandru.doszlop%40n...
On Apr 25, 2019, at 11:33, Alexandru Doszlop <alexandru.doszlop@netprotect.ro> wrote:
Hello,
This 2000 voters are mostly new LIRs with one ASN and one /22 ?
Because if this is the case, they will surely vote for option B.
I do not know who is these 2000 (very optimistic amount) voters. I may suppose that these voters are the people who do know what they vote for. I just wanted to say that till now the very low percent of voters said nothing about result of voting.
Regards,
Alex
On 25.04.2019 11:26, Taras Heichenko wrote:
On Apr 24, 2019, at 23:11, Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> wrote:
Hi, Hi,
I guess in order to get some good result of this discussion would be best if board manager add third option into list: "I am not satisfied with option a) and b) and want contnue discuss." I guess an abstention could indicate that you don't want to vote for the options given. If a lot of people abstain then that would be a significant message to the board. There are more than 20000 LIRs. Usually voting at GM shows less than 2000 votes. What exactly message does make this percent of voters to the board?
Cheers, Sander
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/tasic%40hostmaster.ua -- Best regards
Taras Heichenko tasic@hostmaster.ua
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/alexandru.doszlop%40n...
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/tasic%40hostmaster.ua
-- Best regards Taras Heichenko tasic@hostmaster.ua
I represent a new LIR with one ASN and single /22, and so far I prefer option A, option B makes no sense to me. I know I could pay less with option B but it's an unfair one. Please do not abstain. If you don't like option B then vote for A and continue the discussion here. If the discussion leads to anything relevant I'm sure the board will take it into account for next meeting. If the goal is to have more IPv4 for LIR that really need them, I'm not sure any charging scheme can really change things. RIPE has a budget and can't make profit, so the price per resource can't be as high as we want. With only a few cents per IPv4 per year (about 5 cents max as per my math), that's nothing for those who see things as "renting ipv4". Of course there are probably some LIR that have too much and will redeem their resources - especially in non-profit and educational fields, but also, with much lower annual fees (consequence of a price per IP), that's an incentive for others to open additional LIR accounts to get more /22 before we run out of IPs. That could accelerate the depletion, and not necessarily in favor or those who have legitimate use of IPv4. To accelerate the move to IPv6, I think it's up to the community to find other ways. Could be promoting IPv6-only days during which many players commit to stop announcing/forwarding IPv4 on external networks, these days becoming more an more frequent over the years. (ok - good luck convincing big players on that one...) Bests, Alexis Hanicotte VelumWare SAS On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 10:36 AM Alexandru Doszlop < alexandru.doszlop@netprotect.ro> wrote:
Hello,
This 2000 voters are mostly new LIRs with one ASN and one /22 ?
Because if this is the case, they will surely vote for option B.
Regards,
Alex
On 25.04.2019 11:26, Taras Heichenko wrote:
On Apr 24, 2019, at 23:11, Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> wrote:
Hi, Hi,
I guess in order to get some good result of this discussion would be
I guess an abstention could indicate that you don't want to vote for
best if board manager add third option into list: "I am not satisfied with option a) and b) and want contnue discuss." the options given. If a lot of people abstain then that would be a significant message to the board.
There are more than 20000 LIRs. Usually voting at GM shows less than 2000 votes. What exactly message does make this percent of voters to the board?
Cheers, Sander
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/tasic%40hostmaster.ua -- Best regards
Taras Heichenko tasic@hostmaster.ua
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/alexandru.doszlop%40n...
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/alexis%40velumware.co...
Hello, If like me you want to keep option A, maybe it's good to talk to your friends who are LIR too. For a newcomer, the cost is 1300€ and not 1150 because they need 3 ressource to be UP. (only 100€ diff/year) Cedric Le 25-04-19 à 12:50, Hank Nussbacher a écrit :
On 25/04/2019 11:33, Alexandru Doszlop wrote:
Hello,
This 2000 voters are mostly new LIRs with one ASN and one /22 ?
Because if this is the case, they will surely vote for option B.
Of course they will.
-Hank
Regards,
Alex
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ml%40servperso.com
On 2019-04-24, at 22:11:04, Sander Steffann wrote:
I guess an abstention could indicate that you don't want to vote for the options given. If a lot of people abstain then that would be a significant message to the board.
One could think the discussions can be seen as a significant message to the board, as well. And if not the discussion, the Executive Board election, could. https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2019/confirmed-can... Two seats up for filling. The membership can, ideally, elect candidates seeking to represent their interests. To the above mentioned confirmed candidates: What are your positions on the Charging Scheme subject? Best, -- Martin Millnert BrainMill AB https://www.brainmill.com
Le 2019-04-23 15:45, Sebastian Wiesinger a écrit :
* Arnaud BRAND <arnaud.brand--ripencc@tib.cc> [2019-04-23 15:08]:
I agree with you that almost all our benefits/margins come from the bandwidth part of the service. In fact I think the "renting" fees we bill for IPv4 addresses do not even pay for our RIPE membership.
They're just there so customers don't ask for 100IP each. So, no we do not make any money from renting IPv4 addresses neither.
So why do you say in your first mail that "LIR's incomes derive primarily from the amount of IPv4 space they can rent to their customers"? You now say that the amount your customer pays does not even cover the RIPE membership.
It was written just under the previous statement :
But it is also quite clear that the more IPv4 addresses you have, the more customers you can serve and the more money you can make on the services provided via these IPv4 addresses.
The fact that it doesn't cover mmebership fees *for us* doesn't mean that we don't provide/sell services via these IPv4 ranges, the benefit of which is obviously greater than our fees. Otherwise we would be out of business.
So it seems like a good index on which to base LIR fees, doesn't it ? That was my point/way of thinking.
To be honest, no. It is not a good index. If your business growth depends on availability of IPv4 addresses it will fail. What exactly is the point on basing the fees on IPv4 blocks now? What is the goal this would achieve? IPv4 is over. People are fighting for scraps instead of thinking of solutions (like moving to IPv6).
As several networks still do not use IPv6, even as we do deploy IPv6, we still depend on IPv4 reachability for the next 5 to 10 years, maybe more. I hope that our business will grow in this timeframe. So for us, IPv4 is not over. And 5 to 10 years is a long time (a lot of small businesses don't even last this long) that's exactly why few people move to IPv6. And if IPv4 were useless market transfers wouldn't exist anymore and all of this debate wouldn't have taken place on the list.
Yes you can rent IPv4 space to your customers and if you need more space you can get it at the transfer market.
Market transfer are one-shot fees, not recurring costs. And as IPv4 prices still rise, IPv4 are regarded as an asset in which you can invest and on which you can speculate. Plus for this kind of asset you have (almost?) no maintenance costs, and it doesn't wear or degrade. I guess several big companies are waiting just to close a deal like GE did last year. With public resources that where given to them free of charge.
The price should then be reflected in the price your customer pays.
No real need to do that if you are wealthy enough and don't need the money right now : you can resell the IPv4 space later, so this is just an investment. Or you can bill your customers so that it's paid for in, say, 3 years ? And when you retire, or need money, or feel like it's time to sell, then you resell it, probably with a nice benefit. I don't think it would work the same with a recurring RIPE cost on IPv4 space.
You could also use IPv6 and DS-Lite and cut the costs. But IPv4 will not magically turn up when you change the RIPE NCC charging scheme.
Hopefully not. I'm not in favor of having more IPv4 to give away to pseudo-new LIRs : - it hinders migration to IPv6, which I actually am a fan of. - like Jens said, it allows people to abuse the system and make money out of it. It was also written in my initial email, if you would care to reread it. This IPv4-return risk was identified as one of the drawbacks of my proposal. Again, I was merely expressing my opinion about a scheme that seemed to be fairer that what was proposed. Billing on number of ressources held in the database is a bad idea. Even now most LIR don't fill the data about their customer's allocations, which is quite anoying (I though this was mandatory, or am I mistaken ?) Do you think there will be much left in the DB once you have to pay for each and every record ? Would you care to create records if you knew that next year may be they will get charged and you will wipe them off ? Don't we all want to have quality data in the DB ? Otherwise, what's the point of having it and paying for it ?
And I proposed very low fees (€0.01 per /24 per year) which should not have any impact on the financial stability of our fellow LIRs. Even those sitting on these public resources like anti-competitive speculators. So, why not ?
If it has no impact what exactly is the goal of this then?
I also suggested to increase these fees over time. But with a clear plan/path so that noone gets "surprised" or suddenly financialy endangered by a brutal change. I think going to volume based billing is the right move, but you have to do that gradually and choose "indexes" carefully. Lowering entry barriers for small companies would be nice too, if you look at the income discrepancies between eastern and western europe, which have surfaced quite a few times on this list. Pushing towards IPv6 by introducing recurring costs for IPv4 would certainly also benefit all. Just like with our customers: setting even a small price for IPv4 makes them think twice about their real needs and if you provide them with a cheaper alternative, they'll look at it more closely.
RIPE NCC is a membership organisation, not a shop for IPv4 space.
And not once has RIPE "sold" IPv4 space. If you stop to pay your membership fees they get their IPs back. Seen this way, are they not renting it to us ? It's a membership organization, so why doesn't each and everyone of us pay the same price for what is rented to us ? Why don't we even get the option to vote to do so ? Like quite a lot of people already said, if the purpose is just to force our hand to vote for no change, what's the point ? Best regards, Arnaud
Hi, I welcome that the charging scheme is being reconsidered. But -like others- I am also missing an option C for IP volume based fees. (not necessarily linear ones) On 4/18/19 6:14 PM, Christian Kaufmann wrote:
Firstly, many people like the existing model and the board believes that it covers the spirit of what some members want by maintaining the financial stability of the NCC while keeping fairness and equality in mind. The board also does not want a price per IP model because this would have tax implications (the RIPE NCC does not sell IP addresses and the charging scheme should reflect this)
Can you be a bit more specific about what those tax implications would be? And have those potential implications been researched again in recent years or is the decision based on older assumptions? Have heard stories that members were told in the past that the move from membership fees based on size -like RIPE once had- to the one-LIR-one-fee scheme was really a necessity, in order to allow things like the redistribution of excess funds, and stuff like that. However do be aware that in the Netherlands (where RIPE is based) there are plenty of cooperative associations -mostly in the farm industry- that do provide both chargeable services to their members, and do redistribute profits. So I do wonder if there are really not any possibilities there.
and we feel it is not in keeping with the idea of a membership association.
To what extent should the personal feelings of board members, affect what options are put up for vote? Isn't the idea of an association that the members are ultimately in charge, and should be given a fair opportunity to decide which direction we are heaeding. Yours sincerely, Floris Bos
Dear RIPE NCC members, The Executive Board continues to follow the discussion on the list and I'm happy to provide some further clarity on the charging scheme proposals ahead of the General Meeting in May. Firstly, there are good reasons why the Board chose to present only two charging scheme options rather than three or even four. The RIPE NCC's Articles of Association provide that all resolutions must receive over 50% of votes in favour of one option in order for the resolution to be adopted. This means that a resolution with more than two options might end up not having enough support (more than 50%) so we would fall back to the current one. As we try to make this as clear and easy as possible, we decided to go for two options. A way to get around this problem is to present three or more options as separate resolutions with standard Yes/No voting options. In fact, this is what happened in 2012 when the Board proposed three charging scheme options: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/september-2012 Two of the three resolutions (Options A and C) were approved by the membership with the first one being the charging scheme adopted and subsequent resolutions disregarded. Many comments were made to the Board following this vote that the ordering of the resolutions had a big impact on which charging scheme option was adopted. For this reason, the Board is proposing only two options to allow a clear majority to be expressed in one resolution. Both options are roughly equivalent in the amount of revenue they would generate - the purpose of the charging scheme is to arrive at a way to distribute the amount required to run the RIPE NCC among the members. So why were these the two resolutions that the Board chose to propose for 2020? Option A is the current charging scheme model, and the Board favours this model for its simplicity and the fact that it treats all members as equal with equal access to services, which is how we believe a membership organisation should be run. The principles that the current charging scheme model is based on were the outcome of work by the Charging Scheme Task Force in 2012. In the absence of clear guidance from the membership on changing these principles, we prefer to stick with these unless we see a clear desire to change them. For Option B, the Board had a number of concerns with proposing a model that is based on charging per IP and volume and not per service used. The RIPE NCC is a not-for-profit organisation and is treated as such under Dutch law. In the negotiations with the Dutch tax authorities that established this status, a clear argument was made that the RIPE NCC is a membership association that does not charge for individual services or addresses. This is also in keeping with the view that IP addresses are a shared resource rather than a product, and the RIPE NCC acts as the steward of that resource. The Board wants this to remain the case, and if charging per resource jeopardises the RIPE NCC's not-for-profit membership status then this is not something that the Board would want to risk happening. More details on the RIPE NCC's tax position are available in the RIPE NCC Tax Governance Paper: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-713 The Board does not believe the charging scheme should be used to drive the IPv6 policies of the community. That being said, in the current charging scheme, which has been in effect for a number of years, IPv6 has no extra cost and yet this has had no discernible impact on deployment. It is also likely that from early 2020 IPv6 will make up the vast majority of IP resources allocated by the RIPE NCC. I hope this adds a further degree of clarity to the discussions. I realise that this is an important issue for the membership and I understand that not everyone will be completely satisfied by the proposals put forward by the Board. I also hope that you understand the Board's primary legal responsibility is to ensure the stability and continuity of the RIPE NCC. Accommodating this, and the comments and wishes we got from you, are the the two main goals in proposing the two options that you will be asked to choose between. We encourage you to continue to discuss the charging scheme options on the list, and we look forward to exploring them in more detail at the General Meeting on 22 May. Kind regards, Christian Kaufmann RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman On 2019-04-18 18:14, Christian Kaufmann wrote:
Dear members,
First of all, I'd like to thank you for the feedback we received from everyone so far, and special thanks to the people who gave some more context and explanation. Trying to arrive at a charging scheme that will please everyone is not an easy task.
The reason the board proposes two charging schemes is because some members requested a real alternative and difference to the existing "one LIR account-one fee" version we have right now and that is more volume based.
This came up previously in the charging scheme task force discussions but also from individual members via emails or through personal contact. Nigel and I promised at the last two GMs that we would present a new one before the May GM this year.
So what was the board's thinking in proposing these two models?
Firstly, many people like the existing model and the board believes that it covers the spirit of what some members want by maintaining the financial stability of the NCC while keeping fairness and equality in mind. The board also does not want a price per IP model because this would have tax implications (the RIPE NCC does not sell IP addresses and the charging scheme should reflect this) and we feel it is not in keeping with the idea of a membership association.
We have also found in the past that having more than two options does not work well from a voting perspective. This would add considerable complexity to the voting in which resolutions must be approved by more than 50% of voters to be adopted.
The second charging scheme option is one that the board believes offers a real alternative while staying away from the price per IP aspect.
The board's thinking in making the Option B proposal is that every registry entry consumes resources such as customer support time, database memory, registration time, etc. regardless of the size of the allocation. A /24 and a /12 are not so different in this regard so we see this as fair in terms of the work required by the RIPE NCC to maintain the registry. The reason we suggest to charge IPv4 and IPv6 in the same way follows the same logic - there is no tax designed to move people to IPv6. We did not want to have a political, policy-driven charging scheme because the board believes this is the work of community rather than for the board or membership to decide on.
I understand that the "volume-based" description could be seen as misleading and I apologise for the misunderstanding here. The proposed model is based on registrations and not per IP as we do not want to indicate that IP is a sellable product but rather the RIPE NCC should charge members for the registry services it provides.
The new charging scheme was also not proposed so that the RIPE NCC could make more money - it takes the current budget and calculates backwards to achieve the amount required to run the RIPE NCC. It is just a different model to share the current cost among members.
Despite concerns that were raised on this list, the board took the request of some members to propose a new model very seriously and we spent quite some time to discuss and model the current scenario by trying to be as fair as possible and sticking with the principles of a membership organisation.
Again, we are very thankful for your input and the feedback on the two models. We will continue to monitor discussions and we will of course present on the Charging Scheme 2020 at the upcoming GM. We encourage you to register your vote so you can have the final say on the two proposals.
Best regards,
Christian Kaufmann RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman
_______________________________________________ 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/agollan%40ripe.net
Hi. I think that the NCC could create some poll with several options and leave only 2 ones for voting that had the 1st and the 2nd places. чт, 2 мая 2019 г., 17:51 Christian Kaufmann <exec-board@ripe.net>:
Dear RIPE NCC members,
The Executive Board continues to follow the discussion on the list and I'm happy to provide some further clarity on the charging scheme proposals ahead of the General Meeting in May.
Firstly, there are good reasons why the Board chose to present only two charging scheme options rather than three or even four. The RIPE NCC's Articles of Association provide that all resolutions must receive over 50% of votes in favour of one option in order for the resolution to be adopted. This means that a resolution with more than two options might end up not having enough support (more than 50%) so we would fall back to the current one. As we try to make this as clear and easy as possible, we decided to go for two options.
A way to get around this problem is to present three or more options as separate resolutions with standard Yes/No voting options. In fact, this is what happened in 2012 when the Board proposed three charging scheme options: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/september-2012
Two of the three resolutions (Options A and C) were approved by the membership with the first one being the charging scheme adopted and subsequent resolutions disregarded. Many comments were made to the Board following this vote that the ordering of the resolutions had a big impact on which charging scheme option was adopted. For this reason, the Board is proposing only two options to allow a clear majority to be expressed in one resolution. Both options are roughly equivalent in the amount of revenue they would generate - the purpose of the charging scheme is to arrive at a way to distribute the amount required to run the RIPE NCC among the members.
So why were these the two resolutions that the Board chose to propose for 2020?
Option A is the current charging scheme model, and the Board favours this model for its simplicity and the fact that it treats all members as equal with equal access to services, which is how we believe a membership organisation should be run. The principles that the current charging scheme model is based on were the outcome of work by the Charging Scheme Task Force in 2012. In the absence of clear guidance from the membership on changing these principles, we prefer to stick with these unless we see a clear desire to change them.
For Option B, the Board had a number of concerns with proposing a model that is based on charging per IP and volume and not per service used. The RIPE NCC is a not-for-profit organisation and is treated as such under Dutch law. In the negotiations with the Dutch tax authorities that established this status, a clear argument was made that the RIPE NCC is a membership association that does not charge for individual services or addresses. This is also in keeping with the view that IP addresses are a shared resource rather than a product, and the RIPE NCC acts as the steward of that resource.
The Board wants this to remain the case, and if charging per resource jeopardises the RIPE NCC's not-for-profit membership status then this is not something that the Board would want to risk happening. More details on the RIPE NCC's tax position are available in the RIPE NCC Tax Governance Paper: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-713
The Board does not believe the charging scheme should be used to drive the IPv6 policies of the community.
That being said, in the current charging scheme, which has been in effect for a number of years, IPv6 has no extra cost and yet this has had no discernible impact on deployment. It is also likely that from early 2020 IPv6 will make up the vast majority of IP resources allocated by the RIPE NCC.
I hope this adds a further degree of clarity to the discussions. I realise that this is an important issue for the membership and I understand that not everyone will be completely satisfied by the proposals put forward by the Board. I also hope that you understand the Board's primary legal responsibility is to ensure the stability and continuity of the RIPE NCC.
Accommodating this, and the comments and wishes we got from you, are the the two main goals in proposing the two options that you will be asked to choose between.
We encourage you to continue to discuss the charging scheme options on the list, and we look forward to exploring them in more detail at the General Meeting on 22 May.
Kind regards,
Christian Kaufmann RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman
On 2019-04-18 18:14, Christian Kaufmann wrote:
Dear members,
First of all, I'd like to thank you for the feedback we received from everyone so far, and special thanks to the people who gave some more context and explanation. Trying to arrive at a charging scheme that will please everyone is not an easy task.
The reason the board proposes two charging schemes is because some members requested a real alternative and difference to the existing "one LIR account-one fee" version we have right now and that is more volume based.
This came up previously in the charging scheme task force discussions but also from individual members via emails or through personal contact. Nigel and I promised at the last two GMs that we would present a new one before the May GM this year.
So what was the board's thinking in proposing these two models?
Firstly, many people like the existing model and the board believes that it covers the spirit of what some members want by maintaining the financial stability of the NCC while keeping fairness and equality in mind. The board also does not want a price per IP model because this would have tax implications (the RIPE NCC does not sell IP addresses and the charging scheme should reflect this) and we feel it is not in keeping with the idea of a membership association.
We have also found in the past that having more than two options does not work well from a voting perspective. This would add considerable complexity to the voting in which resolutions must be approved by more than 50% of voters to be adopted.
The second charging scheme option is one that the board believes offers a real alternative while staying away from the price per IP aspect.
The board's thinking in making the Option B proposal is that every registry entry consumes resources such as customer support time, database memory, registration time, etc. regardless of the size of the allocation. A /24 and a /12 are not so different in this regard so we see this as fair in terms of the work required by the RIPE NCC to maintain the registry. The reason we suggest to charge IPv4 and IPv6 in the same way follows the same logic - there is no tax designed to move people to IPv6. We did not want to have a political, policy-driven charging scheme because the board believes this is the work of community rather than for the board or membership to decide on.
I understand that the "volume-based" description could be seen as misleading and I apologise for the misunderstanding here. The proposed model is based on registrations and not per IP as we do not want to indicate that IP is a sellable product but rather the RIPE NCC should charge members for the registry services it provides.
The new charging scheme was also not proposed so that the RIPE NCC could make more money - it takes the current budget and calculates backwards to achieve the amount required to run the RIPE NCC. It is just a different model to share the current cost among members.
Despite concerns that were raised on this list, the board took the request of some members to propose a new model very seriously and we spent quite some time to discuss and model the current scenario by trying to be as fair as possible and sticking with the principles of a membership organisation.
Again, we are very thankful for your input and the feedback on the two models. We will continue to monitor discussions and we will of course present on the Charging Scheme 2020 at the upcoming GM. We encourage you to register your vote so you can have the final say on the two proposals.
Best regards,
Christian Kaufmann RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman
_______________________________________________ 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/agollan%40ripe.net
_______________________________________________ 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/aleksbulgakov%40gmail...
Hello all. I am ready that my point of view may be very unpopular but I need to express it. So from my point of view the model that board suggests to us does not correspond to the current situation. Is in RIPE community anybody who does not know that it is possible to buy IPv4 addresses? Do you really think that so many LIR we have only because they all want to make internet business? How many LIRs will stay tomorrow if there are only IPv6 addresses in internet? (And what RIPE NCC will get in its budget?) It looks like as physicists use wrong theory to make some scientific research. They think that thunder is from the god's chariot and pay no attention to lightnings. We do the same. Instead of making the model that corresponds to the current state we begin to devise some unexplainable rules. Why should we pay for object (independently of its size)? Because RIPE NCC does not pay taxes and does not want to pay them. But may be taxes are less evil than trying to find god's chariot? May be we really should try to sell IPv4, try to give IPv6 for free, try to make all conditions to transition to IPv6 and leave IPv4 behind as soon as possible? And then we will make new rules for the IPv6 only internet. Then. Or will we again try to insert the circle in the square?
On May 2, 2019, at 17:48, Christian Kaufmann <exec-board@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear RIPE NCC members,
The Executive Board continues to follow the discussion on the list and I'm happy to provide some further clarity on the charging scheme proposals ahead of the General Meeting in May.
Firstly, there are good reasons why the Board chose to present only two charging scheme options rather than three or even four. The RIPE NCC's Articles of Association provide that all resolutions must receive over 50% of votes in favour of one option in order for the resolution to be adopted. This means that a resolution with more than two options might end up not having enough support (more than 50%) so we would fall back to the current one. As we try to make this as clear and easy as possible, we decided to go for two options.
A way to get around this problem is to present three or more options as separate resolutions with standard Yes/No voting options. In fact, this is what happened in 2012 when the Board proposed three charging scheme options: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/september-2012
Two of the three resolutions (Options A and C) were approved by the membership with the first one being the charging scheme adopted and subsequent resolutions disregarded. Many comments were made to the Board following this vote that the ordering of the resolutions had a big impact on which charging scheme option was adopted. For this reason, the Board is proposing only two options to allow a clear majority to be expressed in one resolution. Both options are roughly equivalent in the amount of revenue they would generate - the purpose of the charging scheme is to arrive at a way to distribute the amount required to run the RIPE NCC among the members.
So why were these the two resolutions that the Board chose to propose for 2020?
Option A is the current charging scheme model, and the Board favours this model for its simplicity and the fact that it treats all members as equal with equal access to services, which is how we believe a membership organisation should be run. The principles that the current charging scheme model is based on were the outcome of work by the Charging Scheme Task Force in 2012. In the absence of clear guidance from the membership on changing these principles, we prefer to stick with these unless we see a clear desire to change them.
For Option B, the Board had a number of concerns with proposing a model that is based on charging per IP and volume and not per service used. The RIPE NCC is a not-for-profit organisation and is treated as such under Dutch law. In the negotiations with the Dutch tax authorities that established this status, a clear argument was made that the RIPE NCC is a membership association that does not charge for individual services or addresses. This is also in keeping with the view that IP addresses are a shared resource rather than a product, and the RIPE NCC acts as the steward of that resource.
The Board wants this to remain the case, and if charging per resource jeopardises the RIPE NCC's not-for-profit membership status then this is not something that the Board would want to risk happening. More details on the RIPE NCC's tax position are available in the RIPE NCC Tax Governance Paper: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-713
The Board does not believe the charging scheme should be used to drive the IPv6 policies of the community.
That being said, in the current charging scheme, which has been in effect for a number of years, IPv6 has no extra cost and yet this has had no discernible impact on deployment. It is also likely that from early 2020 IPv6 will make up the vast majority of IP resources allocated by the RIPE NCC.
I hope this adds a further degree of clarity to the discussions. I realise that this is an important issue for the membership and I understand that not everyone will be completely satisfied by the proposals put forward by the Board. I also hope that you understand the Board's primary legal responsibility is to ensure the stability and continuity of the RIPE NCC.
Accommodating this, and the comments and wishes we got from you, are the the two main goals in proposing the two options that you will be asked to choose between.
We encourage you to continue to discuss the charging scheme options on the list, and we look forward to exploring them in more detail at the General Meeting on 22 May.
Kind regards,
Christian Kaufmann RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman
-- Best regards Taras Heichenko tasic@hostmaster.ua
Here is real deal about charging scheme. Add fees calculated by annual bandwidth over allocated IPs Don't limit yourself just to resources. Go for bandwidth. But, if you pass charges regards to resources, also pass resolution that first 1024 ipv4 resource is free. Pobierz aplikację BlueMail dla systemu Android W dniu 3 maj 2019, 14:46, o 14:46, użytkownik Taras Heichenko <tasic@hostmaster.ua> napisał:
Hello all.
I am ready that my point of view may be very unpopular but I need to express it. So from my point of view the model that board suggests to us does not correspond to the current situation. Is in RIPE community anybody who does not know that it is possible to buy IPv4 addresses? Do you really think that so many LIR we have only because they all want to make internet business? How many LIRs will stay tomorrow if there are only IPv6 addresses in internet? (And what RIPE NCC will get in its budget?) It looks like as physicists use wrong theory to make some scientific research. They think that thunder is from the god's chariot and pay no attention to lightnings. We do the same. Instead of making the model that corresponds to the current state we begin to devise some unexplainable rules. Why should we pay for object (independently of its size)? Because RIPE NCC does not pay taxes and does not want to pay them. But may be taxes are less evil than trying to find god's chariot? May be we really should try to sell IPv4, try to give IPv6 for free, try to make all conditions to transition to IPv6 and leave IPv4 behind as soon as possible? And then we will make new rules for the IPv6 only internet. Then. Or will we again try to insert the circle in the square?
On May 2, 2019, at 17:48, Christian Kaufmann <exec-board@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear RIPE NCC members,
The Executive Board continues to follow the discussion on the list and I'm happy to provide some further clarity on the charging scheme proposals ahead of the General Meeting in May.
Firstly, there are good reasons why the Board chose to present only two charging scheme options rather than three or even four. The RIPE NCC's Articles of Association provide that all resolutions must receive over 50% of votes in favour of one option in order for the resolution to be adopted. This means that a resolution with more than two options might end up not having enough support (more than 50%) so we would fall back to the current one. As we try to make this as clear and easy as possible, we decided to go for two options.
A way to get around this problem is to present three or more options as separate resolutions with standard Yes/No voting options. In fact, this is what happened in 2012 when the Board proposed three charging scheme options: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/september-2012
Two of the three resolutions (Options A and C) were approved by the membership with the first one being the charging scheme adopted and subsequent resolutions disregarded. Many comments were made to the Board following this vote that the ordering of the resolutions had a big impact on which charging scheme option was adopted. For this reason, the Board is proposing only two options to allow a clear majority to be expressed in one resolution. Both options are roughly equivalent in the amount of revenue they would generate - the purpose of the charging scheme is to arrive at a way to distribute the amount required to run the RIPE NCC among the members.
So why were these the two resolutions that the Board chose to propose for 2020?
Option A is the current charging scheme model, and the Board favours this model for its simplicity and the fact that it treats all members as equal with equal access to services, which is how we believe a membership organisation should be run. The principles that the current charging scheme model is based on were the outcome of work by the Charging Scheme Task Force in 2012. In the absence of clear guidance from the membership on changing these principles, we prefer to stick with these unless we see a clear desire to change them.
For Option B, the Board had a number of concerns with proposing a model that is based on charging per IP and volume and not per service used. The RIPE NCC is a not-for-profit organisation and is treated as such under Dutch law. In the negotiations with the Dutch tax authorities that established this status, a clear argument was made that the RIPE NCC is a membership association that does not charge for individual services or addresses. This is also in keeping with the view that IP addresses are a shared resource rather than a product, and the RIPE NCC acts as the steward of that resource.
The Board wants this to remain the case, and if charging per resource jeopardises the RIPE NCC's not-for-profit membership status then this is not something that the Board would want to risk happening. More details on the RIPE NCC's tax position are available in the RIPE NCC Tax Governance Paper: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-713
The Board does not believe the charging scheme should be used to drive the IPv6 policies of the community.
That being said, in the current charging scheme, which has been in effect for a number of years, IPv6 has no extra cost and yet this has had no discernible impact on deployment. It is also likely that from early 2020 IPv6 will make up the vast majority of IP resources allocated by the RIPE NCC.
I hope this adds a further degree of clarity to the discussions. I realise that this is an important issue for the membership and I understand that not everyone will be completely satisfied by the proposals put forward by the Board. I also hope that you understand the Board's primary legal responsibility is to ensure the stability and continuity of the RIPE NCC.
Accommodating this, and the comments and wishes we got from you, are the the two main goals in proposing the two options that you will be asked to choose between.
We encourage you to continue to discuss the charging scheme options on the list, and we look forward to exploring them in more detail at the General Meeting on 22 May.
Kind regards,
Christian Kaufmann RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman
-- Best regards
Taras Heichenko tasic@hostmaster.ua
_______________________________________________ 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/piotr%40karwos.hk
On May 3, 2019, at 15:57, Piotr Karwowski <piotr@karwos.hk> wrote:
Here is real deal about charging scheme. Add fees calculated by annual bandwidth over allocated IPs Don't limit yourself just to resources. Go for bandwidth.
No doubts that the per record payment in the RIPE DB is much better. I just wrote that suggested model does not correspond to the real life. But if you would like to bring all to absurd I will stay aside. As you wish.
But, if you pass charges regards to resources, also pass resolution that first 1024 ipv4 resource is free.
Pobierz aplikację BlueMail dla systemu Android W dniu 3 maj 2019, o 14:46, użytkownik Taras Heichenko <tasic@hostmaster.ua> napisał: Hello all.
I am ready that my point of view may be very unpopular but I need to express it. So from my point of view the model that board suggests to us does not correspond to the current situation. Is in RIPE community anybody who does not know that it is possible to buy IPv4 addresses? Do you really think that so many LIR we have only because they all want to make internet business? How many LIRs will stay tomorrow if there are only IPv6 addresses in internet? (And what RIPE NCC will get in its budget?) It looks like as physicists use wrong theory to make some scientific research. They think that thunder is from the god's chariot and pay no attention to lightnings. We do the same. Instead of making the model that corresponds to the current state we begin to devise some unexplainable rules. Why should we pay for object (independently of its size)? Because RIPE NCC does not pay taxes and does not want to pay them. But may be taxes are less evil than trying to find god's chariot? May be we really should try to sell IPv4, try to give IPv6 for free, try to make all conditions to transition to IPv6 and leave IPv4 behind as soon as possible? And then we will make new rules for the IPv6 only internet. Then. Or will we again try to insert the circle in the square?
On May 2, 2019, at 17:48, Christian Kaufmann <exec-board@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear RIPE NCC members,
The Executive Board continues to follow the discussion on the list and I'm happy to provide some further clarity on the charging scheme proposals ahead of the General Meeting in May.
Firstly, there are good reasons why the Board chose to present only two charging scheme options rather than three or even four. The RIPE NCC's Articles of Association provide that all resolutions must receive over 50% of votes in favour of one option in order for the resolution to be adopted. This means that a resolution with more than two options might end up not having enough support (more than 50%) so we would fall back to the current one. As we try to make this as clear and easy as possible, we decided to go for two options.
A way to get around this problem is to present three or more options as separate resolutions with standard Yes/No voting options. In fact, this is what happened in 2012 when the Board proposed three charging scheme options: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/september-2012
Two of the three resolutions (Options A and C) were approved by the membership with the first one being the charging scheme adopted and subsequent resolutions disregarded. Many comments were made to the Board following this vote that the ordering of the resolutions had a big impact on which charging scheme option was adopted. For this reason, the Board is proposing only two options to allow a clear majority to be expressed in one resolution. Both options are roughly equivalent in the amount of revenue they would generate - the purpose of the charging scheme is to arrive at a way to distribute the amount required to run the RIPE NCC among the members.
So why were these the two resolutions that the Board chose to propose for 2020?
Option A is the current charging scheme model, and the Board favours this model for its simplicity and the fact that it treats all members as equal with equal access to services, which is how we believe a membership organisation should be run. The principles that the current charging scheme model is based on were the outcome of work by the Charging Scheme Task Force in 2012. In the absence of clear guidance from the membership on changing these principles, we prefer to stick with these unless we see a clear desire to change them.
For Option B, the Board had a number of concerns with proposing a model that is based on charging per IP and volume and not per service used. The RIPE NCC is a not-for-profit organisation and is treated as such under Dutch law. In the negotiations with the Dutch tax authorities that established this status, a clear argument was made that the RIPE NCC is a membership association that does not charge for individual services or addresses. This is also in keeping with the view that IP addresses are a shared resource rather than a product, and the RIPE NCC acts as the steward of that resource.
The Board wants this to remain the case, and if charging per resource jeopardises the RIPE NCC's not-for-profit membership status then this is not something that the Board would want to risk happening. More details on the RIPE NCC's tax position are available in the RIPE NCC Tax Governance Paper: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-713
The Board does not believe the charging scheme should be used to drive the IPv6 policies of the community.
That being said, in the current charging scheme, which has been in effect for a number of years, IPv6 has no extra cost and yet this has had no discernible impact on deployment. It is also likely that from early 2020 IPv6 will make up the vast majority of IP resources allocated by the RIPE NCC.
I hope this adds a further degree of clarity to the discussions. I realise that this is an important issue for the membership and I understand that not everyone will be completely satisfied by the proposals put forward by the Board. I also hope that you understand the Board's primary legal responsibility is to ensure the stability and continuity of the RIPE NCC.
Accommodating this, and the comments and wishes we got from you, are the the two main goals in proposing the two options that you will be asked to choose between.
We encourage you to continue to discuss the charging scheme options on the list, and we look forward to exploring them in more detail at the General Meeting on 22 May.
Kind regards,
Christian Kaufmann RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman
-- Best regards
Taras Heichenko tasic@hostmaster.ua
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/piotr%40karwos.hk
-- Best regards Taras Heichenko tasic@hostmaster.ua
* Taras Heichenko <tasic@hostmaster.ua> [2019-05-03 14:44]:
Hello all.
I am ready that my point of view may be very unpopular but I need to express it. So from my point of view the model that board suggests to us does not correspond to the current situation. Is in RIPE community anybody who does not know that it is possible to buy IPv4 addresses? Do you really think that so many LIR we have only because they all want to make internet business? How many LIRs will stay tomorrow if there are only IPv6 addresses in internet? (And what RIPE NCC will get in its budget?) It looks like as physicists use wrong theory to make some scientific research. They think that thunder is from the god's chariot and pay no attention to lightnings. We do the same. Instead of making the model that corresponds to the current state we begin to devise some unexplainable rules. Why should we pay for object (independently of its size)? Because RIPE NCC does not pay taxes and does not want to pay them. But may be taxes are less evil than trying to find god's chariot? May be we really should try to sell IPv4, try to give IPv6 for free, try to make all conditions to transition to IPv6 and leave IPv4 behind as soon as possible? And then we will make new rules for the IPv6 only internet. Then. Or will we again try to insert the circle in the square?
I'm sorry but analogies translate really badly between languages. I'm not really sure about the point you want to make. The rules are simply explained: Option A) Keep everything as it is. One LIR - one price. Option B) Objects that "cost" the NCC in terms of administrative burden are accounted for. That is not unexplainable, it seems pretty straight forward. Some members wanted an option and the board presented an option that does not endanger the non-for-profit status of the RIPE NCC. The NCC is a member organisation. It does not make profit. That is a good thing. The NCC was there waaay before all the IPv4-grabby LIRs turned up and I predict it will be there waaay after these LIRs have vanished again. The IPv4 pool will run out soon and after that there simply will be nothing to grab. In hindsight I wish we had just given out everything without reserving something for newcomers. I don't think it had the intended effect. I just want to state that there are LIRs (like us) that support the boards decision. Also I hope (and suspect) most LIRs will choose option A. Regards Sebastian
On May 3, 2019, at 16:19, Sebastian Wiesinger <sebastian.wiesinger@noris.net> wrote:
* Taras Heichenko <tasic@hostmaster.ua> [2019-05-03 14:44]:
Hello all.
I am ready that my point of view may be very unpopular but I need to express it. So from my point of view the model that board suggests to us does not correspond to the current situation. Is in RIPE community anybody who does not know that it is possible to buy IPv4 addresses? Do you really think that so many LIR we have only because they all want to make internet business? How many LIRs will stay tomorrow if there are only IPv6 addresses in internet? (And what RIPE NCC will get in its budget?) It looks like as physicists use wrong theory to make some scientific research. They think that thunder is from the god's chariot and pay no attention to lightnings. We do the same. Instead of making the model that corresponds to the current state we begin to devise some unexplainable rules. Why should we pay for object (independently of its size)? Because RIPE NCC does not pay taxes and does not want to pay them. But may be taxes are less evil than trying to find god's chariot? May be we really should try to sell IPv4, try to give IPv6 for free, try to make all conditions to transition to IPv6 and leave IPv4 behind as soon as possible? And then we will make new rules for the IPv6 only internet. Then. Or will we again try to insert the circle in the square?
I'm sorry but analogies translate really badly between languages. I'm not really sure about the point you want to make.
The rules are simply explained:
Option A) Keep everything as it is. One LIR - one price.
Option B) Objects that "cost" the NCC in terms of administrative burden are accounted for.
That is not unexplainable, it seems pretty straight forward.
Rules are pretty straight forward. But they do not correspond to real life. In real life people pay for the IP (moreover IPv4).
Some members wanted an option and the board presented an option that does not endanger the non-for-profit status of the RIPE NCC.
The NCC is a member organisation. It does not make profit. That is a good thing.
But NCC gives IP addresses which are really valuable in the community. I do not suggest that RIPE NCC should make profit. But people pay for IP's and NCC says that people pay for status. Really?
The NCC was there waaay before all the IPv4-grabby LIRs turned up and I predict it will be there waaay after these LIRs have vanished again.
I hope. But look at amount of LIRs with connection to PI prohibition and exhaustion of IPv4. https://labs.ripe.net/statistics/number-of-lirs
The IPv4 pool will run out soon and after that there simply will be nothing to grab. In hindsight I wish we had just given out everything without reserving something for newcomers. I don't think it had the intended effect.
And then amount of LIRs will go down.
I just want to state that there are LIRs (like us) that support the boards decision. Also I hope (and suspect) most LIRs will choose option A.
As for me the A option is preferred from two given option. I must to say that I have not ready model to offer but I dislike both options.
Regards
Sebastian
_______________________________________________ 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/tasic%40hostmaster.ua
-- Best regards Taras Heichenko tasic@hostmaster.ua
participants (26)
-
Aleksey Bulgakov -
Alexandru Doszlop -
Alexis Hanicotte -
Arnaud BRAND -
Azer Karyagdy -
Cedric R -
Christian Kaufmann -
Cynthia Revström -
Floris Bos -
Francesco Cristofori -
Gert Doering -
Hank Nussbacher -
ivaylo -
Jens Ott - Opteamax GmbH -
Jon Morby -
Martin Millnert -
Matej Šerc -
Nico Schottelius -
Piotr Karwowski -
Radu-Adrian Feurdean -
REG ID: pl.skonet -
Sander Steffann -
Sebastian Malek -
Sebastian Wiesinger -
Stuart Willet -
Taras Heichenko