Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
Hi, Very politely put I do not think any of the three proposed charging schemes are in the membership's interest - they certainly aren't in mine. All three seem to be designed to assure that NCC can continue along, business as usual, with its tasks. Thus, we could pretend that there isn't a big issue with the membership numbers declining. We could also pretend there isn't a real problem with the value proposition of the services. Furthermore, we could also pretend that we do not care that it all is conveniently funded by the membership. I mean, what is 1500 or 1900 euro to most people? I have heard the last several times in the past. After all, why should we care about the expenditure when the sums are so small for each LIR? Why should we care when it is not our own money? I'll tell you. Not caring about the transaction size is bad, if you are willing to let these kinds of sums slide, you'll let it slide on bigger amounts. As is treating other people's money (OPM) differently than if it were your own. These eventually lead to lack of accountability. What is being proposed is really a significant increase in membership fees. In particular, significantly above what it used to cost on average to produce services for each member (whether they use them or not). Note when I say what it used to cost, as in FY2024 the cost per LIR will be higher. Now, with the membership in further decline the average cost per member will once more be higher in FY2025. Next year, I forecast that we will have the same "discussion" for FY2026 as NCC comes around and asks for more money. Once again. Why? Because according to projections the amount of members will continue to decrease resulting in higher fees per organization. Once again. All in the advantageous name of the articles of association that allow pretty much anything. Following the above rational thought with another is, that what one should be doing is choosing what to either invoice separately or drop completely. Yes, really. Everyone is happy with free services, it is when you apply the money test - request someone to pay for something - when you see if what you create contains value. Considering NCC managed to "save" 5% in the FY2024 budget compared to FY2023, asking for 8.1% increase (4% annualized) the next year is, well, kind of cheeky. It restores the budget pretty much to what it would have been with two annual increases. As an exercise in budgetary engineering I do approve. As a paying member I do not. What really would be needed is competition. Competition would make the RIR market more efficient. It is rather obvious that the RIR markets aren't anywhere near the efficiency they could be at. Competition would mean that people wanting to pay 1900 - or even more in the future - could choose to do so and those who don't want could potentially pay less. Reduced to the very basics one is paying for bits in a database. In that sense this is rather similar to the certificate market where at one time the cost per certificate was sky high and there were only a few issuers. Today, I am guessing most do not pay thousands annually for a few bits in theirs. Neither do most people care whether the cert was issued by Verisign, Gandi or someone else. Having looked into it out of curiosity, real competition does not seem to be possible as the principles in ICP-2 pretty much state that there can/should only be one RIR per region. Which makes NCC the definition of a monopoly. Monopolies with nice and polite people, well intended purpose and mission creep are not good, they're bad. For everyone. Finally, the surplus. The concept itself is interesting and I do know where it comes from. But from an financial point of view it is really lending money to someone else and then (maybe) getting it back, a year later, less inflation if they did not spend it. I would kindly request that the EB would add option D or "Option D: No Changes from 2023". :) Kaj Kaj ________________________________ From: ncc-announce <ncc-announce-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Simon-Jan Haytink <simonjh@ripe.net> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 12:18 To: ncc-announce@ripe.net <ncc-announce@ripe.net> Subject: [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals You don't often get email from simonjh@ripe.net. Learn why this is important<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification> Dear RIPE NCC members, We can now share three draft charging scheme models for 2025 that the Executive Board approved with the following resolution at its meeting on 25 March 2024: The RIPE NCC Executive Board approves the submission of the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 options to the upcoming RIPE NCC General Meeting for members to vote on. - Option A - Charging Scheme as is with 22.58% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,900) and a 0% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 50) - Option B - Charging Scheme as is with 20.97% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,875) and a 50% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 75) - Option C - Charging Scheme as is with 16.13% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,800), a 50% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 75) and a new AS Numbers fee of EUR 50 per assignment *Resources falling under this charge are IPv4 and IPv6 PI assignments; Anycast assignments; IPv4 and IPv6 IXP assignments; and Legacy IPv4 resource registrations through a sponsoring LIR. The full draft charging scheme models are available from the GM Documentation page: https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2024/documentation-... Although the proposed models are relatively simple, we provide a calculator where you can see exactly what you would pay under each of the proposed models: https://www.ripe.net/documents/3757/CS2025_Member_Calculator.xlsx The main considerations for the Executive Board in proposing these three models are: 1. The consolidation of LIR accounts, which means the burden to generate sufficient income must be met by fewer accounts 2. Increased costs due to inflation that were previously catered for by the large number of LIR accounts 3. Following the discussions last year and again this year, there appears to be no clear consensus among members on how a category-based model would work and the Board does not wish to put another category model forward at the upcoming GM that will be rejected by the members. Rather, the Board will propose a simple model that guarantees adequate funding for 2025 and 2026 - under this proposal, we expect there would be no need for a fee increase for 2026. The Board will work with the RIPE NCC on a more in-depth consultation with the members aimed at arriving at a sustainable solution for 2027 and beyond, possibly involving a new charging scheme task force. All three proposed models are designed to arrive at the same income of EUR 41.1 million for the RIPE NCC in 2025. This will cover all current services and activities, a 5% staff cost increase, a 2% inflation increase on all non-staff costs, and EUR 1 million for additional work relating to registry complexity and security projects aimed at ensuring the resilience of the Registry and the RIPE NCC more broadly. Any such additional work would be discussed with the membership during Activity Plan and Budget consultations and then need to be approved by the Board. This will also allow some leeway should more LIR accounts close than we expect. It’s important to note that the RIPE NCC aims for an income budget that will provide a surplus, and this means that should we meet our budgetary targets, a surplus can be returned to members in 2026 should they so wish. While the RIPE NCC continues to carry out cost-cutting efforts across the organisation, drastically reducing the budget at this time is not advisable due to the work that needs to be carried out, especially in relation to maintaining high-quality registry services and securing the registry and RIPE NCC systems. Cutting services or activities is not something the Board is planning to do, and such actions would take time and need full consultation with the membership. An overview of the activities and services that the membership fee covers is provided below this email. I also urge you to see the presentation we delivered at the charging scheme open house in March so that the full context of the situation and the financial landscape we face is clear to you. The slides are available at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/open-house/ripe-ncc-charging-scheme... Finally, I want to thank all those who have contributed to the consultation so far on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025. The models we present here are draft and in two weeks we will announce the final proposal that members will vote on at the GM on 22-24 May. Please discuss the draft proposal on the members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> list - any input received by 19 April can be incorporated if possible into the final models we propose. And make sure to register for the GM so that you can vote on the charging scheme that will apply for you and all members next year: https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active Simon-Jan Haytink Chief Financial Officer RIPE NCC Services and Activities Covered by the Member Fee - A trusted, efficient, accurate and resilient registry that guarantees uniqueness of resources held by members - Neutral information services uninfluenced by commercial or government interests that allow both the RIPE NCC and the community to carry out useful research into the Internet - Engagement activities, including RIPE and regional meetings, that build an active membership and community and that contribute to the overall good of the Internet - A voice and influence for the membership in key decision-making fora, including with governments and regulators - Protection of the Joint Internet Number Registry as developed by the Internet community - Learning and development activities that help to address skills shortages and contribute to an educated membership - Support for the Policy Development Process (PDP) - An authoritative registry of routing information provided by RPKI and the RIPE Database - K-root and DNS services - A dedicated staff with considerable expertise contributing to all of the above
Dear RIPE member, Kaj Niemi is absolutely right: RIPE increasing its budget does not serve the interests of its members, and allowing it to pass because you are spending other people's money is a sign of bad judgement and lack of accountability. For years, I was wondering why RIPE was handing out /22 blocks at what was effectively a fraction of the market price. I think we have the answer now: Membership fees and diluted voting power of each member served the interests of the management just fine. RIPE is a mandatory phonebook for IP addresses, nothing more and nothing less. All the fat that has grown on the organisation in the last decade must be trimmed, and I call for a drastic budget reduction - if some members are willing to spend their own money on additional services, they should be free to do so, but with absolute emphasis on this part: their own money.
From a fairness perspective, RIPE should be granted the necessary funds to run the database service, meaning:
- A base fee to keep the database service running, shared equally by all members - Fees on actions that require manual work from the RIPE NCC (e.g. transfers, mergers etc) Forget about levying higher taxes on larger members - RIPE is not a tax collector and doesn't exist to offset differences in wealth. It exists to deliver a necessary service, and each member should pay according to the burden they place on the organisation. How much should we pay for a database service? In the ideal world, there should be no monopoly on the service and we could let the market forces decide what the right price is. I realize that might not be feasible right now, so we are stuck with the next best solution: Letting the community figure out what the acceptable price is - I guess most RIPE members run some sort of database service of their own and therefore possess a profound understanding of the associated costs. Until we have better data, I suggest we look at the past for inspiration: Use the budget for 2014 (€ 22 millions) and adjust for inflation - that amounts to approximately € 28 millions. To get there we can slash External Engagement & Community (€ 9,4 millions in the 2024 budget) - RIPE is a monopoly, and the members will be there regardless of the activities in that area. I also suggest that we take a look at the expenses associated with the Office of the Managing Director (€ 2,2 millions in the 2024 budget) - after all, RIPE is an organisation with less than 200 employees. I call for members of the community to contribute: What is the right amount of staffing in the RIPE NCC? Regards, Yoel Caspersen CTO Kviknet.dk ApS On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 3:12 PM Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> wrote:
Hi,
Very politely put I do not think any of the three proposed charging schemes are in the membership's interest - they certainly aren't in mine.
All three seem to be designed to assure that NCC can continue along, business as usual, with its tasks. Thus, we could pretend that there isn't a big issue with the membership numbers declining. We could also pretend there isn't a real problem with the value proposition of the services. Furthermore, we could also pretend that we do not care that it all is conveniently funded by the membership. I mean, what is 1500 or 1900 euro to most people? I have heard the last several times in the past. After all, why should we care about the expenditure when the sums are so small for each LIR? Why should we care when it is not our own money? I'll tell you. Not caring about the transaction size is bad, if you are willing to let these kinds of sums slide, you'll let it slide on bigger amounts. As is treating other people's money (OPM) differently than if it were your own. These eventually lead to lack of accountability.
What is being proposed is really a significant increase in membership fees. In particular, significantly above what it used to cost on average to produce services for each member (whether they use them or not). Note when I say what it used to cost, as in FY2024 the cost per LIR will be higher.
Now, with the membership in further decline the average cost per member will once more be higher in FY2025. Next year, I forecast that we will have the same "discussion" for FY2026 as NCC comes around and asks for more money. Once again. Why? Because according to projections the amount of members will continue to decrease resulting in higher fees per organization. Once again. All in the advantageous name of the articles of association that allow pretty much anything.
Following the above rational thought with another is, that what one should be doing is choosing what to either invoice separately or drop completely. Yes, really. Everyone is happy with free services, it is when you apply the money test - request someone to pay for something - when you see if what you create contains value.
Considering NCC managed to "save" 5% in the FY2024 budget compared to FY2023, asking for 8.1% increase (4% annualized) the next year is, well, kind of cheeky. It restores the budget pretty much to what it would have been with two annual increases. As an exercise in budgetary engineering I do approve. As a paying member I do not.
What really would be needed is competition. Competition would make the RIR market more efficient. It is rather obvious that the RIR markets aren't anywhere near the efficiency they could be at. Competition would mean that people wanting to pay 1900 - or even more in the future - could choose to do so and those who don't want could potentially pay less. Reduced to the very basics one is paying for bits in a database. In that sense this is rather similar to the certificate market where at one time the cost per certificate was sky high and there were only a few issuers. Today, I am guessing most do not pay thousands annually for a few bits in theirs. Neither do most people care whether the cert was issued by Verisign, Gandi or someone else. Having looked into it out of curiosity, real competition does not seem to be possible as the principles in ICP-2 pretty much state that there can/should only be one RIR per region. Which makes NCC the definition of a monopoly. Monopolies with nice and polite people, well intended purpose and mission creep are not good, they're bad. For everyone.
Finally, the surplus. The concept itself is interesting and I do know where it comes from. But from an financial point of view it is really lending money to someone else and then (maybe) getting it back, a year later, less inflation if they did not spend it.
I would kindly request that the EB would add option D or "Option D: No Changes from 2023". :)
Kaj
Kaj ------------------------------ *From:* ncc-announce <ncc-announce-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Simon-Jan Haytink <simonjh@ripe.net> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 10, 2024 12:18 *To:* ncc-announce@ripe.net <ncc-announce@ripe.net> *Subject:* [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
You don't often get email from simonjh@ripe.net. Learn why this is important <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>
Dear RIPE NCC members,
We can now share three draft charging scheme models for 2025 that the Executive Board approved with the following resolution at its meeting on 25 March 2024:
The RIPE NCC Executive Board approves the submission of the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 options to the upcoming RIPE NCC General Meeting for members to vote on.
- Option A - Charging Scheme as is with 22.58% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,900) and a 0% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 50)
- Option B - Charging Scheme as is with 20.97% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,875) and a 50% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 75)
- Option C - Charging Scheme as is with 16.13% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,800), a 50% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 75) and a new AS Numbers fee of EUR 50 per assignment
*Resources falling under this charge are IPv4 and IPv6 PI assignments; Anycast assignments; IPv4 and IPv6 IXP assignments; and Legacy IPv4 resource registrations through a sponsoring LIR.
The full draft charging scheme models are available from the GM Documentation page:
https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2024/documentation-...
Although the proposed models are relatively simple, we provide a calculator where you can see exactly what you would pay under each of the proposed models:
https://www.ripe.net/documents/3757/CS2025_Member_Calculator.xlsx
The main considerations for the Executive Board in proposing these three models are:
1. The consolidation of LIR accounts, which means the burden to generate sufficient income must be met by fewer accounts
2. Increased costs due to inflation that were previously catered for by the large number of LIR accounts
3. Following the discussions last year and again this year, there appears to be no clear consensus among members on how a category-based model would work and the Board does not wish to put another category model forward at the upcoming GM that will be rejected by the members. Rather, the Board will propose a simple model that guarantees adequate funding for 2025 and 2026 - under this proposal, we expect there would be no need for a fee increase for 2026. The Board will work with the RIPE NCC on a more in-depth consultation with the members aimed at arriving at a sustainable solution for 2027 and beyond, possibly involving a new charging scheme task force.
All three proposed models are designed to arrive at the same income of EUR 41.1 million for the RIPE NCC in 2025. This will cover all current services and activities, a 5% staff cost increase, a 2% inflation increase on all non-staff costs, and EUR 1 million for additional work relating to registry complexity and security projects aimed at ensuring the resilience of the Registry and the RIPE NCC more broadly. Any such additional work would be discussed with the membership during Activity Plan and Budget consultations and then need to be approved by the Board. This will also allow some leeway should more LIR accounts close than we expect.
It’s important to note that the RIPE NCC aims for an income budget that will provide a surplus, and this means that should we meet our budgetary targets, a surplus can be returned to members in 2026 should they so wish.
While the RIPE NCC continues to carry out cost-cutting efforts across the organisation, drastically reducing the budget at this time is not advisable due to the work that needs to be carried out, especially in relation to maintaining high-quality registry services and securing the registry and RIPE NCC systems. Cutting services or activities is not something the Board is planning to do, and such actions would take time and need full consultation with the membership. An overview of the activities and services that the membership fee covers is provided below this email.
I also urge you to see the presentation we delivered at the charging scheme open house in March so that the full context of the situation and the financial landscape we face is clear to you. The slides are available at:
https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/open-house/ripe-ncc-charging-scheme...
Finally, I want to thank all those who have contributed to the consultation so far on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025. The models we present here are draft and in two weeks we will announce the final proposal that members will vote on at the GM on 22-24 May. Please discuss the draft proposal on the members-discuss@ripe.net list - any input received by 19 April can be incorporated if possible into the final models we propose. And make sure to register for the GM so that you can vote on the charging scheme that will apply for you and all members next year:
https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active
Simon-Jan Haytink
Chief Financial Officer
RIPE NCC
Services and Activities Covered by the Member Fee
- A trusted, efficient, accurate and resilient registry that guarantees uniqueness of resources held by members
- Neutral information services uninfluenced by commercial or government interests that allow both the RIPE NCC and the community to carry out useful research into the Internet
- Engagement activities, including RIPE and regional meetings, that build an active membership and community and that contribute to the overall good of the Internet
- A voice and influence for the membership in key decision-making fora, including with governments and regulators
- Protection of the Joint Internet Number Registry as developed by the Internet community
- Learning and development activities that help to address skills shortages and contribute to an educated membership
- Support for the Policy Development Process (PDP)
- An authoritative registry of routing information provided by RPKI and the RIPE Database
- K-root and DNS services
- A dedicated staff with considerable expertise contributing to all of the above _______________________________________________ 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/yoel%40kviknet.dk
Hi, Yoel is absolutely right. A few years ago the financial situation was not looking good but the "last /8 policy" made a huge difference. The "handing out /22 blocks" was like printing new money - for a while. As the number of members whent sky rocket, RIPE could lower membership fees at the same time as an ever expanding budget. But now we are seeing what everyone could have predicted - the number of members are declining and the NCC keeps calling for more money. No, this is not reasonable. In tough times everyone has to try to make ends meet. The NCC should be no exception. For years only a few persistent voices have been trying to call for cuts or cost control as an alternative to eternal growth. What happened last year should have been a clear signal but instead the voting is now rigged with more or less equal outcomes. Regards, Daniel Stolpe On Thu, 11 Apr 2024, Yoel Caspersen via members-discuss wrote:
Dear RIPE member,
Kaj Niemi is absolutely right: RIPE increasing its budget does not serve the interests of its members, and allowing it to pass because you are spending other people's money is a sign of bad judgement and lack of accountability.
For years, I was wondering why RIPE was handing out /22 blocks at what was effectively a fraction of the market price. I think we have the answer now: Membership fees and diluted voting power of each member served the interests of the management just fine.
RIPE is a mandatory phonebook for IP addresses, nothing more and nothing less. All the fat that has grown on the organisation in the last decade must be trimmed, and I call for a drastic budget reduction - if some members are willing to spend their own money on additional services, they should be free to do so, but with absolute emphasis on this part: their own money.
From a fairness perspective, RIPE should be granted the necessary funds to run the database service, meaning:
- A base fee to keep the database service running, shared equally by all members - Fees on actions that require manual work from the RIPE NCC (e.g. transfers, mergers etc)
Forget about levying higher taxes on larger members - RIPE is not a tax collector and doesn't exist to offset differences in wealth. It exists to deliver a necessary service, and each member should pay according to the burden they place on the organisation.
How much should we pay for a database service? In the ideal world, there should be no monopoly on the service and we could let the market forces decide what the right price is.
I realize that might not be feasible right now, so we are stuck with the next best solution: Letting the community figure out what the acceptable price is - I guess most RIPE members run some sort of database service of their own and therefore possess a profound understanding of the associated costs.
Until we have better data, I suggest we look at the past for inspiration: Use the budget for 2014 (€ 22 millions) and adjust for inflation - that amounts to approximately € 28 millions.
To get there we can slash External Engagement & Community (€ 9,4 millions in the 2024 budget) - RIPE is a monopoly, and the members will be there regardless of the activities in that area.
I also suggest that we take a look at the expenses associated with the Office of the Managing Director (€ 2,2 millions in the 2024 budget) - after all, RIPE is an organisation with less than 200 employees.
I call for members of the community to contribute: What is the right amount of staffing in the RIPE NCC?
Regards,
Yoel Caspersen CTO Kviknet.dk ApS
On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 3:12 PM Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> wrote: Hi,
Very politely put I do not think any of the three proposed charging schemes are in the membership's interest - they certainly aren't in mine.
All three seem to be designed to assure that NCC can continue along, business as usual, with its tasks. Thus, we could pretend that there isn't a big issue with the membership numbers declining. We could also pretend there isn't a real problem with the value proposition of the services. Furthermore, we could also pretend that we do not care that it all is conveniently funded by the membership. I mean, what is 1500 or 1900 euro to most people? I have heard the last several times in the past. After all, why should we care about the expenditure when the sums are so small for each LIR? Why should we care when it is not our own money? I'll tell you. Not caring about the transaction size is bad, if you are willing to let these kinds of sums slide, you'll let it slide on bigger amounts. As is treating other people's money (OPM) differently than if it were your own. These eventually lead to lack of accountability.
What is being proposed is really a significant increase in membership fees. In particular, significantly above what it used to cost on average to produce services for each member (whether they use them or not). Note when I say what it used to cost, as in FY2024 the cost per LIR will be higher.
Now, with the membership in further decline the average cost per member will once more be higher in FY2025. Next year, I forecast that we will have the same "discussion" for FY2026 as NCC comes around and asks for more money. Once again. Why? Because according to projections the amount of members will continue to decrease resulting in higher fees per organization. Once again. All in the advantageous name of the articles of association that allow pretty much anything.
Following the above rational thought with another is, that what one should be doing is choosing what to either invoice separately or drop completely. Yes, really. Everyone is happy with free services, it is when you apply the money test - request someone to pay for something - when you see if what you create contains value.
Considering NCC managed to "save" 5% in the FY2024 budget compared to FY2023, asking for 8.1% increase (4% annualized) the next year is, well, kind of cheeky. It restores the budget pretty much to what it would have been with two annual increases. As an exercise in budgetary engineering I do approve. As a paying member I do not.
What really would be needed is competition. Competition would make the RIR market more efficient. It is rather obvious that the RIR markets aren't anywhere near the efficiency they could be at. Competition would mean that people wanting to pay 1900 - or even more in the future - could choose to do so and those who don't want could potentially pay less. Reduced to the very basics one is paying for bits in a database. In that sense this is rather similar to the certificate market where at one time the cost per certificate was sky high and there were only a few issuers. Today, I am guessing most do not pay thousands annually for a few bits in theirs. Neither do most people care whether the cert was issued by Verisign, Gandi or someone else. Having looked into it out of curiosity, real competition does not seem to be possible as the principles in ICP-2 pretty much state that there can/should only be one RIR per region. Which makes NCC the definition of a monopoly. Monopolies with nice and polite people, well intended purpose and mission creep are not good, they're bad. For everyone.
Finally, the surplus. The concept itself is interesting and I do know where it comes from. But from an financial point of view it is really lending money to someone else and then (maybe) getting it back, a year later, less inflation if they did not spend it.
I would kindly request that the EB would add option D or "Option D: No Changes from 2023". :)
Kaj
Kaj
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ From: ncc-announce <ncc-announce-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Simon-Jan Haytink <simonjh@ripe.net> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 12:18 To: ncc-announce@ripe.net <ncc-announce@ripe.net> Subject: [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals You don't often get email from simonjh@ripe.net. Learn why this is important
Dear RIPE NCC members,
We can now share three draft charging scheme models for 2025 that the Executive Board approved with the following resolution at its meeting on 25 March 2024:
The RIPE NCC Executive Board approves the submission of the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 options to the upcoming RIPE NCC General Meeting for members to vote on.
- Option A - Charging Scheme as is with 22.58% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,900) and a 0% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 50)
- Option B - Charging Scheme as is with 20.97% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,875) and a 50% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 75)
- Option C - Charging Scheme as is with 16.13% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,800), a 50% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 75) and a new AS Numbers fee of EUR 50 per assignment
*Resources falling under this charge are IPv4 and IPv6 PI assignments; Anycast assignments; IPv4 and IPv6 IXP assignments; and Legacy IPv4 resource registrations through a sponsoring LIR.
The full draft charging scheme models are available from the GM Documentation page: https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2024/documentation-...
Although the proposed models are relatively simple, we provide a calculator where you can see exactly what you would pay under each of the proposed models:
https://www.ripe.net/documents/3757/CS2025_Member_Calculator.xlsx
The main considerations for the Executive Board in proposing these three models are:
1. The consolidation of LIR accounts, which means the burden to generate sufficient income must be met by fewer accounts
2. Increased costs due to inflation that were previously catered for by the large number of LIR accounts
3. Following the discussions last year and again this year, there appears to be no clear consensus among members on how a category-based model would work and the Board does not wish to put another category model forward at the upcoming GM that will be rejected by the members. Rather, the Board will propose a simple model that guarantees adequate funding for 2025 and 2026 - under this proposal, we expect there would be no need for a fee increase for 2026. The Board will work with the RIPE NCC on a more in-depth consultation with the members aimed at arriving at a sustainable solution for 2027 and beyond, possibly involving a new charging scheme task force.
All three proposed models are designed to arrive at the same income of EUR 41.1 million for the RIPE NCC in 2025. This will cover all current services and activities, a 5% staff cost increase, a 2% inflation increase on all non-staff costs, and EUR 1 million for additional work relating to registry complexity and security projects aimed at ensuring the resilience of the Registry and the RIPE NCC more broadly. Any such additional work would be discussed with the membership during Activity Plan and Budget consultations and then need to be approved by the Board. This will also allow some leeway should more LIR accounts close than we expect.
It’s important to note that the RIPE NCC aims for an income budget that will provide a surplus, and this means that should we meet our budgetary targets, a surplus can be returned to members in 2026 should they so wish.
While the RIPE NCC continues to carry out cost-cutting efforts across the organisation, drastically reducing the budget at this time is not advisable due to the work that needs to be carried out, especially in relation to maintaining high-quality registry services and securing the registry and RIPE NCC systems. Cutting services or activities is not something the Board is planning to do, and such actions would take time and need full consultation with the membership. An overview of the activities and services that the membership fee covers is provided below this email.
I also urge you to see the presentation we delivered at the charging scheme open house in March so that the full context of the situation and the financial landscape we face is clear to you. The slides are available at:
https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/open-house/ripe-ncc-charging-scheme...
Finally, I want to thank all those who have contributed to the consultation so far on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025. The models we present here are draft and in two weeks we will announce the final proposal that members will vote on at the GM on 22-24 May. Please discuss the draft proposal on the members-discuss@ripe.net list - any input received by 19 April can be incorporated if possible into the final models we propose. And make sure to register for the GM so that you can vote on the charging scheme that will apply for you and all members next year:
https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active
Simon-Jan Haytink
Chief Financial Officer
RIPE NCC
Services and Activities Covered by the Member Fee
- A trusted, efficient, accurate and resilient registry that guarantees uniqueness of resources held by members
- Neutral information services uninfluenced by commercial or government interests that allow both the RIPE NCC and the community to carry out useful research into the Internet
- Engagement activities, including RIPE and regional meetings, that build an active membership and community and that contribute to the overall good of the Internet
- A voice and influence for the membership in key decision-making fora, including with governments and regulators
- Protection of the Joint Internet Number Registry as developed by the Internet community
- Learning and development activities that help to address skills shortages and contribute to an educated membership
- Support for the Policy Development Process (PDP)
- An authoritative registry of routing information provided by RPKI and the RIPE Database
- K-root and DNS services
- A dedicated staff with considerable expertise contributing to all of the above
_______________________________________________ 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/yoel%40kviknet.dk
_________________________________________________________________________________ Daniel Stolpe Tel: 08 - 688 11 81 stolpe@resilans.se Resilans AB Fax: 08 - 55 00 21 63 http://www.resilans.se/ Box 45 094 556741-1193 104 30 Stockholm _______________________________________________ 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/registry-ripe%40resil...
Its great, but why RIPE trying to make funding from less adquate method? Big members of RIPE region request MORE SERVICE - but why ALL must pay for that? Why RIPE continue to ignoring taking membership fee based on RESOURCES? Currently RIPE depend upon LIR signup fee and year/year LIR fee in most cases - but its very unstable. NOR, RIPE can take fee per IPv4/24 in holding per member and have STABLE SOURCE OF FUNDING! ARIN, APNIC, AFRINIC already a long time do it on successful basis. Why small members of RIPE must pay SAME amount as big members? Are its fair? Guess not. Dont forget about fact - if early LIR guarantee receive /22, after only /24 - then now LIR receive only place in waiting list (like in Communists USSR) and undefined ETA on receive resources! But pay SAME amount as any other. Why RIPE didnt want to change fee based on fact - if LIR didnt have IPv4 in holding - then LIR must pay less, nor LIR who holding 10-100-100 IPv4 blocks? On 11.04.2024 10:46, Daniel Stolpe via members-discuss wrote:
Hi,
Yoel is absolutely right. A few years ago the financial situation was not looking good but the "last /8 policy" made a huge difference. The "handing out /22 blocks" was like printing new money - for a while. As the number of members whent sky rocket, RIPE could lower membership fees at the same time as an ever expanding budget.
But now we are seeing what everyone could have predicted - the number of members are declining and the NCC keeps calling for more money.
No, this is not reasonable. In tough times everyone has to try to make ends meet. The NCC should be no exception. For years only a few persistent voices have been trying to call for cuts or cost control as an alternative to eternal growth. What happened last year should have been a clear signal but instead the voting is now rigged with more or less equal outcomes.
Regards, Daniel Stolpe
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024, Yoel Caspersen via members-discuss wrote:
Dear RIPE member,
Kaj Niemi is absolutely right: RIPE increasing its budget does not serve the interests of its members, and allowing it to pass because you are spending other people's money is a sign of bad judgement and lack of accountability.
For years, I was wondering why RIPE was handing out /22 blocks at what was effectively a fraction of the market price. I think we have the answer now: Membership fees and diluted voting power of each member served the interests of the management just fine.
RIPE is a mandatory phonebook for IP addresses, nothing more and nothing less. All the fat that has grown on the organisation in the last decade must be trimmed, and I call for a drastic budget reduction - if some members are willing to spend their own money on additional services, they should be free to do so, but with absolute emphasis on this part: their own money.
From a fairness perspective, RIPE should be granted the necessary funds to run the database service, meaning:
- A base fee to keep the database service running, shared equally by all members - Fees on actions that require manual work from the RIPE NCC (e.g. transfers, mergers etc)
Forget about levying higher taxes on larger members - RIPE is not a tax collector and doesn't exist to offset differences in wealth. It exists to deliver a necessary service, and each member should pay according to the burden they place on the organisation.
How much should we pay for a database service? In the ideal world, there should be no monopoly on the service and we could let the market forces decide what the right price is.
I realize that might not be feasible right now, so we are stuck with the next best solution: Letting the community figure out what the acceptable price is - I guess most RIPE members run some sort of database service of their own and therefore possess a profound understanding of the associated costs.
Until we have better data, I suggest we look at the past for inspiration: Use the budget for 2014 (€ 22 millions) and adjust for inflation - that amounts to approximately € 28 millions.
To get there we can slash External Engagement & Community (€ 9,4 millions in the 2024 budget) - RIPE is a monopoly, and the members will be there regardless of the activities in that area.
I also suggest that we take a look at the expenses associated with the Office of the Managing Director (€ 2,2 millions in the 2024 budget) - after all, RIPE is an organisation with less than 200 employees.
I call for members of the community to contribute: What is the right amount of staffing in the RIPE NCC?
Regards,
Yoel Caspersen CTO Kviknet.dk ApS
On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 3:12 PM Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> wrote: Hi,
Very politely put I do not think any of the three proposed charging schemes are in the membership's interest - they certainly aren't in mine.
All three seem to be designed to assure that NCC can continue along, business as usual, with its tasks. Thus, we could pretend that there isn't a big issue with the membership numbers declining. We could also pretend there isn't a real problem with the value proposition of the services. Furthermore, we could also pretend that we do not care that it all is conveniently funded by the membership. I mean, what is 1500 or 1900 euro to most people? I have heard the last several times in the past. After all, why should we care about the expenditure when the sums are so small for each LIR? Why should we care when it is not our own money? I'll tell you. Not caring about the transaction size is bad, if you are willing to let these kinds of sums slide, you'll let it slide on bigger amounts. As is treating other people's money (OPM) differently than if it were your own. These eventually lead to lack of accountability.
What is being proposed is really a significant increase in membership fees. In particular, significantly above what it used to cost on average to produce services for each member (whether they use them or not). Note when I say what it used to cost, as in FY2024 the cost per LIR will be higher.
Now, with the membership in further decline the average cost per member will once more be higher in FY2025. Next year, I forecast that we will have the same "discussion" for FY2026 as NCC comes around and asks for more money. Once again. Why? Because according to projections the amount of members will continue to decrease resulting in higher fees per organization. Once again. All in the advantageous name of the articles of association that allow pretty much anything.
Following the above rational thought with another is, that what one should be doing is choosing what to either invoice separately or drop completely. Yes, really. Everyone is happy with free services, it is when you apply the money test - request someone to pay for something - when you see if what you create contains value.
Considering NCC managed to "save" 5% in the FY2024 budget compared to FY2023, asking for 8.1% increase (4% annualized) the next year is, well, kind of cheeky. It restores the budget pretty much to what it would have been with two annual increases. As an exercise in budgetary engineering I do approve. As a paying member I do not.
What really would be needed is competition. Competition would make the RIR market more efficient. It is rather obvious that the RIR markets aren't anywhere near the efficiency they could be at. Competition would mean that people wanting to pay 1900 - or even more in the future - could choose to do so and those who don't want could potentially pay less. Reduced to the very basics one is paying for bits in a database. In that sense this is rather similar to the certificate market where at one time the cost per certificate was sky high and there were only a few issuers. Today, I am guessing most do not pay thousands annually for a few bits in theirs. Neither do most people care whether the cert was issued by Verisign, Gandi or someone else. Having looked into it out of curiosity, real competition does not seem to be possible as the principles in ICP-2 pretty much state that there can/should only be one RIR per region. Which makes NCC the definition of a monopoly. Monopolies with nice and polite people, well intended purpose and mission creep are not good, they're bad. For everyone.
Finally, the surplus. The concept itself is interesting and I do know where it comes from. But from an financial point of view it is really lending money to someone else and then (maybe) getting it back, a year later, less inflation if they did not spend it.
I would kindly request that the EB would add option D or "Option D: No Changes from 2023". :)
Kaj
Kaj
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
From: ncc-announce <ncc-announce-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Simon-Jan Haytink <simonjh@ripe.net> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 12:18 To: ncc-announce@ripe.net <ncc-announce@ripe.net> Subject: [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals You don't often get email from simonjh@ripe.net. Learn why this is important
Dear RIPE NCC members,
We can now share three draft charging scheme models for 2025 that the Executive Board approved with the following resolution at its meeting on 25 March 2024:
The RIPE NCC Executive Board approves the submission of the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 options to the upcoming RIPE NCC General Meeting for members to vote on.
- Option A - Charging Scheme as is with 22.58% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,900) and a 0% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 50)
- Option B - Charging Scheme as is with 20.97% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,875) and a 50% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 75)
- Option C - Charging Scheme as is with 16.13% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,800), a 50% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 75) and a new AS Numbers fee of EUR 50 per assignment
*Resources falling under this charge are IPv4 and IPv6 PI assignments; Anycast assignments; IPv4 and IPv6 IXP assignments; and Legacy IPv4 resource registrations through a sponsoring LIR.
The full draft charging scheme models are available from the GM Documentation page: https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2024/documentation-...
Although the proposed models are relatively simple, we provide a calculator where you can see exactly what you would pay under each of the proposed models:
https://www.ripe.net/documents/3757/CS2025_Member_Calculator.xlsx
The main considerations for the Executive Board in proposing these three models are:
1. The consolidation of LIR accounts, which means the burden to generate sufficient income must be met by fewer accounts
2. Increased costs due to inflation that were previously catered for by the large number of LIR accounts
3. Following the discussions last year and again this year, there appears to be no clear consensus among members on how a category-based model would work and the Board does not wish to put another category model forward at the upcoming GM that will be rejected by the members. Rather, the Board will propose a simple model that guarantees adequate funding for 2025 and 2026 - under this proposal, we expect there would be no need for a fee increase for 2026. The Board will work with the RIPE NCC on a more in-depth consultation with the members aimed at arriving at a sustainable solution for 2027 and beyond, possibly involving a new charging scheme task force.
All three proposed models are designed to arrive at the same income of EUR 41.1 million for the RIPE NCC in 2025. This will cover all current services and activities, a 5% staff cost increase, a 2% inflation increase on all non-staff costs, and EUR 1 million for additional work relating to registry complexity and security projects aimed at ensuring the resilience of the Registry and the RIPE NCC more broadly. Any such additional work would be discussed with the membership during Activity Plan and Budget consultations and then need to be approved by the Board. This will also allow some leeway should more LIR accounts close than we expect.
It’s important to note that the RIPE NCC aims for an income budget that will provide a surplus, and this means that should we meet our budgetary targets, a surplus can be returned to members in 2026 should they so wish.
While the RIPE NCC continues to carry out cost-cutting efforts across the organisation, drastically reducing the budget at this time is not advisable due to the work that needs to be carried out, especially in relation to maintaining high-quality registry services and securing the registry and RIPE NCC systems. Cutting services or activities is not something the Board is planning to do, and such actions would take time and need full consultation with the membership. An overview of the activities and services that the membership fee covers is provided below this email.
I also urge you to see the presentation we delivered at the charging scheme open house in March so that the full context of the situation and the financial landscape we face is clear to you. The slides are available at:
https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/open-house/ripe-ncc-charging-scheme...
Finally, I want to thank all those who have contributed to the consultation so far on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025. The models we present here are draft and in two weeks we will announce the final proposal that members will vote on at the GM on 22-24 May. Please discuss the draft proposal on the members-discuss@ripe.net list - any input received by 19 April can be incorporated if possible into the final models we propose. And make sure to register for the GM so that you can vote on the charging scheme that will apply for you and all members next year:
https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active
Simon-Jan Haytink
Chief Financial Officer
RIPE NCC
Services and Activities Covered by the Member Fee
- A trusted, efficient, accurate and resilient registry that guarantees uniqueness of resources held by members
- Neutral information services uninfluenced by commercial or government interests that allow both the RIPE NCC and the community to carry out useful research into the Internet
- Engagement activities, including RIPE and regional meetings, that build an active membership and community and that contribute to the overall good of the Internet
- A voice and influence for the membership in key decision-making fora, including with governments and regulators
- Protection of the Joint Internet Number Registry as developed by the Internet community
- Learning and development activities that help to address skills shortages and contribute to an educated membership
- Support for the Policy Development Process (PDP)
- An authoritative registry of routing information provided by RPKI and the RIPE Database
- K-root and DNS services
- A dedicated staff with considerable expertise contributing to all of the above
_______________________________________________ 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/yoel%40kviknet.dk
_________________________________________________________________________________
Daniel Stolpe Tel: 08 - 688 11 81 stolpe@resilans.se Resilans AB Fax: 08 - 55 00 21 63 http://www.resilans.se/ Box 45 094 556741-1193 104 30 Stockholm
_______________________________________________ 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/registry-ripe%40resil...
_______________________________________________ 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/admin%40roskomnadzor....
Confidential/Конфіденційно Hi, Not at all. More RESOURCES in hands of some LIR doesn’t mean consuming MORE SERVICES. If you want to bill somebody based on consuming SERVICES it would be logical to count consuming SERVICES, not RESOURCES. But who cares about logic if goal to force somebody else to pay... even if some particular BIG LIR doesn't use majority of this SERVICES. -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2024 2:06 PM To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals [Вы нечасто получаете письма от admin@roskomnadzor.io. Узнайте, почему это важно, по адресу https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Its great, but why RIPE trying to make funding from less adquate method? Big members of RIPE region request MORE SERVICE - but why ALL must pay for that? Why RIPE continue to ignoring taking membership fee based on RESOURCES? Currently RIPE depend upon LIR signup fee and year/year LIR fee in most cases - but its very unstable. NOR, RIPE can take fee per IPv4/24 in holding per member and have STABLE SOURCE OF FUNDING! ARIN, APNIC, AFRINIC already a long time do it on successful basis. Why small members of RIPE must pay SAME amount as big members? Are its fair? Guess not. Dont forget about fact - if early LIR guarantee receive /22, after only /24 - then now LIR receive only place in waiting list (like in Communists USSR) and undefined ETA on receive resources! But pay SAME amount as any other. Why RIPE didnt want to change fee based on fact - if LIR didnt have IPv4 in holding - then LIR must pay less, nor LIR who holding 10-100-100 IPv4 blocks? On 11.04.2024 10:46, Daniel Stolpe via members-discuss wrote:
Hi,
Yoel is absolutely right. A few years ago the financial situation was not looking good but the "last /8 policy" made a huge difference. The "handing out /22 blocks" was like printing new money - for a while. As the number of members whent sky rocket, RIPE could lower membership fees at the same time as an ever expanding budget.
But now we are seeing what everyone could have predicted - the number of members are declining and the NCC keeps calling for more money.
No, this is not reasonable. In tough times everyone has to try to make ends meet. The NCC should be no exception. For years only a few persistent voices have been trying to call for cuts or cost control as an alternative to eternal growth. What happened last year should have been a clear signal but instead the voting is now rigged with more or less equal outcomes.
Regards, Daniel Stolpe
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024, Yoel Caspersen via members-discuss wrote:
Dear RIPE member,
Kaj Niemi is absolutely right: RIPE increasing its budget does not serve the interests of its members, and allowing it to pass because you are spending other people's money is a sign of bad judgement and lack of accountability.
For years, I was wondering why RIPE was handing out /22 blocks at what was effectively a fraction of the market price. I think we have the answer now: Membership fees and diluted voting power of each member served the interests of the management just fine.
RIPE is a mandatory phonebook for IP addresses, nothing more and nothing less. All the fat that has grown on the organisation in the last decade must be trimmed, and I call for a drastic budget reduction - if some members are willing to spend their own money on additional services, they should be free to do so, but with absolute emphasis on this part: their own money.
From a fairness perspective, RIPE should be granted the necessary funds to run the database service, meaning:
- A base fee to keep the database service running, shared equally by all members - Fees on actions that require manual work from the RIPE NCC (e.g. transfers, mergers etc)
Forget about levying higher taxes on larger members - RIPE is not a tax collector and doesn't exist to offset differences in wealth. It exists to deliver a necessary service, and each member should pay according to the burden they place on the organisation.
How much should we pay for a database service? In the ideal world, there should be no monopoly on the service and we could let the market forces decide what the right price is.
I realize that might not be feasible right now, so we are stuck with the next best solution: Letting the community figure out what the acceptable price is - I guess most RIPE members run some sort of database service of their own and therefore possess a profound understanding of the associated costs.
Until we have better data, I suggest we look at the past for inspiration: Use the budget for 2014 (€ 22 millions) and adjust for inflation - that amounts to approximately € 28 millions.
To get there we can slash External Engagement & Community (€ 9,4 millions in the 2024 budget) - RIPE is a monopoly, and the members will be there regardless of the activities in that area.
I also suggest that we take a look at the expenses associated with the Office of the Managing Director (€ 2,2 millions in the 2024 budget) - after all, RIPE is an organisation with less than 200 employees.
I call for members of the community to contribute: What is the right amount of staffing in the RIPE NCC?
Regards,
Yoel Caspersen CTO Kviknet.dk ApS
On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 3:12 PM Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> wrote: Hi,
Very politely put I do not think any of the three proposed charging schemes are in the membership's interest - they certainly aren't in mine.
All three seem to be designed to assure that NCC can continue along, business as usual, with its tasks. Thus, we could pretend that there isn't a big issue with the membership numbers declining. We could also pretend there isn't a real problem with the value proposition of the services. Furthermore, we could also pretend that we do not care that it all is conveniently funded by the membership. I mean, what is 1500 or 1900 euro to most people? I have heard the last several times in the past. After all, why should we care about the expenditure when the sums are so small for each LIR? Why should we care when it is not our own money? I'll tell you. Not caring about the transaction size is bad, if you are willing to let these kinds of sums slide, you'll let it slide on bigger amounts. As is treating other people's money (OPM) differently than if it were your own. These eventually lead to lack of accountability.
What is being proposed is really a significant increase in membership fees. In particular, significantly above what it used to cost on average to produce services for each member (whether they use them or not). Note when I say what it used to cost, as in FY2024 the cost per LIR will be higher.
Now, with the membership in further decline the average cost per member will once more be higher in FY2025. Next year, I forecast that we will have the same "discussion" for FY2026 as NCC comes around and asks for more money. Once again. Why? Because according to projections the amount of members will continue to decrease resulting in higher fees per organization. Once again. All in the advantageous name of the articles of association that allow pretty much anything.
Following the above rational thought with another is, that what one should be doing is choosing what to either invoice separately or drop completely. Yes, really. Everyone is happy with free services, it is when you apply the money test - request someone to pay for something - when you see if what you create contains value.
Considering NCC managed to "save" 5% in the FY2024 budget compared to FY2023, asking for 8.1% increase (4% annualized) the next year is, well, kind of cheeky. It restores the budget pretty much to what it would have been with two annual increases. As an exercise in budgetary engineering I do approve. As a paying member I do not.
What really would be needed is competition. Competition would make the RIR market more efficient. It is rather obvious that the RIR markets aren't anywhere near the efficiency they could be at. Competition would mean that people wanting to pay 1900 - or even more in the future - could choose to do so and those who don't want could potentially pay less. Reduced to the very basics one is paying for bits in a database. In that sense this is rather similar to the certificate market where at one time the cost per certificate was sky high and there were only a few issuers. Today, I am guessing most do not pay thousands annually for a few bits in theirs. Neither do most people care whether the cert was issued by Verisign, Gandi or someone else. Having looked into it out of curiosity, real competition does not seem to be possible as the principles in ICP-2 pretty much state that there can/should only be one RIR per region. Which makes NCC the definition of a monopoly. Monopolies with nice and polite people, well intended purpose and mission creep are not good, they're bad. For everyone.
Finally, the surplus. The concept itself is interesting and I do know where it comes from. But from an financial point of view it is really lending money to someone else and then (maybe) getting it back, a year later, less inflation if they did not spend it.
I would kindly request that the EB would add option D or "Option D: No Changes from 2023". :)
Kaj
Kaj
_____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________
From: ncc-announce <ncc-announce-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Simon-Jan Haytink <simonjh@ripe.net> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 12:18 To: ncc-announce@ripe.net <ncc-announce@ripe.net> Subject: [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals You don't often get email from simonjh@ripe.net. Learn why this is important
Dear RIPE NCC members,
We can now share three draft charging scheme models for 2025 that the Executive Board approved with the following resolution at its meeting on 25 March 2024:
The RIPE NCC Executive Board approves the submission of the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 options to the upcoming RIPE NCC General Meeting for members to vote on.
- Option A - Charging Scheme as is with 22.58% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,900) and a 0% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 50)
- Option B - Charging Scheme as is with 20.97% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,875) and a 50% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 75)
- Option C - Charging Scheme as is with 16.13% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,800), a 50% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 75) and a new AS Numbers fee of EUR 50 per assignment
*Resources falling under this charge are IPv4 and IPv6 PI assignments; Anycast assignments; IPv4 and IPv6 IXP assignments; and Legacy IPv4 resource registrations through a sponsoring LIR.
The full draft charging scheme models are available from the GM Documentation page: https://www/ .ripe.net%2Fmembership%2Fmeetings%2Fgm%2Fmeetings%2Fmay-2024%2Fdocume ntation-and-archives%2Fsupporting-documents%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy .Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd5 73bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004040536%7CUnknown%7CTW FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI 6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=3tUyMKDzZZY69M3vjjDqaKxgBrrQMeI1rnhBImzaex Q%3D&reserved=0
Although the proposed models are relatively simple, we provide a calculator where you can see exactly what you would pay under each of the proposed models:
https://www/ .ripe.net%2Fdocuments%2F3757%2FCS2025_Member_Calculator.xlsx&data=05% 7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18 264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004051566% 7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6I k1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=glTH6W6VCl6MSXrBbsUC8A4K%2FK TE8%2FavtiBwmmokOEY%3D&reserved=0
The main considerations for the Executive Board in proposing these three models are:
1. The consolidation of LIR accounts, which means the burden to generate sufficient income must be met by fewer accounts
2. Increased costs due to inflation that were previously catered for by the large number of LIR accounts
3. Following the discussions last year and again this year, there appears to be no clear consensus among members on how a category-based model would work and the Board does not wish to put another category model forward at the upcoming GM that will be rejected by the members. Rather, the Board will propose a simple model that guarantees adequate funding for 2025 and 2026 - under this proposal, we expect there would be no need for a fee increase for 2026. The Board will work with the RIPE NCC on a more in-depth consultation with the members aimed at arriving at a sustainable solution for 2027 and beyond, possibly involving a new charging scheme task force.
All three proposed models are designed to arrive at the same income of EUR 41.1 million for the RIPE NCC in 2025. This will cover all current services and activities, a 5% staff cost increase, a 2% inflation increase on all non-staff costs, and EUR 1 million for additional work relating to registry complexity and security projects aimed at ensuring the resilience of the Registry and the RIPE NCC more broadly. Any such additional work would be discussed with the membership during Activity Plan and Budget consultations and then need to be approved by the Board. This will also allow some leeway should more LIR accounts close than we expect.
It’s important to note that the RIPE NCC aims for an income budget that will provide a surplus, and this means that should we meet our budgetary targets, a surplus can be returned to members in 2026 should they so wish.
While the RIPE NCC continues to carry out cost-cutting efforts across the organisation, drastically reducing the budget at this time is not advisable due to the work that needs to be carried out, especially in relation to maintaining high-quality registry services and securing the registry and RIPE NCC systems. Cutting services or activities is not something the Board is planning to do, and such actions would take time and need full consultation with the membership. An overview of the activities and services that the membership fee covers is provided below this email.
I also urge you to see the presentation we delivered at the charging scheme open house in March so that the full context of the situation and the financial landscape we face is clear to you. The slides are available at:
https://www/ .ripe.net%2Fmembership%2Fmeetings%2Fopen-house%2Fripe-ncc-charging-sc heme-2025%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d1 7e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0% 7C638484307004057320%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQ IjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5GTeIyn nzxx1WLZ%2BDRoFNWAhaRPvTemPafvKwlIaEEk%3D&reserved=0
Finally, I want to thank all those who have contributed to the consultation so far on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025. The models we present here are draft and in two weeks we will announce the final proposal that members will vote on at the GM on 22-24 May. Please discuss the draft proposal on the members-discuss@ripe.net list - any input received by 19 April can be incorporated if possible into the final models we propose. And make sure to register for the GM so that you can vote on the charging scheme that will apply for you and all members next year:
https://my/. ripe.net%2F%23%2Fmeetings%2Factive&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40 kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6e c3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004063238%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8ey JWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0% 7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2BkYHbjPqA8CwacCNlVg0M%2FVvao%2FK8z1zB8hrEeaLXVg%3D&r eserved=0
Simon-Jan Haytink
Chief Financial Officer
RIPE NCC
Services and Activities Covered by the Member Fee
- A trusted, efficient, accurate and resilient registry that guarantees uniqueness of resources held by members
- Neutral information services uninfluenced by commercial or government interests that allow both the RIPE NCC and the community to carry out useful research into the Internet
- Engagement activities, including RIPE and regional meetings, that build an active membership and community and that contribute to the overall good of the Internet
- A voice and influence for the membership in key decision-making fora, including with governments and regulators
- Protection of the Joint Internet Number Registry as developed by the Internet community
- Learning and development activities that help to address skills shortages and contribute to an educated membership
- Support for the Policy Development Process (PDP)
- An authoritative registry of routing information provided by RPKI and the RIPE Database
- K-root and DNS services
- A dedicated staff with considerable expertise contributing to all of the above
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lis/ ts.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvg eniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f 9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004071908%7CUnknown% 7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJ XVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TSE6bLTaGjEzZzbwPbLL8ZivguLE4ZUOG1YC6W k3HVE%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://lis/ ts.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fyoel%2540kviknet. dk&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d 88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C63848430 7004081513%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMz IiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=h8qgUsC1phTJj9r9T HsO2THM2UZcg6CMMNwff4PP3SA%3D&reserved=0
______________________________________________________________________ ___________
Daniel Stolpe Tel: 08 - 688 11 81 stolpe@resilans.se Resilans AB Fax: 08 - 55 00 21 63 http://www.resilans.se/ Box 45 094 556741-1193 104 30 Stockholm
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvgen iy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd 573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004100103%7CUnknown%7CTW FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6 Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Y5j98PfqxzkN%2B2UYI6E5kDMJLYj1qlHRc64sClcZFa U%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fregistry-ripe%2540r esilans.se&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9 f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C63 8484307004109226%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV 2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2FLi%2BQEHdR thZtiNdR7ETMPAkPAzVevDnMjvq75F3kf8%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvgen iy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd 573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004115782%7CUnknown%7CTW FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6 Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=vY2oba0wvj08c6W4f%2FFaPi6BRvFFLM7AbIf5i84qT6 s%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fadmin%2540roskomnad zor.io&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f542 32d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484 307004121940%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luM zIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=NlQ4MnUaG53yS1eKO %2F2nhgAkG8yzbN7B3c4koumTvKw%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ 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/evgeniy.brodskiy%40ky...
Why LIR who havent resources must pay same amount as LIR who have a lot of resources? RIPE declaring about "community" and about "spending budget must be distributed across all members" - but in practically is not. When RIPE want to take extra fee for ASN - its mean then RIPE want to charge by resources. Then why RIPE dont want to charge due resources for IPv4? Guess big members who hold a lot IPv4 allocations dont want it - because current situation is fine for their point of view. Dont forget - RIPE charget 50 EUR per resource - not matter what is it - /24 or /16. If we are not using all RIPE services - why we must pay for that? Why not any option to select - "Only core services"? On 11.04.2024 11:45, Evgeniy Brodskiy wrote:
Confidential/Конфіденційно
Hi,
Not at all.
More RESOURCES in hands of some LIR doesn’t mean consuming MORE SERVICES. If you want to bill somebody based on consuming SERVICES it would be logical to count consuming SERVICES, not RESOURCES.
But who cares about logic if goal to force somebody else to pay... even if some particular BIG LIR doesn't use majority of this SERVICES.
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2024 2:06 PM To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
[Вы нечасто получаете письма от admin@roskomnadzor.io. Узнайте, почему это важно, по адресу https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
Its great, but why RIPE trying to make funding from less adquate method?
Big members of RIPE region request MORE SERVICE - but why ALL must pay for that?
Why RIPE continue to ignoring taking membership fee based on RESOURCES?
Currently RIPE depend upon LIR signup fee and year/year LIR fee in most cases - but its very unstable.
NOR, RIPE can take fee per IPv4/24 in holding per member and have STABLE SOURCE OF FUNDING!
ARIN, APNIC, AFRINIC already a long time do it on successful basis.
Why small members of RIPE must pay SAME amount as big members? Are its fair? Guess not.
Dont forget about fact - if early LIR guarantee receive /22, after only /24 - then now LIR receive only place in waiting list (like in Communists USSR) and undefined ETA on receive resources! But pay SAME amount as any other.
Why RIPE didnt want to change fee based on fact - if LIR didnt have IPv4 in holding - then LIR must pay less, nor LIR who holding 10-100-100 IPv4 blocks?
On 11.04.2024 10:46, Daniel Stolpe via members-discuss wrote:
Hi,
Yoel is absolutely right. A few years ago the financial situation was not looking good but the "last /8 policy" made a huge difference. The "handing out /22 blocks" was like printing new money - for a while. As the number of members whent sky rocket, RIPE could lower membership fees at the same time as an ever expanding budget.
But now we are seeing what everyone could have predicted - the number of members are declining and the NCC keeps calling for more money.
No, this is not reasonable. In tough times everyone has to try to make ends meet. The NCC should be no exception. For years only a few persistent voices have been trying to call for cuts or cost control as an alternative to eternal growth. What happened last year should have been a clear signal but instead the voting is now rigged with more or less equal outcomes.
Regards, Daniel Stolpe
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024, Yoel Caspersen via members-discuss wrote:
Dear RIPE member,
Kaj Niemi is absolutely right: RIPE increasing its budget does not serve the interests of its members, and allowing it to pass because you are spending other people's money is a sign of bad judgement and lack of accountability.
For years, I was wondering why RIPE was handing out /22 blocks at what was effectively a fraction of the market price. I think we have the answer now: Membership fees and diluted voting power of each member served the interests of the management just fine.
RIPE is a mandatory phonebook for IP addresses, nothing more and nothing less. All the fat that has grown on the organisation in the last decade must be trimmed, and I call for a drastic budget reduction - if some members are willing to spend their own money on additional services, they should be free to do so, but with absolute emphasis on this part: their own money.
From a fairness perspective, RIPE should be granted the necessary funds to run the database service, meaning:
- A base fee to keep the database service running, shared equally by all members - Fees on actions that require manual work from the RIPE NCC (e.g. transfers, mergers etc)
Forget about levying higher taxes on larger members - RIPE is not a tax collector and doesn't exist to offset differences in wealth. It exists to deliver a necessary service, and each member should pay according to the burden they place on the organisation.
How much should we pay for a database service? In the ideal world, there should be no monopoly on the service and we could let the market forces decide what the right price is.
I realize that might not be feasible right now, so we are stuck with the next best solution: Letting the community figure out what the acceptable price is - I guess most RIPE members run some sort of database service of their own and therefore possess a profound understanding of the associated costs.
Until we have better data, I suggest we look at the past for inspiration: Use the budget for 2014 (€ 22 millions) and adjust for inflation - that amounts to approximately € 28 millions.
To get there we can slash External Engagement & Community (€ 9,4 millions in the 2024 budget) - RIPE is a monopoly, and the members will be there regardless of the activities in that area.
I also suggest that we take a look at the expenses associated with the Office of the Managing Director (€ 2,2 millions in the 2024 budget) - after all, RIPE is an organisation with less than 200 employees.
I call for members of the community to contribute: What is the right amount of staffing in the RIPE NCC?
Regards,
Yoel Caspersen CTO Kviknet.dk ApS
On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 3:12 PM Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> wrote: Hi,
Very politely put I do not think any of the three proposed charging schemes are in the membership's interest - they certainly aren't in mine.
All three seem to be designed to assure that NCC can continue along, business as usual, with its tasks. Thus, we could pretend that there isn't a big issue with the membership numbers declining. We could also pretend there isn't a real problem with the value proposition of the services. Furthermore, we could also pretend that we do not care that it all is conveniently funded by the membership. I mean, what is 1500 or 1900 euro to most people? I have heard the last several times in the past. After all, why should we care about the expenditure when the sums are so small for each LIR? Why should we care when it is not our own money? I'll tell you. Not caring about the transaction size is bad, if you are willing to let these kinds of sums slide, you'll let it slide on bigger amounts. As is treating other people's money (OPM) differently than if it were your own. These eventually lead to lack of accountability.
What is being proposed is really a significant increase in membership fees. In particular, significantly above what it used to cost on average to produce services for each member (whether they use them or not). Note when I say what it used to cost, as in FY2024 the cost per LIR will be higher.
Now, with the membership in further decline the average cost per member will once more be higher in FY2025. Next year, I forecast that we will have the same "discussion" for FY2026 as NCC comes around and asks for more money. Once again. Why? Because according to projections the amount of members will continue to decrease resulting in higher fees per organization. Once again. All in the advantageous name of the articles of association that allow pretty much anything.
Following the above rational thought with another is, that what one should be doing is choosing what to either invoice separately or drop completely. Yes, really. Everyone is happy with free services, it is when you apply the money test - request someone to pay for something - when you see if what you create contains value.
Considering NCC managed to "save" 5% in the FY2024 budget compared to FY2023, asking for 8.1% increase (4% annualized) the next year is, well, kind of cheeky. It restores the budget pretty much to what it would have been with two annual increases. As an exercise in budgetary engineering I do approve. As a paying member I do not.
What really would be needed is competition. Competition would make the RIR market more efficient. It is rather obvious that the RIR markets aren't anywhere near the efficiency they could be at. Competition would mean that people wanting to pay 1900 - or even more in the future - could choose to do so and those who don't want could potentially pay less. Reduced to the very basics one is paying for bits in a database. In that sense this is rather similar to the certificate market where at one time the cost per certificate was sky high and there were only a few issuers. Today, I am guessing most do not pay thousands annually for a few bits in theirs. Neither do most people care whether the cert was issued by Verisign, Gandi or someone else. Having looked into it out of curiosity, real competition does not seem to be possible as the principles in ICP-2 pretty much state that there can/should only be one RIR per region. Which makes NCC the definition of a monopoly. Monopolies with nice and polite people, well intended purpose and mission creep are not good, they're bad. For everyone.
Finally, the surplus. The concept itself is interesting and I do know where it comes from. But from an financial point of view it is really lending money to someone else and then (maybe) getting it back, a year later, less inflation if they did not spend it.
I would kindly request that the EB would add option D or "Option D: No Changes from 2023". :)
Kaj
Kaj
_____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________
From: ncc-announce <ncc-announce-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Simon-Jan Haytink <simonjh@ripe.net> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 12:18 To: ncc-announce@ripe.net <ncc-announce@ripe.net> Subject: [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals You don't often get email from simonjh@ripe.net. Learn why this is important
Dear RIPE NCC members,
We can now share three draft charging scheme models for 2025 that the Executive Board approved with the following resolution at its meeting on 25 March 2024:
The RIPE NCC Executive Board approves the submission of the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 options to the upcoming RIPE NCC General Meeting for members to vote on.
- Option A - Charging Scheme as is with 22.58% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,900) and a 0% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 50)
- Option B - Charging Scheme as is with 20.97% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,875) and a 50% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 75)
- Option C - Charging Scheme as is with 16.13% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,800), a 50% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 75) and a new AS Numbers fee of EUR 50 per assignment
*Resources falling under this charge are IPv4 and IPv6 PI assignments; Anycast assignments; IPv4 and IPv6 IXP assignments; and Legacy IPv4 resource registrations through a sponsoring LIR.
The full draft charging scheme models are available from the GM Documentation page: https://www/ .ripe.net%2Fmembership%2Fmeetings%2Fgm%2Fmeetings%2Fmay-2024%2Fdocume ntation-and-archives%2Fsupporting-documents%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy .Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd5 73bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004040536%7CUnknown%7CTW FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI 6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=3tUyMKDzZZY69M3vjjDqaKxgBrrQMeI1rnhBImzaex Q%3D&reserved=0
Although the proposed models are relatively simple, we provide a calculator where you can see exactly what you would pay under each of the proposed models:
https://www/ .ripe.net%2Fdocuments%2F3757%2FCS2025_Member_Calculator.xlsx&data=05% 7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18 264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004051566% 7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6I k1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=glTH6W6VCl6MSXrBbsUC8A4K%2FK TE8%2FavtiBwmmokOEY%3D&reserved=0
The main considerations for the Executive Board in proposing these three models are:
1. The consolidation of LIR accounts, which means the burden to generate sufficient income must be met by fewer accounts
2. Increased costs due to inflation that were previously catered for by the large number of LIR accounts
3. Following the discussions last year and again this year, there appears to be no clear consensus among members on how a category-based model would work and the Board does not wish to put another category model forward at the upcoming GM that will be rejected by the members. Rather, the Board will propose a simple model that guarantees adequate funding for 2025 and 2026 - under this proposal, we expect there would be no need for a fee increase for 2026. The Board will work with the RIPE NCC on a more in-depth consultation with the members aimed at arriving at a sustainable solution for 2027 and beyond, possibly involving a new charging scheme task force.
All three proposed models are designed to arrive at the same income of EUR 41.1 million for the RIPE NCC in 2025. This will cover all current services and activities, a 5% staff cost increase, a 2% inflation increase on all non-staff costs, and EUR 1 million for additional work relating to registry complexity and security projects aimed at ensuring the resilience of the Registry and the RIPE NCC more broadly. Any such additional work would be discussed with the membership during Activity Plan and Budget consultations and then need to be approved by the Board. This will also allow some leeway should more LIR accounts close than we expect.
It’s important to note that the RIPE NCC aims for an income budget that will provide a surplus, and this means that should we meet our budgetary targets, a surplus can be returned to members in 2026 should they so wish.
While the RIPE NCC continues to carry out cost-cutting efforts across the organisation, drastically reducing the budget at this time is not advisable due to the work that needs to be carried out, especially in relation to maintaining high-quality registry services and securing the registry and RIPE NCC systems. Cutting services or activities is not something the Board is planning to do, and such actions would take time and need full consultation with the membership. An overview of the activities and services that the membership fee covers is provided below this email.
I also urge you to see the presentation we delivered at the charging scheme open house in March so that the full context of the situation and the financial landscape we face is clear to you. The slides are available at:
https://www/ .ripe.net%2Fmembership%2Fmeetings%2Fopen-house%2Fripe-ncc-charging-sc heme-2025%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d1 7e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0% 7C638484307004057320%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQ IjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5GTeIyn nzxx1WLZ%2BDRoFNWAhaRPvTemPafvKwlIaEEk%3D&reserved=0
Finally, I want to thank all those who have contributed to the consultation so far on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025. The models we present here are draft and in two weeks we will announce the final proposal that members will vote on at the GM on 22-24 May. Please discuss the draft proposal on the members-discuss@ripe.net list - any input received by 19 April can be incorporated if possible into the final models we propose. And make sure to register for the GM so that you can vote on the charging scheme that will apply for you and all members next year:
https://my/. ripe.net%2F%23%2Fmeetings%2Factive&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40 kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6e c3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004063238%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8ey JWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0% 7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2BkYHbjPqA8CwacCNlVg0M%2FVvao%2FK8z1zB8hrEeaLXVg%3D&r eserved=0
Simon-Jan Haytink
Chief Financial Officer
RIPE NCC
Services and Activities Covered by the Member Fee
- A trusted, efficient, accurate and resilient registry that guarantees uniqueness of resources held by members
- Neutral information services uninfluenced by commercial or government interests that allow both the RIPE NCC and the community to carry out useful research into the Internet
- Engagement activities, including RIPE and regional meetings, that build an active membership and community and that contribute to the overall good of the Internet
- A voice and influence for the membership in key decision-making fora, including with governments and regulators
- Protection of the Joint Internet Number Registry as developed by the Internet community
- Learning and development activities that help to address skills shortages and contribute to an educated membership
- Support for the Policy Development Process (PDP)
- An authoritative registry of routing information provided by RPKI and the RIPE Database
- K-root and DNS services
- A dedicated staff with considerable expertise contributing to all of the above
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lis/ ts.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvg eniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f 9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004071908%7CUnknown% 7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJ XVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TSE6bLTaGjEzZzbwPbLL8ZivguLE4ZUOG1YC6W k3HVE%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://lis/ ts.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fyoel%2540kviknet. dk&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d 88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C63848430 7004081513%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMz IiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=h8qgUsC1phTJj9r9T HsO2THM2UZcg6CMMNwff4PP3SA%3D&reserved=0
______________________________________________________________________ ___________
Daniel Stolpe Tel: 08 - 688 11 81 stolpe@resilans.se Resilans AB Fax: 08 - 55 00 21 63 http://www.resilans.se/ Box 45 094 556741-1193 104 30 Stockholm
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvgen iy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd 573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004100103%7CUnknown%7CTW FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6 Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Y5j98PfqxzkN%2B2UYI6E5kDMJLYj1qlHRc64sClcZFa U%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fregistry-ripe%2540r esilans.se&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9 f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C63 8484307004109226%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV 2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2FLi%2BQEHdR thZtiNdR7ETMPAkPAzVevDnMjvq75F3kf8%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvgen iy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd 573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004115782%7CUnknown%7CTW FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6 Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=vY2oba0wvj08c6W4f%2FFaPi6BRvFFLM7AbIf5i84qT6 s%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fadmin%2540roskomnad zor.io&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f542 32d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484 307004121940%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luM zIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=NlQ4MnUaG53yS1eKO %2F2nhgAkG8yzbN7B3c4koumTvKw%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ 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/evgeniy.brodskiy%40ky...
Charging per ASN is even worse than just price increase. It is terrible and killing even more LIRs Imagine rather new LIR who is trying to do business based on what is LIR intended for - providing LIR services to consumers. For example 30 clients who requested ASN sponsorship during year. If charged per ASN they will pay twice more than huge corporations serving only purpose of their own. Those typically have just 1-2 ASNs and tons of resources attached to it. They are main source of work for RIPE staff and they should be funding expensive projects like Atlas and others. Actually working LIRs also have business contracts/logic already established on current charging scheme and adding ASN fee will kill them. Once again - why not just bill based on resources? It’s extremely easy. Oh, right, resource holders won’t like it :)
On 11 Apr 2024, at 15:11, ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED <admin@roskomnadzor.io> wrote:
Why LIR who havent resources must pay same amount as LIR who have a lot of resources?
RIPE declaring about "community" and about "spending budget must be distributed across all members" - but in practically is not.
When RIPE want to take extra fee for ASN - its mean then RIPE want to charge by resources. Then why RIPE dont want to charge due resources for IPv4?
Guess big members who hold a lot IPv4 allocations dont want it - because current situation is fine for their point of view. Dont forget - RIPE charget 50 EUR per resource - not matter what is it - /24 or /16.
If we are not using all RIPE services - why we must pay for that? Why not any option to select - "Only core services"?
On 11.04.2024 11:45, Evgeniy Brodskiy wrote:
Confidential/Конфіденційно Hi, Not at all. More RESOURCES in hands of some LIR doesn’t mean consuming MORE SERVICES. If you want to bill somebody based on consuming SERVICES it would be logical to count consuming SERVICES, not RESOURCES. But who cares about logic if goal to force somebody else to pay... even if some particular BIG LIR doesn't use majority of this SERVICES. -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2024 2:06 PM To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals [Вы нечасто получаете письма от admin@roskomnadzor.io. Узнайте, почему это важно, по адресу https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Its great, but why RIPE trying to make funding from less adquate method? Big members of RIPE region request MORE SERVICE - but why ALL must pay for that? Why RIPE continue to ignoring taking membership fee based on RESOURCES? Currently RIPE depend upon LIR signup fee and year/year LIR fee in most cases - but its very unstable. NOR, RIPE can take fee per IPv4/24 in holding per member and have STABLE SOURCE OF FUNDING! ARIN, APNIC, AFRINIC already a long time do it on successful basis. Why small members of RIPE must pay SAME amount as big members? Are its fair? Guess not. Dont forget about fact - if early LIR guarantee receive /22, after only /24 - then now LIR receive only place in waiting list (like in Communists USSR) and undefined ETA on receive resources! But pay SAME amount as any other. Why RIPE didnt want to change fee based on fact - if LIR didnt have IPv4 in holding - then LIR must pay less, nor LIR who holding 10-100-100 IPv4 blocks? On 11.04.2024 10:46, Daniel Stolpe via members-discuss wrote:
Hi,
Yoel is absolutely right. A few years ago the financial situation was not looking good but the "last /8 policy" made a huge difference. The "handing out /22 blocks" was like printing new money - for a while. As the number of members whent sky rocket, RIPE could lower membership fees at the same time as an ever expanding budget.
But now we are seeing what everyone could have predicted - the number of members are declining and the NCC keeps calling for more money.
No, this is not reasonable. In tough times everyone has to try to make ends meet. The NCC should be no exception. For years only a few persistent voices have been trying to call for cuts or cost control as an alternative to eternal growth. What happened last year should have been a clear signal but instead the voting is now rigged with more or less equal outcomes.
Regards, Daniel Stolpe
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024, Yoel Caspersen via members-discuss wrote:
Dear RIPE member,
Kaj Niemi is absolutely right: RIPE increasing its budget does not serve the interests of its members, and allowing it to pass because you are spending other people's money is a sign of bad judgement and lack of accountability.
For years, I was wondering why RIPE was handing out /22 blocks at what was effectively a fraction of the market price. I think we have the answer now: Membership fees and diluted voting power of each member served the interests of the management just fine.
RIPE is a mandatory phonebook for IP addresses, nothing more and nothing less. All the fat that has grown on the organisation in the last decade must be trimmed, and I call for a drastic budget reduction - if some members are willing to spend their own money on additional services, they should be free to do so, but with absolute emphasis on this part: their own money.
From a fairness perspective, RIPE should be granted the necessary funds to run the database service, meaning:
- A base fee to keep the database service running, shared equally by all members - Fees on actions that require manual work from the RIPE NCC (e.g. transfers, mergers etc)
Forget about levying higher taxes on larger members - RIPE is not a tax collector and doesn't exist to offset differences in wealth. It exists to deliver a necessary service, and each member should pay according to the burden they place on the organisation.
How much should we pay for a database service? In the ideal world, there should be no monopoly on the service and we could let the market forces decide what the right price is.
I realize that might not be feasible right now, so we are stuck with the next best solution: Letting the community figure out what the acceptable price is - I guess most RIPE members run some sort of database service of their own and therefore possess a profound understanding of the associated costs.
Until we have better data, I suggest we look at the past for inspiration: Use the budget for 2014 (€ 22 millions) and adjust for inflation - that amounts to approximately € 28 millions.
To get there we can slash External Engagement & Community (€ 9,4 millions in the 2024 budget) - RIPE is a monopoly, and the members will be there regardless of the activities in that area.
I also suggest that we take a look at the expenses associated with the Office of the Managing Director (€ 2,2 millions in the 2024 budget) - after all, RIPE is an organisation with less than 200 employees.
I call for members of the community to contribute: What is the right amount of staffing in the RIPE NCC?
Regards,
Yoel Caspersen CTO Kviknet.dk ApS
On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 3:12 PM Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> wrote: Hi,
Very politely put I do not think any of the three proposed charging schemes are in the membership's interest - they certainly aren't in mine.
All three seem to be designed to assure that NCC can continue along, business as usual, with its tasks. Thus, we could pretend that there isn't a big issue with the membership numbers declining. We could also pretend there isn't a real problem with the value proposition of the services. Furthermore, we could also pretend that we do not care that it all is conveniently funded by the membership. I mean, what is 1500 or 1900 euro to most people? I have heard the last several times in the past. After all, why should we care about the expenditure when the sums are so small for each LIR? Why should we care when it is not our own money? I'll tell you. Not caring about the transaction size is bad, if you are willing to let these kinds of sums slide, you'll let it slide on bigger amounts. As is treating other people's money (OPM) differently than if it were your own. These eventually lead to lack of accountability.
What is being proposed is really a significant increase in membership fees. In particular, significantly above what it used to cost on average to produce services for each member (whether they use them or not). Note when I say what it used to cost, as in FY2024 the cost per LIR will be higher.
Now, with the membership in further decline the average cost per member will once more be higher in FY2025. Next year, I forecast that we will have the same "discussion" for FY2026 as NCC comes around and asks for more money. Once again. Why? Because according to projections the amount of members will continue to decrease resulting in higher fees per organization. Once again. All in the advantageous name of the articles of association that allow pretty much anything.
Following the above rational thought with another is, that what one should be doing is choosing what to either invoice separately or drop completely. Yes, really. Everyone is happy with free services, it is when you apply the money test - request someone to pay for something - when you see if what you create contains value.
Considering NCC managed to "save" 5% in the FY2024 budget compared to FY2023, asking for 8.1% increase (4% annualized) the next year is, well, kind of cheeky. It restores the budget pretty much to what it would have been with two annual increases. As an exercise in budgetary engineering I do approve. As a paying member I do not.
What really would be needed is competition. Competition would make the RIR market more efficient. It is rather obvious that the RIR markets aren't anywhere near the efficiency they could be at. Competition would mean that people wanting to pay 1900 - or even more in the future - could choose to do so and those who don't want could potentially pay less. Reduced to the very basics one is paying for bits in a database. In that sense this is rather similar to the certificate market where at one time the cost per certificate was sky high and there were only a few issuers. Today, I am guessing most do not pay thousands annually for a few bits in theirs. Neither do most people care whether the cert was issued by Verisign, Gandi or someone else. Having looked into it out of curiosity, real competition does not seem to be possible as the principles in ICP-2 pretty much state that there can/should only be one RIR per region. Which makes NCC the definition of a monopoly. Monopolies with nice and polite people, well intended purpose and mission creep are not good, they're bad. For everyone.
Finally, the surplus. The concept itself is interesting and I do know where it comes from. But from an financial point of view it is really lending money to someone else and then (maybe) getting it back, a year later, less inflation if they did not spend it.
I would kindly request that the EB would add option D or "Option D: No Changes from 2023". :)
Kaj
Kaj
_____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________
From: ncc-announce <ncc-announce-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Simon-Jan Haytink <simonjh@ripe.net> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 12:18 To: ncc-announce@ripe.net <ncc-announce@ripe.net> Subject: [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals You don't often get email from simonjh@ripe.net. Learn why this is important
Dear RIPE NCC members,
We can now share three draft charging scheme models for 2025 that the Executive Board approved with the following resolution at its meeting on 25 March 2024:
The RIPE NCC Executive Board approves the submission of the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 options to the upcoming RIPE NCC General Meeting for members to vote on.
- Option A - Charging Scheme as is with 22.58% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,900) and a 0% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 50)
- Option B - Charging Scheme as is with 20.97% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,875) and a 50% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 75)
- Option C - Charging Scheme as is with 16.13% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,800), a 50% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 75) and a new AS Numbers fee of EUR 50 per assignment
*Resources falling under this charge are IPv4 and IPv6 PI assignments; Anycast assignments; IPv4 and IPv6 IXP assignments; and Legacy IPv4 resource registrations through a sponsoring LIR.
The full draft charging scheme models are available from the GM Documentation page: https://www/ .ripe.net%2Fmembership%2Fmeetings%2Fgm%2Fmeetings%2Fmay-2024%2Fdocume ntation-and-archives%2Fsupporting-documents%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy .Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd5 73bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004040536%7CUnknown%7CTW FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI 6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=3tUyMKDzZZY69M3vjjDqaKxgBrrQMeI1rnhBImzaex Q%3D&reserved=0
Although the proposed models are relatively simple, we provide a calculator where you can see exactly what you would pay under each of the proposed models:
https://www/ .ripe.net%2Fdocuments%2F3757%2FCS2025_Member_Calculator.xlsx&data=05% 7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18 264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004051566% 7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6I k1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=glTH6W6VCl6MSXrBbsUC8A4K%2FK TE8%2FavtiBwmmokOEY%3D&reserved=0
The main considerations for the Executive Board in proposing these three models are:
1. The consolidation of LIR accounts, which means the burden to generate sufficient income must be met by fewer accounts
2. Increased costs due to inflation that were previously catered for by the large number of LIR accounts
3. Following the discussions last year and again this year, there appears to be no clear consensus among members on how a category-based model would work and the Board does not wish to put another category model forward at the upcoming GM that will be rejected by the members. Rather, the Board will propose a simple model that guarantees adequate funding for 2025 and 2026 - under this proposal, we expect there would be no need for a fee increase for 2026. The Board will work with the RIPE NCC on a more in-depth consultation with the members aimed at arriving at a sustainable solution for 2027 and beyond, possibly involving a new charging scheme task force.
All three proposed models are designed to arrive at the same income of EUR 41.1 million for the RIPE NCC in 2025. This will cover all current services and activities, a 5% staff cost increase, a 2% inflation increase on all non-staff costs, and EUR 1 million for additional work relating to registry complexity and security projects aimed at ensuring the resilience of the Registry and the RIPE NCC more broadly. Any such additional work would be discussed with the membership during Activity Plan and Budget consultations and then need to be approved by the Board. This will also allow some leeway should more LIR accounts close than we expect.
It’s important to note that the RIPE NCC aims for an income budget that will provide a surplus, and this means that should we meet our budgetary targets, a surplus can be returned to members in 2026 should they so wish.
While the RIPE NCC continues to carry out cost-cutting efforts across the organisation, drastically reducing the budget at this time is not advisable due to the work that needs to be carried out, especially in relation to maintaining high-quality registry services and securing the registry and RIPE NCC systems. Cutting services or activities is not something the Board is planning to do, and such actions would take time and need full consultation with the membership. An overview of the activities and services that the membership fee covers is provided below this email.
I also urge you to see the presentation we delivered at the charging scheme open house in March so that the full context of the situation and the financial landscape we face is clear to you. The slides are available at:
https://www/ .ripe.net%2Fmembership%2Fmeetings%2Fopen-house%2Fripe-ncc-charging-sc heme-2025%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d1 7e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0% 7C638484307004057320%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQ IjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5GTeIyn nzxx1WLZ%2BDRoFNWAhaRPvTemPafvKwlIaEEk%3D&reserved=0
Finally, I want to thank all those who have contributed to the consultation so far on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025. The models we present here are draft and in two weeks we will announce the final proposal that members will vote on at the GM on 22-24 May. Please discuss the draft proposal on the members-discuss@ripe.net list - any input received by 19 April can be incorporated if possible into the final models we propose. And make sure to register for the GM so that you can vote on the charging scheme that will apply for you and all members next year:
https://my/. ripe.net%2F%23%2Fmeetings%2Factive&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40 kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6e c3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004063238%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8ey JWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0% 7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2BkYHbjPqA8CwacCNlVg0M%2FVvao%2FK8z1zB8hrEeaLXVg%3D&r eserved=0
Simon-Jan Haytink
Chief Financial Officer
RIPE NCC
Services and Activities Covered by the Member Fee
- A trusted, efficient, accurate and resilient registry that guarantees uniqueness of resources held by members
- Neutral information services uninfluenced by commercial or government interests that allow both the RIPE NCC and the community to carry out useful research into the Internet
- Engagement activities, including RIPE and regional meetings, that build an active membership and community and that contribute to the overall good of the Internet
- A voice and influence for the membership in key decision-making fora, including with governments and regulators
- Protection of the Joint Internet Number Registry as developed by the Internet community
- Learning and development activities that help to address skills shortages and contribute to an educated membership
- Support for the Policy Development Process (PDP)
- An authoritative registry of routing information provided by RPKI and the RIPE Database
- K-root and DNS services
- A dedicated staff with considerable expertise contributing to all of the above
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lis/ ts.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvg eniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f 9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004071908%7CUnknown% 7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJ XVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TSE6bLTaGjEzZzbwPbLL8ZivguLE4ZUOG1YC6W k3HVE%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://lis/ ts.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fyoel%2540kviknet. dk&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d 88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C63848430 7004081513%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMz IiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=h8qgUsC1phTJj9r9T HsO2THM2UZcg6CMMNwff4PP3SA%3D&reserved=0
______________________________________________________________________ ___________
Daniel Stolpe Tel: 08 - 688 11 81 stolpe@resilans.se Resilans AB Fax: 08 - 55 00 21 63 http://www.resilans.se/ Box 45 094 556741-1193 104 30 Stockholm
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvgen iy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd 573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004100103%7CUnknown%7CTW FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6 Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Y5j98PfqxzkN%2B2UYI6E5kDMJLYj1qlHRc64sClcZFa U%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fregistry-ripe%2540r esilans.se&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9 f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C63 8484307004109226%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV 2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2FLi%2BQEHdR thZtiNdR7ETMPAkPAzVevDnMjvq75F3kf8%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvgen iy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd 573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004115782%7CUnknown%7CTW FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6 Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=vY2oba0wvj08c6W4f%2FFaPi6BRvFFLM7AbIf5i84qT6 s%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fadmin%2540roskomnad zor.io&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f542 32d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484 307004121940%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luM zIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=NlQ4MnUaG53yS1eKO %2F2nhgAkG8yzbN7B3c4koumTvKw%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ 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/evgeniy.brodskiy%40ky...
_______________________________________________ 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/mihail%40fedorov.net
The proposed ASN fee is 0 on options A and B and 50 euro / year per ASN with option C. 50 euro / year is just over 4 euro / month. So about the price of a cup of coffee… If that kills your business … -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 I have sent this email at a time that is convenient for me. I do not expect you to respond to it outside of your usual working hours. From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Mihail Fedorov <mihail@fedorov.net> Date: Thursday, 11 April 2024 at 13:40 To: Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Please use caution when opening attachments from unrecognised sources. Charging per ASN is even worse than just price increase. It is terrible and killing even more LIRs Imagine rather new LIR who is trying to do business based on what is LIR intended for - providing LIR services to consumers. For example 30 clients who requested ASN sponsorship during year. If charged per ASN they will pay twice more than huge corporations serving only purpose of their own. Those typically have just 1-2 ASNs and tons of resources attached to it. They are main source of work for RIPE staff and they should be funding expensive projects like Atlas and others. Actually working LIRs also have business contracts/logic already established on current charging scheme and adding ASN fee will kill them. Once again - why not just bill based on resources? It’s extremely easy. Oh, right, resource holders won’t like it :)
On 11 Apr 2024, at 15:11, ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED <admin@roskomnadzor.io> wrote:
Why LIR who havent resources must pay same amount as LIR who have a lot of resources?
RIPE declaring about "community" and about "spending budget must be distributed across all members" - but in practically is not.
When RIPE want to take extra fee for ASN - its mean then RIPE want to charge by resources. Then why RIPE dont want to charge due resources for IPv4?
Guess big members who hold a lot IPv4 allocations dont want it - because current situation is fine for their point of view. Dont forget - RIPE charget 50 EUR per resource - not matter what is it - /24 or /16.
If we are not using all RIPE services - why we must pay for that? Why not any option to select - "Only core services"?
On 11.04.2024 11:45, Evgeniy Brodskiy wrote:
Confidential/Конфіденційно Hi, Not at all. More RESOURCES in hands of some LIR doesn’t mean consuming MORE SERVICES. If you want to bill somebody based on consuming SERVICES it would be logical to count consuming SERVICES, not RESOURCES. But who cares about logic if goal to force somebody else to pay... even if some particular BIG LIR doesn't use majority of this SERVICES. -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2024 2:06 PM To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals [Вы нечасто получаете письма от admin@roskomnadzor.io. Узнайте, почему это важно, по адресу https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Its great, but why RIPE trying to make funding from less adquate method? Big members of RIPE region request MORE SERVICE - but why ALL must pay for that? Why RIPE continue to ignoring taking membership fee based on RESOURCES? Currently RIPE depend upon LIR signup fee and year/year LIR fee in most cases - but its very unstable. NOR, RIPE can take fee per IPv4/24 in holding per member and have STABLE SOURCE OF FUNDING! ARIN, APNIC, AFRINIC already a long time do it on successful basis. Why small members of RIPE must pay SAME amount as big members? Are its fair? Guess not. Dont forget about fact - if early LIR guarantee receive /22, after only /24 - then now LIR receive only place in waiting list (like in Communists USSR) and undefined ETA on receive resources! But pay SAME amount as any other. Why RIPE didnt want to change fee based on fact - if LIR didnt have IPv4 in holding - then LIR must pay less, nor LIR who holding 10-100-100 IPv4 blocks? On 11.04.2024 10:46, Daniel Stolpe via members-discuss wrote:
Hi,
Yoel is absolutely right. A few years ago the financial situation was not looking good but the "last /8 policy" made a huge difference. The "handing out /22 blocks" was like printing new money - for a while. As the number of members whent sky rocket, RIPE could lower membership fees at the same time as an ever expanding budget.
But now we are seeing what everyone could have predicted - the number of members are declining and the NCC keeps calling for more money.
No, this is not reasonable. In tough times everyone has to try to make ends meet. The NCC should be no exception. For years only a few persistent voices have been trying to call for cuts or cost control as an alternative to eternal growth. What happened last year should have been a clear signal but instead the voting is now rigged with more or less equal outcomes.
Regards, Daniel Stolpe
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024, Yoel Caspersen via members-discuss wrote:
Dear RIPE member,
Kaj Niemi is absolutely right: RIPE increasing its budget does not serve the interests of its members, and allowing it to pass because you are spending other people's money is a sign of bad judgement and lack of accountability.
For years, I was wondering why RIPE was handing out /22 blocks at what was effectively a fraction of the market price. I think we have the answer now: Membership fees and diluted voting power of each member served the interests of the management just fine.
RIPE is a mandatory phonebook for IP addresses, nothing more and nothing less. All the fat that has grown on the organisation in the last decade must be trimmed, and I call for a drastic budget reduction - if some members are willing to spend their own money on additional services, they should be free to do so, but with absolute emphasis on this part: their own money.
From a fairness perspective, RIPE should be granted the necessary funds to run the database service, meaning:
- A base fee to keep the database service running, shared equally by all members - Fees on actions that require manual work from the RIPE NCC (e.g. transfers, mergers etc)
Forget about levying higher taxes on larger members - RIPE is not a tax collector and doesn't exist to offset differences in wealth. It exists to deliver a necessary service, and each member should pay according to the burden they place on the organisation.
How much should we pay for a database service? In the ideal world, there should be no monopoly on the service and we could let the market forces decide what the right price is.
I realize that might not be feasible right now, so we are stuck with the next best solution: Letting the community figure out what the acceptable price is - I guess most RIPE members run some sort of database service of their own and therefore possess a profound understanding of the associated costs.
Until we have better data, I suggest we look at the past for inspiration: Use the budget for 2014 (€ 22 millions) and adjust for inflation - that amounts to approximately € 28 millions.
To get there we can slash External Engagement & Community (€ 9,4 millions in the 2024 budget) - RIPE is a monopoly, and the members will be there regardless of the activities in that area.
I also suggest that we take a look at the expenses associated with the Office of the Managing Director (€ 2,2 millions in the 2024 budget) - after all, RIPE is an organisation with less than 200 employees.
I call for members of the community to contribute: What is the right amount of staffing in the RIPE NCC?
Regards,
Yoel Caspersen CTO Kviknet.dk ApS
On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 3:12 PM Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> wrote: Hi,
Very politely put I do not think any of the three proposed charging schemes are in the membership's interest - they certainly aren't in mine.
All three seem to be designed to assure that NCC can continue along, business as usual, with its tasks. Thus, we could pretend that there isn't a big issue with the membership numbers declining. We could also pretend there isn't a real problem with the value proposition of the services. Furthermore, we could also pretend that we do not care that it all is conveniently funded by the membership. I mean, what is 1500 or 1900 euro to most people? I have heard the last several times in the past. After all, why should we care about the expenditure when the sums are so small for each LIR? Why should we care when it is not our own money? I'll tell you. Not caring about the transaction size is bad, if you are willing to let these kinds of sums slide, you'll let it slide on bigger amounts. As is treating other people's money (OPM) differently than if it were your own. These eventually lead to lack of accountability.
What is being proposed is really a significant increase in membership fees. In particular, significantly above what it used to cost on average to produce services for each member (whether they use them or not). Note when I say what it used to cost, as in FY2024 the cost per LIR will be higher.
Now, with the membership in further decline the average cost per member will once more be higher in FY2025. Next year, I forecast that we will have the same "discussion" for FY2026 as NCC comes around and asks for more money. Once again. Why? Because according to projections the amount of members will continue to decrease resulting in higher fees per organization. Once again. All in the advantageous name of the articles of association that allow pretty much anything.
Following the above rational thought with another is, that what one should be doing is choosing what to either invoice separately or drop completely. Yes, really. Everyone is happy with free services, it is when you apply the money test - request someone to pay for something - when you see if what you create contains value.
Considering NCC managed to "save" 5% in the FY2024 budget compared to FY2023, asking for 8.1% increase (4% annualized) the next year is, well, kind of cheeky. It restores the budget pretty much to what it would have been with two annual increases. As an exercise in budgetary engineering I do approve. As a paying member I do not.
What really would be needed is competition. Competition would make the RIR market more efficient. It is rather obvious that the RIR markets aren't anywhere near the efficiency they could be at. Competition would mean that people wanting to pay 1900 - or even more in the future - could choose to do so and those who don't want could potentially pay less. Reduced to the very basics one is paying for bits in a database. In that sense this is rather similar to the certificate market where at one time the cost per certificate was sky high and there were only a few issuers. Today, I am guessing most do not pay thousands annually for a few bits in theirs. Neither do most people care whether the cert was issued by Verisign, Gandi or someone else. Having looked into it out of curiosity, real competition does not seem to be possible as the principles in ICP-2 pretty much state that there can/should only be one RIR per region. Which makes NCC the definition of a monopoly. Monopolies with nice and polite people, well intended purpose and mission creep are not good, they're bad. For everyone.
Finally, the surplus. The concept itself is interesting and I do know where it comes from. But from an financial point of view it is really lending money to someone else and then (maybe) getting it back, a year later, less inflation if they did not spend it.
I would kindly request that the EB would add option D or "Option D: No Changes from 2023". :)
Kaj
Kaj
_____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________
From: ncc-announce <ncc-announce-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Simon-Jan Haytink <simonjh@ripe.net> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 12:18 To: ncc-announce@ripe.net <ncc-announce@ripe.net> Subject: [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals You don't often get email from simonjh@ripe.net. Learn why this is important
Dear RIPE NCC members,
We can now share three draft charging scheme models for 2025 that the Executive Board approved with the following resolution at its meeting on 25 March 2024:
The RIPE NCC Executive Board approves the submission of the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 options to the upcoming RIPE NCC General Meeting for members to vote on.
- Option A - Charging Scheme as is with 22.58% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,900) and a 0% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 50)
- Option B - Charging Scheme as is with 20.97% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,875) and a 50% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 75)
- Option C - Charging Scheme as is with 16.13% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,800), a 50% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 75) and a new AS Numbers fee of EUR 50 per assignment
*Resources falling under this charge are IPv4 and IPv6 PI assignments; Anycast assignments; IPv4 and IPv6 IXP assignments; and Legacy IPv4 resource registrations through a sponsoring LIR.
The full draft charging scheme models are available from the GM Documentation page: https://www/ .ripe.net%2Fmembership%2Fmeetings%2Fgm%2Fmeetings%2Fmay-2024%2Fdocume ntation-and-archives%2Fsupporting-documents%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy .Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd5 73bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004040536%7CUnknown%7CTW FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI 6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=3tUyMKDzZZY69M3vjjDqaKxgBrrQMeI1rnhBImzaex Q%3D&reserved=0
Although the proposed models are relatively simple, we provide a calculator where you can see exactly what you would pay under each of the proposed models:
https://www/ .ripe.net%2Fdocuments%2F3757%2FCS2025_Member_Calculator.xlsx&data=05% 7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18 264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004051566% 7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6I k1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=glTH6W6VCl6MSXrBbsUC8A4K%2FK TE8%2FavtiBwmmokOEY%3D&reserved=0
The main considerations for the Executive Board in proposing these three models are:
1. The consolidation of LIR accounts, which means the burden to generate sufficient income must be met by fewer accounts
2. Increased costs due to inflation that were previously catered for by the large number of LIR accounts
3. Following the discussions last year and again this year, there appears to be no clear consensus among members on how a category-based model would work and the Board does not wish to put another category model forward at the upcoming GM that will be rejected by the members. Rather, the Board will propose a simple model that guarantees adequate funding for 2025 and 2026 - under this proposal, we expect there would be no need for a fee increase for 2026. The Board will work with the RIPE NCC on a more in-depth consultation with the members aimed at arriving at a sustainable solution for 2027 and beyond, possibly involving a new charging scheme task force.
All three proposed models are designed to arrive at the same income of EUR 41.1 million for the RIPE NCC in 2025. This will cover all current services and activities, a 5% staff cost increase, a 2% inflation increase on all non-staff costs, and EUR 1 million for additional work relating to registry complexity and security projects aimed at ensuring the resilience of the Registry and the RIPE NCC more broadly. Any such additional work would be discussed with the membership during Activity Plan and Budget consultations and then need to be approved by the Board. This will also allow some leeway should more LIR accounts close than we expect.
It’s important to note that the RIPE NCC aims for an income budget that will provide a surplus, and this means that should we meet our budgetary targets, a surplus can be returned to members in 2026 should they so wish.
While the RIPE NCC continues to carry out cost-cutting efforts across the organisation, drastically reducing the budget at this time is not advisable due to the work that needs to be carried out, especially in relation to maintaining high-quality registry services and securing the registry and RIPE NCC systems. Cutting services or activities is not something the Board is planning to do, and such actions would take time and need full consultation with the membership. An overview of the activities and services that the membership fee covers is provided below this email.
I also urge you to see the presentation we delivered at the charging scheme open house in March so that the full context of the situation and the financial landscape we face is clear to you. The slides are available at:
https://www/ .ripe.net%2Fmembership%2Fmeetings%2Fopen-house%2Fripe-ncc-charging-sc heme-2025%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d1 7e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0% 7C638484307004057320%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQ IjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5GTeIyn nzxx1WLZ%2BDRoFNWAhaRPvTemPafvKwlIaEEk%3D&reserved=0
Finally, I want to thank all those who have contributed to the consultation so far on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025. The models we present here are draft and in two weeks we will announce the final proposal that members will vote on at the GM on 22-24 May. Please discuss the draft proposal on the members-discuss@ripe.net list - any input received by 19 April can be incorporated if possible into the final models we propose. And make sure to register for the GM so that you can vote on the charging scheme that will apply for you and all members next year:
https://my/. ripe.net%2F%23%2Fmeetings%2Factive&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40 kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6e c3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004063238%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8ey JWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0% 7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2BkYHbjPqA8CwacCNlVg0M%2FVvao%2FK8z1zB8hrEeaLXVg%3D&r eserved=0
Simon-Jan Haytink
Chief Financial Officer
RIPE NCC
Services and Activities Covered by the Member Fee
- A trusted, efficient, accurate and resilient registry that guarantees uniqueness of resources held by members
- Neutral information services uninfluenced by commercial or government interests that allow both the RIPE NCC and the community to carry out useful research into the Internet
- Engagement activities, including RIPE and regional meetings, that build an active membership and community and that contribute to the overall good of the Internet
- A voice and influence for the membership in key decision-making fora, including with governments and regulators
- Protection of the Joint Internet Number Registry as developed by the Internet community
- Learning and development activities that help to address skills shortages and contribute to an educated membership
- Support for the Policy Development Process (PDP)
- An authoritative registry of routing information provided by RPKI and the RIPE Database
- K-root and DNS services
- A dedicated staff with considerable expertise contributing to all of the above
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lis/ ts.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvg eniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f 9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004071908%7CUnknown% 7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJ XVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TSE6bLTaGjEzZzbwPbLL8ZivguLE4ZUOG1YC6W k3HVE%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://lis/ ts.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fyoel%2540kviknet. dk&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d 88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C63848430 7004081513%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMz IiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=h8qgUsC1phTJj9r9T HsO2THM2UZcg6CMMNwff4PP3SA%3D&reserved=0
______________________________________________________________________ ___________
Daniel Stolpe Tel: 08 - 688 11 81 stolpe@resilans.se Resilans AB Fax: 08 - 55 00 21 63 http://www.resilans.se/ Box 45 094 556741-1193 104 30 Stockholm
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvgen iy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd 573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004100103%7CUnknown%7CTW FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6 Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Y5j98PfqxzkN%2B2UYI6E5kDMJLYj1qlHRc64sClcZFa U%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fregistry-ripe%2540r esilans.se&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9 f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C63 8484307004109226%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV 2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2FLi%2BQEHdR thZtiNdR7ETMPAkPAzVevDnMjvq75F3kf8%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvgen iy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd 573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004115782%7CUnknown%7CTW FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6 Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=vY2oba0wvj08c6W4f%2FFaPi6BRvFFLM7AbIf5i84qT6 s%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fadmin%2540roskomnad zor.io&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f542 32d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484 307004121940%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luM zIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=NlQ4MnUaG53yS1eKO %2F2nhgAkG8yzbN7B3c4koumTvKw%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ 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/evgeniy.brodskiy%40ky...
_______________________________________________ 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/mihail%40fedorov.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/michele%40blacknight....
I personally think three things need to happen. 1) A base membership fee. weather 1000 or 1200 or 1400 or 800 is irellevant. This should just purely go towards operating the registry/db. 2) A fee for certain actions (regardless of outcome). Example: Independant Resource Assignment ticket (per resrouce) = 50 // Mergers/Aquisitions Ticket = 1x "Signup Fee" // Resource Transfer Fee = 250 Euro per Transfer //.... Resource Sponsoring billed at the current rates (I think ripe should bill AS-Numbers like any ohther PI-Resource). 3) Optional Contribution to other areas (Atlas, Events,....) where members can choose how much they want to contribute. Ideally with a mechanism where you can specify what projects 80 percent of their funding goes towards. The rest should be used for launching new projects..... and act as a buffer/reserve. Regards On 4/11/24 3:30 PM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight via members-discuss wrote: > > The proposed ASN fee is 0 on options A and B and 50 euro / year per > ASN with option C. > > 50 euro / year is just over 4 euro / month. > > So about the price of a cup of coffee… > > If that kills your business … > > -- > > Mr Michele Neylon > > Blacknight Solutions > > Hosting, Colocation & Domains > > https://www.blacknight.com/ <https://www.blacknight.com/> > > https://blacknight.blog/ <https://blacknight.blog/> > > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > > Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ <https://michele.blog/> > > Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ <https://ceo.hosting/> > > ------------------------------- > > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business > Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: > 370845 > > I have sent this email at a time that is convenient for me. I do not > expect you to respond to it outside of your usual working hours. > > *From: *members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf > of Mihail Fedorov <mihail@fedorov.net> > *Date: *Thursday, 11 April 2024 at 13:40 > *To: * > *Cc: *members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> > *Subject: *Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC > Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals > > [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Please use caution when opening attachments from > unrecognised sources. > > Charging per ASN is even worse than just price increase. It is > terrible and killing even more LIRs > > Imagine rather new LIR who is trying to do business based on what is > LIR intended for - providing LIR services to consumers. For example 30 > clients who requested ASN sponsorship during year. > If charged per ASN they will pay twice more than huge corporations > serving only purpose of their own. Those typically have just 1-2 ASNs > and tons of resources attached to it. They are main source of work for > RIPE staff and they should be funding expensive projects like Atlas > and others. > > Actually working LIRs also have business contracts/logic already > established on current charging scheme and adding ASN fee will kill them. > > Once again - why not just bill based on resources? It’s extremely > easy. Oh, right, resource holders won’t like it :) > > > On 11 Apr 2024, at 15:11, ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED > <admin@roskomnadzor.io> wrote: > > > > Why LIR who havent resources must pay same amount as LIR who have a > lot of resources? > > > > RIPE declaring about "community" and about "spending budget must be > distributed across all members" - but in practically is not. > > > > When RIPE want to take extra fee for ASN - its mean then RIPE want > to charge by resources. Then why RIPE dont want to charge due > resources for IPv4? > > > > Guess big members who hold a lot IPv4 allocations dont want it - > because current situation is fine for their point of view. Dont forget > - RIPE charget 50 EUR per resource - not matter what is it - /24 or /16. > > > > If we are not using all RIPE services - why we must pay for that? > Why not any option to select - "Only core services"? > > > > > > > > On 11.04.2024 11:45, Evgeniy Brodskiy wrote: > >> Confidential/Конфіденційно > >> Hi, > >> Not at all. > >> More RESOURCES in hands of some LIR doesn’t mean consuming MORE > SERVICES. > >> If you want to bill somebody based on consuming SERVICES it would > be logical to count consuming SERVICES, not RESOURCES. > >> But who cares about logic if goal to force somebody else to pay... > even if some particular BIG LIR doesn't use majority of this SERVICES. > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf > Of ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED > >> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2024 2:06 PM > >> To: members-discuss@ripe.net > >> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC > Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals > >> [Вы нечасто получаете письма от admin@roskomnadzor.io. Узнайте, > почему это важно, по адресу > https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] > >> Its great, but why RIPE trying to make funding from less adquate > method? > >> Big members of RIPE region request MORE SERVICE - but why ALL must > pay for that? > >> Why RIPE continue to ignoring taking membership fee based on RESOURCES? > >> Currently RIPE depend upon LIR signup fee and year/year LIR fee in > most cases - but its very unstable. > >> NOR, RIPE can take fee per IPv4/24 in holding per member and have > STABLE SOURCE OF FUNDING! > >> ARIN, APNIC, AFRINIC already a long time do it on successful basis. > >> Why small members of RIPE must pay SAME amount as big members? Are > its fair? Guess not. > >> Dont forget about fact - if early LIR guarantee receive /22, after only > >> /24 - then now LIR receive only place in waiting list (like in > Communists USSR) and undefined ETA on receive resources! But pay SAME > amount as any other. > >> Why RIPE didnt want to change fee based on fact - if LIR didnt have > IPv4 in holding - then LIR must pay less, nor LIR who holding > 10-100-100 IPv4 blocks? > >> On 11.04.2024 10:46, Daniel Stolpe via members-discuss wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> Yoel is absolutely right. A few years ago the financial situation was > >>> not looking good but the "last /8 policy" made a huge difference. The > >>> "handing out /22 blocks" was like printing new money - for a while. > >>> As the number of members whent sky rocket, RIPE could lower membership > >>> fees at the same time as an ever expanding budget. > >>> > >>> But now we are seeing what everyone could have predicted - the number > >>> of members are declining and the NCC keeps calling for more money. > >>> > >>> No, this is not reasonable. In tough times everyone has to try to make > >>> ends meet. The NCC should be no exception. For years only a few > >>> persistent voices have been trying to call for cuts or cost control as > >>> an alternative to eternal growth. What happened last year should have > >>> been a clear signal but instead the voting is now rigged with more or > >>> less equal outcomes. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Daniel Stolpe > >>> > >>> On Thu, 11 Apr 2024, Yoel Caspersen via members-discuss wrote: > >>> > >>>> Dear RIPE member, > >>>> > >>>> Kaj Niemi is absolutely right: RIPE increasing its budget does not > >>>> serve the interests of its members, and allowing it to pass because > >>>> you are spending other people's money is a sign of bad judgement and > >>>> lack of accountability. > >>>> > >>>> For years, I was wondering why RIPE was handing out /22 blocks at > >>>> what was effectively a fraction of the market price. I think we have > >>>> the answer now: Membership fees and diluted voting power of each > >>>> member served the interests of the management just fine. > >>>> > >>>> RIPE is a mandatory phonebook for IP addresses, nothing more and > >>>> nothing less. All the fat that has grown on the organisation in the > >>>> last decade must be trimmed, and I call for a drastic budget > >>>> reduction - if some members are willing to spend their own money on > >>>> additional services, they should be free to do so, but with absolute > >>>> emphasis on this part: their own money. > >>>> > >>>> From a fairness perspective, RIPE should be granted the necessary > >>>> funds to run the database service, meaning: > >>>> > >>>> - A base fee to keep the database service running, shared equally by > >>>> all members > >>>> - Fees on actions that require manual work from the RIPE NCC (e.g. > >>>> transfers, mergers etc) > >>>> > >>>> Forget about levying higher taxes on larger members - RIPE is not a > >>>> tax collector and doesn't exist to offset differences in wealth. It > >>>> exists to deliver a necessary service, and each member should pay > >>>> according to the burden they place on the organisation. > >>>> > >>>> How much should we pay for a database service? In the ideal world, > >>>> there should be no monopoly on the service and we could let the > >>>> market forces decide what the right price is. > >>>> > >>>> I realize that might not be feasible right now, so we are stuck with > >>>> the next best solution: Letting the community figure out what the > >>>> acceptable price is - I guess most RIPE members run some sort of > >>>> database service of their own and therefore possess a profound > >>>> understanding of the associated costs. > >>>> > >>>> Until we have better data, I suggest we look at the past for > >>>> inspiration: Use the budget for 2014 (€ 22 millions) and adjust for > >>>> inflation - that amounts to approximately € 28 millions. > >>>> > >>>> To get there we can slash External Engagement & Community (€ 9,4 > >>>> millions in the 2024 budget) - RIPE is a monopoly, and the members > >>>> will be there regardless of the activities in that area. > >>>> > >>>> I also suggest that we take a look at the expenses associated with > >>>> the Office of the Managing Director (€ 2,2 millions in the 2024 > >>>> budget) - after all, RIPE is an organisation with less than 200 > >>>> employees. > >>>> > >>>> I call for members of the community to contribute: What is the right > >>>> amount of staffing in the RIPE NCC? > >>>> > >>>> Regards, > >>>> > >>>> Yoel Caspersen > >>>> CTO > >>>> Kviknet.dk ApS > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 3:12 PM Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> wrote: > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> Very politely put I do not think any of the three proposed charging > >>>> schemes are in the membership's interest - they certainly aren't > in mine. > >>>> > >>>> All three seem to be designed to assure that NCC can continue along, > >>>> business as usual, with its tasks. Thus, we could pretend that there > >>>> isn't a big issue with the membership numbers declining. We could > >>>> also pretend there isn't a real problem with the value proposition of > >>>> the services. Furthermore, we could also pretend that we do not care > >>>> that it all is conveniently funded by the membership. I mean, what is > >>>> 1500 or > >>>> 1900 euro to most people? I have heard the last several times in the > >>>> past. After all, why should we care about the expenditure when the > >>>> sums are so small for each LIR? Why should we care when it is not our > >>>> own money? I'll tell you. Not caring about the transaction size is > >>>> bad, if you are willing to let these kinds of sums slide, you'll let > >>>> it slide on bigger amounts. As is treating other people's money (OPM) > >>>> differently than if it were your own. These eventually lead to lack > >>>> of accountability. > >>>> > >>>> What is being proposed is really a significant increase in membership > >>>> fees. In particular, significantly above what it used to cost on > >>>> average to produce services for each member (whether they use them or > >>>> not). Note when I say what it used to cost, as in FY2024 the cost per > >>>> LIR will be higher. > >>>> > >>>> Now, with the membership in further decline the average cost per > >>>> member will once more be higher in FY2025. Next year, I forecast that > >>>> we will have the same "discussion" for > >>>> FY2026 as NCC comes around and asks for more money. Once again. Why? > >>>> Because according to projections the amount of members will continue > >>>> to decrease resulting in higher fees per organization. Once again. > >>>> All in the advantageous name of the articles of association that > >>>> allow pretty much anything. > >>>> > >>>> Following the above rational thought with another is, that what one > >>>> should be doing is choosing what to either invoice separately or drop > >>>> completely. Yes, really. Everyone is happy with free services, it is > >>>> when you apply the money test - request someone to pay for something > >>>> - when you see if what you create contains value. > >>>> > >>>> Considering NCC managed to "save" 5% in the FY2024 budget compared to > >>>> FY2023, asking for 8.1% increase (4% annualized) the next year is, > >>>> well, kind of cheeky. It restores the budget pretty much to what it > >>>> would have been with two annual increases. As an exercise in > >>>> budgetary engineering I do approve. As a paying member I do not. > >>>> > >>>> What really would be needed is competition. Competition would make > >>>> the RIR market more efficient. It is rather obvious that the RIR > >>>> markets aren't anywhere near the efficiency they could be at. > >>>> Competition would mean that people wanting to pay > >>>> 1900 - or even more in the future - could choose to do so and those > >>>> who don't want could potentially pay less. Reduced to the very basics > >>>> one is paying for bits in a database. > >>>> In that sense this is rather similar to the certificate market where > >>>> at one time the cost per certificate was sky high and there were only > >>>> a few issuers. Today, I am guessing most do not pay thousands > >>>> annually for a few bits in theirs. Neither do most people care > >>>> whether the cert was issued by Verisign, Gandi or someone else. > >>>> Having looked into it out of curiosity, real competition does not > >>>> seem to be possible as the principles in > >>>> ICP-2 pretty much state that there can/should only be one RIR per > >>>> region. Which makes NCC the definition of a monopoly. Monopolies with > >>>> nice and polite people, well intended purpose and mission creep are > >>>> not good, they're bad. For everyone. > >>>> > >>>> Finally, the surplus. The concept itself is interesting and I do know > >>>> where it comes from. But from an financial point of view it is really > >>>> lending money to someone else and then (maybe) getting it back, a > >>>> year later, less inflation if they did not spend it. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I would kindly request that the EB would add option D or "Option D: > >>>> No Changes from 2023". :) > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Kaj > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Kaj > >>>> > >>>> _____________________________________________________________________ > >>>> _____________________________________________________________________ > >>>> ___________________________________________ > >>>> > >>>> From: ncc-announce <ncc-announce-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of > >>>> Simon-Jan Haytink <simonjh@ripe.net> > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 12:18 > >>>> To: ncc-announce@ripe.net <ncc-announce@ripe.net> > >>>> Subject: [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 > >>>> Proposals You don't often get email from simonjh@ripe.net. Learn why > >>>> this is important > >>>> > >>>> Dear RIPE NCC members, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> We can now share three draft charging scheme models for 2025 that the > >>>> Executive Board approved with the following resolution at its meeting > >>>> on 25 March 2024: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> The RIPE NCC Executive Board approves the submission of the RIPE NCC > >>>> Charging Scheme 2025 options to the upcoming RIPE NCC General Meeting > >>>> for members to vote on. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> - Option A - Charging Scheme as is with 22.58% price increase for > >>>> the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,900) and a 0% price > >>>> increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR > >>>> 50) > >>>> > >>>> - Option B - Charging Scheme as is with 20.97% price increase for > >>>> the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,875) and a 50% price > >>>> increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR > >>>> 75) > >>>> > >>>> - Option C - Charging Scheme as is with 16.13% price increase for > >>>> the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,800), a 50% price > >>>> increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR > >>>> 75) and a new AS Numbers fee of EUR 50 per assignment > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> *Resources falling under this charge are IPv4 and IPv6 PI > >>>> assignments; Anycast assignments; IPv4 and IPv6 IXP assignments; and > >>>> Legacy IPv4 resource registrations through a sponsoring LIR. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> The full draft charging scheme models are available from the GM > >>>> Documentation page: > >>>> https://www/ > >>>> .ripe.net%2Fmembership%2Fmeetings%2Fgm%2Fmeetings%2Fmay-2024%2Fdocume > >>>> ntation-and-archives%2Fsupporting-documents%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy > >>>> .Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd5 > >>>> 73bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004040536%7CUnknown%7CTW > >>>> FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI > >>>> 6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=3tUyMKDzZZY69M3vjjDqaKxgBrrQMeI1rnhBImzaex > >>>> Q%3D&reserved=0 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Although the proposed models are relatively simple, we provide a > >>>> calculator where you can see exactly what you would pay under each of > >>>> the proposed models: > >>>> > >>>> https://www/ > >>>> .ripe.net%2Fdocuments%2F3757%2FCS2025_Member_Calculator.xlsx&data=05% > >>>> 7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18 > >>>> 264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004051566% > >>>> 7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6I > >>>> k1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=glTH6W6VCl6MSXrBbsUC8A4K%2FK > >>>> TE8%2FavtiBwmmokOEY%3D&reserved=0 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> The main considerations for the Executive Board in proposing these > >>>> three models are: > >>>> > >>>> 1. The consolidation of LIR accounts, which means the burden to > >>>> generate sufficient income must be met by fewer accounts > >>>> > >>>> 2. Increased costs due to inflation that were previously catered for > >>>> by the large number of LIR accounts > >>>> > >>>> 3. Following the discussions last year and again this year, there > >>>> appears to be no clear consensus among members on how a > >>>> category-based model would work and the Board does not wish to put > >>>> another category model forward at the upcoming GM that will be > >>>> rejected by the members. Rather, the Board will propose a simple > >>>> model that guarantees adequate funding for 2025 and 2026 - under this > >>>> proposal, we expect there would be no need for a fee increase for > >>>> 2026. The Board will work with the RIPE NCC on a more in-depth > >>>> consultation with the members aimed at arriving at a sustainable > >>>> solution for 2027 and beyond, possibly involving a new charging > >>>> scheme task force. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> All three proposed models are designed to arrive at the same income > >>>> of EUR 41.1 million for the RIPE NCC in 2025. This will cover all > >>>> current services and activities, a 5% staff cost increase, a 2% > >>>> inflation increase on all non-staff costs, and EUR 1 million for > >>>> additional work relating to registry complexity and security projects > >>>> aimed at ensuring the resilience of the Registry and the RIPE NCC > >>>> more broadly. > >>>> Any such additional work would be discussed with the membership > >>>> during Activity Plan and Budget consultations and then need to be > >>>> approved by the Board. This will also allow some leeway should more > >>>> LIR accounts close than we expect. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> It’s important to note that the RIPE NCC aims for an income budget > >>>> that will provide a surplus, and this means that should we meet our > >>>> budgetary targets, a surplus can be returned to members in 2026 > >>>> should they so wish. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> While the RIPE NCC continues to carry out cost-cutting efforts across > >>>> the organisation, drastically reducing the budget at this time is not > >>>> advisable due to the work that needs to be carried out, especially in > >>>> relation to maintaining high-quality registry services and securing > >>>> the registry and RIPE NCC systems. Cutting services or activities is > >>>> not something the Board is planning to do, and such actions would > >>>> take time and need full consultation with the membership. An overview > >>>> of the activities and services that the membership fee covers is > >>>> provided below this email. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I also urge you to see the presentation we delivered at the charging > >>>> scheme open house in March so that the full context of the situation > >>>> and the financial landscape we face is clear to you. The slides are > >>>> available at: > >>>> > >>>> https://www/ > >>>> .ripe.net%2Fmembership%2Fmeetings%2Fopen-house%2Fripe-ncc-charging-sc > >>>> heme-2025%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d1 > >>>> 7e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0% > >>>> 7C638484307004057320%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQ > >>>> IjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5GTeIyn > >>>> nzxx1WLZ%2BDRoFNWAhaRPvTemPafvKwlIaEEk%3D&reserved=0 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Finally, I want to thank all those who have contributed to the > >>>> consultation so far on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025. The models > >>>> we present here are draft and in two weeks we will announce the final > >>>> proposal that members will vote on at the GM on 22-24 May. Please > >>>> discuss the draft proposal on the members-discuss@ripe.net list - any > >>>> input received by 19 April can be incorporated if possible into the > >>>> final models we propose. And make sure to register for the GM so that > >>>> you can vote on the charging scheme that will apply for you and all > >>>> members next year: > >>>> > >>>> https://my/. > >>>> ripe.net%2F%23%2Fmeetings%2Factive&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40 > >>>> kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6e > >>>> c3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004063238%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8ey > >>>> JWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0% > >>>> 7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2BkYHbjPqA8CwacCNlVg0M%2FVvao%2FK8z1zB8hrEeaLXVg%3D&r > >>>> eserved=0 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Simon-Jan Haytink > >>>> > >>>> Chief Financial Officer > >>>> > >>>> RIPE NCC > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Services and Activities Covered by the Member Fee > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> - A trusted, efficient, accurate and resilient registry that > >>>> guarantees uniqueness of resources held by members > >>>> > >>>> - Neutral information services uninfluenced by commercial or > >>>> government interests that allow both the RIPE NCC and the community > >>>> to carry out useful research into the Internet > >>>> > >>>> - Engagement activities, including RIPE and regional meetings, that > >>>> build an active membership and community and that contribute to the > >>>> overall good of the Internet > >>>> > >>>> - A voice and influence for the membership in key decision-making > >>>> fora, including with governments and regulators > >>>> > >>>> - Protection of the Joint Internet Number Registry as developed by > >>>> the Internet community > >>>> > >>>> - Learning and development activities that help to address skills > >>>> shortages and contribute to an educated membership > >>>> > >>>> - Support for the Policy Development Process (PDP) > >>>> > >>>> - An authoritative registry of routing information provided by RPKI > >>>> and the RIPE Database > >>>> > >>>> - K-root and DNS services > >>>> > >>>> - A dedicated staff with considerable expertise contributing to all > >>>> of the above > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> members-discuss mailing list > >>>> members-discuss@ripe.net > >>>> https://lis/ > >>>> ts.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvg > >>>> eniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f > >>>> 9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004071908%7CUnknown% > >>>> 7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJ > >>>> XVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TSE6bLTaGjEzZzbwPbLL8ZivguLE4ZUOG1YC6W > >>>> k3HVE%3D&reserved=0 > >>>> Unsubscribe: > >>>> https://lis/ > >>>> ts.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fyoel%2540kviknet. > >>>> dk&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d > >>>> 88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C63848430 > >>>> 7004081513%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMz > >>>> IiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=h8qgUsC1phTJj9r9T > >>>> HsO2THM2UZcg6CMMNwff4PP3SA%3D&reserved=0 > >>> > >>> ______________________________________________________________________ > >>> ___________ > >>> > >>> Daniel Stolpe Tel: 08 - 688 11 81 > >>> stolpe@resilans.se > >>> Resilans AB Fax: 08 - 55 00 21 63 > >>> http://www.resilans.se/ > >>> Box 45 094 556741-1193 > >>> 104 30 Stockholm > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> members-discuss mailing list > >>> members-discuss@ripe.net > >>> https://list/ > >>> s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvgen > >>> iy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd > >>> 573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004100103%7CUnknown%7CTW > >>> FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6 > >>> Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Y5j98PfqxzkN%2B2UYI6E5kDMJLYj1qlHRc64sClcZFa > >>> U%3D&reserved=0 > >>> Unsubscribe: > >>> https://list/ > >>> s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fregistry-ripe%2540r > >>> esilans.se&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9 > >>> f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C63 > >>> 8484307004109226%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV > >>> 2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2FLi%2BQEHdR > >>> thZtiNdR7ETMPAkPAzVevDnMjvq75F3kf8%3D&reserved=0 > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> members-discuss mailing list > >>> members-discuss@ripe.net > >>> https://list/ > >>> s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvgen > >>> iy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd > >>> 573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004115782%7CUnknown%7CTW > >>> FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6 > >>> Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=vY2oba0wvj08c6W4f%2FFaPi6BRvFFLM7AbIf5i84qT6 > >>> s%3D&reserved=0 > >>> Unsubscribe: > >>> https://list/ > >>> s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fadmin%2540roskomnad > >>> zor.io&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f542 > >>> 32d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484 > >>> 307004121940%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luM > >>> zIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=NlQ4MnUaG53yS1eKO > >>> %2F2nhgAkG8yzbN7B3c4koumTvKw%3D&reserved=0 > >>> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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/evgeniy.brodskiy%40kyivstar.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/mihail%40fedorov.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/michele%40blacknight.com > > > _______________________________________________ > 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-members%40sebastian-graf.at
I will reiterate something i said already in another communication channel: Thats not about 400,50 or 40 EUR. It is about trends, and everybody can see, this year from small to big business - everybody cutting budgets/expenses, including large companies who didnt before - doing massive layoffs of core staff, and they went very far this year. Except RIPE, who goes totally opposite way. While uncertainty and risk management, preparing for a prolonged downturn, forecasts of LIR reduction, the current situation just screams - reduce expenses. And although numerous voices on the maillist are outraged by this, RIPE diligently pretends, "This is fine" (KC Green's comic "On Fire."), and keep proposing increased budget options like nothing happening. On Thu, 2024-04-11 at 13:30 +0000, Michele Neylon - Blacknight via members-discuss wrote: > > > The proposed ASN fee is 0 on options A and B and 50 euro / year per > ASN with option C. > 50 euro / year is just over 4 euro / month. > So about the price of a cup of coffee… > > If that kills your business … > > > -- > Mr Michele Neylon > Blacknight Solutions > Hosting, Colocation & Domains > https://www.blacknight.com/ > https://blacknight.blog/ > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ > Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ > ------------------------------- > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business > Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: > 370845 > > I have sent this email at a time that is convenient for me. I do not > expect you to respond to it outside of your usual working hours. > > > > > > > From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of > Mihail Fedorov <mihail@fedorov.net> > Date: Thursday, 11 April 2024 at 13:40 > To: > Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC > Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals > > [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Please use caution when opening attachments from > unrecognised sources. > > Charging per ASN is even worse than just price increase. It is > terrible and killing even more LIRs > > Imagine rather new LIR who is trying to do business based on what is > LIR intended for - providing LIR services to consumers. For example > 30 clients who requested ASN sponsorship during year. > If charged per ASN they will pay twice more than huge corporations > serving only purpose of their own. Those typically have just 1-2 ASNs > and tons of resources attached to it. They are main source of work > for RIPE staff and they should be funding expensive projects like > Atlas and others. > > Actually working LIRs also have business contracts/logic already > established on current charging scheme and adding ASN fee will kill > them. > > Once again - why not just bill based on resources? It’s extremely > easy. Oh, right, resource holders won’t like it :) > > > On 11 Apr 2024, at 15:11, ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED > <admin@roskomnadzor.io> wrote: > > > > Why LIR who havent resources must pay same amount as LIR who have a > lot of resources? > > > > RIPE declaring about "community" and about "spending budget must be > distributed across all members" - but in practically is not. > > > > When RIPE want to take extra fee for ASN - its mean then RIPE want > to charge by resources. Then why RIPE dont want to charge due > resources for IPv4? > > > > Guess big members who hold a lot IPv4 allocations dont want it - > because current situation is fine for their point of view. Dont > forget - RIPE charget 50 EUR per resource - not matter what is it - > /24 or /16. > > > > If we are not using all RIPE services - why we must pay for that? > Why not any option to select - "Only core services"? > > > > > > > > On 11.04.2024 11:45, Evgeniy Brodskiy wrote: > >> Confidential/Конфіденційно > >> Hi, > >> Not at all. > >> More RESOURCES in hands of some LIR doesn’t mean consuming MORE > SERVICES. > >> If you want to bill somebody based on consuming SERVICES it would > be logical to count consuming SERVICES, not RESOURCES. > >> But who cares about logic if goal to force somebody else to pay... > even if some particular BIG LIR doesn't use majority of this > SERVICES. > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf > Of ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED > >> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2024 2:06 PM > >> To: members-discuss@ripe.net > >> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC > Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals > >> [Вы нечасто получаете письма от admin@roskomnadzor.io. Узнайте, > почему это важно, по > адресуhttps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] > >> Its great, but why RIPE trying to make funding from less adquate > method? > >> Big members of RIPE region request MORE SERVICE - but why ALL must > pay for that? > >> Why RIPE continue to ignoring taking membership fee based on > RESOURCES? > >> Currently RIPE depend upon LIR signup fee and year/year LIR fee in > most cases - but its very unstable. > >> NOR, RIPE can take fee per IPv4/24 in holding per member and have > STABLE SOURCE OF FUNDING! > >> ARIN, APNIC, AFRINIC already a long time do it on successful > basis. > >> Why small members of RIPE must pay SAME amount as big members? Are > its fair? Guess not. > >> Dont forget about fact - if early LIR guarantee receive /22, after > only > >> /24 - then now LIR receive only place in waiting list (like in > Communists USSR) and undefined ETA on receive resources! But pay SAME > amount as any other. > >> Why RIPE didnt want to change fee based on fact - if LIR didnt > have IPv4 in holding - then LIR must pay less, nor LIR who holding > 10-100-100 IPv4 blocks? > >> On 11.04.2024 10:46, Daniel Stolpe via members-discuss wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> Yoel is absolutely right. A few years ago the financial situation > was > >>> not looking good but the "last /8 policy" made a huge difference. > The > >>> "handing out /22 blocks" was like printing new money - for a > while. > >>> As the number of members whent sky rocket, RIPE could lower > membership > >>> fees at the same time as an ever expanding budget. > >>> > >>> But now we are seeing what everyone could have predicted - the > number > >>> of members are declining and the NCC keeps calling for more > money. > >>> > >>> No, this is not reasonable. In tough times everyone has to try to > make > >>> ends meet. The NCC should be no exception. For years only a few > >>> persistent voices have been trying to call for cuts or cost > control as > >>> an alternative to eternal growth. What happened last year should > have > >>> been a clear signal but instead the voting is now rigged with > more or > >>> less equal outcomes. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Daniel Stolpe > >>> > >>> On Thu, 11 Apr 2024, Yoel Caspersen via members-discuss wrote: > >>> > >>>> Dear RIPE member, > >>>> > >>>> Kaj Niemi is absolutely right: RIPE increasing its budget does > not > >>>> serve the interests of its members, and allowing it to pass > because > >>>> you are spending other people's money is a sign of bad judgement > and > >>>> lack of accountability. > >>>> > >>>> For years, I was wondering why RIPE was handing out /22 blocks > at > >>>> what was effectively a fraction of the market price. I think we > have > >>>> the answer now: Membership fees and diluted voting power of each > >>>> member served the interests of the management just fine. > >>>> > >>>> RIPE is a mandatory phonebook for IP addresses, nothing more and > >>>> nothing less. All the fat that has grown on the organisation in > the > >>>> last decade must be trimmed, and I call for a drastic budget > >>>> reduction - if some members are willing to spend their own money > on > >>>> additional services, they should be free to do so, but with > absolute > >>>> emphasis on this part: their own money. > >>>> > >>>> From a fairness perspective, RIPE should be granted the > necessary > >>>> funds to run the database service, meaning: > >>>> > >>>> - A base fee to keep the database service running, shared > equally by > >>>> all members > >>>> - Fees on actions that require manual work from the RIPE NCC > (e.g. > >>>> transfers, mergers etc) > >>>> > >>>> Forget about levying higher taxes on larger members - RIPE is > not a > >>>> tax collector and doesn't exist to offset differences in wealth. > It > >>>> exists to deliver a necessary service, and each member should > pay > >>>> according to the burden they place on the organisation. > >>>> > >>>> How much should we pay for a database service? In the ideal > world, > >>>> there should be no monopoly on the service and we could let the > >>>> market forces decide what the right price is. > >>>> > >>>> I realize that might not be feasible right now, so we are stuck > with > >>>> the next best solution: Letting the community figure out what > the > >>>> acceptable price is - I guess most RIPE members run some sort of > >>>> database service of their own and therefore possess a profound > >>>> understanding of the associated costs. > >>>> > >>>> Until we have better data, I suggest we look at the past for > >>>> inspiration: Use the budget for 2014 (€ 22 millions) and adjust > for > >>>> inflation - that amounts to approximately € 28 millions. > >>>> > >>>> To get there we can slash External Engagement & Community (€ 9,4 > >>>> millions in the 2024 budget) - RIPE is a monopoly, and the > members > >>>> will be there regardless of the activities in that area. > >>>> > >>>> I also suggest that we take a look at the expenses associated > with > >>>> the Office of the Managing Director (€ 2,2 millions in the 2024 > >>>> budget) - after all, RIPE is an organisation with less than 200 > >>>> employees. > >>>> > >>>> I call for members of the community to contribute: What is the > right > >>>> amount of staffing in the RIPE NCC? > >>>> > >>>> Regards, > >>>> > >>>> Yoel Caspersen > >>>> CTO > >>>> Kviknet.dk ApS > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 3:12 PM Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> > wrote: > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> Very politely put I do not think any of the three proposed > charging > >>>> schemes are in the membership's interest - they certainly aren't > in mine. > >>>> > >>>> All three seem to be designed to assure that NCC can continue > along, > >>>> business as usual, with its tasks. Thus, we could pretend that > there > >>>> isn't a big issue with the membership numbers declining. We > could > >>>> also pretend there isn't a real problem with the value > proposition of > >>>> the services. Furthermore, we could also pretend that we do not > care > >>>> that it all is conveniently funded by the membership. I mean, > what is > >>>> 1500 or > >>>> 1900 euro to most people? I have heard the last several times in > the > >>>> past. After all, why should we care about the expenditure when > the > >>>> sums are so small for each LIR? Why should we care when it is > not our > >>>> own money? I'll tell you. Not caring about the transaction size > is > >>>> bad, if you are willing to let these kinds of sums slide, you'll > let > >>>> it slide on bigger amounts. As is treating other people's money > (OPM) > >>>> differently than if it were your own. These eventually lead to > lack > >>>> of accountability. > >>>> > >>>> What is being proposed is really a significant increase in > membership > >>>> fees. In particular, significantly above what it used to cost on > >>>> average to produce services for each member (whether they use > them or > >>>> not). Note when I say what it used to cost, as in FY2024 the > cost per > >>>> LIR will be higher. > >>>> > >>>> Now, with the membership in further decline the average cost per > >>>> member will once more be higher in FY2025. Next year, I forecast > that > >>>> we will have the same "discussion" for > >>>> FY2026 as NCC comes around and asks for more money. Once again. > Why? > >>>> Because according to projections the amount of members will > continue > >>>> to decrease resulting in higher fees per organization. Once > again. > >>>> All in the advantageous name of the articles of association that > >>>> allow pretty much anything. > >>>> > >>>> Following the above rational thought with another is, that what > one > >>>> should be doing is choosing what to either invoice separately or > drop > >>>> completely. Yes, really. Everyone is happy with free services, > it is > >>>> when you apply the money test - request someone to pay for > something > >>>> - when you see if what you create contains value. > >>>> > >>>> Considering NCC managed to "save" 5% in the FY2024 budget > compared to > >>>> FY2023, asking for 8.1% increase (4% annualized) the next year > is, > >>>> well, kind of cheeky. It restores the budget pretty much to what > it > >>>> would have been with two annual increases. As an exercise in > >>>> budgetary engineering I do approve. As a paying member I do not. > >>>> > >>>> What really would be needed is competition. Competition would > make > >>>> the RIR market more efficient. It is rather obvious that the RIR > >>>> markets aren't anywhere near the efficiency they could be at. > >>>> Competition would mean that people wanting to pay > >>>> 1900 - or even more in the future - could choose to do so and > those > >>>> who don't want could potentially pay less. Reduced to the very > basics > >>>> one is paying for bits in a database. > >>>> In that sense this is rather similar to the certificate market > where > >>>> at one time the cost per certificate was sky high and there were > only > >>>> a few issuers. Today, I am guessing most do not pay thousands > >>>> annually for a few bits in theirs. Neither do most people care > >>>> whether the cert was issued by Verisign, Gandi or someone else. > >>>> Having looked into it out of curiosity, real competition does > not > >>>> seem to be possible as the principles in > >>>> ICP-2 pretty much state that there can/should only be one RIR > per > >>>> region. Which makes NCC the definition of a monopoly. Monopolies > with > >>>> nice and polite people, well intended purpose and mission creep > are > >>>> not good, they're bad. For everyone. > >>>> > >>>> Finally, the surplus. The concept itself is interesting and I do > know > >>>> where it comes from. But from an financial point of view it is > really > >>>> lending money to someone else and then (maybe) getting it back, > a > >>>> year later, less inflation if they did not spend it. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I would kindly request that the EB would add option D or "Option > D: > >>>> No Changes from 2023". :) > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Kaj > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Kaj > >>>> > >>>> > _____________________________________________________________________ > >>>> > _____________________________________________________________________ > >>>> ___________________________________________ > >>>> > >>>> From: ncc-announce <ncc-announce-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of > >>>> Simon-Jan Haytink <simonjh@ripe.net> > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 12:18 > >>>> To: ncc-announce@ripe.net <ncc-announce@ripe.net> > >>>> Subject: [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 > >>>> Proposals You don't often get email from simonjh@ripe.net. Learn > why > >>>> this is important > >>>> > >>>> Dear RIPE NCC members, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> We can now share three draft charging scheme models for 2025 > that the > >>>> Executive Board approved with the following resolution at its > meeting > >>>> on 25 March 2024: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> The RIPE NCC Executive Board approves the submission of the RIPE > NCC > >>>> Charging Scheme 2025 options to the upcoming RIPE NCC General > Meeting > >>>> for members to vote on. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> - Option A - Charging Scheme as is with 22.58% price increase > for > >>>> the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,900) and a 0% > price > >>>> increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* > (EUR > >>>> 50) > >>>> > >>>> - Option B - Charging Scheme as is with 20.97% price increase > for > >>>> the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,875) and a 50% > price > >>>> increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* > (EUR > >>>> 75) > >>>> > >>>> - Option C - Charging Scheme as is with 16.13% price increase > for > >>>> the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,800), a 50% price > >>>> increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* > (EUR > >>>> 75) and a new AS Numbers fee of EUR 50 per assignment > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> *Resources falling under this charge are IPv4 and IPv6 PI > >>>> assignments; Anycast assignments; IPv4 and IPv6 IXP assignments; > and > >>>> Legacy IPv4 resource registrations through a sponsoring LIR. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> The full draft charging scheme models are available from the GM > >>>> Documentation page: > >>>> https://www/ > >>>> .ripe.net%2Fmembership%2Fmeetings%2Fgm%2Fmeetings%2Fmay- > 2024%2Fdocume > >>>> ntation-and-archives%2Fsupporting- > documents%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy > >>>> > .Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd5 > >>>> > 73bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004040536%7CUnknown%7CTW > >>>> > FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI > >>>> > 6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=3tUyMKDzZZY69M3vjjDqaKxgBrrQMeI1rnhBImzaex > >>>> Q%3D&reserved=0 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Although the proposed models are relatively simple, we provide a > >>>> calculator where you can see exactly what you would pay under > each of > >>>> the proposed models: > >>>> > >>>> https://www/ > >>>> > .ripe.net%2Fdocuments%2F3757%2FCS2025_Member_Calculator.xlsx&data=05% > >>>> > 7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18 > >>>> > 264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004051566% > >>>> > 7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6I > >>>> > k1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=glTH6W6VCl6MSXrBbsUC8A4K%2FK > >>>> TE8%2FavtiBwmmokOEY%3D&reserved=0 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> The main considerations for the Executive Board in proposing > these > >>>> three models are: > >>>> > >>>> 1. The consolidation of LIR accounts, which means the burden to > >>>> generate sufficient income must be met by fewer accounts > >>>> > >>>> 2. Increased costs due to inflation that were previously catered > for > >>>> by the large number of LIR accounts > >>>> > >>>> 3. Following the discussions last year and again this year, > there > >>>> appears to be no clear consensus among members on how a > >>>> category-based model would work and the Board does not wish to > put > >>>> another category model forward at the upcoming GM that will be > >>>> rejected by the members. Rather, the Board will propose a simple > >>>> model that guarantees adequate funding for 2025 and 2026 - under > this > >>>> proposal, we expect there would be no need for a fee increase > for > >>>> 2026. The Board will work with the RIPE NCC on a more in-depth > >>>> consultation with the members aimed at arriving at a sustainable > >>>> solution for 2027 and beyond, possibly involving a new charging > >>>> scheme task force. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> All three proposed models are designed to arrive at the same > income > >>>> of EUR 41.1 million for the RIPE NCC in 2025. This will cover > all > >>>> current services and activities, a 5% staff cost increase, a 2% > >>>> inflation increase on all non-staff costs, and EUR 1 million for > >>>> additional work relating to registry complexity and security > projects > >>>> aimed at ensuring the resilience of the Registry and the RIPE > NCC > >>>> more broadly. > >>>> Any such additional work would be discussed with the membership > >>>> during Activity Plan and Budget consultations and then need to > be > >>>> approved by the Board. This will also allow some leeway should > more > >>>> LIR accounts close than we expect. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> It’s important to note that the RIPE NCC aims for an income > budget > >>>> that will provide a surplus, and this means that should we meet > our > >>>> budgetary targets, a surplus can be returned to members in 2026 > >>>> should they so wish. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> While the RIPE NCC continues to carry out cost-cutting efforts > across > >>>> the organisation, drastically reducing the budget at this time > is not > >>>> advisable due to the work that needs to be carried out, > especially in > >>>> relation to maintaining high-quality registry services and > securing > >>>> the registry and RIPE NCC systems. Cutting services or > activities is > >>>> not something the Board is planning to do, and such actions > would > >>>> take time and need full consultation with the membership. An > overview > >>>> of the activities and services that the membership fee covers is > >>>> provided below this email. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I also urge you to see the presentation we delivered at the > charging > >>>> scheme open house in March so that the full context of the > situation > >>>> and the financial landscape we face is clear to you. The slides > are > >>>> available at: > >>>> > >>>> https://www/ > >>>> .ripe.net%2Fmembership%2Fmeetings%2Fopen-house%2Fripe-ncc- > charging-sc > >>>> heme- > 2025%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d1 > >>>> > 7e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0% > >>>> > 7C638484307004057320%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQ > >>>> > IjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5GTeIyn > >>>> nzxx1WLZ%2BDRoFNWAhaRPvTemPafvKwlIaEEk%3D&reserved=0 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Finally, I want to thank all those who have contributed to the > >>>> consultation so far on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025. The > models > >>>> we present here are draft and in two weeks we will announce the > final > >>>> proposal that members will vote on at the GM on 22-24 May. > Please > >>>> discuss the draft proposal on the members-discuss@ripe.net list > - any > >>>> input received by 19 April can be incorporated if possible into > the > >>>> final models we propose. And make sure to register for the GM so > that > >>>> you can vote on the charging scheme that will apply for you and > all > >>>> members next year: > >>>> > >>>> https://my/. > >>>> > ripe.net%2F%23%2Fmeetings%2Factive&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40 > >>>> > kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6e > >>>> > c3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004063238%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8ey > >>>> > JWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0% > >>>> > 7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2BkYHbjPqA8CwacCNlVg0M%2FVvao%2FK8z1zB8hrEeaLXVg%3D&r > >>>> eserved=0 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Simon-Jan Haytink > >>>> > >>>> Chief Financial Officer > >>>> > >>>> RIPE NCC > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Services and Activities Covered by the Member Fee > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> - A trusted, efficient, accurate and resilient registry that > >>>> guarantees uniqueness of resources held by members > >>>> > >>>> - Neutral information services uninfluenced by commercial or > >>>> government interests that allow both the RIPE NCC and the > community > >>>> to carry out useful research into the Internet > >>>> > >>>> - Engagement activities, including RIPE and regional meetings, > that > >>>> build an active membership and community and that contribute to > the > >>>> overall good of the Internet > >>>> > >>>> - A voice and influence for the membership in key decision- > making > >>>> fora, including with governments and regulators > >>>> > >>>> - Protection of the Joint Internet Number Registry as developed > by > >>>> the Internet community > >>>> > >>>> - Learning and development activities that help to address > skills > >>>> shortages and contribute to an educated membership > >>>> > >>>> - Support for the Policy Development Process (PDP) > >>>> > >>>> - An authoritative registry of routing information provided by > RPKI > >>>> and the RIPE Database > >>>> > >>>> - K-root and DNS services > >>>> > >>>> - A dedicated staff with considerable expertise contributing to > all > >>>> of the above > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> members-discuss mailing list > >>>> members-discuss@ripe.net > >>>> https://lis/ > >>>> ts.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers- > discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvg > >>>> > eniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f > >>>> > 9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004071908%7CUnknown% > >>>> > 7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJ > >>>> > XVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TSE6bLTaGjEzZzbwPbLL8ZivguLE4ZUOG1YC6W > >>>> k3HVE%3D&reserved=0 > >>>> Unsubscribe: > >>>> https://lis/ > >>>> ts.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers- > discuss%2Fyoel%2540kviknet. > >>>> > dk&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d > >>>> > 88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C63848430 > >>>> > 7004081513%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMz > >>>> > IiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=h8qgUsC1phTJj9r9T > >>>> HsO2THM2UZcg6CMMNwff4PP3SA%3D&reserved=0 > >>> > >>> > _____________________________________________________________________ > _ > >>> ___________ > >>> > >>> Daniel Stolpe Tel: 08 - 688 11 81 > >>> stolpe@resilans.se > >>> Resilans AB Fax: 08 - 55 00 21 63 > >>> http://www.resilans.se/ > >>> Box 45 094 556741-1193 > >>> 104 30 Stockholm > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> members-discuss mailing list > >>> members-discuss@ripe.net > >>> https://list/ > >>> s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers- > discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvgen > >>> > iy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9b > d > >>> > 573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004100103%7CUnknown%7CT > W > >>> > FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI > 6 > >>> > Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Y5j98PfqxzkN%2B2UYI6E5kDMJLYj1qlHRc64sClcZF > a > >>> U%3D&reserved=0 > >>> Unsubscribe: > >>> https://list/ > >>> s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fregistry- > ripe%2540r > >>> > esilans.se&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e > 9 > >>> > f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C6 > 3 > >>> > 8484307004109226%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoi > V > >>> > 2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2FLi%2BQEHd > R > >>> thZtiNdR7ETMPAkPAzVevDnMjvq75F3kf8%3D&reserved=0 > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> members-discuss mailing list > >>> members-discuss@ripe.net > >>> https://list/ > >>> s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers- > discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvgen > >>> > iy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9b > d > >>> > 573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004115782%7CUnknown%7CT > W > >>> > FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI > 6 > >>> > Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=vY2oba0wvj08c6W4f%2FFaPi6BRvFFLM7AbIf5i84qT > 6 > >>> s%3D&reserved=0 > >>> Unsubscribe: > >>> https://list/ > >>> s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers- > discuss%2Fadmin%2540roskomnad > >>> > zor.io&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54 > 2 > >>> > 32d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C63848 > 4 > >>> > 307004121940%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2lu > M > >>> > zIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=NlQ4MnUaG53yS1eK > O > >>> %2F2nhgAkG8yzbN7B3c4koumTvKw%3D&reserved=0 > >>> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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/evgeniy.brodskiy%40kyivstar.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/mihail%40fedorov.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/michele%40blacknight.com > _______________________________________________ > 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/nuclearcat%40nuclearcat.com
Trying to increase fee for ASN, but why? Just from official stats IPv4 - 93531 IPv6 - 26348 ASN - 39253 IPv4 is rare and most of profitable resource, but members who holding MOST of then - pay same 50 EUR/year per resource. If set 50 EUR/year per ASN, its will be equal for example to 1 IPv4 or IPv6 block. Wtf? Its looks crazy. It make me thinking about RIPE currenlty is under pressure of IPv4 resellers lobby, and because doesnt want to increase fee for IPv4 or make resources based fee. Also. Michele, if you really believe about 4 euro/month is low. Im agreed with you! Then also need to adjust for 1 x IPv4 /24 fee as 50 EUR/year. If member have for example 1 x IPv4 /22 - its count as 4 x IPv4 /24 = 200 EUR/year. (4 cups of coffee in month) :) On 11.04.2024 13:30, Michele Neylon - Blacknight via members-discuss wrote:
The proposed ASN fee is 0 on options A and B and 50 euro / year per ASN with option C.
50 euro / year is just over 4 euro / month.
So about the price of a cup of coffee…
If that kills your business …
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Personal blog: https://michele.blog/
Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
I have sent this email at a time that is convenient for me. I do not expect you to respond to it outside of your usual working hours.
*From: *members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Mihail Fedorov <mihail@fedorov.net> *Date: *Thursday, 11 April 2024 at 13:40 *To: * *Cc: *members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> *Subject: *Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] Please use caution when opening attachments from unrecognised sources.
Charging per ASN is even worse than just price increase. It is terrible and killing even more LIRs
Imagine rather new LIR who is trying to do business based on what is LIR intended for - providing LIR services to consumers. For example 30 clients who requested ASN sponsorship during year. If charged per ASN they will pay twice more than huge corporations serving only purpose of their own. Those typically have just 1-2 ASNs and tons of resources attached to it. They are main source of work for RIPE staff and they should be funding expensive projects like Atlas and others.
Actually working LIRs also have business contracts/logic already established on current charging scheme and adding ASN fee will kill them.
Once again - why not just bill based on resources? It’s extremely easy. Oh, right, resource holders won’t like it :)
On 11 Apr 2024, at 15:11, ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED <admin@roskomnadzor.io> wrote:
Why LIR who havent resources must pay same amount as LIR who have a lot of resources?
RIPE declaring about "community" and about "spending budget must be distributed across all members" - but in practically is not.
When RIPE want to take extra fee for ASN - its mean then RIPE want to charge by resources. Then why RIPE dont want to charge due resources for IPv4?
Guess big members who hold a lot IPv4 allocations dont want it - because current situation is fine for their point of view. Dont forget - RIPE charget 50 EUR per resource - not matter what is it - /24 or /16.
If we are not using all RIPE services - why we must pay for that? Why not any option to select - "Only core services"?
On 11.04.2024 11:45, Evgeniy Brodskiy wrote:
Confidential/Конфіденційно Hi, Not at all. More RESOURCES in hands of some LIR doesn’t mean consuming MORE SERVICES. If you want to bill somebody based on consuming SERVICES it would be logical to count consuming SERVICES, not RESOURCES. But who cares about logic if goal to force somebody else to pay... even if some particular BIG LIR doesn't use majority of this SERVICES. -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2024 2:06 PM To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals [Вы нечасто получаете письма от admin@roskomnadzor.io. Узнайте, почему это важно, по адресу https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Its great, but why RIPE trying to make funding from less adquate method? Big members of RIPE region request MORE SERVICE - but why ALL must pay for that? Why RIPE continue to ignoring taking membership fee based on RESOURCES? Currently RIPE depend upon LIR signup fee and year/year LIR fee in most cases - but its very unstable. NOR, RIPE can take fee per IPv4/24 in holding per member and have STABLE SOURCE OF FUNDING! ARIN, APNIC, AFRINIC already a long time do it on successful basis. Why small members of RIPE must pay SAME amount as big members? Are its fair? Guess not. Dont forget about fact - if early LIR guarantee receive /22, after only /24 - then now LIR receive only place in waiting list (like in Communists USSR) and undefined ETA on receive resources! But pay SAME amount as any other. Why RIPE didnt want to change fee based on fact - if LIR didnt have IPv4 in holding - then LIR must pay less, nor LIR who holding 10-100-100 IPv4 blocks? On 11.04.2024 10:46, Daniel Stolpe via members-discuss wrote:
Hi,
Yoel is absolutely right. A few years ago the financial situation was not looking good but the "last /8 policy" made a huge difference. The "handing out /22 blocks" was like printing new money - for a while. As the number of members whent sky rocket, RIPE could lower membership fees at the same time as an ever expanding budget.
But now we are seeing what everyone could have predicted - the number of members are declining and the NCC keeps calling for more money.
No, this is not reasonable. In tough times everyone has to try to make ends meet. The NCC should be no exception. For years only a few persistent voices have been trying to call for cuts or cost control as an alternative to eternal growth. What happened last year should have been a clear signal but instead the voting is now rigged with more or less equal outcomes.
Regards, Daniel Stolpe
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024, Yoel Caspersen via members-discuss wrote:
Dear RIPE member,
Kaj Niemi is absolutely right: RIPE increasing its budget does not serve the interests of its members, and allowing it to pass because you are spending other people's money is a sign of bad judgement and lack of accountability.
For years, I was wondering why RIPE was handing out /22 blocks at what was effectively a fraction of the market price. I think we have the answer now: Membership fees and diluted voting power of each member served the interests of the management just fine.
RIPE is a mandatory phonebook for IP addresses, nothing more and nothing less. All the fat that has grown on the organisation in the last decade must be trimmed, and I call for a drastic budget reduction - if some members are willing to spend their own money on additional services, they should be free to do so, but with absolute emphasis on this part: their own money.
From a fairness perspective, RIPE should be granted the necessary funds to run the database service, meaning:
- A base fee to keep the database service running, shared equally by all members - Fees on actions that require manual work from the RIPE NCC (e.g. transfers, mergers etc)
Forget about levying higher taxes on larger members - RIPE is not a tax collector and doesn't exist to offset differences in wealth. It exists to deliver a necessary service, and each member should pay according to the burden they place on the organisation.
How much should we pay for a database service? In the ideal world, there should be no monopoly on the service and we could let the market forces decide what the right price is.
I realize that might not be feasible right now, so we are stuck with the next best solution: Letting the community figure out what the acceptable price is - I guess most RIPE members run some sort of database service of their own and therefore possess a profound understanding of the associated costs.
Until we have better data, I suggest we look at the past for inspiration: Use the budget for 2014 (€ 22 millions) and adjust for inflation - that amounts to approximately € 28 millions.
To get there we can slash External Engagement & Community (€ 9,4 millions in the 2024 budget) - RIPE is a monopoly, and the members will be there regardless of the activities in that area.
I also suggest that we take a look at the expenses associated with the Office of the Managing Director (€ 2,2 millions in the 2024 budget) - after all, RIPE is an organisation with less than 200 employees.
I call for members of the community to contribute: What is the right amount of staffing in the RIPE NCC?
Regards,
Yoel Caspersen CTO Kviknet.dk ApS
On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 3:12 PM Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> wrote: Hi,
Very politely put I do not think any of the three proposed charging schemes are in the membership's interest - they certainly aren't in mine.
All three seem to be designed to assure that NCC can continue along, business as usual, with its tasks. Thus, we could pretend that there isn't a big issue with the membership numbers declining. We could also pretend there isn't a real problem with the value proposition of the services. Furthermore, we could also pretend that we do not care that it all is conveniently funded by the membership. I mean, what is 1500 or 1900 euro to most people? I have heard the last several times in the past. After all, why should we care about the expenditure when the sums are so small for each LIR? Why should we care when it is not our own money? I'll tell you. Not caring about the transaction size is bad, if you are willing to let these kinds of sums slide, you'll let it slide on bigger amounts. As is treating other people's money (OPM) differently than if it were your own. These eventually lead to lack of accountability.
What is being proposed is really a significant increase in membership fees. In particular, significantly above what it used to cost on average to produce services for each member (whether they use them or not). Note when I say what it used to cost, as in FY2024 the cost per LIR will be higher.
Now, with the membership in further decline the average cost per member will once more be higher in FY2025. Next year, I forecast that we will have the same "discussion" for FY2026 as NCC comes around and asks for more money. Once again. Why? Because according to projections the amount of members will continue to decrease resulting in higher fees per organization. Once again. All in the advantageous name of the articles of association that allow pretty much anything.
Following the above rational thought with another is, that what one should be doing is choosing what to either invoice separately or drop completely. Yes, really. Everyone is happy with free services, it is when you apply the money test - request someone to pay for something - when you see if what you create contains value.
Considering NCC managed to "save" 5% in the FY2024 budget compared to FY2023, asking for 8.1% increase (4% annualized) the next year is, well, kind of cheeky. It restores the budget pretty much to what it would have been with two annual increases. As an exercise in budgetary engineering I do approve. As a paying member I do not.
What really would be needed is competition. Competition would make the RIR market more efficient. It is rather obvious that the RIR markets aren't anywhere near the efficiency they could be at. Competition would mean that people wanting to pay 1900 - or even more in the future - could choose to do so and those who don't want could potentially pay less. Reduced to the very basics one is paying for bits in a database. In that sense this is rather similar to the certificate market where at one time the cost per certificate was sky high and there were only a few issuers. Today, I am guessing most do not pay thousands annually for a few bits in theirs. Neither do most people care whether the cert was issued by Verisign, Gandi or someone else. Having looked into it out of curiosity, real competition does not seem to be possible as the principles in ICP-2 pretty much state that there can/should only be one RIR per region. Which makes NCC the definition of a monopoly. Monopolies with nice and polite people, well intended purpose and mission creep are not good, they're bad. For everyone.
Finally, the surplus. The concept itself is interesting and I do know where it comes from. But from an financial point of view it is really lending money to someone else and then (maybe) getting it back, a year later, less inflation if they did not spend it.
I would kindly request that the EB would add option D or "Option D: No Changes from 2023". :)
Kaj
Kaj
_____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________
From: ncc-announce <ncc-announce-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Simon-Jan Haytink <simonjh@ripe.net> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 12:18 To: ncc-announce@ripe.net <ncc-announce@ripe.net> Subject: [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals You don't often get email from simonjh@ripe.net. Learn why this is important
Dear RIPE NCC members,
We can now share three draft charging scheme models for 2025 that the Executive Board approved with the following resolution at its meeting on 25 March 2024:
The RIPE NCC Executive Board approves the submission of the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 options to the upcoming RIPE NCC General Meeting for members to vote on.
- Option A - Charging Scheme as is with 22.58% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,900) and a 0% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 50)
- Option B - Charging Scheme as is with 20.97% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,875) and a 50% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 75)
- Option C - Charging Scheme as is with 16.13% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,800), a 50% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 75) and a new AS Numbers fee of EUR 50 per assignment
*Resources falling under this charge are IPv4 and IPv6 PI assignments; Anycast assignments; IPv4 and IPv6 IXP assignments; and Legacy IPv4 resource registrations through a sponsoring LIR.
The full draft charging scheme models are available from the GM Documentation page: https://www/ .ripe.net%2Fmembership%2Fmeetings%2Fgm%2Fmeetings%2Fmay-2024%2Fdocume ntation-and-archives%2Fsupporting-documents%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy .Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd5 73bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004040536%7CUnknown%7CTW FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI 6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=3tUyMKDzZZY69M3vjjDqaKxgBrrQMeI1rnhBImzaex Q%3D&reserved=0
Although the proposed models are relatively simple, we provide a calculator where you can see exactly what you would pay under each of the proposed models:
https://www/ .ripe.net%2Fdocuments%2F3757%2FCS2025_Member_Calculator.xlsx&data=05% 7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18 264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004051566% 7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6I k1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=glTH6W6VCl6MSXrBbsUC8A4K%2FK TE8%2FavtiBwmmokOEY%3D&reserved=0
The main considerations for the Executive Board in proposing these three models are:
1. The consolidation of LIR accounts, which means the burden to generate sufficient income must be met by fewer accounts
2. Increased costs due to inflation that were previously catered for by the large number of LIR accounts
3. Following the discussions last year and again this year, there appears to be no clear consensus among members on how a category-based model would work and the Board does not wish to put another category model forward at the upcoming GM that will be rejected by the members. Rather, the Board will propose a simple model that guarantees adequate funding for 2025 and 2026 - under this proposal, we expect there would be no need for a fee increase for 2026. The Board will work with the RIPE NCC on a more in-depth consultation with the members aimed at arriving at a sustainable solution for 2027 and beyond, possibly involving a new charging scheme task force.
All three proposed models are designed to arrive at the same income of EUR 41.1 million for the RIPE NCC in 2025. This will cover all current services and activities, a 5% staff cost increase, a 2% inflation increase on all non-staff costs, and EUR 1 million for additional work relating to registry complexity and security projects aimed at ensuring the resilience of the Registry and the RIPE NCC more broadly. Any such additional work would be discussed with the membership during Activity Plan and Budget consultations and then need to be approved by the Board. This will also allow some leeway should more LIR accounts close than we expect.
It’s important to note that the RIPE NCC aims for an income budget that will provide a surplus, and this means that should we meet our budgetary targets, a surplus can be returned to members in 2026 should they so wish.
While the RIPE NCC continues to carry out cost-cutting efforts across the organisation, drastically reducing the budget at this time is not advisable due to the work that needs to be carried out, especially in relation to maintaining high-quality registry services and securing the registry and RIPE NCC systems. Cutting services or activities is not something the Board is planning to do, and such actions would take time and need full consultation with the membership. An overview of the activities and services that the membership fee covers is provided below this email.
I also urge you to see the presentation we delivered at the charging scheme open house in March so that the full context of the situation and the financial landscape we face is clear to you. The slides are available at:
https://www/ .ripe.net%2Fmembership%2Fmeetings%2Fopen-house%2Fripe-ncc-charging-sc heme-2025%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d1 7e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0% 7C638484307004057320%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQ IjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5GTeIyn nzxx1WLZ%2BDRoFNWAhaRPvTemPafvKwlIaEEk%3D&reserved=0
Finally, I want to thank all those who have contributed to the consultation so far on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025. The models we present here are draft and in two weeks we will announce the final proposal that members will vote on at the GM on 22-24 May. Please discuss the draft proposal on the members-discuss@ripe.net list - any input received by 19 April can be incorporated if possible into the final models we propose. And make sure to register for the GM so that you can vote on the charging scheme that will apply for you and all members next year:
https://my/. ripe.net%2F%23%2Fmeetings%2Factive&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40 kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6e c3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004063238%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8ey JWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0% 7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2BkYHbjPqA8CwacCNlVg0M%2FVvao%2FK8z1zB8hrEeaLXVg%3D&r eserved=0
Simon-Jan Haytink
Chief Financial Officer
RIPE NCC
Services and Activities Covered by the Member Fee
- A trusted, efficient, accurate and resilient registry that guarantees uniqueness of resources held by members
- Neutral information services uninfluenced by commercial or government interests that allow both the RIPE NCC and the community to carry out useful research into the Internet
- Engagement activities, including RIPE and regional meetings, that build an active membership and community and that contribute to the overall good of the Internet
- A voice and influence for the membership in key decision-making fora, including with governments and regulators
- Protection of the Joint Internet Number Registry as developed by the Internet community
- Learning and development activities that help to address skills shortages and contribute to an educated membership
- Support for the Policy Development Process (PDP)
- An authoritative registry of routing information provided by RPKI and the RIPE Database
- K-root and DNS services
- A dedicated staff with considerable expertise contributing to all of the above
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lis/ ts.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvg eniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f 9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004071908%7CUnknown% 7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJ XVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TSE6bLTaGjEzZzbwPbLL8ZivguLE4ZUOG1YC6W k3HVE%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://lis/ ts.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fyoel%2540kviknet. dk&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d 88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C63848430 7004081513%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMz IiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=h8qgUsC1phTJj9r9T HsO2THM2UZcg6CMMNwff4PP3SA%3D&reserved=0
______________________________________________________________________ ___________
Daniel Stolpe Tel: 08 - 688 11 81 stolpe@resilans.se Resilans AB Fax: 08 - 55 00 21 63 http://www.resilans.se/ Box 45 094 556741-1193 104 30 Stockholm
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvgen iy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd 573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004100103%7CUnknown%7CTW FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6 Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Y5j98PfqxzkN%2B2UYI6E5kDMJLYj1qlHRc64sClcZFa U%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fregistry-ripe%2540r esilans.se&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9 f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C63 8484307004109226%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV 2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2FLi%2BQEHdR thZtiNdR7ETMPAkPAzVevDnMjvq75F3kf8%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvgen iy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd 573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004115782%7CUnknown%7CTW FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6 Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=vY2oba0wvj08c6W4f%2FFaPi6BRvFFLM7AbIf5i84qT6 s%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fadmin%2540roskomnad zor.io&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f542 32d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484 307004121940%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luM zIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=NlQ4MnUaG53yS1eKO %2F2nhgAkG8yzbN7B3c4koumTvKw%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ 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/evgeniy.brodskiy%40ky...
_______________________________________________ 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/mihail%40fedorov.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/michele%40blacknight....
_______________________________________________ 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/admin%40roskomnadzor....
You focussed on ASN fees, not on IPv4 fees. They’re two totally different things. -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 I have sent this email at a time that is convenient for me. I do not expect you to respond to it outside of your usual working hours. From: ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED <admin@roskomnadzor.io> Date: Thursday, 11 April 2024 at 14:53 To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com>, Mihail Fedorov <mihail@fedorov.net> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Please use caution when opening attachments from unrecognised sources. Trying to increase fee for ASN, but why? Just from official stats IPv4 - 93531 IPv6 - 26348 ASN - 39253 IPv4 is rare and most of profitable resource, but members who holding MOST of then - pay same 50 EUR/year per resource. If set 50 EUR/year per ASN, its will be equal for example to 1 IPv4 or IPv6 block. Wtf? Its looks crazy. It make me thinking about RIPE currenlty is under pressure of IPv4 resellers lobby, and because doesnt want to increase fee for IPv4 or make resources based fee. Also. Michele, if you really believe about 4 euro/month is low. Im agreed with you! Then also need to adjust for 1 x IPv4 /24 fee as 50 EUR/year. If member have for example 1 x IPv4 /22 - its count as 4 x IPv4 /24 = 200 EUR/year. (4 cups of coffee in month) :) On 11.04.2024 13:30, Michele Neylon - Blacknight via members-discuss wrote:
The proposed ASN fee is 0 on options A and B and 50 euro / year per ASN with option C.
50 euro / year is just over 4 euro / month.
So about the price of a cup of coffee…
If that kills your business …
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Personal blog: https://michele.blog/
Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
I have sent this email at a time that is convenient for me. I do not expect you to respond to it outside of your usual working hours.
*From: *members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Mihail Fedorov <mihail@fedorov.net> *Date: *Thursday, 11 April 2024 at 13:40 *To: * *Cc: *members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> *Subject: *Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] Please use caution when opening attachments from unrecognised sources.
Charging per ASN is even worse than just price increase. It is terrible and killing even more LIRs
Imagine rather new LIR who is trying to do business based on what is LIR intended for - providing LIR services to consumers. For example 30 clients who requested ASN sponsorship during year. If charged per ASN they will pay twice more than huge corporations serving only purpose of their own. Those typically have just 1-2 ASNs and tons of resources attached to it. They are main source of work for RIPE staff and they should be funding expensive projects like Atlas and others.
Actually working LIRs also have business contracts/logic already established on current charging scheme and adding ASN fee will kill them.
Once again - why not just bill based on resources? It’s extremely easy. Oh, right, resource holders won’t like it :)
On 11 Apr 2024, at 15:11, ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED <admin@roskomnadzor.io> wrote:
Why LIR who havent resources must pay same amount as LIR who have a lot of resources?
RIPE declaring about "community" and about "spending budget must be distributed across all members" - but in practically is not.
When RIPE want to take extra fee for ASN - its mean then RIPE want to charge by resources. Then why RIPE dont want to charge due resources for IPv4?
Guess big members who hold a lot IPv4 allocations dont want it - because current situation is fine for their point of view. Dont forget - RIPE charget 50 EUR per resource - not matter what is it - /24 or /16.
If we are not using all RIPE services - why we must pay for that? Why not any option to select - "Only core services"?
On 11.04.2024 11:45, Evgeniy Brodskiy wrote:
Confidential/Конфіденційно Hi, Not at all. More RESOURCES in hands of some LIR doesn’t mean consuming MORE SERVICES. If you want to bill somebody based on consuming SERVICES it would be logical to count consuming SERVICES, not RESOURCES. But who cares about logic if goal to force somebody else to pay... even if some particular BIG LIR doesn't use majority of this SERVICES. -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2024 2:06 PM To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals [Вы нечасто получаете письма от admin@roskomnadzor.io. Узнайте, почему это важно, по адресу https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Its great, but why RIPE trying to make funding from less adquate method? Big members of RIPE region request MORE SERVICE - but why ALL must pay for that? Why RIPE continue to ignoring taking membership fee based on RESOURCES? Currently RIPE depend upon LIR signup fee and year/year LIR fee in most cases - but its very unstable. NOR, RIPE can take fee per IPv4/24 in holding per member and have STABLE SOURCE OF FUNDING! ARIN, APNIC, AFRINIC already a long time do it on successful basis. Why small members of RIPE must pay SAME amount as big members? Are its fair? Guess not. Dont forget about fact - if early LIR guarantee receive /22, after only /24 - then now LIR receive only place in waiting list (like in Communists USSR) and undefined ETA on receive resources! But pay SAME amount as any other. Why RIPE didnt want to change fee based on fact - if LIR didnt have IPv4 in holding - then LIR must pay less, nor LIR who holding 10-100-100 IPv4 blocks? On 11.04.2024 10:46, Daniel Stolpe via members-discuss wrote:
Hi,
Yoel is absolutely right. A few years ago the financial situation was not looking good but the "last /8 policy" made a huge difference. The "handing out /22 blocks" was like printing new money - for a while. As the number of members whent sky rocket, RIPE could lower membership fees at the same time as an ever expanding budget.
But now we are seeing what everyone could have predicted - the number of members are declining and the NCC keeps calling for more money.
No, this is not reasonable. In tough times everyone has to try to make ends meet. The NCC should be no exception. For years only a few persistent voices have been trying to call for cuts or cost control as an alternative to eternal growth. What happened last year should have been a clear signal but instead the voting is now rigged with more or less equal outcomes.
Regards, Daniel Stolpe
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024, Yoel Caspersen via members-discuss wrote:
Dear RIPE member,
Kaj Niemi is absolutely right: RIPE increasing its budget does not serve the interests of its members, and allowing it to pass because you are spending other people's money is a sign of bad judgement and lack of accountability.
For years, I was wondering why RIPE was handing out /22 blocks at what was effectively a fraction of the market price. I think we have the answer now: Membership fees and diluted voting power of each member served the interests of the management just fine.
RIPE is a mandatory phonebook for IP addresses, nothing more and nothing less. All the fat that has grown on the organisation in the last decade must be trimmed, and I call for a drastic budget reduction - if some members are willing to spend their own money on additional services, they should be free to do so, but with absolute emphasis on this part: their own money.
From a fairness perspective, RIPE should be granted the necessary funds to run the database service, meaning:
- A base fee to keep the database service running, shared equally by all members - Fees on actions that require manual work from the RIPE NCC (e.g. transfers, mergers etc)
Forget about levying higher taxes on larger members - RIPE is not a tax collector and doesn't exist to offset differences in wealth. It exists to deliver a necessary service, and each member should pay according to the burden they place on the organisation.
How much should we pay for a database service? In the ideal world, there should be no monopoly on the service and we could let the market forces decide what the right price is.
I realize that might not be feasible right now, so we are stuck with the next best solution: Letting the community figure out what the acceptable price is - I guess most RIPE members run some sort of database service of their own and therefore possess a profound understanding of the associated costs.
Until we have better data, I suggest we look at the past for inspiration: Use the budget for 2014 (€ 22 millions) and adjust for inflation - that amounts to approximately € 28 millions.
To get there we can slash External Engagement & Community (€ 9,4 millions in the 2024 budget) - RIPE is a monopoly, and the members will be there regardless of the activities in that area.
I also suggest that we take a look at the expenses associated with the Office of the Managing Director (€ 2,2 millions in the 2024 budget) - after all, RIPE is an organisation with less than 200 employees.
I call for members of the community to contribute: What is the right amount of staffing in the RIPE NCC?
Regards,
Yoel Caspersen CTO Kviknet.dk ApS
On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 3:12 PM Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> wrote: Hi,
Very politely put I do not think any of the three proposed charging schemes are in the membership's interest - they certainly aren't in mine.
All three seem to be designed to assure that NCC can continue along, business as usual, with its tasks. Thus, we could pretend that there isn't a big issue with the membership numbers declining. We could also pretend there isn't a real problem with the value proposition of the services. Furthermore, we could also pretend that we do not care that it all is conveniently funded by the membership. I mean, what is 1500 or 1900 euro to most people? I have heard the last several times in the past. After all, why should we care about the expenditure when the sums are so small for each LIR? Why should we care when it is not our own money? I'll tell you. Not caring about the transaction size is bad, if you are willing to let these kinds of sums slide, you'll let it slide on bigger amounts. As is treating other people's money (OPM) differently than if it were your own. These eventually lead to lack of accountability.
What is being proposed is really a significant increase in membership fees. In particular, significantly above what it used to cost on average to produce services for each member (whether they use them or not). Note when I say what it used to cost, as in FY2024 the cost per LIR will be higher.
Now, with the membership in further decline the average cost per member will once more be higher in FY2025. Next year, I forecast that we will have the same "discussion" for FY2026 as NCC comes around and asks for more money. Once again. Why? Because according to projections the amount of members will continue to decrease resulting in higher fees per organization. Once again. All in the advantageous name of the articles of association that allow pretty much anything.
Following the above rational thought with another is, that what one should be doing is choosing what to either invoice separately or drop completely. Yes, really. Everyone is happy with free services, it is when you apply the money test - request someone to pay for something - when you see if what you create contains value.
Considering NCC managed to "save" 5% in the FY2024 budget compared to FY2023, asking for 8.1% increase (4% annualized) the next year is, well, kind of cheeky. It restores the budget pretty much to what it would have been with two annual increases. As an exercise in budgetary engineering I do approve. As a paying member I do not.
What really would be needed is competition. Competition would make the RIR market more efficient. It is rather obvious that the RIR markets aren't anywhere near the efficiency they could be at. Competition would mean that people wanting to pay 1900 - or even more in the future - could choose to do so and those who don't want could potentially pay less. Reduced to the very basics one is paying for bits in a database. In that sense this is rather similar to the certificate market where at one time the cost per certificate was sky high and there were only a few issuers. Today, I am guessing most do not pay thousands annually for a few bits in theirs. Neither do most people care whether the cert was issued by Verisign, Gandi or someone else. Having looked into it out of curiosity, real competition does not seem to be possible as the principles in ICP-2 pretty much state that there can/should only be one RIR per region. Which makes NCC the definition of a monopoly. Monopolies with nice and polite people, well intended purpose and mission creep are not good, they're bad. For everyone.
Finally, the surplus. The concept itself is interesting and I do know where it comes from. But from an financial point of view it is really lending money to someone else and then (maybe) getting it back, a year later, less inflation if they did not spend it.
I would kindly request that the EB would add option D or "Option D: No Changes from 2023". :)
Kaj
Kaj
_____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________
From: ncc-announce <ncc-announce-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Simon-Jan Haytink <simonjh@ripe.net> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 12:18 To: ncc-announce@ripe.net <ncc-announce@ripe.net> Subject: [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals You don't often get email from simonjh@ripe.net. Learn why this is important
Dear RIPE NCC members,
We can now share three draft charging scheme models for 2025 that the Executive Board approved with the following resolution at its meeting on 25 March 2024:
The RIPE NCC Executive Board approves the submission of the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 options to the upcoming RIPE NCC General Meeting for members to vote on.
- Option A - Charging Scheme as is with 22.58% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,900) and a 0% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 50)
- Option B - Charging Scheme as is with 20.97% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,875) and a 50% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 75)
- Option C - Charging Scheme as is with 16.13% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,800), a 50% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 75) and a new AS Numbers fee of EUR 50 per assignment
*Resources falling under this charge are IPv4 and IPv6 PI assignments; Anycast assignments; IPv4 and IPv6 IXP assignments; and Legacy IPv4 resource registrations through a sponsoring LIR.
The full draft charging scheme models are available from the GM Documentation page: https://www/ .ripe.net%2Fmembership%2Fmeetings%2Fgm%2Fmeetings%2Fmay-2024%2Fdocume ntation-and-archives%2Fsupporting-documents%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy .Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd5 73bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004040536%7CUnknown%7CTW FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI 6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=3tUyMKDzZZY69M3vjjDqaKxgBrrQMeI1rnhBImzaex Q%3D&reserved=0
Although the proposed models are relatively simple, we provide a calculator where you can see exactly what you would pay under each of the proposed models:
https://www/ .ripe.net%2Fdocuments%2F3757%2FCS2025_Member_Calculator.xlsx&data=05% 7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18 264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004051566% 7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6I k1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=glTH6W6VCl6MSXrBbsUC8A4K%2FK TE8%2FavtiBwmmokOEY%3D&reserved=0
The main considerations for the Executive Board in proposing these three models are:
1. The consolidation of LIR accounts, which means the burden to generate sufficient income must be met by fewer accounts
2. Increased costs due to inflation that were previously catered for by the large number of LIR accounts
3. Following the discussions last year and again this year, there appears to be no clear consensus among members on how a category-based model would work and the Board does not wish to put another category model forward at the upcoming GM that will be rejected by the members. Rather, the Board will propose a simple model that guarantees adequate funding for 2025 and 2026 - under this proposal, we expect there would be no need for a fee increase for 2026. The Board will work with the RIPE NCC on a more in-depth consultation with the members aimed at arriving at a sustainable solution for 2027 and beyond, possibly involving a new charging scheme task force.
All three proposed models are designed to arrive at the same income of EUR 41.1 million for the RIPE NCC in 2025. This will cover all current services and activities, a 5% staff cost increase, a 2% inflation increase on all non-staff costs, and EUR 1 million for additional work relating to registry complexity and security projects aimed at ensuring the resilience of the Registry and the RIPE NCC more broadly. Any such additional work would be discussed with the membership during Activity Plan and Budget consultations and then need to be approved by the Board. This will also allow some leeway should more LIR accounts close than we expect.
It’s important to note that the RIPE NCC aims for an income budget that will provide a surplus, and this means that should we meet our budgetary targets, a surplus can be returned to members in 2026 should they so wish.
While the RIPE NCC continues to carry out cost-cutting efforts across the organisation, drastically reducing the budget at this time is not advisable due to the work that needs to be carried out, especially in relation to maintaining high-quality registry services and securing the registry and RIPE NCC systems. Cutting services or activities is not something the Board is planning to do, and such actions would take time and need full consultation with the membership. An overview of the activities and services that the membership fee covers is provided below this email.
I also urge you to see the presentation we delivered at the charging scheme open house in March so that the full context of the situation and the financial landscape we face is clear to you. The slides are available at:
https://www/ .ripe.net%2Fmembership%2Fmeetings%2Fopen-house%2Fripe-ncc-charging-sc heme-2025%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d1 7e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0% 7C638484307004057320%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQ IjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5GTeIyn nzxx1WLZ%2BDRoFNWAhaRPvTemPafvKwlIaEEk%3D&reserved=0
Finally, I want to thank all those who have contributed to the consultation so far on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025. The models we present here are draft and in two weeks we will announce the final proposal that members will vote on at the GM on 22-24 May. Please discuss the draft proposal on the members-discuss@ripe.net list - any input received by 19 April can be incorporated if possible into the final models we propose. And make sure to register for the GM so that you can vote on the charging scheme that will apply for you and all members next year:
https://my/. ripe.net%2F%23%2Fmeetings%2Factive&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40 kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6e c3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004063238%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8ey JWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0% 7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2BkYHbjPqA8CwacCNlVg0M%2FVvao%2FK8z1zB8hrEeaLXVg%3D&r eserved=0
Simon-Jan Haytink
Chief Financial Officer
RIPE NCC
Services and Activities Covered by the Member Fee
- A trusted, efficient, accurate and resilient registry that guarantees uniqueness of resources held by members
- Neutral information services uninfluenced by commercial or government interests that allow both the RIPE NCC and the community to carry out useful research into the Internet
- Engagement activities, including RIPE and regional meetings, that build an active membership and community and that contribute to the overall good of the Internet
- A voice and influence for the membership in key decision-making fora, including with governments and regulators
- Protection of the Joint Internet Number Registry as developed by the Internet community
- Learning and development activities that help to address skills shortages and contribute to an educated membership
- Support for the Policy Development Process (PDP)
- An authoritative registry of routing information provided by RPKI and the RIPE Database
- K-root and DNS services
- A dedicated staff with considerable expertise contributing to all of the above
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lis/ ts.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvg eniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f 9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004071908%7CUnknown% 7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJ XVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TSE6bLTaGjEzZzbwPbLL8ZivguLE4ZUOG1YC6W k3HVE%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://lis/ ts.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fyoel%2540kviknet. dk&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d 88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C63848430 7004081513%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMz IiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=h8qgUsC1phTJj9r9T HsO2THM2UZcg6CMMNwff4PP3SA%3D&reserved=0
______________________________________________________________________ ___________
Daniel Stolpe Tel: 08 - 688 11 81 stolpe@resilans.se Resilans AB Fax: 08 - 55 00 21 63 http://www.resilans.se/ Box 45 094 556741-1193 104 30 Stockholm
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvgen iy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd 573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004100103%7CUnknown%7CTW FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6 Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Y5j98PfqxzkN%2B2UYI6E5kDMJLYj1qlHRc64sClcZFa U%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fregistry-ripe%2540r esilans.se&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9 f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C63 8484307004109226%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV 2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2FLi%2BQEHdR thZtiNdR7ETMPAkPAzVevDnMjvq75F3kf8%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvgen iy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd 573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004115782%7CUnknown%7CTW FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6 Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=vY2oba0wvj08c6W4f%2FFaPi6BRvFFLM7AbIf5i84qT6 s%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fadmin%2540roskomnad zor.io&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f542 32d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484 307004121940%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luM zIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=NlQ4MnUaG53yS1eKO %2F2nhgAkG8yzbN7B3c4koumTvKw%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ 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/evgeniy.brodskiy%40ky...
_______________________________________________ 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/mihail%40fedorov.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/michele%40blacknight....
_______________________________________________ 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/admin%40roskomnadzor....
Confidential/Конфіденційно Why do you think this statement is correct: “They are the main source of work for RIPE employees.” ?? Even if you think about auditing or maintaining RIPE DB, it would be strange to think that working with /16 requires 256 times more time and effort than working with /24. If you think about different "non-MAIN" services like Learning, then there is no difference between big and small LIR at all. Resources do not reflect all of these dependencies. And again you are talking about fairness. -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Mihail Fedorov Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2024 3:39 PM Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals Charging per ASN is even worse than just price increase. It is terrible and killing even more LIRs Imagine rather new LIR who is trying to do business based on what is LIR intended for - providing LIR services to consumers. For example 30 clients who requested ASN sponsorship during year. If charged per ASN they will pay twice more than huge corporations serving only purpose of their own. Those typically have just 1-2 ASNs and tons of resources attached to it. They are main source of work for RIPE staff and they should be funding expensive projects like Atlas and others. Actually working LIRs also have business contracts/logic already established on current charging scheme and adding ASN fee will kill them. Once again - why not just bill based on resources? It’s extremely easy. Oh, right, resource holders won’t like it :)
On 11 Apr 2024, at 15:11, ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED <admin@roskomnadzor.io> wrote:
Why LIR who havent resources must pay same amount as LIR who have a lot of resources?
RIPE declaring about "community" and about "spending budget must be distributed across all members" - but in practically is not.
When RIPE want to take extra fee for ASN - its mean then RIPE want to charge by resources. Then why RIPE dont want to charge due resources for IPv4?
Guess big members who hold a lot IPv4 allocations dont want it - because current situation is fine for their point of view. Dont forget - RIPE charget 50 EUR per resource - not matter what is it - /24 or /16.
If we are not using all RIPE services - why we must pay for that? Why not any option to select - "Only core services"?
On 11.04.2024 11:45, Evgeniy Brodskiy wrote:
Confidential/Конфіденційно Hi, Not at all. More RESOURCES in hands of some LIR doesn’t mean consuming MORE SERVICES. If you want to bill somebody based on consuming SERVICES it would be logical to count consuming SERVICES, not RESOURCES. But who cares about logic if goal to force somebody else to pay... even if some particular BIG LIR doesn't use majority of this SERVICES. -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2024 2:06 PM To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals [Вы нечасто получаете письма от admin@roskomnadzor.io. Узнайте, почему это важно, по адресу https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Its great, but why RIPE trying to make funding from less adquate method? Big members of RIPE region request MORE SERVICE - but why ALL must pay for that? Why RIPE continue to ignoring taking membership fee based on RESOURCES? Currently RIPE depend upon LIR signup fee and year/year LIR fee in most cases - but its very unstable. NOR, RIPE can take fee per IPv4/24 in holding per member and have STABLE SOURCE OF FUNDING! ARIN, APNIC, AFRINIC already a long time do it on successful basis. Why small members of RIPE must pay SAME amount as big members? Are its fair? Guess not. Dont forget about fact - if early LIR guarantee receive /22, after only /24 - then now LIR receive only place in waiting list (like in Communists USSR) and undefined ETA on receive resources! But pay SAME amount as any other. Why RIPE didnt want to change fee based on fact - if LIR didnt have IPv4 in holding - then LIR must pay less, nor LIR who holding 10-100-100 IPv4 blocks? On 11.04.2024 10:46, Daniel Stolpe via members-discuss wrote:
Hi,
Yoel is absolutely right. A few years ago the financial situation was not looking good but the "last /8 policy" made a huge difference. The "handing out /22 blocks" was like printing new money - for a while. As the number of members whent sky rocket, RIPE could lower membership fees at the same time as an ever expanding budget.
But now we are seeing what everyone could have predicted - the number of members are declining and the NCC keeps calling for more money.
No, this is not reasonable. In tough times everyone has to try to make ends meet. The NCC should be no exception. For years only a few persistent voices have been trying to call for cuts or cost control as an alternative to eternal growth. What happened last year should have been a clear signal but instead the voting is now rigged with more or less equal outcomes.
Regards, Daniel Stolpe
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024, Yoel Caspersen via members-discuss wrote:
Dear RIPE member,
Kaj Niemi is absolutely right: RIPE increasing its budget does not serve the interests of its members, and allowing it to pass because you are spending other people's money is a sign of bad judgement and lack of accountability.
For years, I was wondering why RIPE was handing out /22 blocks at what was effectively a fraction of the market price. I think we have the answer now: Membership fees and diluted voting power of each member served the interests of the management just fine.
RIPE is a mandatory phonebook for IP addresses, nothing more and nothing less. All the fat that has grown on the organisation in the last decade must be trimmed, and I call for a drastic budget reduction - if some members are willing to spend their own money on additional services, they should be free to do so, but with absolute emphasis on this part: their own money.
From a fairness perspective, RIPE should be granted the necessary funds to run the database service, meaning:
- A base fee to keep the database service running, shared equally by all members - Fees on actions that require manual work from the RIPE NCC (e.g. transfers, mergers etc)
Forget about levying higher taxes on larger members - RIPE is not a tax collector and doesn't exist to offset differences in wealth. It exists to deliver a necessary service, and each member should pay according to the burden they place on the organisation.
How much should we pay for a database service? In the ideal world, there should be no monopoly on the service and we could let the market forces decide what the right price is.
I realize that might not be feasible right now, so we are stuck with the next best solution: Letting the community figure out what the acceptable price is - I guess most RIPE members run some sort of database service of their own and therefore possess a profound understanding of the associated costs.
Until we have better data, I suggest we look at the past for inspiration: Use the budget for 2014 (€ 22 millions) and adjust for inflation - that amounts to approximately € 28 millions.
To get there we can slash External Engagement & Community (€ 9,4 millions in the 2024 budget) - RIPE is a monopoly, and the members will be there regardless of the activities in that area.
I also suggest that we take a look at the expenses associated with the Office of the Managing Director (€ 2,2 millions in the 2024 budget) - after all, RIPE is an organisation with less than 200 employees.
I call for members of the community to contribute: What is the right amount of staffing in the RIPE NCC?
Regards,
Yoel Caspersen CTO Kviknet.dk ApS
On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 3:12 PM Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> wrote: Hi,
Very politely put I do not think any of the three proposed charging schemes are in the membership's interest - they certainly aren't in mine.
All three seem to be designed to assure that NCC can continue along, business as usual, with its tasks. Thus, we could pretend that there isn't a big issue with the membership numbers declining. We could also pretend there isn't a real problem with the value proposition of the services. Furthermore, we could also pretend that we do not care that it all is conveniently funded by the membership. I mean, what is 1500 or 1900 euro to most people? I have heard the last several times in the past. After all, why should we care about the expenditure when the sums are so small for each LIR? Why should we care when it is not our own money? I'll tell you. Not caring about the transaction size is bad, if you are willing to let these kinds of sums slide, you'll let it slide on bigger amounts. As is treating other people's money (OPM) differently than if it were your own. These eventually lead to lack of accountability.
What is being proposed is really a significant increase in membership fees. In particular, significantly above what it used to cost on average to produce services for each member (whether they use them or not). Note when I say what it used to cost, as in FY2024 the cost per LIR will be higher.
Now, with the membership in further decline the average cost per member will once more be higher in FY2025. Next year, I forecast that we will have the same "discussion" for FY2026 as NCC comes around and asks for more money. Once again. Why? Because according to projections the amount of members will continue to decrease resulting in higher fees per organization. Once again. All in the advantageous name of the articles of association that allow pretty much anything.
Following the above rational thought with another is, that what one should be doing is choosing what to either invoice separately or drop completely. Yes, really. Everyone is happy with free services, it is when you apply the money test - request someone to pay for something - when you see if what you create contains value.
Considering NCC managed to "save" 5% in the FY2024 budget compared to FY2023, asking for 8.1% increase (4% annualized) the next year is, well, kind of cheeky. It restores the budget pretty much to what it would have been with two annual increases. As an exercise in budgetary engineering I do approve. As a paying member I do not.
What really would be needed is competition. Competition would make the RIR market more efficient. It is rather obvious that the RIR markets aren't anywhere near the efficiency they could be at. Competition would mean that people wanting to pay 1900 - or even more in the future - could choose to do so and those who don't want could potentially pay less. Reduced to the very basics one is paying for bits in a database. In that sense this is rather similar to the certificate market where at one time the cost per certificate was sky high and there were only a few issuers. Today, I am guessing most do not pay thousands annually for a few bits in theirs. Neither do most people care whether the cert was issued by Verisign, Gandi or someone else. Having looked into it out of curiosity, real competition does not seem to be possible as the principles in ICP-2 pretty much state that there can/should only be one RIR per region. Which makes NCC the definition of a monopoly. Monopolies with nice and polite people, well intended purpose and mission creep are not good, they're bad. For everyone.
Finally, the surplus. The concept itself is interesting and I do know where it comes from. But from an financial point of view it is really lending money to someone else and then (maybe) getting it back, a year later, less inflation if they did not spend it.
I would kindly request that the EB would add option D or "Option D: No Changes from 2023". :)
Kaj
Kaj
___________________________________________________________________ __ ___________________________________________________________________ __ ___________________________________________
From: ncc-announce <ncc-announce-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Simon-Jan Haytink <simonjh@ripe.net> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 12:18 To: ncc-announce@ripe.net <ncc-announce@ripe.net> Subject: [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals You don't often get email from simonjh@ripe.net. Learn why this is important
Dear RIPE NCC members,
We can now share three draft charging scheme models for 2025 that the Executive Board approved with the following resolution at its meeting on 25 March 2024:
The RIPE NCC Executive Board approves the submission of the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 options to the upcoming RIPE NCC General Meeting for members to vote on.
- Option A - Charging Scheme as is with 22.58% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,900) and a 0% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 50)
- Option B - Charging Scheme as is with 20.97% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,875) and a 50% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 75)
- Option C - Charging Scheme as is with 16.13% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,800), a 50% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 75) and a new AS Numbers fee of EUR 50 per assignment
*Resources falling under this charge are IPv4 and IPv6 PI assignments; Anycast assignments; IPv4 and IPv6 IXP assignments; and Legacy IPv4 resource registrations through a sponsoring LIR.
The full draft charging scheme models are available from the GM Documentation page: https://www/ .ripe.net%2Fmembership%2Fmeetings%2Fgm%2Fmeetings%2Fmay-2024%2Fdocu me ntation-and-archives%2Fsupporting-documents%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgen iy .Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9b d5 73bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004040536%7CUnknown%7C TW FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXV CI 6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=3tUyMKDzZZY69M3vjjDqaKxgBrrQMeI1rnhBImza ex Q%3D&reserved=0
Although the proposed models are relatively simple, we provide a calculator where you can see exactly what you would pay under each of the proposed models:
https://www/ .ripe.net%2Fdocuments%2F3757%2FCS2025_Member_Calculator.xlsx&data=0 5% 7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a 18 264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C63848430700405156 6% 7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI 6I k1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=glTH6W6VCl6MSXrBbsUC8A4K%2 FK TE8%2FavtiBwmmokOEY%3D&reserved=0
The main considerations for the Executive Board in proposing these three models are:
1. The consolidation of LIR accounts, which means the burden to generate sufficient income must be met by fewer accounts
2. Increased costs due to inflation that were previously catered for by the large number of LIR accounts
3. Following the discussions last year and again this year, there appears to be no clear consensus among members on how a category-based model would work and the Board does not wish to put another category model forward at the upcoming GM that will be rejected by the members. Rather, the Board will propose a simple model that guarantees adequate funding for 2025 and 2026 - under this proposal, we expect there would be no need for a fee increase for 2026. The Board will work with the RIPE NCC on a more in-depth consultation with the members aimed at arriving at a sustainable solution for 2027 and beyond, possibly involving a new charging scheme task force.
All three proposed models are designed to arrive at the same income of EUR 41.1 million for the RIPE NCC in 2025. This will cover all current services and activities, a 5% staff cost increase, a 2% inflation increase on all non-staff costs, and EUR 1 million for additional work relating to registry complexity and security projects aimed at ensuring the resilience of the Registry and the RIPE NCC more broadly. Any such additional work would be discussed with the membership during Activity Plan and Budget consultations and then need to be approved by the Board. This will also allow some leeway should more LIR accounts close than we expect.
It’s important to note that the RIPE NCC aims for an income budget that will provide a surplus, and this means that should we meet our budgetary targets, a surplus can be returned to members in 2026 should they so wish.
While the RIPE NCC continues to carry out cost-cutting efforts across the organisation, drastically reducing the budget at this time is not advisable due to the work that needs to be carried out, especially in relation to maintaining high-quality registry services and securing the registry and RIPE NCC systems. Cutting services or activities is not something the Board is planning to do, and such actions would take time and need full consultation with the membership. An overview of the activities and services that the membership fee covers is provided below this email.
I also urge you to see the presentation we delivered at the charging scheme open house in March so that the full context of the situation and the financial landscape we face is clear to you. The slides are available at:
https://www/ .ripe.net%2Fmembership%2Fmeetings%2Fopen-house%2Fripe-ncc-charging- sc heme-2025%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1 d1 7e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C 0% 7C638484307004057320%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLC JQ IjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5GTeI yn nzxx1WLZ%2BDRoFNWAhaRPvTemPafvKwlIaEEk%3D&reserved=0
Finally, I want to thank all those who have contributed to the consultation so far on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025. The models we present here are draft and in two weeks we will announce the final proposal that members will vote on at the GM on 22-24 May. Please discuss the draft proposal on the members-discuss@ripe.net list - any input received by 19 April can be incorporated if possible into the final models we propose. And make sure to register for the GM so that you can vote on the charging scheme that will apply for you and all members next year:
https://my/. ripe.net%2F%23%2Fmeetings%2Factive&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy% 40 kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a 6e c3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004063238%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8 ey JWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C 0% 7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2BkYHbjPqA8CwacCNlVg0M%2FVvao%2FK8z1zB8hrEeaLXVg%3D &r eserved=0
Simon-Jan Haytink
Chief Financial Officer
RIPE NCC
Services and Activities Covered by the Member Fee
- A trusted, efficient, accurate and resilient registry that guarantees uniqueness of resources held by members
- Neutral information services uninfluenced by commercial or government interests that allow both the RIPE NCC and the community to carry out useful research into the Internet
- Engagement activities, including RIPE and regional meetings, that build an active membership and community and that contribute to the overall good of the Internet
- A voice and influence for the membership in key decision-making fora, including with governments and regulators
- Protection of the Joint Internet Number Registry as developed by the Internet community
- Learning and development activities that help to address skills shortages and contribute to an educated membership
- Support for the Policy Development Process (PDP)
- An authoritative registry of routing information provided by RPKI and the RIPE Database
- K-root and DNS services
- A dedicated staff with considerable expertise contributing to all of the above
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lis/ ts.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CE vg eniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf 8f 9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004071908%7CUnknow n% 7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiL CJ XVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TSE6bLTaGjEzZzbwPbLL8ZivguLE4ZUOG1YC 6W k3HVE%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://lis/ ts.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fyoel%2540kviknet. dk&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f5423 2d 88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484 30 7004081513%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2lu Mz IiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=h8qgUsC1phTJj9r 9T HsO2THM2UZcg6CMMNwff4PP3SA%3D&reserved=0
____________________________________________________________________ __ ___________
Daniel Stolpe Tel: 08 - 688 11 81 stolpe@resilans.se Resilans AB Fax: 08 - 55 00 21 63 http://www.resilans.se/ Box 45 094 556741-1193 104 30 Stockholm
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvg en iy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9 bd 573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004100103%7CUnknown%7C TW FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVC I6 Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Y5j98PfqxzkN%2B2UYI6E5kDMJLYj1qlHRc64sClcZ Fa U%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fregistry-ripe%254 0r esilans.se&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17 e9 f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C 63 8484307004109226%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjo iV 2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2FLi%2BQEH dR thZtiNdR7ETMPAkPAzVevDnMjvq75F3kf8%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvg en iy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9 bd 573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004115782%7CUnknown%7C TW FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVC I6 Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=vY2oba0wvj08c6W4f%2FFaPi6BRvFFLM7AbIf5i84q T6 s%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fadmin%2540roskomn ad zor.io&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f5 42 32d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C6384 84 307004121940%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2l uM zIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=NlQ4MnUaG53yS1e KO %2F2nhgAkG8yzbN7B3c4koumTvKw%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lis/ ts.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvg eniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C036de29fd4c449fcd1b208dc5a247e27%7Cf8f 9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484360917598516%7CUnknown% 7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJ XVCI6Mn0%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=h8OUQ%2BQLt8n53JXrMFkAiZuFP3cavME5 kM9qBisBW%2BQ%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://lis/ ts.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fevgeniy.brodskiy% 2540kyivstar.net&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C036 de29fd4c449fcd1b208dc5a247e27%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0% 7C0%7C638484360917604995%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAi LCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata =iEicBVrkwWvrsraRO8YcAbgVPRjrwBbKOgs83cbmD4g%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvgen iy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C036de29fd4c449fcd1b208dc5a247e27%7Cf8f9bd 573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484360917611662%7CUnknown%7CTW FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6 Mn0%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=kK98VCUHMtAXysvAhUKfUQ01r9rVB9c7GqCLDF86 7p0%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fmihail%2540fedorov. net&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C036de29fd4c449fcd 1b208dc5a247e27%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484360 917617941%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIi LCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=mSWgo9qeSONeXCJp c%2B9FYeqeMXclGVYzC9oTd5F%2BBb8%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ 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/evgeniy.brodskiy%40ky...
If you think about different "non-MAIN" services like Learning, then there is no difference between big and small LIR at all.
This is simply not true. If you think of a larger LIR (typically, but not always) with more employees, the bigger lir will typically (Again not always) have more of its Employees attend real life training events for example. Whereas smaller LIR's may be bound by tighter budgets and will potentially focus on online-sessions. The same is also true for community building with real life events. This is also why i would favor that the RipeNCC focuses on online events and online training (with recorded corses and just online Q&A sessions) over "tought" courses (with the same content repeating) for real life/online sessions.
Even if you think about auditing or maintaining RIPE DB, it would be strange to think that working with /16 requires 256 times more time and effort than working with /24.
While i would not say 256 times more, i would say more on average. Because whats the chance both will be a single assignment of the whole resources to an end user/org? And if the resource is split into smaller inetnums then yes it will be more time to audit,...
And again you are talking about fairness.
Especially when considering the argument above, if we want a contribution that is more fair than the current model to most of the LIR's, then the number of assignments (per /48, or /24) is a good general indicator of scale. Regards On 4/11/24 3:53 PM, Evgeniy Brodskiy via members-discuss wrote:
Confidential/Конфіденційно
Why do you think this statement is correct: “They are the main source of work for RIPE employees.” ??
Even if you think about auditing or maintaining RIPE DB, it would be strange to think that working with /16 requires 256 times more time and effort than working with /24. If you think about different "non-MAIN" services like Learning, then there is no difference between big and small LIR at all. Resources do not reflect all of these dependencies. And again you are talking about fairness.
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Mihail Fedorov Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2024 3:39 PM Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
Charging per ASN is even worse than just price increase. It is terrible and killing even more LIRs
Imagine rather new LIR who is trying to do business based on what is LIR intended for - providing LIR services to consumers. For example 30 clients who requested ASN sponsorship during year. If charged per ASN they will pay twice more than huge corporations serving only purpose of their own. Those typically have just 1-2 ASNs and tons of resources attached to it. They are main source of work for RIPE staff and they should be funding expensive projects like Atlas and others.
Actually working LIRs also have business contracts/logic already established on current charging scheme and adding ASN fee will kill them.
Once again - why not just bill based on resources? It’s extremely easy. Oh, right, resource holders won’t like it :)
On 11 Apr 2024, at 15:11, ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED <admin@roskomnadzor.io> wrote:
Why LIR who havent resources must pay same amount as LIR who have a lot of resources?
RIPE declaring about "community" and about "spending budget must be distributed across all members" - but in practically is not.
When RIPE want to take extra fee for ASN - its mean then RIPE want to charge by resources. Then why RIPE dont want to charge due resources for IPv4?
Guess big members who hold a lot IPv4 allocations dont want it - because current situation is fine for their point of view. Dont forget - RIPE charget 50 EUR per resource - not matter what is it - /24 or /16.
If we are not using all RIPE services - why we must pay for that? Why not any option to select - "Only core services"?
On 11.04.2024 11:45, Evgeniy Brodskiy wrote:
Confidential/Конфіденційно Hi, Not at all. More RESOURCES in hands of some LIR doesn’t mean consuming MORE SERVICES. If you want to bill somebody based on consuming SERVICES it would be logical to count consuming SERVICES, not RESOURCES. But who cares about logic if goal to force somebody else to pay... even if some particular BIG LIR doesn't use majority of this SERVICES. -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2024 2:06 PM To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals [Вы нечасто получаете письма от admin@roskomnadzor.io. Узнайте, почему это важно, по адресу https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Its great, but why RIPE trying to make funding from less adquate method? Big members of RIPE region request MORE SERVICE - but why ALL must pay for that? Why RIPE continue to ignoring taking membership fee based on RESOURCES? Currently RIPE depend upon LIR signup fee and year/year LIR fee in most cases - but its very unstable. NOR, RIPE can take fee per IPv4/24 in holding per member and have STABLE SOURCE OF FUNDING! ARIN, APNIC, AFRINIC already a long time do it on successful basis. Why small members of RIPE must pay SAME amount as big members? Are its fair? Guess not. Dont forget about fact - if early LIR guarantee receive /22, after only /24 - then now LIR receive only place in waiting list (like in Communists USSR) and undefined ETA on receive resources! But pay SAME amount as any other. Why RIPE didnt want to change fee based on fact - if LIR didnt have IPv4 in holding - then LIR must pay less, nor LIR who holding 10-100-100 IPv4 blocks? On 11.04.2024 10:46, Daniel Stolpe via members-discuss wrote:
Hi,
Yoel is absolutely right. A few years ago the financial situation was not looking good but the "last /8 policy" made a huge difference. The "handing out /22 blocks" was like printing new money - for a while. As the number of members whent sky rocket, RIPE could lower membership fees at the same time as an ever expanding budget.
But now we are seeing what everyone could have predicted - the number of members are declining and the NCC keeps calling for more money.
No, this is not reasonable. In tough times everyone has to try to make ends meet. The NCC should be no exception. For years only a few persistent voices have been trying to call for cuts or cost control as an alternative to eternal growth. What happened last year should have been a clear signal but instead the voting is now rigged with more or less equal outcomes.
Regards, Daniel Stolpe
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024, Yoel Caspersen via members-discuss wrote:
Dear RIPE member,
Kaj Niemi is absolutely right: RIPE increasing its budget does not serve the interests of its members, and allowing it to pass because you are spending other people's money is a sign of bad judgement and lack of accountability.
For years, I was wondering why RIPE was handing out /22 blocks at what was effectively a fraction of the market price. I think we have the answer now: Membership fees and diluted voting power of each member served the interests of the management just fine.
RIPE is a mandatory phonebook for IP addresses, nothing more and nothing less. All the fat that has grown on the organisation in the last decade must be trimmed, and I call for a drastic budget reduction - if some members are willing to spend their own money on additional services, they should be free to do so, but with absolute emphasis on this part: their own money.
From a fairness perspective, RIPE should be granted the necessary funds to run the database service, meaning:
- A base fee to keep the database service running, shared equally by all members - Fees on actions that require manual work from the RIPE NCC (e.g. transfers, mergers etc)
Forget about levying higher taxes on larger members - RIPE is not a tax collector and doesn't exist to offset differences in wealth. It exists to deliver a necessary service, and each member should pay according to the burden they place on the organisation.
How much should we pay for a database service? In the ideal world, there should be no monopoly on the service and we could let the market forces decide what the right price is.
I realize that might not be feasible right now, so we are stuck with the next best solution: Letting the community figure out what the acceptable price is - I guess most RIPE members run some sort of database service of their own and therefore possess a profound understanding of the associated costs.
Until we have better data, I suggest we look at the past for inspiration: Use the budget for 2014 (€ 22 millions) and adjust for inflation - that amounts to approximately € 28 millions.
To get there we can slash External Engagement & Community (€ 9,4 millions in the 2024 budget) - RIPE is a monopoly, and the members will be there regardless of the activities in that area.
I also suggest that we take a look at the expenses associated with the Office of the Managing Director (€ 2,2 millions in the 2024 budget) - after all, RIPE is an organisation with less than 200 employees.
I call for members of the community to contribute: What is the right amount of staffing in the RIPE NCC?
Regards,
Yoel Caspersen CTO Kviknet.dk ApS
On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 3:12 PM Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> wrote: Hi,
Very politely put I do not think any of the three proposed charging schemes are in the membership's interest - they certainly aren't in mine.
All three seem to be designed to assure that NCC can continue along, business as usual, with its tasks. Thus, we could pretend that there isn't a big issue with the membership numbers declining. We could also pretend there isn't a real problem with the value proposition of the services. Furthermore, we could also pretend that we do not care that it all is conveniently funded by the membership. I mean, what is 1500 or 1900 euro to most people? I have heard the last several times in the past. After all, why should we care about the expenditure when the sums are so small for each LIR? Why should we care when it is not our own money? I'll tell you. Not caring about the transaction size is bad, if you are willing to let these kinds of sums slide, you'll let it slide on bigger amounts. As is treating other people's money (OPM) differently than if it were your own. These eventually lead to lack of accountability.
What is being proposed is really a significant increase in membership fees. In particular, significantly above what it used to cost on average to produce services for each member (whether they use them or not). Note when I say what it used to cost, as in FY2024 the cost per LIR will be higher.
Now, with the membership in further decline the average cost per member will once more be higher in FY2025. Next year, I forecast that we will have the same "discussion" for FY2026 as NCC comes around and asks for more money. Once again. Why? Because according to projections the amount of members will continue to decrease resulting in higher fees per organization. Once again. All in the advantageous name of the articles of association that allow pretty much anything.
Following the above rational thought with another is, that what one should be doing is choosing what to either invoice separately or drop completely. Yes, really. Everyone is happy with free services, it is when you apply the money test - request someone to pay for something - when you see if what you create contains value.
Considering NCC managed to "save" 5% in the FY2024 budget compared to FY2023, asking for 8.1% increase (4% annualized) the next year is, well, kind of cheeky. It restores the budget pretty much to what it would have been with two annual increases. As an exercise in budgetary engineering I do approve. As a paying member I do not.
What really would be needed is competition. Competition would make the RIR market more efficient. It is rather obvious that the RIR markets aren't anywhere near the efficiency they could be at. Competition would mean that people wanting to pay 1900 - or even more in the future - could choose to do so and those who don't want could potentially pay less. Reduced to the very basics one is paying for bits in a database. In that sense this is rather similar to the certificate market where at one time the cost per certificate was sky high and there were only a few issuers. Today, I am guessing most do not pay thousands annually for a few bits in theirs. Neither do most people care whether the cert was issued by Verisign, Gandi or someone else. Having looked into it out of curiosity, real competition does not seem to be possible as the principles in ICP-2 pretty much state that there can/should only be one RIR per region. Which makes NCC the definition of a monopoly. Monopolies with nice and polite people, well intended purpose and mission creep are not good, they're bad. For everyone.
Finally, the surplus. The concept itself is interesting and I do know where it comes from. But from an financial point of view it is really lending money to someone else and then (maybe) getting it back, a year later, less inflation if they did not spend it.
I would kindly request that the EB would add option D or "Option D: No Changes from 2023". :)
Kaj
Kaj
___________________________________________________________________ __ ___________________________________________________________________ __ ___________________________________________
From: ncc-announce <ncc-announce-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Simon-Jan Haytink <simonjh@ripe.net> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 12:18 To: ncc-announce@ripe.net <ncc-announce@ripe.net> Subject: [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals You don't often get email from simonjh@ripe.net. Learn why this is important
Dear RIPE NCC members,
We can now share three draft charging scheme models for 2025 that the Executive Board approved with the following resolution at its meeting on 25 March 2024:
The RIPE NCC Executive Board approves the submission of the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 options to the upcoming RIPE NCC General Meeting for members to vote on.
- Option A - Charging Scheme as is with 22.58% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,900) and a 0% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 50)
- Option B - Charging Scheme as is with 20.97% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,875) and a 50% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 75)
- Option C - Charging Scheme as is with 16.13% price increase for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,800), a 50% price increase for Independent Internet number resource assignments* (EUR 75) and a new AS Numbers fee of EUR 50 per assignment
*Resources falling under this charge are IPv4 and IPv6 PI assignments; Anycast assignments; IPv4 and IPv6 IXP assignments; and Legacy IPv4 resource registrations through a sponsoring LIR.
The full draft charging scheme models are available from the GM Documentation page: https://www/ .ripe.net%2Fmembership%2Fmeetings%2Fgm%2Fmeetings%2Fmay-2024%2Fdocu me ntation-and-archives%2Fsupporting-documents%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgen iy .Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9b d5 73bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004040536%7CUnknown%7C TW FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXV CI 6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=3tUyMKDzZZY69M3vjjDqaKxgBrrQMeI1rnhBImza ex Q%3D&reserved=0
Although the proposed models are relatively simple, we provide a calculator where you can see exactly what you would pay under each of the proposed models:
https://www/ .ripe.net%2Fdocuments%2F3757%2FCS2025_Member_Calculator.xlsx&data=0 5% 7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a 18 264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C63848430700405156 6% 7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI 6I k1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=glTH6W6VCl6MSXrBbsUC8A4K%2 FK TE8%2FavtiBwmmokOEY%3D&reserved=0
The main considerations for the Executive Board in proposing these three models are:
1. The consolidation of LIR accounts, which means the burden to generate sufficient income must be met by fewer accounts
2. Increased costs due to inflation that were previously catered for by the large number of LIR accounts
3. Following the discussions last year and again this year, there appears to be no clear consensus among members on how a category-based model would work and the Board does not wish to put another category model forward at the upcoming GM that will be rejected by the members. Rather, the Board will propose a simple model that guarantees adequate funding for 2025 and 2026 - under this proposal, we expect there would be no need for a fee increase for 2026. The Board will work with the RIPE NCC on a more in-depth consultation with the members aimed at arriving at a sustainable solution for 2027 and beyond, possibly involving a new charging scheme task force.
All three proposed models are designed to arrive at the same income of EUR 41.1 million for the RIPE NCC in 2025. This will cover all current services and activities, a 5% staff cost increase, a 2% inflation increase on all non-staff costs, and EUR 1 million for additional work relating to registry complexity and security projects aimed at ensuring the resilience of the Registry and the RIPE NCC more broadly. Any such additional work would be discussed with the membership during Activity Plan and Budget consultations and then need to be approved by the Board. This will also allow some leeway should more LIR accounts close than we expect.
It’s important to note that the RIPE NCC aims for an income budget that will provide a surplus, and this means that should we meet our budgetary targets, a surplus can be returned to members in 2026 should they so wish.
While the RIPE NCC continues to carry out cost-cutting efforts across the organisation, drastically reducing the budget at this time is not advisable due to the work that needs to be carried out, especially in relation to maintaining high-quality registry services and securing the registry and RIPE NCC systems. Cutting services or activities is not something the Board is planning to do, and such actions would take time and need full consultation with the membership. An overview of the activities and services that the membership fee covers is provided below this email.
I also urge you to see the presentation we delivered at the charging scheme open house in March so that the full context of the situation and the financial landscape we face is clear to you. The slides are available at:
https://www/ .ripe.net%2Fmembership%2Fmeetings%2Fopen-house%2Fripe-ncc-charging- sc heme-2025%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1 d1 7e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C 0% 7C638484307004057320%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLC JQ IjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5GTeI yn nzxx1WLZ%2BDRoFNWAhaRPvTemPafvKwlIaEEk%3D&reserved=0
Finally, I want to thank all those who have contributed to the consultation so far on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025. The models we present here are draft and in two weeks we will announce the final proposal that members will vote on at the GM on 22-24 May. Please discuss the draft proposal on the members-discuss@ripe.net list - any input received by 19 April can be incorporated if possible into the final models we propose. And make sure to register for the GM so that you can vote on the charging scheme that will apply for you and all members next year:
https://my/. ripe.net%2F%23%2Fmeetings%2Factive&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy% 40 kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a 6e c3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004063238%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8 ey JWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C 0% 7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2BkYHbjPqA8CwacCNlVg0M%2FVvao%2FK8z1zB8hrEeaLXVg%3D &r eserved=0
Simon-Jan Haytink
Chief Financial Officer
RIPE NCC
Services and Activities Covered by the Member Fee
- A trusted, efficient, accurate and resilient registry that guarantees uniqueness of resources held by members
- Neutral information services uninfluenced by commercial or government interests that allow both the RIPE NCC and the community to carry out useful research into the Internet
- Engagement activities, including RIPE and regional meetings, that build an active membership and community and that contribute to the overall good of the Internet
- A voice and influence for the membership in key decision-making fora, including with governments and regulators
- Protection of the Joint Internet Number Registry as developed by the Internet community
- Learning and development activities that help to address skills shortages and contribute to an educated membership
- Support for the Policy Development Process (PDP)
- An authoritative registry of routing information provided by RPKI and the RIPE Database
- K-root and DNS services
- A dedicated staff with considerable expertise contributing to all of the above
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lis/ ts.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CE vg eniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf 8f 9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004071908%7CUnknow n% 7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiL CJ XVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TSE6bLTaGjEzZzbwPbLL8ZivguLE4ZUOG1YC 6W k3HVE%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://lis/ ts.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fyoel%2540kviknet. dk&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f5423 2d 88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484 30 7004081513%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2lu Mz IiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=h8qgUsC1phTJj9r 9T HsO2THM2UZcg6CMMNwff4PP3SA%3D&reserved=0
__ ___________
Daniel Stolpe Tel: 08 - 688 11 81 stolpe@resilans.se Resilans AB Fax: 08 - 55 00 21 63 http://www.resilans.se/ Box 45 094 556741-1193 104 30 Stockholm
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvg en iy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9 bd 573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004100103%7CUnknown%7C TW FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVC I6 Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Y5j98PfqxzkN%2B2UYI6E5kDMJLYj1qlHRc64sClcZ Fa U%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fregistry-ripe%254 0r esilans.se&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17 e9 f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C 63 8484307004109226%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjo iV 2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2FLi%2BQEH dR thZtiNdR7ETMPAkPAzVevDnMjvq75F3kf8%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvg en iy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9 bd 573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004115782%7CUnknown%7C TW FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVC I6 Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=vY2oba0wvj08c6W4f%2FFaPi6BRvFFLM7AbIf5i84q T6 s%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fadmin%2540roskomn ad zor.io&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f5 42 32d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C6384 84 307004121940%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2l uM zIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=NlQ4MnUaG53yS1e KO %2F2nhgAkG8yzbN7B3c4koumTvKw%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lis/ ts.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvg eniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C036de29fd4c449fcd1b208dc5a247e27%7Cf8f 9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484360917598516%7CUnknown% 7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJ XVCI6Mn0%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=h8OUQ%2BQLt8n53JXrMFkAiZuFP3cavME5 kM9qBisBW%2BQ%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://lis/ ts.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fevgeniy.brodskiy% 2540kyivstar.net&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C036 de29fd4c449fcd1b208dc5a247e27%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0% 7C0%7C638484360917604995%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAi LCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata =iEicBVrkwWvrsraRO8YcAbgVPRjrwBbKOgs83cbmD4g%3D&reserved=0
members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvgen iy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C036de29fd4c449fcd1b208dc5a247e27%7Cf8f9bd 573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484360917611662%7CUnknown%7CTW FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6 Mn0%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=kK98VCUHMtAXysvAhUKfUQ01r9rVB9c7GqCLDF86 7p0%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://list/ s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fmihail%2540fedorov. net&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C036de29fd4c449fcd 1b208dc5a247e27%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484360 917617941%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIi LCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=mSWgo9qeSONeXCJp c%2B9FYeqeMXclGVYzC9oTd5F%2BBb8%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ 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/evgeniy.brodskiy%40ky... _______________________________________________ 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-members%40sebast...
Confidential/Конфіденційно Why do you think “is simply not true” ?? In majority of cases in small LIR relations with RIPE will care 1-2 people in big LIR 2-4. Not so big difference. And about offline learning, as 1 LIR you can register 2 persons, it is totally independently of LIR size. -----Original Message----- From: Sebastian-Wilhelm Graf <ripe-members@sebastian-graf.at> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2024 5:14 PM To: Evgeniy Brodskiy <Evgeniy.Brodskiy@kyivstar.net>; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
If you think about different "non-MAIN" services like Learning, then there is no difference between big and small LIR at all.
This is simply not true. If you think of a larger LIR (typically, but not always) with more employees, the bigger lir will typically (Again not always) have more of its Employees attend real life training events for example. Whereas smaller LIR's may be bound by tighter budgets and will potentially focus on online-sessions. The same is also true for community building with real life events. This is also why i would favor that the RipeNCC focuses on online events and online training (with recorded corses and just online Q&A sessions) over "tought" courses (with the same content repeating) for real life/online sessions.
Even if you think about auditing or maintaining RIPE DB, it would be strange to think that working with /16 requires 256 times more time and effort than working with /24.
While i would not say 256 times more, i would say more on average. Because whats the chance both will be a single assignment of the whole resources to an end user/org? And if the resource is split into smaller inetnums then yes it will be more time to audit,...
And again you are talking about fairness.
Especially when considering the argument above, if we want a contribution that is more fair than the current model to most of the LIR's, then the number of assignments (per /48, or /24) is a good general indicator of scale. Regards On 4/11/24 3:53 PM, Evgeniy Brodskiy via members-discuss wrote:
Confidential/Конфіденційно
Why do you think this statement is correct: “They are the main source of work for RIPE employees.” ??
Even if you think about auditing or maintaining RIPE DB, it would be strange to think that working with /16 requires 256 times more time and effort than working with /24.
If you think about different "non-MAIN" services like Learning, then there is no difference between big and small LIR at all.
Resources do not reflect all of these dependencies. And again you are talking about fairness.
-----Original Message-----
From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> On Behalf Of
Mihail Fedorov
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2024 3:39 PM
Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>
Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC
Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
Charging per ASN is even worse than just price increase. It is
terrible and killing even more LIRs
Imagine rather new LIR who is trying to do business based on what is LIR intended for - providing LIR services to consumers. For example 30 clients who requested ASN sponsorship during year.
If charged per ASN they will pay twice more than huge corporations serving only purpose of their own. Those typically have just 1-2 ASNs and tons of resources attached to it. They are main source of work for RIPE staff and they should be funding expensive projects like Atlas and others.
Actually working LIRs also have business contracts/logic already established on current charging scheme and adding ASN fee will kill them.
Once again - why not just bill based on resources? It’s extremely
easy. Oh, right, resource holders won’t like it :)
On 11 Apr 2024, at 15:11, ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED <admin@roskomnadzor.io<mailto:admin@roskomnadzor.io>> wrote:
Why LIR who havent resources must pay same amount as LIR who have a lot of resources?
RIPE declaring about "community" and about "spending budget must be distributed across all members" - but in practically is not.
When RIPE want to take extra fee for ASN - its mean then RIPE want to charge by resources. Then why RIPE dont want to charge due resources for IPv4?
Guess big members who hold a lot IPv4 allocations dont want it - because current situation is fine for their point of view. Dont forget - RIPE charget 50 EUR per resource - not matter what is it - /24 or /16.
If we are not using all RIPE services - why we must pay for that? Why not any option to select - "Only core services"?
On 11.04.2024 11:45, Evgeniy Brodskiy wrote:
Confidential/Конфіденційно
Hi,
Not at all.
More RESOURCES in hands of some LIR doesn’t mean consuming MORE SERVICES.
If you want to bill somebody based on consuming SERVICES it would be logical to count consuming SERVICES, not RESOURCES.
But who cares about logic if goal to force somebody else to pay... even if some particular BIG LIR doesn't use majority of this SERVICES.
-----Original Message-----
From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> On Behalf
Of ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2024 2:06 PM
To: members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>
Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC
Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals [Вы нечасто получаете письма от
admin@roskomnadzor.io<mailto:admin@roskomnadzor.io>. Узнайте, почему это важно, по адресу https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Its great, but why RIPE trying to make funding from less adquate method?
Big members of RIPE region request MORE SERVICE - but why ALL must pay for that?
Why RIPE continue to ignoring taking membership fee based on RESOURCES?
Currently RIPE depend upon LIR signup fee and year/year LIR fee in most cases - but its very unstable.
NOR, RIPE can take fee per IPv4/24 in holding per member and have STABLE SOURCE OF FUNDING!
ARIN, APNIC, AFRINIC already a long time do it on successful basis.
Why small members of RIPE must pay SAME amount as big members? Are its fair? Guess not.
Dont forget about fact - if early LIR guarantee receive /22, after
only
/24 - then now LIR receive only place in waiting list (like in Communists USSR) and undefined ETA on receive resources! But pay SAME amount as any other.
Why RIPE didnt want to change fee based on fact - if LIR didnt have IPv4 in holding - then LIR must pay less, nor LIR who holding 10-100-100 IPv4 blocks?
On 11.04.2024 10:46, Daniel Stolpe via members-discuss wrote:
Hi,
Yoel is absolutely right. A few years ago the financial situation
was not looking good but the "last /8 policy" made a huge
difference. The "handing out /22 blocks" was like printing new money - for a while.
As the number of members whent sky rocket, RIPE could lower
membership fees at the same time as an ever expanding budget.
But now we are seeing what everyone could have predicted - the
number of members are declining and the NCC keeps calling for more money.
No, this is not reasonable. In tough times everyone has to try to
make ends meet. The NCC should be no exception. For years only a
few persistent voices have been trying to call for cuts or cost
control as an alternative to eternal growth. What happened last
year should have been a clear signal but instead the voting is now
rigged with more or less equal outcomes.
Regards,
Daniel Stolpe
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024, Yoel Caspersen via members-discuss wrote:
Dear RIPE member,
Kaj Niemi is absolutely right: RIPE increasing its budget does not
serve the interests of its members, and allowing it to pass
because you are spending other people's money is a sign of bad
judgement and lack of accountability.
For years, I was wondering why RIPE was handing out /22 blocks at
what was effectively a fraction of the market price. I think we
have the answer now: Membership fees and diluted voting power of
each member served the interests of the management just fine.
RIPE is a mandatory phonebook for IP addresses, nothing more and
nothing less. All the fat that has grown on the organisation in
the last decade must be trimmed, and I call for a drastic budget
reduction - if some members are willing to spend their own money
on additional services, they should be free to do so, but with
absolute emphasis on this part: their own money.
From a fairness perspective, RIPE should be granted the necessary
funds to run the database service, meaning:
- A base fee to keep the database service running, shared equally
by all members
- Fees on actions that require manual work from the RIPE NCC (e.g.
transfers, mergers etc)
Forget about levying higher taxes on larger members - RIPE is not
a tax collector and doesn't exist to offset differences in wealth.
It exists to deliver a necessary service, and each member should
pay according to the burden they place on the organisation.
How much should we pay for a database service? In the ideal world,
there should be no monopoly on the service and we could let the
market forces decide what the right price is.
I realize that might not be feasible right now, so we are stuck
with the next best solution: Letting the community figure out what
the acceptable price is - I guess most RIPE members run some sort
of database service of their own and therefore possess a profound
understanding of the associated costs.
Until we have better data, I suggest we look at the past for
inspiration: Use the budget for 2014 (€ 22 millions) and adjust
for inflation - that amounts to approximately € 28 millions.
To get there we can slash External Engagement & Community (€ 9,4
millions in the 2024 budget) - RIPE is a monopoly, and the members
will be there regardless of the activities in that area.
I also suggest that we take a look at the expenses associated with
the Office of the Managing Director (€ 2,2 millions in the 2024
budget) - after all, RIPE is an organisation with less than 200
employees.
I call for members of the community to contribute: What is the
right amount of staffing in the RIPE NCC?
Regards,
Yoel Caspersen
CTO
Kviknet.dk ApS
On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 3:12 PM Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net<mailto:kajtzu@basen.net>> wrote:
Hi,
Very politely put I do not think any of the three proposed
charging schemes are in the membership's interest - they certainly aren't in mine.
All three seem to be designed to assure that NCC can continue
along, business as usual, with its tasks. Thus, we could pretend
that there isn't a big issue with the membership numbers declining.
We could also pretend there isn't a real problem with the value
proposition of the services. Furthermore, we could also pretend
that we do not care that it all is conveniently funded by the
membership. I mean, what is
1500 or
1900 euro to most people? I have heard the last several times in
the past. After all, why should we care about the expenditure when
the sums are so small for each LIR? Why should we care when it is
not our own money? I'll tell you. Not caring about the transaction
size is bad, if you are willing to let these kinds of sums slide,
you'll let it slide on bigger amounts. As is treating other
people's money (OPM) differently than if it were your own. These
eventually lead to lack of accountability.
What is being proposed is really a significant increase in
membership fees. In particular, significantly above what it used
to cost on average to produce services for each member (whether
they use them or not). Note when I say what it used to cost, as in
FY2024 the cost per LIR will be higher.
Now, with the membership in further decline the average cost per
member will once more be higher in FY2025. Next year, I forecast
that we will have the same "discussion" for
FY2026 as NCC comes around and asks for more money. Once again. Why?
Because according to projections the amount of members will
continue to decrease resulting in higher fees per organization. Once again.
All in the advantageous name of the articles of association that
allow pretty much anything.
Following the above rational thought with another is, that what
one should be doing is choosing what to either invoice separately
or drop completely. Yes, really. Everyone is happy with free
services, it is when you apply the money test - request someone to
pay for something
- when you see if what you create contains value.
Considering NCC managed to "save" 5% in the FY2024 budget compared
to FY2023, asking for 8.1% increase (4% annualized) the next year
is, well, kind of cheeky. It restores the budget pretty much to
what it would have been with two annual increases. As an exercise
in budgetary engineering I do approve. As a paying member I do not.
What really would be needed is competition. Competition would make
the RIR market more efficient. It is rather obvious that the RIR
markets aren't anywhere near the efficiency they could be at.
Competition would mean that people wanting to pay
1900 - or even more in the future - could choose to do so and
those who don't want could potentially pay less. Reduced to the
very basics one is paying for bits in a database.
In that sense this is rather similar to the certificate market
where at one time the cost per certificate was sky high and there
were only a few issuers. Today, I am guessing most do not pay
thousands annually for a few bits in theirs. Neither do most
people care whether the cert was issued by Verisign, Gandi or someone else.
Having looked into it out of curiosity, real competition does not
seem to be possible as the principles in
ICP-2 pretty much state that there can/should only be one RIR per
region. Which makes NCC the definition of a monopoly. Monopolies
with nice and polite people, well intended purpose and mission
creep are not good, they're bad. For everyone.
Finally, the surplus. The concept itself is interesting and I do
know where it comes from. But from an financial point of view it
is really lending money to someone else and then (maybe) getting
it back, a year later, less inflation if they did not spend it.
I would kindly request that the EB would add option D or "Option D:
No Changes from 2023". :)
Kaj
Kaj
__________________________________________________________________
_
__
__________________________________________________________________
_ __ ___________________________________________
From: ncc-announce <ncc-announce-bounces@ripe.net<mailto:ncc-announce-bounces@ripe.net>> on behalf of
Simon-Jan Haytink <simonjh@ripe.net<mailto:simonjh@ripe.net>>
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 12:18
To: ncc-announce@ripe.net<mailto:ncc-announce@ripe.net> <ncc-announce@ripe.net<mailto:ncc-announce@ripe.net>>
Subject: [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025
Proposals You don't often get email from simonjh@ripe.net<mailto:simonjh@ripe.net>. Learn
why this is important
Dear RIPE NCC members,
We can now share three draft charging scheme models for 2025 that
the Executive Board approved with the following resolution at its
meeting on 25 March 2024:
The RIPE NCC Executive Board approves the submission of the RIPE
NCC Charging Scheme 2025 options to the upcoming RIPE NCC General
Meeting for members to vote on.
- Option A - Charging Scheme as is with 22.58% price increase
for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,900) and a 0%
price increase for Independent Internet number resource
assignments* (EUR
50)
- Option B - Charging Scheme as is with 20.97% price increase
for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,875) and a 50%
price increase for Independent Internet number resource
assignments* (EUR
75)
- Option C - Charging Scheme as is with 16.13% price increase
for the annual contribution per LIR account (EUR 1,800), a 50%
price increase for Independent Internet number resource
assignments* (EUR
75) and a new AS Numbers fee of EUR 50 per assignment
*Resources falling under this charge are IPv4 and IPv6 PI
assignments; Anycast assignments; IPv4 and IPv6 IXP assignments;
and Legacy IPv4 resource registrations through a sponsoring LIR.
The full draft charging scheme models are available from the GM
Documentation page:
.ripe.net%2Fmembership%2Fmeetings%2Fgm%2Fmeetings%2Fmay-2024%2Fdoc
u
me
ntation-and-archives%2Fsupporting-documents%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvge
n
iy
.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9
b
d5
73bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004040536%7CUnknown%7
C
TW
FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJX
V
CI
6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=3tUyMKDzZZY69M3vjjDqaKxgBrrQMeI1rnhBImz
a
ex
Q%3D&reserved=0
Although the proposed models are relatively simple, we provide a
calculator where you can see exactly what you would pay under each
of the proposed models:
.ripe.net%2Fdocuments%2F3757%2FCS2025_Member_Calculator.xlsx&data=
0
5%
7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5
a
18
264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C6384843070040515
6
6%
7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTi
I
6I
k1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=glTH6W6VCl6MSXrBbsUC8A4K%
2
FK
TE8%2FavtiBwmmokOEY%3D&reserved=0
The main considerations for the Executive Board in proposing these
three models are:
1. The consolidation of LIR accounts, which means the burden to
generate sufficient income must be met by fewer accounts
2. Increased costs due to inflation that were previously catered
for by the large number of LIR accounts
3. Following the discussions last year and again this year, there
appears to be no clear consensus among members on how a
category-based model would work and the Board does not wish to put
another category model forward at the upcoming GM that will be
rejected by the members. Rather, the Board will propose a simple
model that guarantees adequate funding for 2025 and 2026 - under
this proposal, we expect there would be no need for a fee increase
for 2026. The Board will work with the RIPE NCC on a more in-depth
consultation with the members aimed at arriving at a sustainable
solution for 2027 and beyond, possibly involving a new charging
scheme task force.
All three proposed models are designed to arrive at the same
income of EUR 41.1 million for the RIPE NCC in 2025. This will
cover all current services and activities, a 5% staff cost
increase, a 2% inflation increase on all non-staff costs, and EUR
1 million for additional work relating to registry complexity and
security projects aimed at ensuring the resilience of the Registry
and the RIPE NCC more broadly.
Any such additional work would be discussed with the membership
during Activity Plan and Budget consultations and then need to be
approved by the Board. This will also allow some leeway should
more LIR accounts close than we expect.
It’s important to note that the RIPE NCC aims for an income budget
that will provide a surplus, and this means that should we meet
our budgetary targets, a surplus can be returned to members in
2026 should they so wish.
While the RIPE NCC continues to carry out cost-cutting efforts
across the organisation, drastically reducing the budget at this
time is not advisable due to the work that needs to be carried
out, especially in relation to maintaining high-quality registry
services and securing the registry and RIPE NCC systems. Cutting
services or activities is not something the Board is planning to
do, and such actions would take time and need full consultation
with the membership. An overview of the activities and services
that the membership fee covers is provided below this email.
I also urge you to see the presentation we delivered at the
charging scheme open house in March so that the full context of
the situation and the financial landscape we face is clear to you.
The slides are available at:
.ripe.net%2Fmembership%2Fmeetings%2Fopen-house%2Fripe-ncc-charging
-
sc
heme-2025%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec
1
d1
7e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7
C
0%
7C638484307004057320%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiL
C
JQ
IjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5GTe
I
yn
nzxx1WLZ%2BDRoFNWAhaRPvTemPafvKwlIaEEk%3D&reserved=0
Finally, I want to thank all those who have contributed to the
consultation so far on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025. The
models we present here are draft and in two weeks we will announce
the final proposal that members will vote on at the GM on 22-24
May. Please discuss the draft proposal on the
members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> list - any input received by 19 April can
be incorporated if possible into the final models we propose. And
make sure to register for the GM so that you can vote on the
charging scheme that will apply for you and all members next year:
ripe.net%2F%23%2Fmeetings%2Factive&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy
%
40
kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300
a
6e
c3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004063238%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d
8
ey
JWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7
C
0%
7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2BkYHbjPqA8CwacCNlVg0M%2FVvao%2FK8z1zB8hrEeaLXVg%3
D
&r
eserved=0
Simon-Jan Haytink
Chief Financial Officer
RIPE NCC
Services and Activities Covered by the Member Fee
- A trusted, efficient, accurate and resilient registry that
guarantees uniqueness of resources held by members
- Neutral information services uninfluenced by commercial or
government interests that allow both the RIPE NCC and the
community to carry out useful research into the Internet
- Engagement activities, including RIPE and regional meetings,
that build an active membership and community and that contribute
to the overall good of the Internet
- A voice and influence for the membership in key decision-making
fora, including with governments and regulators
- Protection of the Joint Internet Number Registry as developed by
the Internet community
- Learning and development activities that help to address skills
shortages and contribute to an educated membership
- Support for the Policy Development Process (PDP)
- An authoritative registry of routing information provided by
RPKI and the RIPE Database
- K-root and DNS services
- A dedicated staff with considerable expertise contributing to
all of the above
_______________________________________________
members-discuss mailing list
members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>
ts.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7C
E
vg
eniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7C
f
8f
9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004071908%7CUnkno
w
n%
7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwi
L
CJ
XVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TSE6bLTaGjEzZzbwPbLL8ZivguLE4ZUOG1Y
C
6W
k3HVE%3D&reserved=0
Unsubscribe:
ts.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fyoel%2540kviknet.
dk&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f542
3
2d
88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C63848
4
30
7004081513%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2l
u
Mz
IiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=h8qgUsC1phTJj9
r
9T
HsO2THM2UZcg6CMMNwff4PP3SA%3D&reserved=0
___________________________________________________________________
_
__
___________
Daniel Stolpe Tel: 08 - 688 11 81
stolpe@resilans.se<mailto:stolpe@resilans.se>
Resilans AB Fax: 08 - 55 00 21 63
Box 45 094 556741-1193
104 30 Stockholm
_______________________________________________
members-discuss mailing list
members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>
s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEv
g
en
iy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f
9
bd
573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004100103%7CUnknown%7
C
TW
FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXV
C
I6
Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Y5j98PfqxzkN%2B2UYI6E5kDMJLYj1qlHRc64sClc
Z
Fa
U%3D&reserved=0
Unsubscribe:
s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fregistry-ripe%25
4
0r
esilans.se&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d1
7
e9
f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7
C
63
8484307004109226%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIj
o
iV
2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2FLi%2BQE
H
dR
thZtiNdR7ETMPAkPAzVevDnMjvq75F3kf8%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________
members-discuss mailing list
members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>
s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEv
g
en
iy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f54232d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f
9
bd
573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484307004115782%7CUnknown%7
C
TW
FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXV
C
I6
Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=vY2oba0wvj08c6W4f%2FFaPi6BRvFFLM7AbIf5i84
q
T6
s%3D&reserved=0
Unsubscribe:
s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fadmin%2540roskom
n
ad
zor.io&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C3dec1d17e9f
5
42
32d88c08dc5a18264a%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638
4
84
307004121940%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2
l
uM
zIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=NlQ4MnUaG53yS1
e
KO
%2F2nhgAkG8yzbN7B3c4koumTvKw%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________
members-discuss mailing list
members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>
ts.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEv
g
eniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C036de29fd4c449fcd1b208dc5a247e27%7Cf8
f
9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484360917598516%7CUnknown
%
7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLC
J
XVCI6Mn0%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=h8OUQ%2BQLt8n53JXrMFkAiZuFP3cavME
5
kM9qBisBW%2BQ%3D&reserved=0
Unsubscribe:
ts.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fevgeniy.brodskiy
%
2540kyivstar.net&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C03
6
de29fd4c449fcd1b208dc5a247e27%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0
%
7C0%7C638484360917604995%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDA
i
LCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdat
a
=iEicBVrkwWvrsraRO8YcAbgVPRjrwBbKOgs83cbmD4g%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________
members-discuss mailing list
members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>
s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvge
n
iy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C036de29fd4c449fcd1b208dc5a247e27%7Cf8f9b
d
573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484360917611662%7CUnknown%7CT
W
FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI
6
Mn0%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=kK98VCUHMtAXysvAhUKfUQ01r9rVB9c7GqCLDF8
6
7p0%3D&reserved=0
Unsubscribe:
s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fmihail%2540fedorov.
net&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7C036de29fd4c449fc
d
1b208dc5a247e27%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C63848436
0
917617941%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzI
i
LCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=mSWgo9qeSONeXCJ
p
c%2B9FYeqeMXclGVYzC9oTd5F%2BBb8%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________
members-discuss mailing list
members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>
https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist<https://list/>
s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvgen
iy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Ca1abc79f92b648a3c3e408dc5a31a7ef%7Cf8f9bd
573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484416574916796%7CUnknown%7CTW
FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6
Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=e%2BcMjsT6CPBRzISFcOKZg01iXhNqtLv%2BVe0dVZL5
6uI%3D&reserved=0
Unsubscribe:
https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist<https://list/>
s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fevgeniy.brodskiy%25
40kyivstar.net&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Ca1abc7
9f92b648a3c3e408dc5a31a7ef%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%
7C638484416574924555%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQI
joiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=gcSFlj7HP
qYWxjVy8fnMJWbtlE4MaEsW4anvXILtR8M%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________
members-discuss mailing list
members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>
https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist<https://list/>
s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7CEvgen
iy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Ca1abc79f92b648a3c3e408dc5a31a7ef%7Cf8f9bd
573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0%7C638484416574932085%7CUnknown%7CTW
FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6
Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=lE%2F2jb%2B%2BIiVDZRF0PJqJm%2FY2AxshNYyWmw4q
gyxtXHI%3D&reserved=0
Unsubscribe:
https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist<https://list/>
s.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fripe-members%2540se
bastian-graf.at&data=05%7C02%7CEvgeniy.Brodskiy%40kyivstar.net%7Ca1abc
79f92b648a3c3e408dc5a31a7ef%7Cf8f9bd573bba4300a6ec3b8e70a30986%7C0%7C0
%7C638484416574938524%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQ
IjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=DymXbTBY
Wceq%2BF69YSjN2OLa%2BKAHVEuaYoUVTnYmT7A%3D&reserved=0
On 11 Apr 2024, at 16:55, Evgeniy Brodskiy via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> wrote:
Confidential/Конфіденційно
Just a note: you are posting on mailing list which is archived so everyone can read every post, yours too. Perhaps that line was added automatically:)
Why do you think this statement is correct: “They are the main source of work for RIPE employees.” ??
Even if you think about auditing or maintaining RIPE DB, it would be strange to think that working with /16 requires 256 times more time and effort than working with /24. If you think about different "non-MAIN" services like Learning, then there is no difference between big and small LIR at all. Resources do not reflect all of these dependencies. And again you are talking about fairness.
In the fairness of use of learning resources, RPKI, Training you are correct, yet we are talking about “cost of doing business” resources. Since you seem to represent a biggest mobile telecom of Ukraine, Kyivstar, and also the only IPv6-enabled large ISP in the country (thanks for that btw) - what is your opinion re charging per resource allocated, either by category method, or logarithmic method, or some other (number of resources in use, objects in the database, etc.). Your company makes heavy use of IPv4 and has millions of subscribers: what does “fair” sounds like to you? Do you support extra fees for those who have IPv4 available, or discount for those who have to make do with IPv6 only? (Deleting hundreds of quoted lines below.) — dk@hostmaster.ua “We had IPv6 before Kyivstar”
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Mihail Fedorov Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2024 3:39 PM Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
Charging per ASN is even worse than just price increase. It is terrible and killing even more LIRs
Imagine rather new LIR who is trying to do business based on what is LIR intended for - providing LIR services to consumers. For example 30 clients who requested ASN sponsorship during year. If charged per ASN they will pay twice more than huge corporations serving only purpose of their own. Those typically have just 1-2 ASNs and tons of resources attached to it. They are main source of work for RIPE staff and they should be funding expensive projects like Atlas and others.
Actually working LIRs also have business contracts/logic already established on current charging scheme and adding ASN fee will kill them.
Once again - why not just bill based on resources? It’s extremely easy. Oh, right, resource holders won’t like it :
RIPE saying about last IPv4 /8 is run out, but stop... IPv4 /8 - Mercedes-Benz Group AG https://apps.db.ripe.net/db-web-ui/query?bflag=false&dflag=false&rflag=true&searchtext=53.0.0.0&source=RIPE (over 50% of pool unused! Guess they even didnt have so much cars for so much IPs) IPv4 /8 - UK Ministry of Defence https://apps.db.ripe.net/db-web-ui/query?bflag=false&dflag=false&rflag=true&searchtext=25.0.0.0&source=RIPE (Never was announced - https://stat.ripe.net/ui2013/%2025.0.0.0#tabId=at-a-glance) This members hold most biggest blocks in RIPE and didnt use it, but pay same - 50 EUR/year for this IPv4 /8. When some LIRs have /8 and pay for that 50 EUR/year + 1600 EUR/year (membership fee), other members paying same amount for 1 x /24 (if they have luck!) Its nonsense, why RIPE continue to funding more and more budgets from small LIRs? Its looks not good. Its looks like a some lobby! On 11.04.2024 15:52, Dmitry Kohmanyuk via members-discuss wrote:
On 11 Apr 2024, at 16:55, Evgeniy Brodskiy via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> wrote:
Confidential/Конфіденційно
Just a note: you are posting on mailing list which is archived so everyone can read every post, yours too. Perhaps that line was added automatically:)
Why do you think this statement is correct: “They are the main source of work for RIPE employees.” ??
Even if you think about auditing or maintaining RIPE DB, it would be strange to think that working with /16 requires 256 times more time and effort than working with /24. If you think about different "non-MAIN" services like Learning, then there is no difference between big and small LIR at all. Resources do not reflect all of these dependencies. And again you are talking about fairness.
In the fairness of use of learning resources, RPKI, Training you are correct, yet we are talking about “cost of doing business” resources. Since you seem to represent a biggest mobile telecom of Ukraine, Kyivstar, and also the only IPv6-enabled large ISP in the country (thanks for that btw) - what is your opinion re charging per resource allocated, either by category method, or logarithmic method, or some other (number of resources in use, objects in the database, etc.). Your company makes heavy use of IPv4 and has millions of subscribers: what does “fair” sounds like to you? Do you support extra fees for those who have IPv4 available, or discount for those who have to make do with IPv6 only?
(Deleting hundreds of quoted lines below.)
— dk@hostmaster.ua “We had IPv6 before Kyivstar”
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Mihail Fedorov Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2024 3:39 PM Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
Charging per ASN is even worse than just price increase. It is terrible and killing even more LIRs
Imagine rather new LIR who is trying to do business based on what is LIR intended for - providing LIR services to consumers. For example 30 clients who requested ASN sponsorship during year. If charged per ASN they will pay twice more than huge corporations serving only purpose of their own. Those typically have just 1-2 ASNs and tons of resources attached to it. They are main source of work for RIPE staff and they should be funding expensive projects like Atlas and others.
Actually working LIRs also have business contracts/logic already established on current charging scheme and adding ASN fee will kill them.
Once again - why not just bill based on resources? It’s extremely easy. Oh, right, resource holders won’t like it :
_______________________________________________ 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/admin%40roskomnadzor....
Absolutely agree - it's abnormal situation. But now looks like NCC bosses continue ignore it. May be they are under control on Mercedes-Benz or UK Ministry of Defence??? :-) But really, it is look like, it is too difficult to reform charge scheme in this situation.
RIPE saying about last IPv4 /8 is run out, but stop...
IPv4 /8 - Mercedes-Benz Group AG https://apps.db.ripe.net/db-web-ui/query?bflag=false&dflag=false&rflag=true&searchtext=53.0.0.0&source=RIPE (over 50% of pool unused! Guess they even didnt have so much cars for so much IPs)
IPv4 /8 - UK Ministry of Defence https://apps.db.ripe.net/db-web-ui/query?bflag=false&dflag=false&rflag=true&searchtext=25.0.0.0&source=RIPE (Never was announced - https://stat.ripe.net/ui2013/%2025.0.0.0#tabId=at-a-glance)
This members hold most biggest blocks in RIPE and didnt use it, but pay same - 50 EUR/year for this IPv4 /8.
When some LIRs have /8 and pay for that 50 EUR/year + 1600 EUR/year (membership fee), other members paying same amount for 1 x /24 (if they have luck!)
Its nonsense, why RIPE continue to funding more and more budgets from small LIRs?
Its looks not good. Its looks like a some lobby!
On 11.04.2024 15:52, Dmitry Kohmanyuk via members-discuss wrote:
On 11 Apr 2024, at 16:55, Evgeniy Brodskiy via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> wrote:
Confidential/Конфіденційно
Just a note: you are posting on mailing list which is archived so everyone can read every post, yours too. Perhaps that line was added automatically:)
Why do you think this statement is correct: “They are the main source of work for RIPE employees.” ??
Even if you think about auditing or maintaining RIPE DB, it would be strange to think that working with /16 requires 256 times more time and effort than working with /24. If you think about different "non-MAIN" services like Learning, then there is no difference between big and small LIR at all. Resources do not reflect all of these dependencies. And again you are talking about fairness.
In the fairness of use of learning resources, RPKI, Training you are correct, yet we are talking about “cost of doing business” resources. Since you seem to represent a biggest mobile telecom of Ukraine, Kyivstar, and also the only IPv6-enabled large ISP in the country (thanks for that btw) - what is your opinion re charging per resource allocated, either by category method, or logarithmic method, or some other (number of resources in use, objects in the database, etc.). Your company makes heavy use of IPv4 and has millions of subscribers: what does “fair” sounds like to you? Do you support extra fees for those who have IPv4 available, or discount for those who have to make do with IPv6 only?
(Deleting hundreds of quoted lines below.)
— dk@hostmaster.ua “We had IPv6 before Kyivstar”
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Mihail Fedorov Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2024 3:39 PM Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
Charging per ASN is even worse than just price increase. It is terrible and killing even more LIRs
Imagine rather new LIR who is trying to do business based on what is LIR intended for - providing LIR services to consumers. For example 30 clients who requested ASN sponsorship during year. If charged per ASN they will pay twice more than huge corporations serving only purpose of their own. Those typically have just 1-2 ASNs and tons of resources attached to it. They are main source of work for RIPE staff and they should be funding expensive projects like Atlas and others.
Actually working LIRs also have business contracts/logic already established on current charging scheme and adding ASN fee will kill them.
Once again - why not just bill based on resources? It’s extremely easy. Oh, right, resource holders won’t like it :
_______________________________________________ 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/admin%40roskomnadzor....
_______________________________________________ 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/sdy%40a-n-t.ru
----------------------------- С уважением Сербулов Дмитрий ООО "Альфа Нет Телеком" +7(498)785-8-000 раб. +7(495)940-92-11 доп. +7(925)518-10-69 сот.
Daimler’s 53/8 is legacy addesss space as is the 25/8 for UK MoD. There are plenty of addresses that are outside of RIR control for legacy reasons. Similarity addresses not being rooted on the internet doesn't mean they wouldn't be in use elsewhere. There isn't really anything to "ignore". Kaj Sent from my iPhone ________________________________ From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of sdy@a-n-t.ru <sdy@a-n-t.ru> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2024 8:00 PM To: ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED <admin@roskomnadzor.io> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals Absolutely agree - it's abnormal situation. But now looks like NCC bosses continue ignore it. May be they are under control on Mercedes-Benz or UK Ministry of Defence??? :-) But really, it is look like, it is too difficult to reform charge scheme in this situation.
RIPE saying about last IPv4 /8 is run out, but stop...
IPv4 /8 - Mercedes-Benz Group AG https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fapps.db.ripe.net%2Fdb-web-ui%2Fquery%3Fbflag%3Dfalse%26dflag%3Dfalse%26rflag%3Dtrue%26searchtext%3D53.0.0.0%26source%3DRIPE&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cc7c3d19a075141d340b908dc5a48df1e%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638484516237821753%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=CGALEu12rMr93jaKbr5Jd%2FSyL1T1iEinoJQUm%2BfqbuI%3D&reserved=0<https://apps.db.ripe.net/db-web-ui/query?bflag=false&dflag=false&rflag=true&searchtext=53.0.0.0&source=RIPE> (over 50% of pool unused! Guess they even didnt have so much cars for so much IPs)
IPv4 /8 - UK Ministry of Defence https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fapps.db.ripe.net%2Fdb-web-ui%2Fquery%3Fbflag%3Dfalse%26dflag%3Dfalse%26rflag%3Dtrue%26searchtext%3D25.0.0.0%26source%3DRIPE&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cc7c3d19a075141d340b908dc5a48df1e%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638484516237833186%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=jY3r3II7kmzvQ8F4p44f392NTtarv%2F1bfIxkH7IwqIE%3D&reserved=0<https://apps.db.ripe.net/db-web-ui/query?bflag=false&dflag=false&rflag=true&searchtext=25.0.0.0&source=RIPE> (Never was announced - https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstat.ripe.net%2Fui2013%2F%252025.0.0.0%23tabId%3Dat-a-glance&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cc7c3d19a075141d340b908dc5a48df1e%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638484516237840815%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=XLApVhfQEEQc91fD2v2V0QDRVGIthXqJvHaqs%2B6%2Bh4k%3D&reserved=0)<https://stat.ripe.net/ui2013/%2025.0.0.0#tabId=at-a-glance>
This members hold most biggest blocks in RIPE and didnt use it, but pay same - 50 EUR/year for this IPv4 /8.
When some LIRs have /8 and pay for that 50 EUR/year + 1600 EUR/year (membership fee), other members paying same amount for 1 x /24 (if they have luck!)
Its nonsense, why RIPE continue to funding more and more budgets from small LIRs?
Its looks not good. Its looks like a some lobby!
On 11.04.2024 15:52, Dmitry Kohmanyuk via members-discuss wrote:
On 11 Apr 2024, at 16:55, Evgeniy Brodskiy via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> wrote:
Confidential/Конфіденційно
Just a note: you are posting on mailing list which is archived so everyone can read every post, yours too. Perhaps that line was added automatically:)
Why do you think this statement is correct: “They are the main source of work for RIPE employees.” ??
Even if you think about auditing or maintaining RIPE DB, it would be strange to think that working with /16 requires 256 times more time and effort than working with /24. If you think about different "non-MAIN" services like Learning, then there is no difference between big and small LIR at all. Resources do not reflect all of these dependencies. And again you are talking about fairness.
In the fairness of use of learning resources, RPKI, Training you are correct, yet we are talking about “cost of doing business” resources. Since you seem to represent a biggest mobile telecom of Ukraine, Kyivstar, and also the only IPv6-enabled large ISP in the country (thanks for that btw) - what is your opinion re charging per resource allocated, either by category method, or logarithmic method, or some other (number of resources in use, objects in the database, etc.). Your company makes heavy use of IPv4 and has millions of subscribers: what does “fair” sounds like to you? Do you support extra fees for those who have IPv4 available, or discount for those who have to make do with IPv6 only?
(Deleting hundreds of quoted lines below.)
— dk@hostmaster.ua “We had IPv6 before Kyivstar”
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Mihail Fedorov Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2024 3:39 PM Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
Charging per ASN is even worse than just price increase. It is terrible and killing even more LIRs
Imagine rather new LIR who is trying to do business based on what is LIR intended for - providing LIR services to consumers. For example 30 clients who requested ASN sponsorship during year. If charged per ASN they will pay twice more than huge corporations serving only purpose of their own. Those typically have just 1-2 ASNs and tons of resources attached to it. They are main source of work for RIPE staff and they should be funding expensive projects like Atlas and others.
Actually working LIRs also have business contracts/logic already established on current charging scheme and adding ASN fee will kill them.
Once again - why not just bill based on resources? It’s extremely easy. Oh, right, resource holders won’t like it :
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cc7c3d19a075141d340b908dc5a48df1e%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638484516237849363%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5xPClT5Fo9cbujpjJnhEa0%2BXYp%2Bgqis8LyW0aB9q3pk%3D&reserved=0<https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss> Unsubscribe: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fadmin%2540roskomnadzor.io&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cc7c3d19a075141d340b908dc5a48df1e%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638484516237858091%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Eks28Oq%2FTG5r5gT9wkniC7VADHmZ8Nw7dbov04Inx2Q%3D&reserved=0<https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/admin%40roskomnadzor.io>
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cc7c3d19a075141d340b908dc5a48df1e%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638484516237864817%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=RZzLuz3ktn8BGrksDewVFVy5eQ7MM%2FsgUvOecZojH2k%3D&reserved=0<https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss> Unsubscribe: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fsdy%2540a-n-t.ru&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cc7c3d19a075141d340b908dc5a48df1e%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638484516237870617%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=sl80SSCaY3TeMV111wmgzWzt0qgsCCD5TjxTb4KA9Lg%3D&reserved=0<https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/sdy%40a-n-t.ru>
----------------------------- С уважением Сербулов Дмитрий ООО "Альфа Нет Телеком" +7(498)785-8-000 раб. +7(495)940-92-11 доп. +7(925)518-10-69 сот. _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cc7c3d19a075141d340b908dc5a48df1e%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638484516237876231%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=KTgAjlc9s2VlvMGVIUBdfQgOaFcz04duH2MOVBVkVu8%3D&reserved=0<https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss> Unsubscribe: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fkajtzu%2540basen.net&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cc7c3d19a075141d340b908dc5a48df1e%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638484516237881488%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2F%2FPAq%2Fwp4bjWUAMxWFASb4GHSsKZ%2BlbdVJlWeLLbX%2FE%3D&reserved=0<https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/kajtzu%40basen.net>
SO! May be it is time to make new GLOBAL RIRs REregistration IPv4 (and AS) with payment per resource in all the World?
Daimler’s 53/8 is legacy addesss space as is the 25/8 for UK MoD. There are plenty of addresses that are outside of RIR control for legacy reasons.
Similarity addresses not being rooted on the internet doesn't mean they wouldn't be in use elsewhere.
There isn't really anything to "ignore".
Kaj
Sent from my iPhone ________________________________ From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of sdy@a-n-t.ru <sdy@a-n-t.ru> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2024 8:00 PM To: ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED <admin@roskomnadzor.io> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
Absolutely agree - it's abnormal situation.
But now looks like NCC bosses continue ignore it. May be they are under control on Mercedes-Benz or UK Ministry of Defence??? :-)
But really, it is look like, it is too difficult to reform charge scheme in this situation.
RIPE saying about last IPv4 /8 is run out, but stop...
IPv4 /8 - Mercedes-Benz Group AG https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fapps.db.ripe.net%2Fdb-web-ui%2Fquery%3Fbflag%3Dfalse%26dflag%3Dfalse%26rflag%3Dtrue%26searchtext%3D53.0.0.0%26source%3DRIPE&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cc7c3d19a075141d340b908dc5a48df1e%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638484516237821753%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=CGALEu12rMr93jaKbr5Jd%2FSyL1T1iEinoJQUm%2BfqbuI%3D&reserved=0<https://apps.db.ripe.net/db-web-ui/query?bflag=false&dflag=false&rflag=true&searchtext=53.0.0.0&source=RIPE> (over 50% of pool unused! Guess they even didnt have so much cars for so much IPs)
IPv4 /8 - UK Ministry of Defence https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fapps.db.ripe.net%2Fdb-web-ui%2Fquery%3Fbflag%3Dfalse%26dflag%3Dfalse%26rflag%3Dtrue%26searchtext%3D25.0.0.0%26source%3DRIPE&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cc7c3d19a075141d340b908dc5a48df1e%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638484516237833186%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=jY3r3II7kmzvQ8F4p44f392NTtarv%2F1bfIxkH7IwqIE%3D&reserved=0<https://apps.db.ripe.net/db-web-ui/query?bflag=false&dflag=false&rflag=true&searchtext=25.0.0.0&source=RIPE> (Never was announced - https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstat.ripe.net%2Fui2013%2F%252025.0.0.0%23tabId%3Dat-a-glance&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cc7c3d19a075141d340b908dc5a48df1e%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638484516237840815%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=XLApVhfQEEQc91fD2v2V0QDRVGIthXqJvHaqs%2B6%2Bh4k%3D&reserved=0)<https://stat.ripe.net/ui2013/%2025.0.0.0#tabId=at-a-glance>
This members hold most biggest blocks in RIPE and didnt use it, but pay same - 50 EUR/year for this IPv4 /8.
When some LIRs have /8 and pay for that 50 EUR/year + 1600 EUR/year (membership fee), other members paying same amount for 1 x /24 (if they have luck!)
Its nonsense, why RIPE continue to funding more and more budgets from small LIRs?
Its looks not good. Its looks like a some lobby!
On 11.04.2024 15:52, Dmitry Kohmanyuk via members-discuss wrote:
On 11 Apr 2024, at 16:55, Evgeniy Brodskiy via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> wrote:
Confidential/Конфіденційно
Just a note: you are posting on mailing list which is archived so everyone can read every post, yours too. Perhaps that line was added automatically:)
Why do you think this statement is correct: “They are the main source of work for RIPE employees.” ??
Even if you think about auditing or maintaining RIPE DB, it would be strange to think that working with /16 requires 256 times more time and effort than working with /24. If you think about different "non-MAIN" services like Learning, then there is no difference between big and small LIR at all. Resources do not reflect all of these dependencies. And again you are talking about fairness.
In the fairness of use of learning resources, RPKI, Training you are correct, yet we are talking about “cost of doing business” resources. Since you seem to represent a biggest mobile telecom of Ukraine, Kyivstar, and also the only IPv6-enabled large ISP in the country (thanks for that btw) - what is your opinion re charging per resource allocated, either by category method, or logarithmic method, or some other (number of resources in use, objects in the database, etc.). Your company makes heavy use of IPv4 and has millions of subscribers: what does “fair” sounds like to you? Do you support extra fees for those who have IPv4 available, or discount for those who have to make do with IPv6 only?
(Deleting hundreds of quoted lines below.)
— dk@hostmaster.ua “We had IPv6 before Kyivstar”
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Mihail Fedorov Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2024 3:39 PM Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
Charging per ASN is even worse than just price increase. It is terrible and killing even more LIRs
Imagine rather new LIR who is trying to do business based on what is LIR intended for - providing LIR services to consumers. For example 30 clients who requested ASN sponsorship during year. If charged per ASN they will pay twice more than huge corporations serving only purpose of their own. Those typically have just 1-2 ASNs and tons of resources attached to it. They are main source of work for RIPE staff and they should be funding expensive projects like Atlas and others.
Actually working LIRs also have business contracts/logic already established on current charging scheme and adding ASN fee will kill them.
Once again - why not just bill based on resources? It’s extremely easy. Oh, right, resource holders won’t like it :
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cc7c3d19a075141d340b908dc5a48df1e%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638484516237849363%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5xPClT5Fo9cbujpjJnhEa0%2BXYp%2Bgqis8LyW0aB9q3pk%3D&reserved=0<https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss> Unsubscribe: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fadmin%2540roskomnadzor.io&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cc7c3d19a075141d340b908dc5a48df1e%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638484516237858091%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Eks28Oq%2FTG5r5gT9wkniC7VADHmZ8Nw7dbov04Inx2Q%3D&reserved=0<https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/admin%40roskomnadzor.io>
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cc7c3d19a075141d340b908dc5a48df1e%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638484516237864817%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=RZzLuz3ktn8BGrksDewVFVy5eQ7MM%2FsgUvOecZojH2k%3D&reserved=0<https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss> Unsubscribe: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fsdy%2540a-n-t.ru&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cc7c3d19a075141d340b908dc5a48df1e%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638484516237870617%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=sl80SSCaY3TeMV111wmgzWzt0qgsCCD5TjxTb4KA9Lg%3D&reserved=0<https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/sdy%40a-n-t.ru>
----------------------------- С уважением Сербулов Дмитрий ООО "Альфа Нет Телеком" +7(498)785-8-000 раб. +7(495)940-92-11 доп. +7(925)518-10-69 сот.
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cc7c3d19a075141d340b908dc5a48df1e%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638484516237876231%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=KTgAjlc9s2VlvMGVIUBdfQgOaFcz04duH2MOVBVkVu8%3D&reserved=0<https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss> Unsubscribe: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fkajtzu%2540basen.net&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cc7c3d19a075141d340b908dc5a48df1e%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638484516237881488%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2F%2FPAq%2Fwp4bjWUAMxWFASb4GHSsKZ%2BlbdVJlWeLLbX%2FE%3D&reserved=0<https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/kajtzu%40basen.net>
----------------------------- С уважением Сербулов Дмитрий ООО "Альфа Нет Телеком" +7(498)785-8-000 раб. +7(495)940-92-11 доп. +7(925)518-10-69 сот.
By IANA Documents: 053/8 Daimler AG 1993-10 whois.ripe.net https://rdap.db.ripe.net/ LEGACY They are delegated to RIPE. All legacy resource holders must be asked to become LIRs or to find sponsoring LIR. If you dont route public resource, why do you then need and hold such ? Let they free it or pay for it as everyone else ! Ivaylo Josifov VarnaIX / Varteh LTD +359 52 969393 Varna, Bulgaria On Thu, 11 Apr 2024, Kaj Niemi wrote:
Daimler?s 53/8 is legacy addesss space as is the 25/8 for UK MoD. There are plenty of addresses that are outside of RIR control for legacy reasons.
Similarity addresses not being rooted on the internet doesn't mean they wouldn't be in use elsewhere.
There isn't really anything to "ignore".
Kaj
Sent from my iPhone
____________________________________________________________________________ From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of sdy@a-n-t.ru <sdy@a-n-t.ru> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2024 8:00 PM To: ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED <admin@roskomnadzor.io> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals Absolutely agree - it's abnormal situation.
But now looks like NCC bosses continue ignore it. May be they are under control on Mercedes-Benz or UK Ministry of Defence??? :-)
But really, it is look like, it is too difficult to reform charge scheme in this situation.
RIPE saying about last IPv4 /8 is run out, but stop...
IPv4 /8 - Mercedes-Benz Group AG https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fapps.db.r ipe.net%2Fdb-web-ui%2Fquery%3Fbflag%3Dfalse%26dflag%3Dfalse%26rflag%3Dtrue %26searchtext%3D53.0.0.0%26source%3DRIPE&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cc7c3d19a075141d 340b908dc5a48df1e%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C63848451623 7821753%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTi I6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=CGALEu12rMr93jaKbr5Jd%2FSyL 1T1iEinoJQUm%2BfqbuI%3D&reserved=0 (over 50% of pool unused! Guess they even didnt have so much cars for so much IPs)
IPv4 /8 - UK Ministry of Defence https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fapps.db.r ipe.net%2Fdb-web-ui%2Fquery%3Fbflag%3Dfalse%26dflag%3Dfalse%26rflag%3Dtrue %26searchtext%3D25.0.0.0%26source%3DRIPE&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cc7c3d19a075141d 340b908dc5a48df1e%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C63848451623 7833186%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTi I6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=jY3r3II7kmzvQ8F4p44f392NTta rv%2F1bfIxkH7IwqIE%3D&reserved=0 (Never was announced - https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstat.ripe .net%2Fui2013%2F%252025.0.0.0%23tabId%3Dat-a-glance&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cc7c3 d19a075141d340b908dc5a48df1e%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C 638484516237840815%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2l uMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=XLApVhfQEEQc91fD 2v2V0QDRVGIthXqJvHaqs%2B6%2Bh4k%3D&reserved=0)
This members hold most biggest blocks in RIPE and didnt use it, but pay same - 50 EUR/year for this IPv4 /8.
When some LIRs have /8 and pay for that 50 EUR/year + 1600 EUR/year (membership fee), other members paying same amount for 1 x /24 (if they have luck!)
Its nonsense, why RIPE continue to funding more and more budgets from small LIRs?
Its looks not good. Its looks like a some lobby!
On 11.04.2024 15:52, Dmitry Kohmanyuk via members-discuss wrote:
On 11 Apr 2024, at 16:55, Evgeniy Brodskiy via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> wrote:
Confidential/?????????????>> Just a note: you are posting on mailing list which is archived so everyone can read every post, yours too. Perhaps that line was added automatically:)
Why do you think this statement is correct: ?They are the main source of work for RIPE employees.? ??
Even if you think about auditing or maintaining RIPE DB, it would be strange to think that working with /16 requires 256 times more time and effort than working with /24. If you think about different "non-MAIN" services like Learning, then there is no difference between big and small LIR at all. Resources do not reflect all of these dependencies. And again you are talking about fairness.
In the fairness of use of learning resources, RPKI, Training you are correct, yet we are talking about ?cost of doing business? resources. Since you seem to represent a biggest mobile telecom of Ukraine, Kyivstar, and also the only IPv6-enabled large ISP in the country (thanks for that btw) - what is your opinion re charging per resource allocated, either by category method, or logarithmic method, or some other (number of resources in use, objects in the database, etc.). Your company makes heavy use of IPv4 and has millions of subscribers: what does ?fair? sounds like to you? Do you support extra fees for those who have IPv4 available, or discount for those who have to make do with IPv6 only?
(Deleting hundreds of quoted lines below.)
? dk@hostmaster.ua ?We had IPv6 before Kyivstar?
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Mihail Fedorov Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2024 3:39 PM Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
Charging per ASN is even worse than just price increase. It is terrible and killing even more LIRs
Imagine rather new LIR who is trying to do business based on what is LIR intended for - providing LIR services to consumers. For example 30 clients who requested ASN sponsorship during year. If charged per ASN they will pay twice more than huge corporations serving only purpose of their own. Those typically have just 1-2 ASNs and tons of resources attached to it. They are main source of work for RIPE staff and they should be funding expensive projects like Atlas and others.
Actually working LIRs also have business contracts/logic already established on current charging scheme and adding ASN fee will kill them.
Once again - why not just bill based on resources? It?s extremely easy. Oh, right, resource holders won?t like it :
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.rip e.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cc7c3d19a075 141d340b908dc5a48df1e%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C6384845 16237849363%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLC JBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5xPClT5Fo9cbujpjJnhEa0% 2BXYp%2Bgqis8LyW0aB9q3pk%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.rip e.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fadmin%2540roskomnadzor.io&da ta=05%7C02%7C%7Cc7c3d19a075141d340b908dc5a48df1e%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d 0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638484516237858091%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4 wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sd ata=Eks28Oq%2FTG5r5gT9wkniC7VADHmZ8Nw7dbov04Inx2Q%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.rip e.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cc7c3d19a075 141d340b908dc5a48df1e%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C6384845 16237864817%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLC JBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=RZzLuz3ktn8BGrksDewVFVy 5eQ7MM%2FsgUvOecZojH2k%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.rip e.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fsdy%2540a-n-t.ru&data=05%7C0 2%7C%7Cc7c3d19a075141d340b908dc5a48df1e%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3 %7C0%7C0%7C638484516237870617%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAi LCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=sl80S SCaY3TeMV111wmgzWzt0qgsCCD5TjxTb4KA9Lg%3D&reserved=0
----------------------------- ? ????????? ???????? ??????? ??? "????? ??? ???????" +7(498)785-8-000 ???. +7(495)940-92-11 ???. +7(925)518-10-69 ???.
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.rip e.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cc7c3d19a075 141d340b908dc5a48df1e%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C6384845 16237876231%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLC JBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=KTgAjlc9s2VlvMGVIUBdfQg OaFcz04duH2MOVBVkVu8%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe:https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.rip e.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fkajtzu%2540basen.net&data=05 %7C02%7C%7Cc7c3d19a075141d340b908dc5a48df1e%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b 55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638484516237881488%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAw MDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=% 2F%2FPAq%2Fwp4bjWUAMxWFASb4GHSsKZ%2BlbdVJlWeLLbX%2FE%3D&reserved=0
Lets talk about isp's also hording v4 space Sky 90.208.0.0/12 Virgin Media 86.23.16.0/20 [18:34] 86.23.0.0/18 [18:34] 86.37.0.0/17 [18:34] 86.36.192.0/18 [18:36] 92.232.20.0/22 All fully unused, maybe internal but i doubt it maybe we should ACTUALLY focus on the correct reasons on why we have ran out and why LIRs have declined. ________________________________ From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of ivaylo <ivaylo@bglans.net> Sent: 11 April 2024 18:32 To: Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals By IANA Documents: 053/8 Daimler AG 1993-10 whois.ripe.net https://rdap.db.ripe.net/ LEGACY They are delegated to RIPE. All legacy resource holders must be asked to become LIRs or to find sponsoring LIR. If you dont route public resource, why do you then need and hold such ? Let they free it or pay for it as everyone else ! Ivaylo Josifov VarnaIX / Varteh LTD +359 52 969393 Varna, Bulgaria On Thu, 11 Apr 2024, Kaj Niemi wrote:
Daimler?s 53/8 is legacy addesss space as is the 25/8 for UK MoD. There are plenty of addresses that are outside of RIR control for legacy reasons.
Similarity addresses not being rooted on the internet doesn't mean they wouldn't be in use elsewhere.
There isn't really anything to "ignore".
Kaj
Sent from my iPhone
____________________________________________________________________________ From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of sdy@a-n-t.ru <sdy@a-n-t.ru> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2024 8:00 PM To: ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED <admin@roskomnadzor.io> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals Absolutely agree - it's abnormal situation.
But now looks like NCC bosses continue ignore it. May be they are under control on Mercedes-Benz or UK Ministry of Defence??? :-)
But really, it is look like, it is too difficult to reform charge scheme in this situation.
RIPE saying about last IPv4 /8 is run out, but stop...
IPv4 /8 - Mercedes-Benz Group AG https://apps.db.r/ ipe.net%2Fdb-web-ui%2Fquery%3Fbflag%3Dfalse%26dflag%3Dfalse%26rflag%3Dtrue %26searchtext%3D53.0.0.0%26source%3DRIPE&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cc7c3d19a075141d 340b908dc5a48df1e%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C63848451623 7821753%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTi I6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=CGALEu12rMr93jaKbr5Jd%2FSyL 1T1iEinoJQUm%2BfqbuI%3D&reserved=0 (over 50% of pool unused! Guess they even didnt have so much cars for so much IPs)
IPv4 /8 - UK Ministry of Defence https://apps.db.r/ ipe.net%2Fdb-web-ui%2Fquery%3Fbflag%3Dfalse%26dflag%3Dfalse%26rflag%3Dtrue %26searchtext%3D25.0.0.0%26source%3DRIPE&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cc7c3d19a075141d 340b908dc5a48df1e%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C63848451623 7833186%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTi I6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=jY3r3II7kmzvQ8F4p44f392NTta rv%2F1bfIxkH7IwqIE%3D&reserved=0 (Never was announced - https://stat.ripe/ .net%2Fui2013%2F%252025.0.0.0%23tabId%3Dat-a-glance&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cc7c3 d19a075141d340b908dc5a48df1e%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C 638484516237840815%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2l uMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=XLApVhfQEEQc91fD 2v2V0QDRVGIthXqJvHaqs%2B6%2Bh4k%3D&reserved=0)
This members hold most biggest blocks in RIPE and didnt use it, but pay same - 50 EUR/year for this IPv4 /8.
When some LIRs have /8 and pay for that 50 EUR/year + 1600 EUR/year (membership fee), other members paying same amount for 1 x /24 (if they have luck!)
Its nonsense, why RIPE continue to funding more and more budgets from small LIRs?
Its looks not good. Its looks like a some lobby!
On 11.04.2024 15:52, Dmitry Kohmanyuk via members-discuss wrote:
On 11 Apr 2024, at 16:55, Evgeniy Brodskiy via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> wrote:
Confidential/?????????????>> Just a note: you are posting on mailing list which is archived so everyone can read every post, yours too. Perhaps that line was added automatically:)
Why do you think this statement is correct: ?They are the main source of work for RIPE employees.? ??
Even if you think about auditing or maintaining RIPE DB, it would be strange to think that working with /16 requires 256 times more time and effort than working with /24. If you think about different "non-MAIN" services like Learning, then there is no difference between big and small LIR at all. Resources do not reflect all of these dependencies. And again you are talking about fairness.
In the fairness of use of learning resources, RPKI, Training you are correct, yet we are talking about ?cost of doing business? resources. Since you seem to represent a biggest mobile telecom of Ukraine, Kyivstar, and also the only IPv6-enabled large ISP in the country (thanks for that btw) - what is your opinion re charging per resource allocated, either by category method, or logarithmic method, or some other (number of resources in use, objects in the database, etc.). Your company makes heavy use of IPv4 and has millions of subscribers: what does ?fair? sounds like to you? Do you support extra fees for those who have IPv4 available, or discount for those who have to make do with IPv6 only?
(Deleting hundreds of quoted lines below.)
? dk@hostmaster.ua ?We had IPv6 before Kyivstar?
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Mihail Fedorov Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2024 3:39 PM Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
Charging per ASN is even worse than just price increase. It is terrible and killing even more LIRs
Imagine rather new LIR who is trying to do business based on what is LIR intended for - providing LIR services to consumers. For example 30 clients who requested ASN sponsorship during year. If charged per ASN they will pay twice more than huge corporations serving only purpose of their own. Those typically have just 1-2 ASNs and tons of resources attached to it. They are main source of work for RIPE staff and they should be funding expensive projects like Atlas and others.
Actually working LIRs also have business contracts/logic already established on current charging scheme and adding ASN fee will kill them.
Once again - why not just bill based on resources? It?s extremely easy. Oh, right, resource holders won?t like it :
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.rip/ e.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cc7c3d19a075 141d340b908dc5a48df1e%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C6384845 16237849363%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLC JBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5xPClT5Fo9cbujpjJnhEa0% 2BXYp%2Bgqis8LyW0aB9q3pk%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://lists.rip/ e.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fadmin%2540roskomnadzor.io&da ta=05%7C02%7C%7Cc7c3d19a075141d340b908dc5a48df1e%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d 0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638484516237858091%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4 wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sd ata=Eks28Oq%2FTG5r5gT9wkniC7VADHmZ8Nw7dbov04Inx2Q%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.rip/ e.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cc7c3d19a075 141d340b908dc5a48df1e%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C6384845 16237864817%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLC JBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=RZzLuz3ktn8BGrksDewVFVy 5eQ7MM%2FsgUvOecZojH2k%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://lists.rip/ e.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fsdy%2540a-n-t.ru&data=05%7C0 2%7C%7Cc7c3d19a075141d340b908dc5a48df1e%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3 %7C0%7C0%7C638484516237870617%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAi LCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=sl80S SCaY3TeMV111wmgzWzt0qgsCCD5TjxTb4KA9Lg%3D&reserved=0
----------------------------- ? ????????? ???????? ??????? ??? "????? ??? ???????" +7(498)785-8-000 ???. +7(495)940-92-11 ???. +7(925)518-10-69 ???.
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.rip/ e.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cc7c3d19a075 141d340b908dc5a48df1e%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C6384845 16237876231%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLC JBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=KTgAjlc9s2VlvMGVIUBdfQg OaFcz04duH2MOVBVkVu8%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe:https://lists.rip/ e.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fkajtzu%2540basen.net&data=05 %7C02%7C%7Cc7c3d19a075141d340b908dc5a48df1e%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b 55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638484516237881488%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAw MDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=% 2F%2FPAq%2Fwp4bjWUAMxWFASb4GHSsKZ%2BlbdVJlWeLLbX%2FE%3D&reserved=0
When I look at the references to LIRs from the RIPE NCC board members, I think they are committed to ignoring this discussion. Would be expensive for their employers. Wieger Bontekoe Principal Site Reliability Engineer On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 7:43 PM Blake Shepherd <blake66@live.co.uk> wrote:
Lets talk about isp's also hording v4 space
Sky 90.208.0.0/12
Virgin Media
86.23.16.0/20 [18:34] 86.23.0.0/18 [18:34] 86.37.0.0/17 [18:34] 86.36.192.0/18 [18:36] 92.232.20.0/22 All fully unused, maybe internal but i doubt it maybe we should ACTUALLY focus on the correct reasons on why we have ran out and why LIRs have declined.
------------------------------ *From:* members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of ivaylo <ivaylo@bglans.net> *Sent:* 11 April 2024 18:32 *To:* Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> *Cc:* members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
By IANA Documents:
053/8 Daimler AG 1993-10 whois.ripe.net https://rdap.db.ripe.net/ LEGACY
They are delegated to RIPE. All legacy resource holders must be asked to become LIRs or to find sponsoring LIR.
If you dont route public resource, why do you then need and hold such ? Let they free it or pay for it as everyone else !
Ivaylo Josifov VarnaIX / Varteh LTD +359 52 969393 Varna, Bulgaria
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024, Kaj Niemi wrote:
Daimler?s 53/8 is legacy addesss space as is the 25/8 for UK MoD. There are plenty of addresses that are outside of RIR control for legacy reasons.
Similarity addresses not being rooted on the internet doesn't mean they wouldn't be in use elsewhere.
There isn't really anything to "ignore".
Kaj
Sent from my iPhone
____________________________________________________________________________
From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of sdy@a-n-t.ru <sdy@a-n-t.ru> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2024 8:00 PM To: ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED <admin@roskomnadzor.io> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals Absolutely agree - it's abnormal situation.
But now looks like NCC bosses continue ignore it. May be they are under control on Mercedes-Benz or UK Ministry of Defence??? :-)
But really, it is look like, it is too difficult to reform charge scheme in this situation.
RIPE saying about last IPv4 /8 is run out, but stop...
IPv4 /8 - Mercedes-Benz Group AG https://apps.db.r/ ipe.net %2Fdb-web-ui%2Fquery%3Fbflag%3Dfalse%26dflag%3Dfalse%26rflag%3Dtrue
%26searchtext%3D53.0.0.0%26source%3DRIPE&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cc7c3d19a075141d
340b908dc5a48df1e%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C63848451623
7821753%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTi
I6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=CGALEu12rMr93jaKbr5Jd%2FSyL
1T1iEinoJQUm%2BfqbuI%3D&reserved=0
(over 50% of pool unused! Guess they even didnt have so much cars for so much IPs)
IPv4 /8 - UK Ministry of Defence https://apps.db.r/ ipe.net %2Fdb-web-ui%2Fquery%3Fbflag%3Dfalse%26dflag%3Dfalse%26rflag%3Dtrue
%26searchtext%3D25.0.0.0%26source%3DRIPE&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cc7c3d19a075141d
340b908dc5a48df1e%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C63848451623
7833186%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTi
I6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=jY3r3II7kmzvQ8F4p44f392NTta
rv%2F1bfIxkH7IwqIE%3D&reserved=0
(Never was announced - https://stat.ripe/
.net%2Fui2013%2F%252025.0.0.0%23tabId%3Dat-a-glance&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cc7c3
d19a075141d340b908dc5a48df1e%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C
638484516237840815%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2l
uMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=XLApVhfQEEQc91fD
2v2V0QDRVGIthXqJvHaqs%2B6%2Bh4k%3D&reserved=0)
This members hold most biggest blocks in RIPE and didnt use it, but pay same - 50 EUR/year for this IPv4 /8.
When some LIRs have /8 and pay for that 50 EUR/year + 1600 EUR/year (membership fee), other members paying same amount for 1 x /24 (if they have luck!)
Its nonsense, why RIPE continue to funding more and more budgets from small LIRs?
Its looks not good. Its looks like a some lobby!
On 11.04.2024 15:52, Dmitry Kohmanyuk via members-discuss wrote:
On 11 Apr 2024, at 16:55, Evgeniy Brodskiy via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> wrote:
Confidential/?????????????>>
Just a note: you are posting on mailing list which is archived so everyone can read every post, yours too. Perhaps that line was added automatically:)
Why do you think this statement is correct: ?They are the main source of work for RIPE employees.? ??
Even if you think about auditing or maintaining RIPE DB, it would be strange to think that working with /16 requires 256 times more time
and
effort than working with /24. If you think about different "non-MAIN" services like Learning, then there is no difference between big and small LIR at all. Resources do not reflect all of these dependencies. And again you are talking about fairness.
In the fairness of use of learning resources, RPKI, Training you are correct, yet we are talking about ?cost of doing business? resources. Since you seem to represent a biggest mobile telecom of Ukraine, Kyivstar, and also the only IPv6-enabled large ISP in the country (thanks for that btw) - what is your opinion re charging per resource allocated, either by category method, or logarithmic method, or some other (number of resources in use, objects in the database, etc.). Your company makes heavy use of IPv4 and has millions of subscribers: what does ?fair? sounds like to you? Do you support extra fees for those who have IPv4 available, or discount for those who have to make do with IPv6 only?
(Deleting hundreds of quoted lines below.)
? dk@hostmaster.ua ?We had IPv6 before Kyivstar?
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Mihail Fedorov Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2024 3:39 PM Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
Charging per ASN is even worse than just price increase. It is terrible and killing even more LIRs
Imagine rather new LIR who is trying to do business based on what is LIR intended for - providing LIR services to consumers. For example 30 clients who requested ASN sponsorship during year. If charged per ASN they will pay twice more than huge corporations serving only purpose of their own. Those typically have just 1-2 ASNs and tons of resources attached to it. They are main source of work for RIPE staff and they should be funding expensive projects like Atlas and others.
Actually working LIRs also have business contracts/logic already established on current charging scheme and adding ASN fee will kill them.
Once again - why not just bill based on resources? It?s extremely easy. Oh, right, resource holders won?t like it :
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.rip/ e.net %2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cc7c3d19a075
141d340b908dc5a48df1e%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C6384845
16237849363%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLC
JBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5xPClT5Fo9cbujpjJnhEa0%
2BXYp%2Bgqis8LyW0aB9q3pk%3D&reserved=0
Unsubscribe: https://lists.rip/ e.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fadmin%2540roskomnadzor.io &da
ta=05%7C02%7C%7Cc7c3d19a075141d340b908dc5a48df1e%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d
0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638484516237858091%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4
wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sd
ata=Eks28Oq%2FTG5r5gT9wkniC7VADHmZ8Nw7dbov04Inx2Q%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.rip/ e.net %2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cc7c3d19a075
141d340b908dc5a48df1e%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C6384845
16237864817%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLC
JBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=RZzLuz3ktn8BGrksDewVFVy
5eQ7MM%2FsgUvOecZojH2k%3D&reserved=0
Unsubscribe: https://lists.rip/ e.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fsdy%2540a-n-t.ru &data=05%7C0
2%7C%7Cc7c3d19a075141d340b908dc5a48df1e%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3
%7C0%7C0%7C638484516237870617%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAi
LCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=sl80S
SCaY3TeMV111wmgzWzt0qgsCCD5TjxTb4KA9Lg%3D&reserved=0
----------------------------- ? ????????? ???????? ??????? ??? "????? ??? ???????" +7(498)785-8-000 ???. +7(495)940-92-11 ???. +7(925)518-10-69 ???.
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.rip/ e.net %2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cc7c3d19a075
141d340b908dc5a48df1e%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C6384845
16237876231%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLC
JBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=KTgAjlc9s2VlvMGVIUBdfQg
OaFcz04duH2MOVBVkVu8%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe:https://lists.rip/ e.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fkajtzu%2540basen.net &data=05
%7C02%7C%7Cc7c3d19a075141d340b908dc5a48df1e%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b
55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638484516237881488%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAw
MDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%
2F%2FPAq%2Fwp4bjWUAMxWFASb4GHSsKZ%2BlbdVJlWeLLbX%2FE%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ 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/wieger.bontekoe%40pro...
On 11. 04. 24 19:48, Wieger Bontekoe via members-discuss wrote:
When I look at the references to LIRs from the RIPE NCC board members, I think they are committed to ignoring this discussion. Would be expensive for their employers.
Mr. Bontenkoe, I am known to be very tolerant to various forms of criticism of the EB members. We volunteered for these positions and we knew the risks involved. Unfortunately, you are now questioning the personal integrity of EB members and that is something I absolutely reject and I would like to politely ask you to stop. Kind regards Ondrej Filip, RIPE NCC chair
Wieger Bontekoe Principal Site Reliability Engineer
On 11. Apr 2024, at 19:48, Wieger Bontekoe via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> wrote:
When I look at the references to LIRs from the RIPE NCC board members, I think they are committed to ignoring this discussion. Would be expensive for their employers.
Stop that slander. The board members are elected by _us_. They receive _no money_ for doing this. It is not a very enviable job and I’m happy that people step up to do it anyway. For gods sake, some people on this list are arguing as if the RIPE NCC was trying to either bankrupt them or using the money for some sort of personal gain. We’re talking about a minimal increase compared to the increasing costs. None of the options should make a dent in any financial plan. I would rather lay the blame on your financial plan if you assume that prices don’t increase with the rising costs of doing business and inflation all around. So can we please take a step back and not discuss this as if this was somehow the end of the world. Thanks Sebastian Wiesinger -- Sebastian Wiesinger Senior Principal Network Architect Service Integration noris network AG Thomas-Mann-Straße 16-20 90471 Nürnberg Deutschland Tel +49 911 9352 1459 Fax +49 911 9352 100 Email sebastian.wiesinger@noris.de noris network AG - Mehr Leistung als Standard Vorstand: Ingo Kraupa (Vorsitzender), Joachim Astel, Florian Sippel Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Stefan Schnabel - AG Nürnberg HRB 17689
I strongly agree with Sebastian Wiesinger! -- Kind Regards Sebastian Becker LIFE IS FOR SHARING. You can find the obligatory information on www.telekom.de/compulsory-statement<https://www.telekom.de/compulsory-statement> Von: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> im Auftrag von Sebastian Wiesinger <sebastian.wiesinger@noris.de> Datum: Freitag, 12. April 2024 um 09:20 An: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Betreff: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
On 11. Apr 2024, at 19:48, Wieger Bontekoe via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> wrote:
When I look at the references to LIRs from the RIPE NCC board members, I think they are committed to ignoring this discussion. Would be expensive for their employers.
Stop that slander. The board members are elected by _us_. They receive _no money_ for doing this. It is not a very enviable job and I’m happy that people step up to do it anyway. For gods sake, some people on this list are arguing as if the RIPE NCC was trying to either bankrupt them or using the money for some sort of personal gain. We’re talking about a minimal increase compared to the increasing costs. None of the options should make a dent in any financial plan. I would rather lay the blame on your financial plan if you assume that prices don’t increase with the rising costs of doing business and inflation all around. So can we please take a step back and not discuss this as if this was somehow the end of the world. Thanks Sebastian Wiesinger -- Sebastian Wiesinger Senior Principal Network Architect Service Integration noris network AG Thomas-Mann-Straße 16-20 90471 Nürnberg Deutschland Tel +49 911 9352 1459 Fax +49 911 9352 100 Email sebastian.wiesinger@noris.de noris network AG - Mehr Leistung als Standard Vorstand: Ingo Kraupa (Vorsitzender), Joachim Astel, Florian Sippel Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Stefan Schnabel - AG Nürnberg HRB 17689
For sure, you as representative of member with large amount of IPv4 - you will be prefer situation when small LIR must pay for you. de.noris noris network AG 19990421 62.128.0.0/19 ALLOCATED PA - 50 EUR/mo. 20000117 213.183.0.0/19 ALLOCATED PA - 50 EUR/mo. 20000403 213.155.64.0/19 ALLOCATED PA - 50 EUR/mo. 20000914 213.95.0.0/16 ALLOCATED PA - 50 EUR/mo. 20060810 89.250.128.0/20 ALLOCATED PA - 50 EUR/mo. 20070308 194.59.179.0/24 ALLOCATED PA - 50 EUR/mo. 20090427 188.92.112.0/21 ALLOCATED PA - 50 EUR/mo. 20140423 185.54.240.0/22 ALLOCATED PA - 50 EUR/mo. 20171019 185.227.12.0/22 ALLOCATED PA - 50 EUR/mo. 20011203 2001:780::/29 - 50 EUR/mo. Because you want to "down" thread about proportional paying for resources. In meritocraty - being of "choosen" is already enougth reward. On 12.04.2024 7:18, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
On 11. Apr 2024, at 19:48, Wieger Bontekoe via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> wrote:
When I look at the references to LIRs from the RIPE NCC board members, I think they are committed to ignoring this discussion. Would be expensive for their employers.
Stop that slander. The board members are elected by _us_. They receive _no money_ for doing this. It is not a very enviable job and I’m happy that people step up to do it anyway.
For gods sake, some people on this list are arguing as if the RIPE NCC was trying to either bankrupt them or using the money for some sort of personal gain. We’re talking about a minimal increase compared to the increasing costs. None of the options should make a dent in any financial plan. I would rather lay the blame on your financial plan if you assume that prices don’t increase with the rising costs of doing business and inflation all around.
So can we please take a step back and not discuss this as if this was somehow the end of the world.
Thanks
Sebastian Wiesinger
_______________________________________________ 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/admin%40roskomnadzor....
On 12. Apr 2024, at 10:20, ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED <admin@roskomnadzor.io> wrote:
For sure, you as representative of member with large amount of IPv4 - you will be prefer situation when small LIR must pay for you.
You are not paying for me. You pay the RIPE NCC, the same we do. We had size-based fees in the past, we voted to change it. You can read all about it here: https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/gm/meetings/september-2012/ The new scheme was simpler, it worked for the majority of the members so it was adopted.
de.noris noris network AG
19990421 62.128.0.0/19 ALLOCATED PA - 50 EUR/mo. 20000117 213.183.0.0/19 ALLOCATED PA - 50 EUR/mo. 20000403 213.155.64.0/19 ALLOCATED PA - 50 EUR/mo. 20000914 213.95.0.0/16 ALLOCATED PA - 50 EUR/mo. 20060810 89.250.128.0/20 ALLOCATED PA - 50 EUR/mo. 20070308 194.59.179.0/24 ALLOCATED PA - 50 EUR/mo. 20090427 188.92.112.0/21 ALLOCATED PA - 50 EUR/mo. 20140423 185.54.240.0/22 ALLOCATED PA - 50 EUR/mo. 20171019 185.227.12.0/22 ALLOCATED PA - 50 EUR/mo. 20011203 2001:780::/29 - 50 EUR/mo.
Because you want to "down" thread about proportional paying for resources.
Oh PLEASE. We (the company) payed membership fees for these resources for over a decade at least, even back then when there were size based fees. Nobody is trying to “down” anything. I’m just fed up with all the hyperbole and conspiracy being tossed around here. Also people who are content with the options normally don’t voice their content here. They just vote accordingly. As this causes the (often wrong and misleading) impression that a majority is unhappy with the options I want to give some perspective. You voice your concerns, I voice mine.
In meritocraty - being of "choosen" is already enougth reward.
I think you misspelled aristocracy. Sebastian -- Sebastian Wiesinger Senior Principal Network Architect Service Integration noris network AG Thomas-Mann-Straße 16-20 90471 Nürnberg Deutschland Tel +49 911 9352 1459 Fax +49 911 9352 100 Email sebastian.wiesinger@noris.de noris network AG - Mehr Leistung als Standard Vorstand: Ingo Kraupa (Vorsitzender), Joachim Astel, Florian Sippel Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Stefan Schnabel - AG Nürnberg HRB 17689
Hi, let me just say that I’m happy with the options presented so that the RIPE NCC can continue to operate with the quality we are taking for granted. Looking at other RIRs I think people sometimes forget how high that quality is and how this benefits the community. It is clear to me that the main driver is inflation and rising salaries. I’m also happy that the NCC does not (and cannot, due to Dutch/EU law) use hire&fire tactics. It is also clear that the proposed increases are nothing that should bother any LIR that is already a member. We already had even higher membership fees in the past So with that out of the way:
On 11. Apr 2024, at 18:45, ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED <admin@roskomnadzor.io> wrote:
RIPE saying about last IPv4 /8 is run out, but stop...
IPv4 /8 - Mercedes-Benz Group AG https://apps.db.ripe.net/db-web-ui/query?bflag=false&dflag=false&rflag=true&searchtext=53.0.0.0&source=RIPE (over 50% of pool unused! Guess they even didnt have so much cars for so much IPs)
Don’t make the assumption that space is unused just because it is not visible on the Internet. I can assure you that is not the case. Best Regards Sebastian -- Sebastian Wiesinger Senior Principal Network Architect Service Integration noris network AG Thomas-Mann-Straße 16-20 90471 Nürnberg Deutschland Tel +49 911 9352 1459 Fax +49 911 9352 100 Email sebastian.wiesinger@noris.de noris network AG - Mehr Leistung als Standard Vorstand: Ingo Kraupa (Vorsitzender), Joachim Astel, Florian Sippel Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Stefan Schnabel - AG Nürnberg HRB 17689
This is good point of view i think. Non-profit organisation but by doing this they are punishing people. As old as you were and as clever as you were, you take resources... -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards Murat TERZIOGLU PREBITS Bochumer Str. 20 44866 Bochum Deutschland Telefon: 0234/58825994 Telefax: 0234/58825995 www.prebits.de info@prebits.de USt-ID: DE315418902 -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> Im Auftrag von ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED Gesendet: Donnerstag, 11. April 2024 18:46 An: members-discuss@ripe.net Betreff: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals RIPE saying about last IPv4 /8 is run out, but stop... IPv4 /8 - Mercedes-Benz Group AG https://apps.db.ripe.net/db-web-ui/query?bflag=false&dflag=false&rflag=true&searchtext=53.0.0.0&source=RIPE (over 50% of pool unused! Guess they even didnt have so much cars for so much IPs) IPv4 /8 - UK Ministry of Defence https://apps.db.ripe.net/db-web-ui/query?bflag=false&dflag=false&rflag=true&searchtext=25.0.0.0&source=RIPE (Never was announced - https://stat.ripe.net/ui2013/%2025.0.0.0#tabId=at-a-glance) This members hold most biggest blocks in RIPE and didnt use it, but pay same - 50 EUR/year for this IPv4 /8. When some LIRs have /8 and pay for that 50 EUR/year + 1600 EUR/year (membership fee), other members paying same amount for 1 x /24 (if they have luck!) Its nonsense, why RIPE continue to funding more and more budgets from small LIRs? Its looks not good. Its looks like a some lobby! On 11.04.2024 15:52, Dmitry Kohmanyuk via members-discuss wrote:
On 11 Apr 2024, at 16:55, Evgeniy Brodskiy via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> wrote:
Confidential/Конфіденційно
Just a note: you are posting on mailing list which is archived so everyone can read every post, yours too. Perhaps that line was added automatically:)
Why do you think this statement is correct: “They are the main source of work for RIPE employees.” ??
Even if you think about auditing or maintaining RIPE DB, it would be strange to think that working with /16 requires 256 times more time and effort than working with /24. If you think about different "non-MAIN" services like Learning, then there is no difference between big and small LIR at all. Resources do not reflect all of these dependencies. And again you are talking about fairness.
In the fairness of use of learning resources, RPKI, Training you are correct, yet we are talking about “cost of doing business” resources. Since you seem to represent a biggest mobile telecom of Ukraine, Kyivstar, and also the only IPv6-enabled large ISP in the country (thanks for that btw) - what is your opinion re charging per resource allocated, either by category method, or logarithmic method, or some other (number of resources in use, objects in the database, etc.). Your company makes heavy use of IPv4 and has millions of subscribers: what does “fair” sounds like to you? Do you support extra fees for those who have IPv4 available, or discount for those who have to make do with IPv6 only?
(Deleting hundreds of quoted lines below.)
— dk@hostmaster.ua “We had IPv6 before Kyivstar”
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Mihail Fedorov Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2024 3:39 PM Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
Charging per ASN is even worse than just price increase. It is terrible and killing even more LIRs
Imagine rather new LIR who is trying to do business based on what is LIR intended for - providing LIR services to consumers. For example 30 clients who requested ASN sponsorship during year. If charged per ASN they will pay twice more than huge corporations serving only purpose of their own. Those typically have just 1-2 ASNs and tons of resources attached to it. They are main source of work for RIPE staff and they should be funding expensive projects like Atlas and others.
Actually working LIRs also have business contracts/logic already established on current charging scheme and adding ASN fee will kill them.
Once again - why not just bill based on resources? It’s extremely easy. Oh, right, resource holders won’t like it :
_______________________________________________ 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/admin%40roskomn adzor.io
_______________________________________________ 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/m.terzioglu%40prebits...
With all the focus on how to apportion costs, I hope we don't lose focus on the total budget. As a small LIR, we are unable to take advantage of the peripheral activities, credits, etc, we just want to register. By analogy, we can't afford an all-inclusive package holiday, we just want to hire a car! Paul F4RN On Fri, 12 Apr 2024, 08:25 , <m.terzioglu@prebits.de> wrote:
This is good point of view i think.
Non-profit organisation but by doing this they are punishing people.
As old as you were and as clever as you were, you take resources...
-- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards
Murat TERZIOGLU PREBITS
Bochumer Str. 20 44866 Bochum Deutschland
Telefon: 0234/58825994 Telefax: 0234/58825995
www.prebits.de info@prebits.de
USt-ID: DE315418902
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> Im Auftrag von ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED Gesendet: Donnerstag, 11. April 2024 18:46 An: members-discuss@ripe.net Betreff: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
RIPE saying about last IPv4 /8 is run out, but stop...
IPv4 /8 - Mercedes-Benz Group AG
https://apps.db.ripe.net/db-web-ui/query?bflag=false&dflag=false&rflag=true&searchtext=53.0.0.0&source=RIPE (over 50% of pool unused! Guess they even didnt have so much cars for so much IPs)
IPv4 /8 - UK Ministry of Defence
https://apps.db.ripe.net/db-web-ui/query?bflag=false&dflag=false&rflag=true&searchtext=25.0.0.0&source=RIPE (Never was announced - https://stat.ripe.net/ui2013/%2025.0.0.0#tabId=at-a-glance)
This members hold most biggest blocks in RIPE and didnt use it, but pay same - 50 EUR/year for this IPv4 /8.
When some LIRs have /8 and pay for that 50 EUR/year + 1600 EUR/year (membership fee), other members paying same amount for 1 x /24 (if they have luck!)
Its nonsense, why RIPE continue to funding more and more budgets from small LIRs?
Its looks not good. Its looks like a some lobby!
On 11 Apr 2024, at 16:55, Evgeniy Brodskiy via members-discuss < members-discuss@ripe.net> wrote:
Confidential/Конфіденційно
Just a note: you are posting on mailing list which is archived so everyone can read every post, yours too. Perhaps that line was added automatically:)
Why do you think this statement is correct: “They are the main source
of work for RIPE employees.” ??
Even if you think about auditing or maintaining RIPE DB, it would be
strange to think that working with /16 requires 256 times more time and effort than working with /24.
If you think about different "non-MAIN" services like Learning, then
On 11.04.2024 15:52, Dmitry Kohmanyuk via members-discuss wrote: there is no difference between big and small LIR at all.
Resources do not reflect all of these dependencies. And again you are talking about fairness.
In the fairness of use of learning resources, RPKI, Training you are correct, yet we are talking about “cost of doing business” resources. Since you seem to represent a biggest mobile telecom of Ukraine, Kyivstar, and also the only IPv6-enabled large ISP in the country (thanks for that btw) - what is your opinion re charging per resource allocated, either by category method, or logarithmic method, or some other (number of resources in use, objects in the database, etc.). Your company makes heavy use of IPv4 and has millions of subscribers: what does “fair” sounds like to you? Do you support extra fees for those who have IPv4 available, or discount for those who have to make do with IPv6 only?
(Deleting hundreds of quoted lines below.)
— dk@hostmaster.ua “We had IPv6 before Kyivstar”
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Mihail Fedorov Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2024 3:39 PM Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
Charging per ASN is even worse than just price increase. It is terrible and killing even more LIRs
Imagine rather new LIR who is trying to do business based on what is LIR intended for - providing LIR services to consumers. For example 30 clients who requested ASN sponsorship during year. If charged per ASN they will pay twice more than huge corporations serving only purpose of their own. Those typically have just 1-2 ASNs and tons of resources attached to it. They are main source of work for RIPE staff and they should be funding expensive projects like Atlas and others.
Actually working LIRs also have business contracts/logic already established on current charging scheme and adding ASN fee will kill them.
Once again - why not just bill based on resources? It’s extremely easy. Oh, right, resource holders won’t like it :
_______________________________________________ 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/admin%40roskomn adzor.io
_______________________________________________ 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/m.terzioglu%40prebits...
_______________________________________________ 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/paul.newton%40f4rn.or...
Moin, On Fri, 2024-04-12 at 08:48 +0100, Paul Newton wrote:
With all the focus on how to apportion costs, I hope we don't lose focus on the total budget. As a small LIR, we are unable to take advantage of the peripheral activities, credits, etc, we just want to register.
Which is fine.
By analogy, we can't afford an all-inclusive package holiday, we just want to hire a car!
You are not _required_ to become an LIR / member. You can always enter an agreement with an LIR that they will handle registration services for you, holding the registration rights in trust, putting a MNT-BY for you on the object, delegating rDNS etcetc. All with a contractual agreement in the back that ensures your right to transfer the entrusted resources they hold for you elsewhere, while ensuring that the LIR is not allowed to sell/rent/use them. So, if you just want to hire the car/resources, me--and likely a lot of other LIRs--would be very happy to provide that service to you. I'd even offer to base charging upon an RIR's net charging scheme of your choice -20%. The point of membership is more than just the registration of resources, see also ICP-2. This also connects to the point regarding 'only three options' just brought forward by Sebastien: We, the membership, voted for a set of activities; The board now presented options to realize the decided upon activities. If we want other options for fees, we first need to vote for other activities. We did not. Ultimately, the "RIPE bosses" is "us", and the board is tasked with somehow realizing what _we_ asked for. We ordered the cake, we have to pay the cake. The board just sends the Tikkie*. Of course, this does not mean that we cannot discuss whether it must be the same (expensive) cake next time we go out. But starting the discussion after ordering the cake is somewhat difficult. With best regards, Tobias * In the Netherlands its customary that one person pays the bill when going out and then gets reimbursed. Tikkie is a popular system in the Netherlands to send/receive money via direct bank transfer, often used to share bills in restaurants. Even though other systems now exist, the term stuck; -- Dr.-Ing. Tobias Fiebig T +31 616 80 98 99 M tobias@fiebig.nl
The point of "ordering the cake" is not applicable. Just ask yourself "when was there a vote, on the draft budget"? ...Over the last few years at least, i belive there was none. Did they ask for feedback: Yes, but looking at the feedback from last years vote on the fee shedule, and so on, i do belive it was clear wich direction the members wanted. So the argument one could make is that "people where shown a cake with no alternative options" and "feedback recieved before the showing did not impact the product that was delivered". Just saying. I do undestand you feel the need to protect your own interests in this disucussion. And based on your writing i see that you are trying find new business cases for your LIR ventures. Wich is all fine. But as shown above the cake argument is week. Especially in the context of there being no direct mechanism to adopt/reject a budget by vote. Regards On 4/12/24 10:16 AM, Tobias Fiebig via members-discuss wrote:
Moin,
On Fri, 2024-04-12 at 08:48 +0100, Paul Newton wrote:
With all the focus on how to apportion costs, I hope we don't lose focus on the total budget. As a small LIR, we are unable to take advantage of the peripheral activities, credits, etc, we just want to register. Which is fine.
By analogy, we can't afford an all-inclusive package holiday, we just want to hire a car! You are not _required_ to become an LIR / member. You can always enter an agreement with an LIR that they will handle registration services for you, holding the registration rights in trust, putting a MNT-BY for you on the object, delegating rDNS etcetc. All with a contractual agreement in the back that ensures your right to transfer the entrusted resources they hold for you elsewhere, while ensuring that the LIR is not allowed to sell/rent/use them.
So, if you just want to hire the car/resources, me--and likely a lot of other LIRs--would be very happy to provide that service to you. I'd even offer to base charging upon an RIR's net charging scheme of your choice -20%.
The point of membership is more than just the registration of resources, see also ICP-2. This also connects to the point regarding 'only three options' just brought forward by Sebastien:
We, the membership, voted for a set of activities; The board now presented options to realize the decided upon activities. If we want other options for fees, we first need to vote for other activities. We did not. Ultimately, the "RIPE bosses" is "us", and the board is tasked with somehow realizing what _we_ asked for.
We ordered the cake, we have to pay the cake. The board just sends the Tikkie*. Of course, this does not mean that we cannot discuss whether it must be the same (expensive) cake next time we go out. But starting the discussion after ordering the cake is somewhat difficult.
With best regards, Tobias
* In the Netherlands its customary that one person pays the bill when going out and then gets reimbursed. Tikkie is a popular system in the Netherlands to send/receive money via direct bank transfer, often used to share bills in restaurants. Even though other systems now exist, the term stuck;
On Fri, 2024-04-12 at 10:30 +0200, Sebastian-Wilhelm Graf wrote:
The point of "ordering the cake" is not applicable. Just ask yourself "when was there a vote, on the draft budget"? ...Over the last few years at least, i belive there was none.
- Spring meeting: - Adoption of the previous financial report - Discharge of the board - Fall meeting: - Presentation Draft RIPE NCC Activity Plan and Budget The membership has any possibility to vote for changes to the board or to not dismiss them. We never did.
Did they ask for feedback: Yes, but looking at the feedback from last years vote on the fee shedule, and so on, i do belive it was clear wich direction the members wanted.
Yes, no 'per resource' charging scheme, if I remember correctly.
I do undestand you feel the need to protect your own interests in this disucussion. I am curious, what are 'my own interests'?
And based on your writing i see that you are trying find new business cases for your LIR ventures. Wich is all fine. But as shown above the cake argument is week. Especially in the context of there being no direct mechanism to adopt/reject a budget by vote.
I see you misunderstood the point. The point was not me "generating new business cases" for my "LIR ventures", instead it was: "You do not need to pick the RIPE cake. You can get whatever bite you fancy elsewhere." With best regards, Tobias -- Dr.-Ing. Tobias Fiebig T +31 616 80 98 99 M tobias@fiebig.nl
Dear Tobias! Just because something was presented in fall, does not mean there was an active way to say yes or no to it. Regardless of how you argue it. Sure, there is always the option of remvoing the whole board if you can motivate enough members for it. However it also cant be the case to cause the maximum amount of chaos by throwing out the board anytime there needs to be improvement to a budget... So that option is pure nonsense. If you plan on making the arugment "but in the past members wanted X", this does not mean that members should be prevented from changing their mind on a topic. Or that members may not want something different in the future. >wich direction the members wanted. Evendientally if you look at this discussion and the ones i see going on via other channels, this is a misunderstanding on your part. >no 'per resource' charging scheme, if I remember correctly. Just because for one year, members opted not do do tesource based (by vote) does not mean that there may not be any resource based models in the future. > I see you misunderstood the point. All i see is one LIR/member suggesting to another LIR/member (wich has the same rights/voting power/.....): I dont think it makes sense for you, you should really just pay me instead of being a member. I dont think any of us get to make the judgement of what is the right reason/model/buisness type to be a ripe member. If all the members are equal with regard to the ncc, then we also have to accept tat there are different viewpoints that do not nessecarily allign with ours. As such, If enough people now want Y instead of X like it was in the past, then this is a completely legimate thing. On 4/12/24 10:51 AM, Tobias Fiebig via members-discuss wrote: > On Fri, 2024-04-12 at 10:30 +0200, Sebastian-Wilhelm Graf wrote: >> The point of "ordering the cake" is not applicable. Just ask yourself >> "when was there a vote, on the draft budget"? ...Over the last few >> years at least, i belive there was none. > - Spring meeting: > - Adoption of the previous financial report > - Discharge of the board > > - Fall meeting: > - Presentation Draft RIPE NCC Activity Plan and Budget > > The membership has any possibility to vote for changes to the board or > to not dismiss them. We never did. > >> Did they ask for feedback: Yes, but looking at the feedback from last >> years vote on the fee shedule, and so on, i do belive it was clear >> wich direction the members wanted. > Yes, no 'per resource' charging scheme, if I remember correctly. > >> I do undestand you feel the need to protect your own interests in >> this disucussion. > I am curious, what are 'my own interests'? > >> And based on your writing i see that you are trying find >> new business cases for your LIR ventures. Wich is all fine. But as >> shown above the cake argument is week. Especially in the context of >> there being no direct mechanism to adopt/reject a budget by vote. > I see you misunderstood the point. The point was not me "generating new > business cases" for my "LIR ventures", instead it was: "You do not need > to pick the RIPE cake. You can get whatever bite you fancy elsewhere." > > With best regards, > Tobias >
Dear Sebastian,
Evendientally if you look at this discussion and the ones i see going on via other channels, this is a misunderstanding on your part.
So far, I do see a lot of opinions...
no 'per resource' charging scheme, if I remember correctly. Just because for one year, members opted not do do tesource based (by vote) does not mean that there may not be any resource based models in the future.
... which last year were equally strong against the proposed per- resource/category charging model.
I see you misunderstood the point.
All i see is one LIR/member suggesting to another LIR/member (wich has the same rights/voting power/.....): I dont think it makes sense for you, you should really just pay me instead of being a member.
Oh, but I am happily buying the RIPE cake with all its implications.
I dont think any of us get to make the judgement of what is the right reason/model/buisness type to be a ripe member. If all the members are equal with regard to the ncc, then we also have to accept tat there are different viewpoints that do not nessecarily allign with ours. As such, If enough people now want Y instead of X like it was in the past, then this is a completely legimate thing.
Let's try another example. Imagine there was a football club in a small town, and each member gets a pair of--limited availability--football shoes along with the membership (and more if they do need more or the old ones break). The membership costs EUR10/month. Now, a lot of people want those shoes and join the club. Then, the club runs out of shoes. The club, however, needs to raise the membership fee to EUR12/month, to keep paying for the football field, the matches, the training sessions etc. given increasing prices. Some members now voice their opinion that the club should, instead reduce the fee, as new members did not get shoes (in time), at least for those who did not get shoes (or not that many). Instead, people with a lot of shoes should pay more. Furthermore, it might be good to consider getting rid of that large football field, and maybe costs for reimbursing the trainers... Now, I am there to play football, and not get shoes; However, if the argument becomes--as often heard in this thread already--"we did not get football shoes, but paid for them", I do indeed feel inclined to suggest a visit to the Adidas Store down-town, which happens to have readily available football shoes on sale (and rent). Now, there can be a discussion on whether the club-house really _needs_ to be that expensive; However, when the discussion starts focusing on the shoes, it seems to me that the discussion goes a bit besides the point. I am, by the way, still waiting for an illustration of "my own interests". As I said, really curious what these might be. With best regards, Tobias -- Dr.-Ing. Tobias Fiebig T +31 616 80 98 99 M tobias@fiebig.nl
... which last year were equally strong against the proposed
Dear Tobias, per-resource/category charging model. Looking back at the disucssion and the calculator linked at https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/member-and-community-consultations/char... Its evident that the vote really was 3 options that where more all expensive than the existing fee, or keeping the fee the same. So i would say members last year voted for "no increase in expenses". This did not mean explicitly mean "no resource based model", as the only option for a resource based model was also more expensive. On 4/12/24 12:17 PM, Tobias Fiebig via members-discuss wrote:
Dear Sebastian,
Evendientally if you look at this discussion and the ones i see going on via other channels, this is a misunderstanding on your part. So far, I do see a lot of opinions...
no 'per resource' charging scheme, if I remember correctly. Just because for one year, members opted not do do tesource based (by vote) does not mean that there may not be any resource based models in the future. ... which last year were equally strong against the proposed per- resource/category charging model.
I see you misunderstood the point. All i see is one LIR/member suggesting to another LIR/member (wich has the same rights/voting power/.....): I dont think it makes sense for you, you should really just pay me instead of being a member. Oh, but I am happily buying the RIPE cake with all its implications.
I dont think any of us get to make the judgement of what is the right reason/model/buisness type to be a ripe member. If all the members are equal with regard to the ncc, then we also have to accept tat there are different viewpoints that do not nessecarily allign with ours. As such, If enough people now want Y instead of X like it was in the past, then this is a completely legimate thing. Let's try another example.
Imagine there was a football club in a small town, and each member gets a pair of--limited availability--football shoes along with the membership (and more if they do need more or the old ones break). The membership costs EUR10/month. Now, a lot of people want those shoes and join the club. Then, the club runs out of shoes.
The club, however, needs to raise the membership fee to EUR12/month, to keep paying for the football field, the matches, the training sessions etc. given increasing prices.
Some members now voice their opinion that the club should, instead reduce the fee, as new members did not get shoes (in time), at least for those who did not get shoes (or not that many). Instead, people with a lot of shoes should pay more. Furthermore, it might be good to consider getting rid of that large football field, and maybe costs for reimbursing the trainers...
Now, I am there to play football, and not get shoes; However, if the argument becomes--as often heard in this thread already--"we did not get football shoes, but paid for them", I do indeed feel inclined to suggest a visit to the Adidas Store down-town, which happens to have readily available football shoes on sale (and rent).
Now, there can be a discussion on whether the club-house really _needs_ to be that expensive; However, when the discussion starts focusing on the shoes, it seems to me that the discussion goes a bit besides the point.
I am, by the way, still waiting for an illustration of "my own interests". As I said, really curious what these might be.
With best regards, Tobias
So much action, iam listening 👂 But will anything change, i doubt it, prices only go up ⬆️ <https://www.aeserver.com/> *MUNIR BADR* Book A Call: Click here <https://calendly.com/aeserver> Sales Hotline: 800 123 123 <https://www.facebook.com/AEserver/> <https://twitter.com/aeserver> <https://www.instagram.com/aeserver/> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/aeserver/> <https://www.entrepreneur.com/en-ae/news-and-trends/the-recap-the-e-business-awards-2023/447514> On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 at 15:46 Sebastian-Wilhelm Graf < ripe-members@sebastian-graf.at> wrote:
Dear Tobias,
... which last year were equally strong against the proposed per-resource/category charging model.
Looking back at the disucssion and the calculator linked at https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/member-and-community-consultations/char...
Its evident that the vote really was 3 options that where more all expensive than the existing fee, or keeping the fee the same.
So i would say members last year voted for "no increase in expenses". This did not mean explicitly mean "no resource based model", as the only option for a resource based model was also more expensive.
On 4/12/24 12:17 PM, Tobias Fiebig via members-discuss wrote:
Dear Sebastian,
Evendientally if you look at this discussion and the ones i see going on via other channels, this is a misunderstanding on your part.
So far, I do see a lot of opinions...
no 'per resource' charging scheme, if I remember correctly.
Just because for one year, members opted not do do tesource based (by vote) does not mean that there may not be any resource based models in the future.
... which last year were equally strong against the proposed per- resource/category charging model.
I see you misunderstood the point.
All i see is one LIR/member suggesting to another LIR/member (wich has the same rights/voting power/.....): I dont think it makes sense for you, you should really just pay me instead of being a member.
Oh, but I am happily buying the RIPE cake with all its implications.
I dont think any of us get to make the judgement of what is the right reason/model/buisness type to be a ripe member. If all the members are equal with regard to the ncc, then we also have to accept tat there are different viewpoints that do not nessecarily allign with ours. As such, If enough people now want Y instead of X like it was in the past, then this is a completely legimate thing.
Let's try another example.
Imagine there was a football club in a small town, and each member gets a pair of--limited availability--football shoes along with the membership (and more if they do need more or the old ones break). The membership costs EUR10/month. Now, a lot of people want those shoes and join the club. Then, the club runs out of shoes.
The club, however, needs to raise the membership fee to EUR12/month, to keep paying for the football field, the matches, the training sessions etc. given increasing prices.
Some members now voice their opinion that the club should, instead reduce the fee, as new members did not get shoes (in time), at least for those who did not get shoes (or not that many). Instead, people with a lot of shoes should pay more. Furthermore, it might be good to consider getting rid of that large football field, and maybe costs for reimbursing the trainers...
Now, I am there to play football, and not get shoes; However, if the argument becomes--as often heard in this thread already--"we did not get football shoes, but paid for them", I do indeed feel inclined to suggest a visit to the Adidas Store down-town, which happens to have readily available football shoes on sale (and rent).
Now, there can be a discussion on whether the club-house really _needs_ to be that expensive; However, when the discussion starts focusing on the shoes, it seems to me that the discussion goes a bit besides the point.
I am, by the way, still waiting for an illustration of "my own interests". As I said, really curious what these might be.
With best regards, Tobias
_______________________________________________ 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/munir%40aeserver.com
On 12/04/2024, 12:45:10, "Sebastian-Wilhelm Graf" <ripe-members@sebastian-graf.at> wrote:
... which last year were equally strong against the proposed per-resource/category charging model.
Looking back at the disucssion and the calculator linked at https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/member-and-community-consultations/char...
Its evident that the vote really was 3 options that where more all expensive than the existing fee, or keeping the fee the same.
So i would say members last year voted for "no increase in expenses". This did not mean explicitly mean "no resource based model", as the only option for a resource based model was also more expensive.
Some voted for not _that_ model and for putting us at risk of this* you don't get an increase either. Otherwise an inflation linked rise would have been acceptable to more. * with all the new LIRs that were soon to cease in the lower category and thus pay less it seemed like a set up pandering to them. Their numbers alone could have been enough to win it, fortunately they did not vote. In previous years there had been talk of them joining up to force changes that suited them after previous shenanigans with certain individuals. The risk was that once they had cashed out the remaining LIRs in the lower categories may have had a disporopritonaly higher bill in later years should that model persist. It semeed best to quash it before it took hold. brandon
Hi Tobias, Analogies are always difficult. In your analogy, focusing on shoes, shoes are not a finite resource. Someone else (Adidas) can manufacture more shoes, but no one can manufacture more IPv4 addresses. Staying with the football club, let me offer you an analogy that I see more fitting to the current scheme: There's a football club with a nice stadium. Any member can sign up and book the stadium for practice (like weekly on Wednesdays 17-18). In the beginning, default allocation was generous and some members booked more time than others, and it was not a problem since there were enough available time slots for new joiners. You were even able to book a slot by knowing a member and paying a small fee (PI). As time went by, the schedule started to fill up, and the club reduced the standard time allocation over and over and removed the possibility to get a slot if you were not a member directly. Towards the end, new joiners could only get a small time slot allocation, and as of now, the newest members are on a waiting list to receive their minuscule time allocation. As you can probably also think, those who have a large allocation of the time slots also use our collective resources more, like parking spaces, locker rooms, showers, cause greater wear to the grass etc. Do you think it's fair that all members pay the same? Judging by the interest on this mailing list, there are more than a few members who think that it's unfair that all members pay the same, given that the allocation of our finite resources is so disproportionate. I think that a cost per IPv4 address, IPv6 address and ASN would be the most fair way to do it. It can be modeled in different ways, but there should be a model that makes those who use more of our shared resources pay more. Best regards, Tom Blyc On 2024-04-12 12:17, Tobias Fiebig via members-discuss wrote:
Dear Sebastian,
Evendientally if you look at this discussion and the ones i see going on via other channels, this is a misunderstanding on your part.
So far, I do see a lot of opinions...
no 'per resource' charging scheme, if I remember correctly. Just because for one year, members opted not do do tesource based (by vote) does not mean that there may not be any resource based models in the future.
... which last year were equally strong against the proposed per- resource/category charging model.
I see you misunderstood the point.
All i see is one LIR/member suggesting to another LIR/member (wich has the same rights/voting power/.....): I dont think it makes sense for you, you should really just pay me instead of being a member.
Oh, but I am happily buying the RIPE cake with all its implications.
I dont think any of us get to make the judgement of what is the right reason/model/buisness type to be a ripe member. If all the members are equal with regard to the ncc, then we also have to accept tat there are different viewpoints that do not nessecarily allign with ours. As such, If enough people now want Y instead of X like it was in the past, then this is a completely legimate thing.
Let's try another example.
Imagine there was a football club in a small town, and each member gets a pair of--limited availability--football shoes along with the membership (and more if they do need more or the old ones break). The membership costs EUR10/month. Now, a lot of people want those shoes and join the club. Then, the club runs out of shoes.
The club, however, needs to raise the membership fee to EUR12/month, to keep paying for the football field, the matches, the training sessions etc. given increasing prices.
Some members now voice their opinion that the club should, instead reduce the fee, as new members did not get shoes (in time), at least for those who did not get shoes (or not that many). Instead, people with a lot of shoes should pay more. Furthermore, it might be good to consider getting rid of that large football field, and maybe costs for reimbursing the trainers...
Now, I am there to play football, and not get shoes; However, if the argument becomes--as often heard in this thread already--"we did not get football shoes, but paid for them", I do indeed feel inclined to suggest a visit to the Adidas Store down-town, which happens to have readily available football shoes on sale (and rent).
Now, there can be a discussion on whether the club-house really _needs_ to be that expensive; However, when the discussion starts focusing on the shoes, it seems to me that the discussion goes a bit besides the point.
I am, by the way, still waiting for an illustration of "my own interests". As I said, really curious what these might be.
With best regards, Tobias
On Friday 12 April 2024 10:51:27 Tobias Fiebig via members-discuss wrote:
Yes, no 'per resource' charging scheme, if I remember correctly.
membership has NOT voted ON a per resource policy IN GENERAL. The membership voted last year on a per-resource scheme that was penalizing the smaller LIRs due to too low limits on resources fee steps calculations. Essentially the scheme proposed last year was unfair as the scheme we see proposed by the board this year. More and more comments in this list have described a fairer scheme. this scheme (used by other RIRs, btw) is oriented to raise fees to the bigger resource holders while keeping low to the smaller ones from what i have seen in the fee schedules on the other RIRs, what we pay today get us a /20 ipv4 level, vith 16 AS numbers and i dont' remember how many v6, with smaller fees for lesser allocation and more fees for larger. last year proposal set this point too low at a simple /24 allocation or so thus bumping the historical "extra-small" of when i signed up to a level of "medium", with all the business model consequences for many. I am not opposed to a per-resource charging scheme in principle. i am opposed to a charging scheme that, in this era of shrinking business and inflation, try to consider me at "medium" level when i am really at a "small" level and cannot change business model with ease to accomodate this change due to external (market) conditions. I am opposed to that because that way of thinking go directly on consolidation and more shrinking of LIRs with the consequence to reduce and kill the community at a large. Best Regards, Andrea Borghi --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Andrea Borghi - W KEY srl - http://www.wkey.it Tel. +39 0648919230 e +39 0648919231 Fax. +39 064871550 - Mobile: +39 3477135822 sede legale: Via Alfredo Catalani 30 - 00199 Roma - P.IVA e CF 08426171008
Moin, am 12.04.24 um 10:16 schrieb Tobias Fiebig via members-discuss:
By analogy, we can't afford an all-inclusive package holiday, we just want to hire a car! You are not _required_ to become an LIR / member. You can always enter an agreement with an LIR that they will handle registration services for you, holding the registration rights in trust, putting a MNT-BY for you on the object, delegating rDNS etcetc.
Erm, PI space is for End Users only, so as an ISP one would need PA space and for business security reasons one would not want to rely on leased PA of another LIR that would be gone if the LIR would cease to exist. Thus, in all practical ways, if you're not an End User, you _are_ required to become an LIR to secure "your" address space.
We, the membership, voted for a set of activities; The board now
No, that's the main point, we didn't get to vote on activities in the last AGM – see Gert's mail the other day –, although we've had the same discussion about the budget being too high last Spring. Last Spring we were told 'now' is not the time to discuss the activities nor the budget, 'now' is just the time to discuss how to break down the budget in membership fees.
We ordered the cake, we have to pay the cake.
Well, not exactly; somehow the uproar regarding the Charging Scheme for 2024 last Spring did not lead to changes to the cake recipe. So, yes, we now have to pay for the cake the Board ordered in good faith for us, but I *do* expect that this Autumn at last the Board will put forward a poll on which services and activities should be discontinued in order to down-size the cake^Wbudget.
But starting the discussion after ordering the cake is somewhat difficult.
That's why I question if that model is still wise; second year in a row in Spring a lot of members wonder why fewer and fewer members have to pay an ever increasing bill for a cake they only got a mouthfull of ... Regards, -kai -- Kai Siering Senior System Engineer mail.de GmbH Münsterstraße 3 D-33330 Gütersloh Tel.: +49 (0) 5241 / 74 34 986 Fax: +49 (0) 5241 / 74 34 987 E-Mail:k.siering@team.mail.de Web:https://mail.de/ Geschäftsführender Gesellschafter: Fabian Bock Sitz der Gesellschaft Nordhastedt Handelsregister Pinneberg HRB 8007 PI Steuernummer 18 293 20020
Hi Dmitry, Perhaps that line was added automatically:) - Yes you are right at 100%, unfortunately I can’t remove it but I will change this label to Public. what is your opinion re charging per resource allocated - of course we are interested not to increase our payment. I believe everybody interested in the same. But since we have inflation, this is impossible. So, in my opinion, for basic maintenance of RIRs over the long term, we should use a categorical model, as other RIRs do, and this is the most “fair” way. And a discount for those who don’t have IPv4 at all, I think it’s also possible this could be a separate category or a set of categories. Such things like transfer or ASN registration, etc. as one-time operations have to be bill separately sins they consumes RIPE employee time (some predicted amount of time per operation). As for the services like RPKI, learning, RIPE Atlas etc. I would prefer to order them by month or year based subscription. As for any VAS some members need them and some don’t. We had IPv6 before Kyivstar” - 😊 yes, it’s true. -----Original Message----- From: Dmitry Kohmanyuk <dk@hostmaster.ua> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2024 6:52 PM To: Evgeniy Brodskiy <Evgeniy.Brodskiy@kyivstar.net> Cc: Mihail Fedorov <mihail@fedorov.net>; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals [Ви нечасто отримуєте електронні листи від dk@hostmaster.ua<mailto:dk@hostmaster.ua>. Дізнайтеся, чому це важливо: https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] On 11 Apr 2024, at 16:55, Evgeniy Brodskiy via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> wrote:
Confidential/Конфіденційно
Just a note: you are posting on mailing list which is archived so everyone can read every post, yours too. Perhaps that line was added automatically:)
Why do you think this statement is correct: “They are the main source of work for RIPE employees.” ??
Even if you think about auditing or maintaining RIPE DB, it would be strange to think that working with /16 requires 256 times more time and effort than working with /24.
If you think about different "non-MAIN" services like Learning, then there is no difference between big and small LIR at all.
Resources do not reflect all of these dependencies. And again you are talking about fairness.
In the fairness of use of learning resources, RPKI, Training you are correct, yet we are talking about “cost of doing business” resources. Since you seem to represent a biggest mobile telecom of Ukraine, Kyivstar, and also the only IPv6-enabled large ISP in the country (thanks for that btw) - what is your opinion re charging per resource allocated, either by category method, or logarithmic method, or some other (number of resources in use, objects in the database, etc.). Your company makes heavy use of IPv4 and has millions of subscribers: what does “fair” sounds like to you? Do you support extra fees for those who have IPv4 available, or discount for those who have to make do with IPv6 only? (Deleting hundreds of quoted lines below.) — dk@hostmaster.ua<mailto:dk@hostmaster.ua> “We had IPv6 before Kyivstar”
-----Original Message-----
From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> On Behalf Of Mihail Fedorov
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2024 3:39 PM
Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>
Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
Charging per ASN is even worse than just price increase. It is terrible and killing even more LIRs
Imagine rather new LIR who is trying to do business based on what is LIR intended for - providing LIR services to consumers. For example 30 clients who requested ASN sponsorship during year.
If charged per ASN they will pay twice more than huge corporations serving only purpose of their own. Those typically have just 1-2 ASNs and tons of resources attached to it. They are main source of work for RIPE staff and they should be funding expensive projects like Atlas and others.
Actually working LIRs also have business contracts/logic already established on current charging scheme and adding ASN fee will kill them.
Once again - why not just bill based on resources? It’s extremely easy. Oh, right, resource holders won’t like it :
On 11/04/2024 15:38, Mihail Fedorov wrote:
Charging per ASN is even worse than just price increase. It is terrible and killing even more LIRs
Imagine rather new LIR who is trying to do business based on what is LIR intended for - providing LIR services to consumers. For example 30 clients who requested ASN sponsorship during year. If charged per ASN they will pay twice more than huge corporations serving only purpose of their own. Those typically have just 1-2 ASNs and tons of resources attached to it. They are main source of work for RIPE staff and they should be funding expensive projects like Atlas and others.
I fail to understand how charging 50E or even 500E for an ASN would cripple any company. If the ASN fee were to rise and you manage 30 downstream clients - each of which requested an ASN - you simply show them that the actual cost is now 500E and not 50E. If 500E per ASN is enough to cripple a company then perhaps your business model needs to be adjusted. Regards, Hank
participants (26)
-
Andrea Borghi -
Blake Shepherd -
Brandon Butterworth -
Daniel Stolpe -
Denys Fedoryshchenko -
Dmitry Kohmanyuk -
Evgeniy Brodskiy -
Hank Nussbacher -
ivaylo -
Kai Siering -
Kaj Niemi -
m.terzioglu＠prebits.de -
Michele Neylon - Blacknight -
Mihail Fedorov -
Munir Badr -
Ondrej Filip -
Paul Newton -
ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED -
sdy＠a-n-t.ru -
Sebastian Wiesinger -
Sebastian-Becker＠telekom.de -
Sebastian-Wilhelm Graf -
Tobias Fiebig -
Tom Blyc -
Wieger Bontekoe -
Yoel Caspersen