Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024
Hi, Well. It’s slightly different but…. I think the real issue at hand is still that topline is made to fit the projected – the word “intended” comes to mind – budget. A "normal" LIR, which I would imagine there are many of amongst the membership, with: * an IPv4 /21 assigned 20-ish years ago * an IPv4 /22 assigned from 185/8 * one ASN * one IPv6 /32 assigned 20-ish years ago because they truly believed IPv6 is superior in all aspects and everyone would rush to deploy it immediately that paid (I ignore any redistributions and look only at the list price to keep comparisons equivalent): * 1400 eur in 2021 * 1400 eur in 2022 * 1550 eur in 2023 would now pay, assuming I filled the excel calculator correctly, the following: * under model A: 2100 eur or 35.4% more * under model B: 1750 eur or 13.0% more * under model C: 1600 eur or 3.2% more I guess my fictive “normal” LIRs is one of the 1/3 of the membership, or ~7500 LIRs that would suddenly pay more yet gaining nothing. There aren’t very many industries where service companies can propose double digit percentage point price increases without their customers starting to look for alternatives... except if they cannot.😊 On the other hand, I would hardly characterize the forward-looking statement regarding another annual budget increase, that you expect the 2024 budget to balloon by 5% - 12.5% or 2-5 million euro, as very reasonable either. As I would like to seem as constructive dude rather than like the angry guy who likes to publicly disagree on members-discuss on the stuff you guys intend to spend money on, I propose the following. That RIPE NCC would email, well before the RIPE GM, the technical and billing contacts of each LIR, the pre-calculated numbers for the proposed three charging models for the 2024 billing cycle. Please do include a mention of the budgetary increase in that communication. This would help members choose which model they would like the most and thus which they would vote for. If proposed charging model A is truly beneficial for 2/3 of the membership (for 15000 members or so) one would imagine that it wins by a landslide number of votes. My “normal LIR” example certainly would prefer model C. Perhaps no one cares, as voter turnout tends to be extremely low comparing to number of members, perhaps everyone suddenly cares. Perhaps you gain more members to be interested in what RIPE NCC does which is good for the whole community. Will RIPE NCC budget reach 100M EUR before Y2038 occurs or the transition to IPv6 is complete? Asking on behalf of many friends. Kaj -----Original Message----- From: ncc-announce <ncc-announce-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Simon-Jan Haytink Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2023 16:46 To: ncc-announce@ripe.net Subject: [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024 Dear RIPE NCC members, I want to thank all those who contributed to the consultation so far on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 and the model we should use for the coming years. We can now share three draft models that we developed based on input from the members on the Members Discuss mailing list and in the Charging Scheme Open House, as well as from the discussions at the recent Executive Board Meeting. The result is that we are proposing three draft charging scheme models: one category-based and two that are based on the previous "one LIR account, one fee" model. We hope to receive feedback on these models by 19 April so the Executive Board can propose the final versions on 26 April. The members will then vote on those three models at the upcoming General Meeting on 24-26 May. The three models all aim to fulfil a budget that is roughly the same as 2023 plus general cost increases including inflation, so EUR 42-45 million. By doing this, we can ensure that we can meet the potential budgetary requirements for 2024 while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contributions should we receive excess funds. The Activity Plan and Budget will be discussed with members this coming Autumn. The three models are available to review at: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.net%2Fparticipate%2Fmail%2Fmember-and-community-consultations%2Fcharging-scheme-2024-consultation&data=05%7C01%7C%7C37a9e98da11e4d5f9c0908db3b5db673%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638169045922685573%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=0QdsmMzGmVbXXUrQ0sbg4bRgAi2mE7fBjs7OIOq4eb0%3D&reserved=0<https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/charging-scheme-2024-consultation> We also provide an updated calculator where members can see for themselves how much they might pay under the draft models: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.net%2Fparticipate%2Fmail%2Fmember-and-community-consultations%2Fnew-calculator-charging-scheme-2024.xlsx&data=05%7C01%7C%7C37a9e98da11e4d5f9c0908db3b5db673%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638169045922685573%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=L%2FrPH%2BkRT1bW4axvPTci%2Barl%2B10lb7AFZdOBREu1MnM%3D&reserved=0<https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/new-calculator-charging-scheme-2024.xlsx> To summarise the main features of the three models: Model A - Category Model This model has ten categories to provide greater granularity. It also charges separately for independent and legacy resources in exactly the same way as in previous years. Additionally, a separate 50 EUR ASN assignment fee has been added. Both separately charged resources do not contribute to the category scores. This means there is no double charging and no specific charging for transfers or administrative work carried out by the RIPE NCC. There is a New /24 IPv4 administration fee to ensure there is a financial consequence to joining the IPv4 Waiting List. The fee would be payable upon receipt of the /24, and members joining the waiting list who do not have an eligible LIR account, would pay the new LIR sign-up fee to open a new LIR account and join the waiting list. With this model, approximately 68% of members would pay less than the current annual fee, with the remaining 32% paying more. The discussion with members helped us to see that a category-based model would receive significant support from members if the version was simplified. Should members see the need to charge for other elements, then that can be incorporated into the category model in the coming years. Any such additional charges could potentially then reduce the fees per category. Model B - Price increase and ASN fee This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there is a price increase of EUR 150 and a 50 EUR ASN fee to ensure we can meet our budgetary requirements while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contribution should we receive excess funds. Model C - Transfer fee and ASN fee This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there is a charge of EUR 1,000 per transfer to be paid by the receiving party and a 50 EUR ASN fee to ensure we can meet our budgetary requirements while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contribution should we receive excess funds. Further information on the charging scheme models is provided at: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.net%2Fparticipate%2Fmail%2Fmember-and-community-consultations%2Fcharging-scheme-2024-consultation%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7C37a9e98da11e4d5f9c0908db3b5db673%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638169045922685573%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=0oUYq%2BtOLsx0%2F9T6nNXIMaEheQU%2B84OvWMZawjQfMII%3D&reserved=0<https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/charging-scheme-2024-consultation/> The RIPE NCC Executive Board believes that a category-based model is the best option to help address uncertainty that might be caused by consolidation with multiple LIRs and to provide greater flexibility and fairness in how we charge members in the coming years. On 26 April, the final versions of the charging schemes that members will vote on will be published for the members to consider and discuss. If you have comments on the draft charging schemes, we therefore ask you to comment on the members-discuss mailing list by 19 April so we have time to incorporate any feedback if necessary. Importantly, we ask all members to register for the RIPE NCC General Meeting where the final decision will be in your hands. Register to participate and vote at: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmy.ripe.net%2F%23%2Fmeetings%2Factive&data=05%7C01%7C%7C37a9e98da11e4d5f9c0908db3b5db673%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638169045922685573%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=9gVVc56YR0ecUVAAgYpabcroN7WR8RSmjo8HA0Ph98A%3D&reserved=0<https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active> Simon-Jan Haytink Chief Financial Officer RIPE NCC
On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 04:16:42PM +0000, Kaj Niemi wrote:
Hi,
Well. It’s slightly different but…. I think the real issue at hand is still that topline is made to fit the projected – the word “intended” comes to mind – budget.
A "normal" LIR, which I would imagine there are many of amongst the membership, with:
* an IPv4 /21 assigned 20-ish years ago * an IPv4 /22 assigned from 185/8 * one ASN * one IPv6 /32 assigned 20-ish years ago because they truly believed IPv6 is superior in all aspects and everyone would rush to deploy it immediately
Hi According to data from Appendix 1 of Model A charging scheme, there is only 9.5 % of such 'normal' LIRs, while 46.7 % LIRs has just one /22, so it is clearly advantageous variant for median LIR (as 6.2 % LIRs has just one /23). So my image of 'normal' LIR is someone who did not bother to become LIR in the past, just used LIR services of its upstream, but when noticed that it cannot get more addresses that way anymore, it becomes LIR itself.
As I would like to seem as constructive dude rather than like the angry guy who likes to publicly disagree on members-discuss on the stuff you guys intend to spend money on, I propose the following. That RIPE NCC would email, well before the RIPE GM, the technical and billing contacts of each LIR, the pre-calculated numbers for the proposed three charging models for the 2024 billing cycle. Please do include a mention of the budgetary increase in that communication.
I think that would be a great idea. -- Ondrej 'Santiago' Zajicek (email: santiago@crfreenet.org) "To err is human -- to blame it on a computer is even more so."
Hi all, Commenting on the size distribution of LIRs and the consequence for the charging model:
On 13 Apr 2023, at 16:51, Ondrej Zajicek <santiago@crfreenet.org> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 04:16:42PM +0000, Kaj Niemi wrote:
Hi,
Well. It’s slightly different but…. I think the real issue at hand is still that topline is made to fit the projected – the word “intended” comes to mind – budget.
A "normal" LIR, which I would imagine there are many of amongst the membership, with:
* an IPv4 /21 assigned 20-ish years ago * an IPv4 /22 assigned from 185/8 * one ASN * one IPv6 /32 assigned 20-ish years ago because they truly believed IPv6 is superior in all aspects and everyone would rush to deploy it immediately
Hi
According to data from Appendix 1 of Model A charging scheme, there is only 9.5 % of such 'normal' LIRs, while 46.7 % LIRs has just one /22,
My bet is that a large portion of these 46,7% became LIR with the sole purpose of obtaining that single /22 for later monetisation. These LIRs will fade away over time as they sell their IPs or merge. Certainly not all are in this case; we do see a number of enterprises going the LIR route to become multihomed with own IP addresses.
so it is clearly advantageous variant for median LIR (as 6.2 % LIRs has just one /23).
So my image of 'normal' LIR is someone who did not bother to become LIR in the past, just used LIR services of its upstream, but when noticed that it cannot get more addresses that way anymore, it becomes LIR itself.
Largest number is not the same as normal. LIR’s actually using their IP space is closer to my definition of normal as in “expected behaviour”. Cheers Michel LANNERS CIO at LU-CIX Management G.I.E. -- Mail: michel.lanners@lu-cix.lu <mailto:michel.lanners@lu-cix.lu> Phone: (+352) 28 99 29 92-81 LU-CIX Management G.I.E. 202, Z.A.E. Wolser F L-3290 Bettembourg lu-cix.lu <https://www.lu-cix.lu/> luxembourg-internet-days.com <https://luxembourg-internet-days.com/> lunog.lu <https://www.lunog.lu/>
On 2023-04-24, at 16:25, Michel Lanners <michel.lanners@lu-cix.lu> wrote:
Hi all,
Commenting on the size distribution of LIRs and the consequence for the charging model:
On 13 Apr 2023, at 16:51, Ondrej Zajicek <santiago@crfreenet.org> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 04:16:42PM +0000, Kaj Niemi wrote: Hi,
Well. It’s slightly different but…. I think the real issue at hand is still that topline is made to fit the projected – the word “intended” comes to mind – budget.
A "normal" LIR, which I would imagine there are many of amongst the membership, with:
* an IPv4 /21 assigned 20-ish years ago * an IPv4 /22 assigned from 185/8 * one ASN * one IPv6 /32 assigned 20-ish years ago because they truly believed IPv6 is superior in all aspects and everyone would rush to deploy it immediately
According to data from Appendix 1 of Model A charging scheme, there is only 9.5 % of such 'normal' LIRs, while 46.7 % LIRs has just one /22,
My bet is that a large portion of these 46,7% became LIR with the sole purpose of obtaining that single /22 for later monetisation. These LIRs will fade away over time as they sell their IPs or merge.
It looks to me that option A is designed to cater to this “last /22 allocation ever” group and with the way that membership categories are sized, the vast majority can (selfishly) vote in favor to lessen their fees at expense of middle and large LIRs. Now, the biggest LIRs would not feel much pain as their customer base makes even the 10K fee small: however those with /20 size (just like example above) would shoulder the increased cost. My company, Hostmaster.UA, would see a mild increase of annual fees as our /21 and /22 and /32 and 2 AS numbers aren’t typical for an ISP, however many smaller companies would be badly hit, like Armenian organization which representative wrote. We are considering creating a “caste system” in our membership when some laws dictate the fees. It is similar to how governments tax their residents. There is no best universally accepted way to do it. Furthermore, we have pretty large cash reserves, and do not have huge member count drop yet; the invoices are due already. By end of 2023 we can project our 2024 member count better. Why not stay with current “one fee” scheme, do not inflate expense budget — we would discuss it in autumn — and become more member driven. Will all respect to the board it feels like budgetary expenditures are postulated by management and the board tried to create ways to cover them. I think it should be the opposite; the members decide what projects are needed and what we can all pay, then organization finds ways to balance the budget. I would like to see a comment from ED and board, and of course from other community members. — dk@hostmaster.ua
24.04.2023 21:06, Dmitry Kohmanyuk via members-discuss пише:
On 2023-04-24, at 16:25, Michel Lanners <michel.lanners@lu-cix.lu> wrote:
Hi all,
Commenting on the size distribution of LIRs and the consequence for the charging model:
On 13 Apr 2023, at 16:51, Ondrej Zajicek <santiago@crfreenet.org> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 04:16:42PM +0000, Kaj Niemi wrote: Hi,
Well. It’s slightly different but…. I think the real issue at hand is still that topline is made to fit the projected – the word “intended” comes to mind – budget.
A "normal" LIR, which I would imagine there are many of amongst the membership, with:
* an IPv4 /21 assigned 20-ish years ago * an IPv4 /22 assigned from 185/8 * one ASN * one IPv6 /32 assigned 20-ish years ago because they truly believed IPv6 is superior in all aspects and everyone would rush to deploy it immediately According to data from Appendix 1 of Model A charging scheme, there is only 9.5 % of such 'normal' LIRs, while 46.7 % LIRs has just one /22, My bet is that a large portion of these 46,7% became LIR with the sole purpose of obtaining that single /22 for later monetisation. These LIRs will fade away over time as they sell their IPs or merge. It looks to me that option A is designed to cater to this “last /22 allocation ever” group and with the way that membership categories are sized, the vast majority can (selfishly) vote in favor to lessen their fees at expense of middle and large LIRs.
Now, the biggest LIRs would not feel much pain as their customer base makes even the 10K fee small: however those with /20 size (just like example above) would shoulder the increased cost.
My company, Hostmaster.UA, would see a mild increase of annual fees as our /21 and /22 and /32 and 2 AS numbers aren’t typical for an ISP, however many smaller companies would be badly hit, like Armenian organization which representative wrote.
We are considering creating a “caste system” in our membership when some laws dictate the fees. It is similar to how governments tax their residents. There is no best universally accepted way to do it.
Furthermore, we have pretty large cash reserves, and do not have huge member count drop yet; the invoices are due already. By end of 2023 we can project our 2024 member count better. Why not stay with current “one fee” scheme, do not inflate expense budget — we would discuss it in autumn — and become more member driven.
Will all respect to the board it feels like budgetary expenditures are postulated by management and the board tried to create ways to cover them. I think it should be the opposite; the members decide what projects are needed and what we can all pay, then organization finds ways to balance the budget.
I would like to see a comment from ED and board, and of course from other community members.
— dk@hostmaster.ua
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/info%40kyivlink.com
Well said, Dmitry. I agree with the above. -- ---------------------- https://kyivlink.com https://t.me/kyivlink https://fb.com/kyivlink https://instagram.com/kyivlink 044 332 9555 093 332 9555
participants (5)
-
Dmitry Kohmanyuk -
Kaj Niemi -
Michel Lanners -
Oleg Zinkov -
Ondrej Zajicek