Charging Scheme Task Force 2024 Meeting Minutes (10 December 2024)

10 December 2024

Attendees: Sebastian Brossier, Cynthia Revström, Piotr Strzyżewski, Pavel Odintsov, Ulf Kieber, Clara Wade

Apologies: Victor Bolaños Guerra, Alex de Joode, Alexandru Doszlop, Athina Fragkouli, Carlos Friaças, Raymond Jetten, Ivaylo Josifov, Karla Liddle-White, Alptekin Sünnetci

Chairs: Ondřej Filip, Peter Hessler

RIPE NCC staff: Kjerstin Burdiek, Daniella Coutinho, Fergal Cunningham, Simon-Jan Haytink

1. Welcome

RIPE NCC Executive Board Chair, Ondřej Filip, began the meeting by welcoming the group, noting the agenda items and asking if any changes were needed.

2. Draft Task Force Report - Areas That Need Decisions

A draft Task Force report was presented by Head of Membership Engagement, Fergal Cunningham. The report outlined the principles based on the minutes as well as takeaways from prior meeting discussions. The report included background information and an overview of the task force’s composition. It also addressed differentiation in member fees and various types of fees.

It was noted that sections on resource transfers and the process for Charging Scheme discussions and adoption had not yet been developed. The draft would be shared with the task force following the meeting for their review. The task force was encouraged to review the document promptly and provide feedback, particularly on the principles, to ensure a finalised report could be delivered by February. The importance of focusing on outcomes after finalising the principles was emphasised. Fergal was thanked for his work on the draft report.

It was suggested that an upcoming meeting, potentially in January, be dedicated to the process for Charging Scheme discussions. It was agreed that this, along with any amendments to the document, would likely require a full meeting.

A recommendation was made to keep discussions organised by using comment chains for any disagreements regarding amendments, ensuring all feedback remained in one place. This suggestion received support from the group. It was noted that asynchronous work would be more effective, as meeting attendance often varied among participants.

3. Data and Visualisations

Chief Financial Officer, Simon-Jan Haytink, presented data and visualisations produced by the RIPE NCC for the task force. These visualisations were based on data shared during the previous meeting.

The first visualisation provided an overview of the spread of IPv4 groups among the membership. The second visualisation focused on members in different IPv6 groups, followed by a similar chart for ASNs. Additional visualisations covered IPv4 Independent Resources and IPv6 Independent Resources.

Another visualisation was presented showing the intersection between IPv4 groups within each IPv6 group. Further data was shared regarding the spread of resources. The first collection of data showed the total number of resources and how they were distributed sorted by number of IPv4 /24s. Multiple data collections were shown, each sorted by a different type of resource. The number of resources were put into categories defined by the RIPE NCC to ensure the data was anonymised. The intent of the data was to provide the task force some insight into the spread of resources by LIRs and members.

The task force reviewed the visualisations and data, and were encouraged to raise any questions, provide feedback and see if any new visualisations or changes were needed.

4. Update on ARIN Charging Developments

Simon-Jan continued with an update on what financial officers from other RIRs had shared with him. It was noted that ARIN had provided publicly available information regarding its consultation on changes to registration fees. A link to this consultation was shared with the task force. The consultation introduced a structured approach to fee adjustments, allowing for an annual increase of no more than 5%, subject to approval by the Board of Trustees. The strategy aimed to offer a predictable and manageable escalation in fees, aligning more closely with the budget planning processes of many organisations within ARIN’s community. It was suggested that this concept could serve as a principle for the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Taskforce.

Additionally, ARIN’s Legacy Registration Services Agreement was highlighted. This agreement limited fee increases for legacy resource holders to small annual increments, which appeared to incentivise legacy resource holders to join sooner rather than later. It was suggested that a similar approach could potentially encourage legacy resource holders to become RIPE NCC members.

5. IPv6 Charging

Task Force Co-Chair, Peter Hessler, led a discussion on charging for IPv6 while avoiding disincentivising its adoption. It was asked whether the task force supported a category-based model for IPv6 similar to IPv4, with adjustments for size differences.

It was suggested that the same number of categories could apply to IPv6 as IPv4, but the appropriate size conversions would need to be determined. Agreement was sought from the group, and it was noted that the minimum allocation size or historic allocation sizes could serve as a basis. Another suggestion was made to consider default allocation sizes to avoid penalising members who had taken the defaults.

Category-based Model Discussion

No opposition to the category model was raised. Support was expressed for charging companies based on their ability to pay, using allocation size or resource count as a reasonable basis. Other options were considered overly complex. It was emphasised that determining the appropriate categories would be a critical task, as previous attempts had not worked well.

Issues with previous categories were highlighted, including a lack of supporting data and the fact that thresholds, such as /15 and above, included too many companies. It was suggested that a broader spread was needed, with /15 holders distinguished from /8 holders to ensure fairness.

The importance of considering the types of resources included in the scheme was also raised. Sponsored resources were identified as a category that should be excluded or treated separately, with uniform costs regardless of the sponsor.

It was proposed that IPv6 resources should be charged based on default allocation sizes, using a comparable but not identical model to IPv4. Sharing supporting data for this model was also identified as an important next step.

Concerns were raised about resource holders potentially being charged for two different categories for their IPv4 and IPv6 resources. A suggestion was made to simplify this by charging based on the highest applicable category. It was agreed that this would require further discussion.

6. Legacy Space Holders

Peter continued to lead the discussion on the topic of legacy space holders and the potential for charging fees. It was noted that legacy space holders could not be forced to become RIPE NCC members, and tax complications made it difficult to impose fees. Further investigation into tax-related issues would depend on understanding how such a service might work.

The need for due diligence on legacy space holders was raised as a challenge, particularly if fees were to be introduced. Examples of actions previously taken to encourage legacy holders to join were mentioned.

A suggestion was made to consider recommending address policy changes, such as removing the legacy status when resources were transferred or split. ARIN’s approach was highlighted as a possible model, where legacy status was removed upon splitting or transferring address blocks. However, it was noted that ARIN’s policies might primarily target US-based legacy holders, where the cost structure made sense for such organisations.

Concerns were expressed about whether this topic fell within the task force’s scope. It was pointed out that broader implications, such as defining legacy status, could impact members’ acceptance of the task force’s work. While the task force could consider charging for legacy resources, decisions about converting legacy status might be outside its remit.

There was agreement that organisations should retain the right to legacy status, but incentives should be introduced for paying for these resources. It was suggested that transferring a resource should result in the loss of its legacy status, with new holders required to pay a registry fee.

Counterarguments were raised, noting the potential unintended consequences for smaller organisations. For example, scenarios such as a university transferring resources to a university network association might warrant exceptions. It was suggested that such cases would fall under sponsoring LIR relationships and that the system could not anticipate every corner case.

Concerns about the workload associated with legacy transfers were raised, with suggestions to introduce a high transfer fee as a deterrent. The option of charging either the transfer fee or converting legacy status was discussed.

It was noted that data on legacy transfers showed that additional due diligence was often required due to incomplete information. Legacy status was designed for original holders, and new holders should not automatically inherit this status unless they were able to pass costs on to their consumers. While exceptions could exist, it was agreed that the task force could not aim to address every possible scenario.

It was suggested that the group might be delving too far into address policy details. However, there was agreement to assess how many corner cases existed and to consider the types of organisations involved, such as private, non-profit, and educational entities. Prefix brokers could be consulted to gain insight into typical buyers of legacy space, as brokers often portrayed these transfers as straightforward.

The discussion concluded with a summary that there was disagreement about the need for a charging scheme for legacy holders and how it should be structured. Options were proposed for further consideration, such as treating legacy resources as a form of PA address space with a lower category fee or as PI address space, charged similarly to sponsored resources. It was noted that future treatment of legacy resources would also need to be considered.

7. Further Meetings

The group discussed the timeline for completing the report and whether additional meetings would be necessary to meet the February deadline.

It was proposed that the next meeting could take place during the second week of January or shortly thereafter. An alternative suggestion was made to postpone the publication of the report to align with RIPE 91. However, it was noted that the group should first review the report before deciding on a delay.

Instead of increasing the frequency of meetings, it was suggested that extending the meeting duration might be more effective. It was also proposed that asynchronous work on the report could help fasten up progress.

A concern was raised about the need for a published report if the Executive Board were to propose a charging scheme at the next meeting, as there were already fixed deadlines for this process. It was suggested that consulting members on specific topics before finalising the report would also be valuable.

It was noted that the current charging scheme was originally intended to cover a two-year period, and it was confirmed that this scheme could extend until May 2026. This provided some flexibility, though it was acknowledged that some members might prefer quicker outcomes. The importance of prioritising quality over speed was emphasised.

To avoid extending the process indefinitely, it was suggested that RIPE 91 should serve as a hard deadline, with the focus for RIPE 90 being on developing well-considered proposals rather than rushing to meet the earlier date. It was noted that longer meetings might be more challenging to schedule than shorter, more frequent ones.

Support was expressed for biweekly, one-hour meetings, with a plan to reassess this structure at the first meeting in January. A scheduling poll for early January would be sent out, and it was agreed to prepare polls for meetings through February, starting with a monthly schedule and adding sessions as needed. A preference for afternoon meetings was noted.

8. AOB

The group discussed the timing of a consultation or Open House. It was suggested that this should take place once a draft report was ready to share. It was noted that feedback from the General Meeting indicated members wanted some form of survey to help determine the direction to take.

The possibility of conducting the survey and Open House simultaneously was raised. It was suggested that the Open House should come first, followed by the survey, both taking place after the draft report had been shared.

There was agreement that the survey should be kept brief, with a suggestion to model it on the ICP-2 survey, which gathered opinions on individual questions. It was proposed that the survey could be published alongside the draft report to allow members to respond immediately.

Peter concluded the meeting with thanks to the task force and wished them happy holidays.