Skip to main content

Charging Scheme Task Force 2024 Meeting Minutes (17 January 2025)

17 January 2025

Attendees: Victor Bolaños Guerra, Sebastian Brossier, Carlos Friaças, Raymond Jetten, Ulf Kieber, Pavel Odintsov, Cynthia Revström, Piotr Strzyżewski, Clara Wade

Apologies: Alex de Joode, Alexandru Doszlop, Ivaylo Josifov, Alptekin Sünnetci

Chairs: Ondřej Filip, Peter Hessler

RIPE NCC staff: Daniella Coutinho, Fergal Cunningham, Athina Fragkouli, Simon-Jan Haytink, Karla Liddle-White

1. Welcome

RIPE NCC Executive Board Chair Ondřej Filip welcomed everyone to the meeting and acknowledged the start of 2025, emphasising the importance of the work ahead. He noted that while the agenda included only a few items, there was a significant amount of material to discuss, which would be sufficient for the meeting. He then asked if there were any proposed amendments to the agenda.

One participant mentioned adding recommendations to the agenda based on feedback gathered from various sources, noting the diversity of perspectives and the value of discussing these inputs. Another participant raised concerns about contradictions within the recommendations.

It was proposed to review the draft and consider these points under the context of the report. Some participants emphasised the importance of using official channels when collecting input from external parties, while others suggested adhering closely to the pre-set agenda. It was agreed that the recommendations would be addressed during the review of the report.

2. Engagement with Members and Processing Member Input

The group discussed the need to clarify who would be responding to member feedback and how the group would process member input. The discussion also focused on the communication channels being used to gather input from the membership.

One participant highlighted the value of using official channels like the members-discuss mailing list to gather input while others acknowledged that team members were communicating with members in other channels such as Telegram. It was noted that it was important to verify the membership status of contributors when using other platforms. It was suggested that members could provide their LIR regID to confirm their member status, as is standard in other interactions.

Opinions varied on whether responses should only come through official channels. Some emphasised the importance of maintaining transparency and using multiple communication channels, while others suggested that all feedback should ultimately be brought back to the members-discuss list for consistency.

There was consensus that official messaging from the task force should appear on the members-discuss mailing list and the idea of holding an Open House to address member questions was proposed and supported. This could complement discussions on the mailing list and other platforms, ensuring broader engagement.

Publishing the draft report was highlighted as a key step to promote transparency and address recurring questions from members. It was noted that this would provide a basis for more focused discussions and allow the TF to respond to specific points effectively.

The group reviewed member input from the mailing list, finding that nearly all points were already reflected in the draft report, except for two, which could be addressed through further discussion and revisions. There was general agreement that the draft report should be published soon, as it would serve as a foundation for the Open House and additional feedback.

3. Section-by-Section Review of Report

The Task Force reviewed the draft report and accepted changes suggested by its members, discussing various sections and key issues in detail. Key discussions focused on terminology, legacy resources, resource transfers, and the next steps for finalising the draft.

Legacy Resources:

Extensive discussion covered the scope of legacy-related issues. While fees for services to legacy holders are within the Task Force’s remit, changes to legacy policies were considered out of scope. The group agreed to retain the section on legacy resources as a starting point for further conversation.

Resource Transfers:

The Task Force discussed the cost implications of resource transfers and the potential for equitable fee structures. Suggestions included differentiating between high-volume and low-volume users. The current draft will note that discussions are ongoing, with more data to be reviewed for the final report.

Next Steps:

Members debated the readiness of the draft for publication. It was decided to aim for publication within a couple of weeks as a work-in-progress draft, with further adjustments to follow. Bi-weekly meetings and stricter adherence to agendas were proposed to streamline progress.

Actions Agreed

  • Head of Member Engagement, Fergal Cunningham, to finalise the edits raised in the meeting and share on the Task Force mailing list.
  • The Task Force decided to conclude key discussions before publishing the draft report, to ensure everyone is provided with the full picture before concluding on these recommendations.
  • Continue discussions on legacy resources and resource transfers, with additional data and analysis for the final report.

AOB

The Task Force discussed adopting a bi-weekly meeting schedule to simplify planning. It was proposed to select a fixed day and time every two weeks, pending the results of a Doodle poll.

The group agreed to follow up on the TF mailing list, aiming for timely publication while ensuring the draft was sufficiently complete.