Charging Scheme Task Force 2024 Meeting Minutes (22 October 2024)
22 October 2024
Attendees: Victor Bolaños Guerra, Sebastian Brossier, Alex de Joode, Alexandru Doszlop, Carlos Friaças, Raymond Jetten, Ulf Kieber, Pavel Odintsov, Piotr Strzyżewski, Clara Wade
Apologies: Ivaylo Josifov, Alptekin Sünnetci, Cynthia Revström
Chairs: Ondřej Filip, Peter Hessler
RIPE NCC staff: Daniella Coutinho, Fergal Cunningham, Athina Fragkouli, Simon-Jan Haytink, Karla Liddle-White, Marco Schmidt
1. Welcome
RIPE NCC Executive Board Chair, Ondřej Filip, began the meeting by welcoming the group and reviewing the agenda. He reminded participants that the focus of the task force was to discuss the key principles and agenda items.
2. Discussion on Address Policy WG on PI Charging
Raymond provided an overview of the history of PI assignment charges, which were introduced in 2010 following the approval of the charging scheme at the 2009 General Meeting. These charges were based on RIPE Policy Proposal 2007-01 and applied to the assignment itself, regardless of the size of the address space. He noted the 2012 Charging Scheme Task Force recommendation to maintain this approach. Raymond also explained that charges were applied to assignments made in a single day and emphasised the ongoing workload involved in maintaining the registry and managing sanctions. He also added that the RIPE NCC would now charge for ASNs following the vote at the General Meeting in May.
Raymond also provided examples to explain the charging differences based on how requests were made. If organisation A requested three /48 assignments on the same day in a single ticket, they pay one PI fee annually. However, if organisation B requested the same three /48s on different days with separate tickets, they are charged for each request individually. He said the distinction lay in the evaluation process—multiple evaluations were required for separate submissions.
3. Charging for Independent Resources (IPv4 PI, IPv6 PI and ASNs)
ASNs
During the discussion, it was generally agreed that including one ASN in the base membership fee would be the way forward as it would align with practices at other RIRs and prevent the resale of free ASNs in other regions. Several participants supported the idea but emphasised the need for more data on ASN distribution including the number of ASNs per RIPE NCC member and how many of them were sponsored before a final consensus could be reached. Chief Financial Officer, Simon-Jan Haytink, agreed to provide anonymised data with the group.
IPv4
Moving to IPv4, it was noted that many processes were already established, making significant changes unnecessary. Another participant highlighted the importance of having detailed data on resource allocations per member, particularly for those with large allocations, before considering any changes. It was also mentioned that while PI transfers were relatively few, they created a significant workload and should be subject to charges. Overall, the group agreed that the data was needed to make informed decisions on potential adjustments.
IPv6
It was discussed whether the same type of policy should apply across IPv6 and IPv4. One participant referenced ongoing discussions in the Address Policy Working Group about the growing minimum allocation sizes, from /29 to /28, and raised the challenge of determining how to account for these sizes in the charging scheme. Another participant pointed out that historical allocation sizes, such as from /28 to /29, must be considered if a category-based scheme is introduced. The complexity of requesting 16-bit ASN numbers in the past was also mentioned.
4. Charging based on service portfolio and not on RIPE NCC workload
During the discussion, it was agreed that charging should be based on the service portfolio rather than RIPE NCC workload. It was noted that if based on workload, since workload is unpredictable, it would be difficult to formulate charging schemes and budgets based on it.
There were concerns about certain services, such as transfers, which create significant costs but benefit a small number of members. Some participants supported charging for transfers and services like RIPE Atlas, while others emphasised the need to maintain research as a free service since it benefited the Internet ecosystem and community overall. It was also noted that transfer fees could increase the cost of IPv4 addresses. Overall, it was agreed that further analysis was needed to assess the impact of these proposals on NCC resources and the membership.
5. Charging for IPv6 without disincentivising IPv6 takeup
It was proposed that IPv6 charges should be structured similarly to IPv4, with a base allocation size as the default, potentially with smaller categories. One participant suggested free allocations up to a certain threshold, such as three assignments or a /29, after which charges would apply. The group also discussed the fact that there is no return policy for IPv6 and participants suggested that this should be made into a policy proposal and brought to the Address Policy Working Group.
One participant said that while IPv6 should be charged for, the fees need to be lower than those for IPv4 to encourage adoption and noted that ARIN and APNIC have comprehensive category sizes for IPv6, which could serve as useful guidance when determining appropriate charges at the RIPE NCC. Another participant expressed the hope that IPv4 could eventually be phased out and that there needed a stable income model focused solely on IPv6. They suggested that default IPv6 allocations should be included, but a threshold should be established where those with large amounts of IPv6 resources would be charged.
6. Explanation of Legacy space process
RIPE NCC Registration Services Manager, Marco Schmidt, presented an explanation of the Legacy resource process and insights into registration services. He covered types of Legacy resource holders, Legacy ASN and IPv4 data as well as contractual status development and the Legacy resource workload.
Participants discussed Legacy resource holders without contracts and the possibility of charging for services. It was noted that a significant portion of legacy resources are under contract, but those without contracts do not pay fees.
One participant suggested recovering costs through transfer fees, while another emphasised the need to understand the RIPE NCC's mandate in terms of charging legacy resource holders, particularly if it was possible to charge legacy holders without a contract when they request an update. Chief Legal Officer, Athina Fragkouli, said she would investigate this and provide feedback to the group. The group also requested clarification on whether it would be possible to incentivise legacy holders to become contracted members.
7. Preparations for RIPE 89 meet up and GM presentation
Head of Member Engagement, Fergal Cunningham, shared details about preparations for the upcoming General Meeting presentation. He inquired who would be presenting on behalf of the Task Force. The group reached a consensus that Task Force Co-Chair Peter Hessler would be the one to deliver the presentation.
8. AOB
Executive Assistant, Daniella Coutinho, ran through the logistics for the hybrid Task Force meeting taking place at RIPE 89.
Ondřej concluded the meeting by thanking all participants for their contributions and expressing appreciation to the RIPE NCC team for their work in organising the Task Force logistics.