Charging Scheme Task Force 2024 Meeting Minutes (27 November 2024)
27 November 2024
Attendees: Raymond Jetten, Sebastian Brossier, Carlos Friaças, Piotr Strzyżewski, Pavel Odintsov, Ulf Kieber
Apologies: Alexandru Doszlop, Ivaylo Josifov, Alptekin Sünnetci, Victor Bolaños Guerra, Alex de Joode, Cynthia Revström, Clara Wade
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 welcomed everyone and asked if there were any comments on the agenda. He noted that he believed the review phase had now concluded and that they should begin drafting the document. He said that Head of Membership Engagement, Fergal Cunningham, had indicated he could assist in drafting the document.
2. Review of GM presentation and member input
Co-Chair Peter Hessler reviewed the Task Force presentation at the General Meeting and said that it had been well received with many positive comments shared afterwards. Member feedback included a variety of comments and questions, half of which related to topics already discussed by the Task Force. He said that this indicated that the team was on the right track and these questions could guide their focus on areas of particular interest to members.
Peter said that a member from an NREN had mentioned to him that holding of large numbers of IP addresses did not always imply that a lot of money was being generated or held by those organisations. Peter asked the member to supply additional information and conducted calculations based on the principles the Task Force had looked at and he and the member concluded that the fees for the NREN would be manageable.
Peter noted the importance of recognising that not all members monetise their IP addresses such as academic institutions and others that provide non-monetary services. This point was noted as significant for future considerations.
The group then discussed a question raised at the GM on whether it was possible to grant members less than one vote. Chief Legal Officer, Athina Fragkouli clarified that there was the principle of "one member, one vote" but she did explain that new members were classified as candidate members for the first six months and were not eligible to vote. Suspended members were also restricted from voting. It was noted that voting rights were amended due to the status of the member rather than because of a tiered membership system.
The Task Force reviewed the level of engagement from members regarding the charging scheme. It was noted that no feedback had been received through the Members Discuss list, charging scheme task force mailing list or other correspondence. Suggestions were made to improve outreach, including writing a RIPE Labs article, sharing updates on LinkedIn, and consulting relevant working groups like Address Policy. It was suggested that raising specific questions related to the charging scheme on the lists would gather more targeted feedback in future.
Ondřej thanked Peter for a great presentation and expressed confidence in the group’s representation and approach since no new issues or surprising ideas had arisen during the presentation discussion. Plans were made to follow up with members in the New Year to encourage further participation and feedback.
3. Resource Distribution Among Members
Chief Financial Officer, Simon-Jan Haytink, shared statistics on resources, particularly on the distribution of /24s among the membership.
There was a suggestion of enforcing IPv6 usage by requiring announcements or charging higher fees for those who do not use or announce IPv6. It was noted that some address space obtained through brokers is unused, and there may be opportunities to encourage IPv6 adoption through financial incentives. Another of the group agreed with the idea but acknowledged the difficulty of passing such a proposal.
The discussion highlighted that the statistics at the time only presented the distribution of resources by type, without showing the broader context of other resources a member might hold—for instance, cases where members had no /24 resources. Simon-Jan committed to developing an overview that would incorporate these missing details. The data revealed that the majority of members, 33%, held fewer than six /24 resources. It also highlighted that a notable proportion of members possessed limited resources overall. Including the relationship between different resource types was identified as a way to enhance the value of future discussions.
Discussion turned to the accounts with one type of resource and it was clarified by Registration Services Manager, Marco Schmidt, that members seeking IPv4 were placed on a waiting list, and those with only ASNs or IPv6 and not on the list likely do not need IPv4. The current waiting list includes approximately 1,000 LIRs, but the number of individual members on the list was not publicly available.
Simon-Jan said he would provide further statistics on membership categories. A suggestion was made to use graphs or other visualisations to improve clarity and follow-up efforts were planned to create visual representations of the data.
4. Feedback from other RIRs on Charging Schemes
Simon-Jan continued by providing feedback received from other RIRs regarding Charging Schemes. Feedback from APNIC highlighted the benefits of long-term financial planning to help members adapt and manage inflation. APNIC emphasised the importance of clear and early communication, simplicity, and avoiding reactive decision-making to achieve smoother outcomes.
Simon-Jan highlighted APNIC’s emphasis on the importance of avoiding reactive decision-making and pointed the group to a blog written by APNIC. He said he was awaiting approval to share their full written input and is pursuing additional feedback from other RIRs.
The group discussed the movement of resources from other RIRs to RIPE NCC. It was observed that RIPE NCC is unique in its growth, with members citing service quality and technical administration as key reasons for joining, while price played a secondary role.
The group also considered whether members outside the RIPE region should pay higher fees, noting that RIPE NCC’s lack of transfer fees and relatively low costs make it more attractive than other RIRs. The group acknowledged the need to balance the needs of price-sensitive members and larger organisations while maintaining RIPE NCC’s high service standards.
The discussion highlighted the importance of ensuring that any adjustments to the charging scheme take into account both regional dynamics and member diversity, with continued efforts to gather insights from other RIRs.
5. RIPE NCC mandate on charging legacy space holders
Athina provided an explanation of legacy holder agreements and the RIPE NCC’s mandate with regard to legacy holders. She said that legacy holders fell into four categories. There were legacy holders with a membership agreement with the RIPE NCC, legacy holders with a “Legacy” agreement with the RIPE NCC but were not members, those who have a contract with a sponsoring LIR and legacy holders without agreements. The latter has the ability to request an update to their registrations but do not receive the majority of RIPE NCC services.
Athina said that the RIPE NCC’s mandate was to maintain accurate registry data but that there was no policy on charging legacy holders for the services they received and in general policies do not define the fees. Any proposal to introduce fees without an agreement in place would require a proposal by the Executive Board, potentially approval by the General Meeting (GM) and the creation of a specific legal framework. A further analysis regarding address sanctions, tax implications, and potential complexities with VAT classification would also be necessary.
Simon-Jan then highlighted the potential VAT complexities of services provided to legacy resource holders since these services may be classified as digital services (where VAT is applicable in the country where the service is received) rather than general services (where VAT is applicable in the country where the service is performed). There is a risk that, if classified as digital services, the RIPE NCC would face the challenge of managing VAT compliance across multiple countries, significantly increasing operational complexity. Should the Task Force wish to define this as a guiding principle, the RIPE NCC would need to allocate time and resources to fully understand the VAT situation and its implications.
Several of the group spoke of encouraging legacy holders to become members or enter agreements through charging for specific services or requiring membership for registry updates. Some supported phasing out legacy status altogether for resources which were transferred or split. It was noted that a potential policy proposal would need to be submitted to the Address Policy Working Group (APWG) regarding a change in status of legacy resources on transfer or breakup.
There was discussion about the obligation to provide minimal services, such as reverse DNS and route objects, to legacy holders without agreements. Some argued that these services benefit the wider Internet and should remain accessible, while others questioned whether member fees should subsidise legacy holders.
The possibility of proposing a global policy to standardise the treatment of legacy resources across RIRs through the NRO was raised.
Simon-Jan said that if the Task Force wished to have the possibility of charging Legacy space holders as a principle, the RIPE NCC would need to fully understand the VAT implications.
6. AOB
The group discussed the possibility of increasing meeting frequency to reach consensus on key topics. It was proposed to hold one more meeting before the end of the year and consider holding two meetings per month starting in January or keeping the frequency and extending the duration of the meetings. It was agreed to continue the discussion on the mailing list and finalise the approach in the next meeting.
Peter thanked everyone for joining and declared the meeting over.