[members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024

Hello Simon-Jan, *

On Wed, 2023-04-12 at 15:45 +0200, Simon-Jan Haytink wrote:

> 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://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://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.

Could you please share how many LIRs would enter in each category ?
And also, it still seems unfair to me that extra-large LIRs holding
millions of IPv4 would pay a few thousand euros. National fixed or
mobile internet service provider should be able to handle higher fees.

I also feel that IPv6 should be less impacting than IPv4 on category
calculation.

> 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://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.

Still not understanding why you are introducing an ASN fee. 
And regarding the transfer fee, I feel that the seller should pay the
fee, but not the receiver.

Best,

Clément Cavadore