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

Although i find this idea interesting, this would IMHO just lead to fake
inetnum records in the DB to avoid the costs.

Regards,
Lennart

On 14.04.2023 17:27, Paul Lewis wrote:
>
> I'd like to also say that I think the idea of having model A based on
> the number of resources used, instead of fixed categories, would be
> better. It would help encourage unused resources to be transferred or
> returned.
>
> ---
>
> Regards,
> Paul Lewis.
>
>
> On 2023-04-13 19:02, cowmedia.de wrote:
>
>> Hi Simon,
>>
>> by reading this email and checking the calculator again I have the
>> feeling
>> that the "listening to the members" as you say was not happening. A
>> majority
>> of the members want a usage based charging scheme (as per the
>> discussions on
>> this mailing list) and this is completely not reflected. Just adding some
>> more categories with the highest still only arround 10K is not
>> sufficient.
>>
>> Also what I do not understand is that my personal account with more
>> or less
>> one of the lowest resources you can get is already in Category 2?!?
>>
>> I can just repeat what I have already done:
>>
>> It should be billed by real resources used and directly calculated not
>> within categories
>> Smaller LIRs should pay less and bigger LIRs should pay more
>> It is important that there is an incentive to get rid of unused resources
>> and bring them back, this is only possible when you pay for every
>> resource
>> separate, otherwise no-one will take care.
>>
>> I think this 3 models are not ready for vote and need to be revised.
>> Also Model 3 I completely do not understand. Why should someone pay for
>> transfers? This just means changes are going on and something
>> happens. Why
>> these companies should then pay more? The "bad" companies are the
>> ones that
>> do not implement IPv6 and their development just stall so nothing
>> happens.
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>> On Apr 12, 2023, at 09:45, Simon-Jan Haytink <simonjh at ripe.net
>>> <mailto:simonjh at ripe.net>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear RIPE NCC members,
>>>
>>> I want to thank all those who contributed to the consultation so far on
>> the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 and the model we should use for the
>> coming
>> years.
>>>
>>> We can now share three draft models that we developed based on input
>>> from
>> the members on the Members Discuss mailing list and in the Charging
>> Scheme
>> Open House, as well as from the discussions at the recent Executive Board
>> Meeting.
>>>
>>> The result is that we are proposing three draft charging scheme models:
>> one category-based and two that are based on the previous "one LIR
>> account,
>> one fee" model. We hope to receive feedback on these models by 19
>> April so
>> the Executive Board can propose the final versions on 26 April. The
>> members
>> will then vote on those three models at the upcoming General Meeting on
>> 24-26 May.
>>>
>>> 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/cha
>> rging-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.
>>>
>>> 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/cha
>> rging-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.
>>>
>>> On 26 April, the final versions of the charging schemes that members
>>> will
>> vote on will be published for the members to consider and discuss. If you
>> have comments on the draft charging schemes, we therefore ask you to
>> comment
>> on the members-discuss mailing list by 19 April so we have time to
>> incorporate any feedback if necessary.
>>>
>>> Importantly, we ask all members to register for the RIPE NCC General
>> Meeting where the final decision will be in your hands. Register to
>> participate and vote at:
>>> https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active
>>>
>>> Simon-Jan Haytink
>>> Chief Financial Officer
>>> RIPE NCC
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> members-discuss mailing list
>> members-discuss at ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net>
>> https://mailman.ripe.net/
>> Unsubscribe:
>> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/info%40cowmedia.de
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> members-discuss mailing list
>> members-discuss at ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net>
>> https://mailman.ripe.net/
>> Unsubscribe:
>> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/paul.lewis%40fr89.uk
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> members-discuss mailing list
> members-discuss at ripe.net
> https://mailman.ripe.net/
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/mail%40lseitz.de


-- 
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Lennart Seitz
PGP-Schlüssel: 0x187abd76a5660379 (https://pgp.lseitz.de/key.asc)
--

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20230417/6977badb/attachment-0001.html>