[members-discuss] Response to Comments on the Charging Scheme Proposals
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Response to Comments on the Charging Scheme Proposals
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [news] RIPE NCC Certified Professionals is Back Online
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
sdy at a-n-t.ru
sdy at a-n-t.ru
Thu May 25 21:43:26 CEST 2023
Silviu Sory, but profit | non profit usualy defined by oganization foundation documents. So I think, dutch law is not anusual. Serbulov Dmitry. > Hi, > > A per resource charging scheme has been rejected many years ago because > that type of charging would force RIPE to become a for profit organization > - from the dutch government / fiscal point of view. It was a lenghty > discussion and the consensus was that RIPE must remain a not-for-profit > organization. > > Silviu > > ________________________________ > From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net> on behalf of Josh > Jameson <josh at servebyte.com> > Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2023 2:08:31 PM > To: members-discuss at ripe.net <members-discuss at ripe.net> > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Response to Comments on the Charging Scheme > Proposals > > The deadline for members to propose resolutions was 10th May. > Unfortunately RIPE ignored the elephant in the room that showed the most > activity in members-discuss, which was pay-per-ipv4 - like some other > RIRs currently operate. > > They are so confident that it is not something people will vote for, > that they refused to include it as an option, despite it providing RIPE > with the most funding of any other option. > > If RIPE was not a monopoly in our region, I would go elsewhere. To say I > am disgusted with the behavior is a gross understatement. > > Regards, > Josh Jameson > > On 5/19/23 15:00, sdy at a-n-t.ru wrote: >> Dear Simon-Jan, >> >> Until the fee for one resource becomes the same for everyone, we will >> look >> for a way to distribute and pay for IPv4 resources indefinitely. >> If we don't have enough resources now, it doesn't matter how someone has >> 1 >> billion addresses for some reason. If they need them, they MUST to pay >> like everyone else! >> >> I do not understand why the NCC do not offer to vote a scheme: 1 IP for >> everyone = one price for everyone !!!??? Are there any reasons? They do >> not want to pay for these addresses? OK! Somebody else will take it and >> will be pay in happy. >> >> Dmitry Serbulov. >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> I’d like to answer the comments and questions that have been raised >>> since the Board Treasurer announced the final proposed charging scheme >>> options. >>> >>> See Raymond’s mail announcing the options at: >>> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ncc-announce/2023-April/001645.html >>> >>> Also see my colleague Fergal’s mail explaining the instant run-off >>> voting method and how it will work with the charging scheme vote: >>> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ncc-announce/2023-May/001647.html >>> >>> Purpose of the Charging Scheme and Budget >>> >>> The charging scheme is the mechanism the RIPE NCC uses to ensure it >>> collects sufficient funds to carry out its promises to the members in >>> future years. As a safeguard, any excess (or shortage) of funds is >>> subject to a redistribution vote by the General Meeting. This >>> redistribution has happened many times in the past. This ensures that >>> the RIPE NCC operates on a cost-recovery basis, or in other words >>> operates as a not-for-profit. >>> >>> The Charging Scheme does not define the cost budget of the RIPE NCC, >>> but >>> of course there is a relation between the two. The projected income >>> does >>> at the very least provide direction regarding discussion on the >>> Activity >>> Plan and Budget. >>> >>> The Activity Plan and Budget defines the planned activities and >>> associated costs for a financial year. And for the longer term, we have >>> developed a five-year strategy. Both of these documents are published >>> for the members to provide input on, and they are then approved by the >>> RIPE NCC Executive Board. >>> >>> The Draft Activity Plan and Budget is published on a yearly basis every >>> autumn, specifically to consult with our membership. Additionally, this >>> year there is the option to provide input and feedback via the RIPE NCC >>> Survey 2023, which will launch next week. The Activity Plan and Budget >>> is effectively the RIPE NCC’s promise to its members in terms of what >>> it >>> will do and how much it will spend in the coming year. >>> >>> The most recently approved Activity Plan and Budget (in this case 2023) >>> forms the basis for projections of the required income for the >>> following >>> financial year, as this is the most recent approved “promise to our >>> members”. All charging scheme projections are made with this promise in >>> mind, to ensure sufficient income to continue that promise. If the >>> Activity Plan and Budget 2024 requires us to cut or add activities or >>> costs, then that is what we will do to fulfill our promise. >>> >>> That being said, efficient and effective use of membership funds is a >>> priority and will remain a priority of the Executive Board and the >>> management of the RIPE NCC. >>> >>> Why Change the Current Model? >>> >>> We need to ensure sufficient and sustainable income to continue our >>> operations in a stable and predictable manner. The high market value of >>> IPv4 resources combined with the possibility of multiple LIR accounts >>> per member has created uncertainty and unpredictability for a >>> significant part of our income. A member-based model rather than an LIR >>> account model will help to reduce this uncertainty by removing the LIR >>> account as the basis for the charging scheme. >>> >>> We are also addressing the stated unfairness in the current model. >>> Although some members have expressed the desire for increased >>> differentiation, we see the proposed change as a significant difference >>> from the current one LIR-one fee model. It allows us to spread the >>> funding burden differently because in the current model, all members >>> with one LIR account pay the same fee (exception is the independent >>> resources). Due to a significant inflow of New LIRs in 2019 and 2021, >>> there is a considerable amount of members who hold more than one LIR >>> account, and these members do pay additional LIR account fees. One of >>> the major benefits of the category model is that it charges per member, >>> and with that it reduces the uncertainty caused by multiple LIRs and >>> the >>> associated consolidation risk. >>> >>> We aim to achieve a clearer distinction between RIPE Policy and the >>> RIPE >>> NCC Charging Scheme by removing the LIR account as the basis of the >>> charging scheme. >>> >>> And we want to ensure that the RIPE NCC together with its members is >>> ready for any change the future might bring, by increasing the >>> possibilities the charging scheme provides to adapt for this change. Of >>> course, this can only happen with formal approval by the GM. >>> >>> The Category Model >>> >>> Under this model, the categories would apply as soon as a member holds >>> IPv4 or IPv6 resources as defined in the charging scheme document. >>> Limits as defined in the charging scheme document are the upper limits >>> of the categories. The lower limit for Category 1 is one resource (one >>> IPv4 address or one IPv6 address). The base category applies to all, >>> including members with no IPv4 or IPv6 resources. >>> We have been asked why there is not a per-IPv4 address model, with >>> comments that the category model favours bigger members. In a way, it >>> does, but less so than in the one-LIR account, one-fee model. We also >>> need to stay true to the fact that we are a membership association, so >>> while we can differentiate between members, this needs to stay within >>> reason. >>> >>> Additionally, we need to ensure the independence of the RIPE NCC by not >>> becoming too dependent on a small subset of our membership for a >>> significant part of our income. Furthermore, protecting the one >>> member-one vote principle could become significantly more difficult if >>> the contribution differences become extreme. So we can facilitate >>> differentiation between members in size of contribution, especially >>> compared to the current model we have, but it is essential that this >>> stays within reason. One clear benefit of the category model is that we >>> can refine it over time, working towards a model that is acceptable for >>> more members. >>> >>> On the pricing and category limits, they have been set with the latest >>> Activity Plan and Budget in mind, to ensure at the very least that we >>> can continue with our promise to members in 2024. If the Activity Plan >>> and Budget 2024 requires the RIPE NCC to reduce or add activities or >>> costs, we will act accordingly. >>> >>> Regarding the options presented for voting, our initial plan was to >>> submit two charging schemes for a vote, to provide a clear choice to >>> the >>> members on a category-based model or the current model. Both of these >>> models would provide income at the level of the 2023 budget if we apply >>> a correction for expected inflation of 5%, resulting in a projected >>> income of EUR 42 million. >>> >>> After feedback from members we wanted to ensure the GM could vote for >>> “NO CHANGE” which is represented in Option D. Additionally to this “NO >>> CHANGE” vote, I personally requested to add a vote to keep the income >>> (before any correction for inflation) at the same level as in 2023, >>> which is the reason Option C has been added. The 2nd or 3rd vote on >>> charging for ASN assignments and/or transfers would (if approved) >>> provide additional income over that provided by the charging scheme >>> voted for by members. >>> >>> The Waiting List >>> >>> The current situation regarding the IPv4 waiting list and costs >>> associated with a /24 IPv4 allocation is in our eyes an undesirable >>> one. >>> With the uncertainty of the waiting period (around 1.5 to 2 years) >>> which >>> can be shorter or longer, plus the two-year “non-transfer” policy, it >>> means unpredictable costs for our members and income that is not >>> transparent for the RIPE NCC. >>> - Two-year waiting period = sign-up fee plus two years LIR service fee >>> = >>> 4,100 EUR >>> - Two-year “non-transfer” policy = two years LIR service fee = 3,100 >>> EUR >>> - Indicative price 7,200 EUR >>> >>> To address this, we propose a one-time join-the-waiting list fee, and a >>> to-be-determined /24 IPv4 allocation fee. This would replace costs that >>> apply to members based on being on the waiting list for a long time >>> without receiving resources, as members would be charged the waiting >>> list fee upon placement on the waiting list, and the allocation fee >>> only >>> just before resources are allocated (with the opportunity to reject the >>> resources). >>> >>> This is, in our opinion, a fairer way to charge for these resources. To >>> define this charge and work out any possible issues with RIPE Policy, >>> we >>> are postponing this vote to allow for consultation with the membership >>> because this to-be-determined fee will have an effect on who applies >>> for >>> the resources. We also need to consider fees already paid by LIR >>> accounts, and whether a discount would be in order for fees already >>> paid >>> in relation to specific IPv4 allocations. And for this, time is needed >>> to consult with membership. >>> >>> Additionally, this fee will also result in additional income for the >>> RIPE NCC, which will be subject to a redistribution vote, assuming this >>> provides excess funds. >>> >>> See the original announcement on the waiting list freeze: >>> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ncc-announce/2023-April/001643.html >>> >>> Finally, there are probably more questions and comments than I have >>> answered here. But we are preparing for the General Meeting (GM) next >>> week where there will be several presentations from our side on the >>> charging and budgeting of the RIPE NCC. Our Managing Director will >>> present at both the NCC Services Working Group on the past and future >>> of >>> the RIPE NCC, and he will present a more detailed presentation on >>> budget >>> developments in the GM. I will also present on the Charging Scheme >>> options as well as give an update on our current financial situation. >>> >>> I hope you will register to join and follow these presentations, and >>> you >>> will have the opportunity to further ask questions and discuss the >>> various options to vote on. >>> >>> https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2023 >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Simon-Jan Haytink >>> Chief Financial Officer >>> RIPE NCC >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> members-discuss mailing list >>> members-discuss at ripe.net >>> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss >>> Unsubscribe: >>> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/sdy%40a-n-t.ru >>> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> members-discuss mailing list >> members-discuss at ripe.net >> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss >> Unsubscribe: >> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/josh%40servebyte.com > > > _______________________________________________ > members-discuss mailing list > members-discuss at ripe.net > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/skylinetelecom%40outlook.com > _______________________________________________ > members-discuss mailing list > members-discuss at ripe.net > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/sdy%40a-n-t.ru >
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Response to Comments on the Charging Scheme Proposals
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [news] RIPE NCC Certified Professionals is Back Online
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]