[members-discuss] Response from Board on Charging Scheme Comments

Proposal about resources based fee was been rejected early - because 
RIPE doesnt offer unclear scheme.

Nor category based, its must be flat resource based - i.e. linear.

Not sure about rules allow it, but Im sugget to scheme with direct 
impact on resources. (and can offer Excel calculator for that)

TOTAL = amount of entries IPv4 + amount of entries IPv6 + amount of 
entries ASN

For current RIPE allocations its will be

IPv4 SHARE (%)		58,7771%
IPv6 SHARE (%)		16,5582%
ASN  SHARE (%)		24,6648%

When RIPE saying - need 44M EUR funds in budget - okay!

Then:
- IPv4 SHARE - 25 861 909 €
- IPv6 SHARE -  7 285 594 €				
- ASN  SHARE - 10 852 497 €		

What are next?

Next is making minimal countable resource:
- IPv4 - is 1 x IPv4/32
- IPv6 - is 1 x IPv6/48
- ASN  - is 1 x ASN

Just now we can make calculation of membership fee based on this values

For example:

- Small LIR with 1 ASN, 1 IPv4 /24 and 1 IPv6 /32 - will be billed as: 
7,91 € (IPv4) + 40,46 € (IPv6) + 276,48 € (ASN) = 325 €/YEAR

- Some "old" small LIR with 1 ASN, 2 IPv4 /22 and 1 IPv6 /29 - will be 
billed as: 63,29 € (IPv4) + 323,69 € (IPv6) + 276,48 € (ASN) = 663 €/YEAR

Its doesnt have any "corruption" or "lobby" variable, only fair share - 
have more = pay more, have less = pay less.

Very simple.

Are you agree? (Hope you reply)

On 11.04.2024 20:32, Ondrej Filip wrote:
> Dear members,
> 
> Thank you very much for your comments on the proposed Charging Scheme 
> options. I am sorry I am not able to answer all your messages 
> individually. It is not in my capability to do so. However, I want to 
> assure you we read all your comments and take them seriously. In this 
> message I will, of course, not address those comments that express a 
> support for the board's proposal.
> 
> First of all, the board is carefully listening to the members. We opened 
> several channels to collect your feedback. We had the RIPE NCC Survey 
> followed by the Open House discussion, and both indicated that members 
> want the RIPE NCC to continue with the current projects helping our 
> primary mission, which is to support technical coordination in our 
> region. I understand that some of you have different opinions but we 
> need to also consider the wishes and opinions of the wider membership.
> 
> So we are preparing the Activity Plan and Budget in this regard. The 
> discussion on this topic will be held in the Autumn. But whatever is the 
> output of this discussion, the Charging Scheme should cover the expected 
> company costs. Please note that a vast majority of our costs are related 
> to salaries. That is something that we cannot get rid off quickly even 
> if we decide to stop some of the projects. The RIPE NCC has to and will 
> respect the local labour law in the Netherlands and other respective 
> countries. We (the board and staff) will be very happy to discuss the 
> usefulness of all activities, but again the survey very strongly 
> indicated that the majority of the members does not want any radical 
> change in this regard and is satisfied with the current NCC activities.
> 
> The board and the management of the company take very seriously members' 
> concerns related to the company costs. We made a lot of effort to cut 
> many of them last year and again this year. However, it is necessary to 
> note that cost saving cannot go on indefinitely. We strongly believe 
> that the quality of our services cannot be affected and that we should 
> continue to provide world class services to our members and community. 
> On top of it, please keep in mind the rapidly changing environment we 
> operate in. The high inflation in the previous years is one of the 
> drivers of the costs. We employ highly skilled people and I guess that 
> is something most of you recognize. But those people deserve 
> corresponding salaries.
> 
> Another aspect is related to security and privacy. As you know we have 
> made a lot of improvements in this area. And yet with NIS2, there will 
> be more of it. Last but not least, the changing geo-political situation 
> brings many additional burdens that we need to deal with. By that I mean 
> sanctions and other things related to the biggest war in our service 
> region during the RIPE NCC’s existence.
> 
> Saying all that, again I don't want to reconcile to the fact that costs 
> are rising. The board with the management will continue to find 
> opportunities for cost saving. Also please keep in mind that the fees 
> are upper limits of what the NCC needs to operate. If we create a 
> surplus (which is what we believe in) it can be redistributed by the 
> standard mechanisms we use. We do not want to needlessly accumulate 
> money, but we have to be sure the fees can allow the NCC to operate in 
> this rapidly changing environment. It wouldn't be responsible to propose 
> fees that would not allow the NCC to cover its costs.
> 
> On the comments asking that the RIPE NCC budget be linked to the number 
> of LIR accounts, it is true that the number of LIR accounts is reducing. 
> But the number of members is actually very stable and using the 
> membership number as a guide provides more stability than looking at LIR 
> numbers. And the costs for the RIPE NCC are not necessarily linked to 
> the number of accounts anyway. Also, as I noted above, IPv4 scarcity and 
> the outbreak of war has added a lot of complexity to the work of the 
> RIPE NCC just as the number of LIR accounts has started to reduce. For 
> example, work to secure the registry or defend the registry system needs 
> to happen regardless of how many LIR accounts there are.
> 
> Let me also address the point of the fee structure and alternative 
> suggestions raised by several of you. I understand and sympathise with 
> the idea that the current fee structure means that the majority of the 
> budget is covered by small members while larger and richer companies pay 
> a minor part. This concept was approved a long time ago and the board 
> unsuccessfully tried to propose changes. We are very open to discuss 
> this topic again and again, but so far there is no solid model on the 
> table. But we hear you and we will continue this discussion with you.
> 
> Again, thank you for your comments and reactions. I am looking forward 
> to meeting you for the GM in the beautiful town of Krakow or online.
> 
> On behalf of the Executive Board
> 
>      Ondrej
> 
> _______________________________________________
> members-discuss mailing list
> members-discuss at ripe.net
> https://mailman.ripe.net/
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/admin%40roskomnadzor.io
>