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

Hope you have fun with our "play of words" in naming :)

Shares counted as

1) Download - https://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/stats/delegated-ripencc-latest

2) Taking header - its looks now (2024-04-12)

ripencc	*	ipv4	*	93539	summary	
ripencc	*	asn	*	39252	summary	
ripencc	*	ipv6	*	26351	summary	

3) Its amount of ALL allocations under RIPE region

Counting sum = 93539 + 39252 + 26351 = 159142

This value is sum of all allocations from region

IPv4 - 93539 / 159142 = 58,7771%
IPv6 - 39252 / 159142 = 16,5582%
ASN  - 26351 / 159142 = 24,6648%

Share of even type of allocations

On 12.04.2024 4:34, Sergey Myasoedov wrote:
> Hi ROSKOMNADZOR (even if I don't like the signing with this state authority name),
> 
>> IPv4 SHARE (%) 58,7771%
>> IPv6 SHARE (%) 16,5582%
>> ASN  SHARE (%) 24,6648%
> 
> Could you elaborate more about these shares please?
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> --
> Best regards,
> Sergey Myasoedov
> 
> 
>> On Apr 12, 2024, at 00:21, ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED <admin at roskomnadzor.io> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> members-discuss mailing list
>> members-discuss at ripe.net
>> https://mailman.ripe.net/
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/kaa%40net-art.cz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>