<div><div>you wrote:</div><div>However, PI resources should not be accounted in the calculation of the LIR size, as these resources don't belong to the LIR himself but to the end user.</div></div><div> </div><div>I think:</div><div>it is not right. All ipv4 should be taken into account. PI/Legacy/ERX will be finally paid by the end-user.</div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div><div>13.03.2023, 10:56, "Cédric" <ml-ripe@ddpo.be>:</div><blockquote>Hi, I'm a private person with only one ASN, one /24 IPv4 and one /29 IPv6. I use these resources to provide resources to local hackerspace and association, because big companies wouldn't care for them, or change a ridiculous amount of money for this service. I don't make any money from my LIR activity, and, as a private individual, I need to pay the VAT on my ripe membership. With model 1, I would pay 2050€ + VAT > 2481€ With model 2, I would pay 550€ + VAT > 666€ I'm in favor of model 2, because it's fair, and take into consideration the potential revenue from these resources. I don't see why I should pay the same as a big company with a lot of resources, and who make money from his activities. If the membership fee continue to increase in the next years, this will quickly become unsustainable for me, and the only choice left would be to end my LIR membership. Any company with a substantial amount of IPv4 addresses is able to make profit from these resources, by leasing them, selling them, or use them for they customers, most hosting company charge more than 1€/IP/month. Companies with large amount of IPv4 addresses used internally are usually public institutions, if all these IP are really used internally, the membership is probably a low fee compared to the electricity cost for all these devices. Model 2 give more space for small operators who would otherwise just rely on another LIR to get they resources, the RIPE should promote this more decentralized model. IPv4 resources are not meant to be used as a speculative asset, if a company don't use them, they can return them or pay a higher membership, both case profit to the community. However, PI resources should not be accounted in the calculation of the LIR size, as these resources don't belong to the LIR himself but to the end user. This would prevent a LIR to accept a new sponsorship because this would make him jump to the upper category, or force one LIR to drop a sponsor before the end of the year to be accounted to the lower category. Regards, On Wed, 2023-03-08 at 14:04 +0100, Fabien SCHENKELS wrote:<blockquote> Dear Members, We are exactly of the same opinion as "ServeByte" which says: « ServeByte Limited is in favor of the new proposed pricing model 2, to abolish the current membership fee model. We find that it is a much fairer pricing model for small service providers. All of our costs have increased over the past few years, but clawing higher fees from small LIR members is unsustainable. It discourages direct RIPE membership and instead encourages people to merge their resources, under a single LIR for little to no extra cost. We have even considered this. » We also want Model 2. It is about the survival of thousands of LIRs and the neutrality and independence of the Internet. Small members must be supported. Thank you for making the right choices and that the little LIRs can continue to live. Kind regards, Fabien Schenkels > Le 7 mars 2023 à 10:35, Simon Jan Haytink <<a href="mailto:simon@ripe.net" rel="noopener noreferrer">simon@ripe.net</a>> a écrit > : > > Dear RIPE NCC members, > > We would like to re-open the consultation we began with the > membership in 2021 on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme model, and we > would like to carry out that consultation well in advance of the > RIPE NCC General Meeting (GM) May 2023. > > In 2021, we presented on this topic at the GM, and we also surveyed > our members and held an open house to get direct input on the > charging scheme model that members would like to see implemented by > the RIPE NCC. The outcome at that stage of the consultation was > that there were strong cases made for both the current one-LIR, > one-fee model and for a category-based model that would charge > based on the number of resources held by a member. A strong case > was also made to charge for all resources allocated or assigned by > the RIPE NCC, including ASNs, and to charge a fee for transfers. > > The Executive Board decided to suspend the consultation in light of > the war in Ukraine, but we are eager to decide on a way forward on > this matter together with the membership. > > One of the main reasons that we would like to advance the > discussion on the charging model is that we expect many members > with multiple LIR accounts who received resources in 2021 to merge > these accounts in the coming year. This means that the income the > RIPE NCC receives will be reduced by a significant amount and we > will need to ensure that our charging model allows us to collect > the revenue required to maintain our operations. We believe that a > category-based model would be best suited to cover this > consolidation risk. Continuing with the existing model would mean > that an increase in fees for all members would be required. Our > ultimate goal is to arrive at a charging scheme model that will be > sustainable for many years to come, meeting the needs of the RIPE > NCC’s members. > > To help with discussion and to provide something tangible for > members to assess, we are putting forward two draft models for > members to review. These models can be summarised as: > > Model 1: A “one-LIR, one-fee” model based on the current RIPE NCC > Charging Scheme 2023 that also charges for independent resources, > ASNs, transfers and changes in business structure such as Mergers & > Acquisitions. > > Model 2: A category-based model that charges per member (not per > LIR account) and is based on resources registered and that also > charges for independent resources, ASNs, transfers and changes in > business structure such as Mergers & Acquisitions. > > In order to allow members to form an opinion based on their own > situation, we are providing an Excel sheet that will allow you to > calculate the fees you would pay under each of the draft models. It > is important to be aware that at this stage, the numbers assigned > for each item are indicative and would be reviewed in light of the > discussion with members. We plan to review these figures following > consultation with the members, and giving input on those figures > would greatly help to arrive at a good model. > > You can download the Excel sheet from: > <a href="https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/member-calculator-charging-scheme-2024.xlsx" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/member-calculator-charging-scheme-2024.xlsx</a> > > We also plan to hold another Open House meeting on the Charging > Scheme in March to further discuss the charging scheme models. The > Executive Board will then take the input and decide on one or more > charging schemes for the membership to vote on at the GM to be held > on 24 May 2023. The outcome of that vote will determine the > charging scheme model to be used in the coming years. > > I ask that you provide your input on this important consultation on > the Membership Discussion mailing list (<a href="mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net" rel="noopener noreferrer">members-discuss@ripe.net</a>) > by 26 April. Input provided up to this date will be considered by > the Board when formulating the charging schemes to be proposed for > the GM. Input after this date is of course also welcome although it > might not be reflected in the schemes put forward to the membership > at the GM. > > The consultation will also be recorded and available from: > <a href="https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations</a> > > I look forward to your input. > > Kind regards, > > Simon Jan Haytink > Finance Director > RIPE NCC > > Summary > > 7 March: Start consultation with membership on RIPE NCC Charging > Scheme model > 21 March: Open House to discuss charging scheme with membership > 24 March: Executive Board meeting to discuss input received so far > 12 April: Publication of Draft RIPE NCC Charging Schemes 2024 > 26 April: Publication of Final RIPE NCC Charging Schemes to be > voted on by members > 24 May: RIPE NCC General Meeting May 2023 > > References > > Open House and Survey Results > <a href="https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/open-house/ripe-ncc-open-house-charging-scheme-principles" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/open-house/ripe-ncc-open-house-charging-scheme-principles</a> > > Presentation at General Meeting > <a href="https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2021/documentation-and-archive/ripe-ncc-charging-scheme-discussion.pdf" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2021/documentation-and-archive/ripe-ncc-charging-scheme-discussion.pdf</a> > _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list <a href="mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net" rel="noopener noreferrer">members-discuss@ripe.net</a> <a href="https://mailman.ripe.net/" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://mailman.ripe.net/</a> Unsubscribe: <a href="https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ml-ripe%40ddpo.be" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ml-ripe%40ddpo.be</a></blockquote> _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list <a href="mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net" rel="noopener noreferrer">members-discuss@ripe.net</a> <a href="https://mailman.ripe.net/" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://mailman.ripe.net/</a> Unsubscribe: <a href="https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ripe-ncc-members-discuss%40itns.md" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ripe-ncc-members-discuss%40itns.md</a></blockquote>