<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" /></head><body style='font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif'> 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. <div id="signature">--- Regards, Paul Lewis. </div> On 2023-04-13 19:02, cowmedia.de wrote: <blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0"> <div class="pre" style="margin: 0; padding: 0; font-family: monospace">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 <blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0">On Apr 12, 2023, at 09:45, Simon-Jan Haytink <<a href="mailto:simonjh@ripe.net">simonjh@ripe.net</a>> wrote: Dear RIPE NCC members, I want to thank all those who contributed to the consultation so far on</blockquote> the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 and the model we should use for the coming years. <blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0"> We can now share three draft models that we developed based on input from</blockquote> 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. <blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0"> The result is that we are proposing three draft charging scheme models:</blockquote> 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. <blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0"> The three models all aim to fulfil a budget that is roughly the same as</blockquote> 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. <blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0"> The three models are available to review at: </blockquote> <a href="https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/cha" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/cha</a> rging-scheme-2024-consultation <blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0"> We also provide an updated calculator where members can see for themselves</blockquote> how much they might pay under the draft models:<a href="https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/new" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/new</a> -calculator-charging-scheme-2024.xlsx <blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0"> To summarise the main features of the three models: Model A - Category Model This model has ten categories to provide greater granularity. It also</blockquote> 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. <blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0"> With this model, approximately 68% of members would pay less than the</blockquote> current annual fee, with the remaining 32% paying more. <blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0"> The discussion with members helped us to see that a category-based model</blockquote> 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. <blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0"> Model B - Price increase and ASN fee This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there is a</blockquote> 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. <blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0"> Model C - Transfer fee and ASN fee This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there is a</blockquote> 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. <blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0"> Further information on the charging scheme models is provided at: </blockquote> <a href="https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/cha" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/cha</a> rging-scheme-2024-consultation/ <blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0"> The RIPE NCC Executive Board believes that a category-based model is the</blockquote> 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. <blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0"> On 26 April, the final versions of the charging schemes that members will</blockquote> 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. <blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0"> Importantly, we ask all members to register for the RIPE NCC General</blockquote> Meeting where the final decision will be in your hands. Register to participate and vote at: <blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0"><a href="https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active</a> Simon-Jan Haytink Chief Financial Officer RIPE NCC </blockquote> _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list <a href="mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net">members-discuss@ripe.net</a> <a href="https://mailman.ripe.net/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://mailman.ripe.net/</a> Unsubscribe: <a href="https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/info%40cowmedia.de" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/info%40cowmedia.de</a></div> <div class="pre" style="margin: 0; padding: 0; font-family: monospace">_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list <a href="mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net">members-discuss@ripe.net</a> <a href="https://mailman.ripe.net/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://mailman.ripe.net/</a> Unsubscribe: <a href="https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/paul.lewis%40fr89.uk" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/paul.lewis%40fr89.uk</a></div> </blockquote> </body></html>