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

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20240411/6ddaf055/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 840 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20240411/6ddaf055/attachment.sig>