[members-discuss] [RFC] Motion/Proposal for Amendments to RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025

On Fri, 2024-04-12 at 00:07 +0300, Dmitry Kohmanyuk via members-discuss
wrote:
> Hi Denys and everyone,
> 
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2024, at 22:19, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote:
> > I am writing to propose amendments to the "RIPE NCC Charging Scheme
> > 2025" for discussion. Below are the details of the proposed
> > changes:
> > 
> > Proposal for a Proportional Charging Model:
> > 
> > We suggest that RIPE NCC implement a charging model based on the
> > number
> > of IPv4 subnets allocated to each member. This model would replace
> > the
> > existing flat fee structure, aiming to distribute costs more
> > equitably
> > among members according to their usage of number resources. Such a
> > model would ensure that charges correspond to the scale of each
> > member's operations and resource needs.
> 
> I would support this motion as I have proposed a reduction to IPv6-
> only address holders, with no v4 resources.
Fully agree
> 
> > Reduction of Annual Budget Based on Current Economic Trends:
> > 
> > Given the economic downturn affecting our industry, we recommend
> > that
> > RIPE NCC conduct a thorough review of its annual budget to identify
> > and
> > reduce non-essential expenditures. Prioritizing core activities is
> > crucial, especially in light of the decline in LIR membership
> > numbers.
> > Adjusting budget allocations to current economic realities will
> > help
> > stabilize the organization and alleviate financial pressure on its
> > members.
> 
> Also yes for this proposal. However, I would not go with the cost
> reduction only.
> 
> in his email on behalf of the board, Ondrej Filip mentioned new
> costs, related to the war in Ukraine, legal compliance and -  for the
> first time in NCC history I think - "protecting the registry".  As a
> Ukrainian, I would explain that it means dealing with an army of RIPE
> member countries bombing your cities, houses, and offices, destroying
> electric stations and internet connectivity, as well as many other
> things of value.  Such risk exists in the entire RIPE service area.
> 
> RIPE cannot operate on a shoestring, but RIPE definitely can and
> should optimise costs for all its activities.
> Lower costs are not always possible, but if a datacenter costs less
> than AWS, it should not be shut down.
> 
> > Furthermore, I have reviewed the archive and identified 41 unique
> > email
> > addresses that participated in discussions about this charging
> > scheme.
> > It appears that a consensus of at least 21 affirmative votes should
> > prompt RIPE NCC and the relevant working group to consider the
> > community's stance seriously.
> 
> People do not always write when they have an opinion. Let's not
> forget old-fashioned conversations.
> I think we can have a BoF at the Krakow meeting about this.  A Zoom
> queue and a hundred e-mails wouldn't do.
Not everyone can afford to travel for health reasons.

> 
> > Accordingly, I propose a motion to include the following options in
> > the
> > charging scheme discussion:
> > 
> > A) Maintain the current budget.
> > B) Reduce the budget, possibly in proportion to the decrease in LIR
> > numbers.
> > C) Introduce fees for LIRs based on their allocated IPv4 resources.
> 
> Yes for all of these.  Let the members vote and decide.  As for the
> reduction of income while keeping expenses,
> please remember we have a cash reserve.  We can't bankrupt NCC that
> fast.  Back in a day of quarterly payments,
> NCC has survived while getting its income over the year, not as an
> annual payment from members.
> 
> > I suggest conducting a non-binding poll to gauge preferences on
> > these
> > options. While I am not authorized to initiate official voting,
> > gathering responses could help us understand whether the demand for
> > significant changes represents a majority view or just a few vocal
> > opinions.
> > 
> > Please reply to this email with your vote: YES or NO after each
> > option.
> 
> Thanks for the effort. I would also like to know what kind of LIR, if
> any, you represent and its IPv4 allocation size. 
Small ISP in Lebanon, but as ISP consultant, I can technically obtain
authorization to represent multiple entities, each with varying sizes
of IPV4 resources from single /22 to approx /19.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> members-discuss mailing list
> members-discuss at ripe.net
> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss
> Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/nuclearcat%40nuclearcat.com