[members-discuss] Response from Board on Charging Scheme Comments
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Response from Board on Charging Scheme Comments
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Response from Board on Charging Scheme Comments
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED
admin at roskomnadzor.io
Fri Apr 12 06:21:48 CEST 2024
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://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/admin%40roskomnadzor.io >
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Response from Board on Charging Scheme Comments
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Response from Board on Charging Scheme Comments
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]