[members-discuss] [comms-circle] Re: Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)

Dear RIPE NCC and Members,

The primary issue we are encountering stems from artificial growth and inequitable membership fees, both of which have significant implications for our budget planning.

Let me provide an example from my own country:
There was a rush for acquiring smaller subnets like /24, leading to a surge in memberships. Both the membership application fees and the annual transfer period fees were paid, causing an increase in our budget. The management at RIPE NCC was aware of this artificial growth and anticipated a budget reduction when the transfer period arrived. Their response was to increase the membership fees.

On behalf of my LIR colleagues in Turkey, I can assert the following:

The internet and IT sector in Turkey is expanding rapidly. We need to remain competitive against international markets and enhance our resources to protect and develop our company assets. In doing this, it is also essential to maintain competitive pricing.

Consider a country where to earn 1800 euros, one must work at minimum wage for 3.6 months. We felt compelled to open these memberships and viewed it as an imposition. Now, with the increase in fees, it seems our options are illusory; neither choice is satisfactory.

While we are concerned about our own situations, the sustainability of RIPE NCC is of greater importance. We are all in this together and do not shirk responsibility. However, we expect a fairer payment system.

Should the revenue from the IP addresses of a member with a /8 subnet be the same as that of a member with a /22? This question is illustrative, and there are many other similar examples we could discuss.
Kind Regards,

Zekeriya Köş 
Managing Partner
Phone:+90 850 840 6452 
Direct: +90 542 790 6502
kos.zekeriya at survivor.com.tr 
SURVIVOR Bilişim Teknolojileri Anonim Şirketi
http://www.survivor.com.tr

-----Original Message-----
From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net> On Behalf Of Mihail Fedorov
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2024 10:02 AM
To: Lutz Donnerhacke <L.Donnerhacke at iks-service.de>
Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [comms-circle] Re: Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)


> On 23 Apr 2024, at 8:51, Lutz Donnerhacke <L.Donnerhacke at iks-service.de> wrote:
> 
> * Mihail Fedorov wrote:
>> With all the respect to RIPE Executive board, there is a problem. >From the day first 2025 charging scheme draft was published - thread instantly got hundreds of responses clearly indicating just one thing - that proposed scheme is not ok. Majority (at least that’s what I see in members-discuss) of members raised their concerns and responded that they disagree with it.
>> [...]
>> Correct me if I’m wrong, but I assumed that RIPE is members ruled structure. That’s what all RIPE learning PDFs say. You can not simply ignore everyone.
> 
> I'm sorry to step in here, but if you ask this way ...
> 
> The overwhelming majority of members did not respond at all. This means that they see no pressing problem with the current proposal.

Hello.
You’re a little bit manipulating facts, hopefully not intentionally.

You can not assume majority agree with you just because they do not respond. It only indicates that very small % of LIRs do care about this mailing list.
>From those who read/participate - most replied that they do not agree and just couple actually agreed.
 
> 
> We only see a - frankly - small group of members who are emphatically loud and repetitive. It seems to me that their motivation is to want to reduce the already low annual costs even further for their personal benefit.
> 
> In most countries, a fixed fee per member is typical for associations and cooperatives. That's why the controlling department of most companies has no problem with it. And this is precisely why all attempts in the past to switch to a resource-based fee have failed: You would have to explain the RIPE bill to the accounting department.

This is again not correct about both facts.

First of all - RIPE is serving many countries, not just European Union. This includes different countries with different association types and different average budget.
One of perfect examples is LIR from Lebanon who posted here previously. What you call “personal benefit” in reality is 4 average monthly salaries not paid in this countries.

Also with current model and introducing of sponsorship RIPE created providing ASN registration as business model. This LIRs who trusted this model and started their business will be essentially killed if members will vote for “A” - or otherwise they will need to pay significantly more than world biggest ISPs.

And the last point - how is this can be considered cheap if it will be 7 times (literally) more expensive than other RIRs model? ARIN price for small org is $250.

> 
> Resource-based fees were introduced to stimulate the return of AS numbers etc. that are no longer used. Again, the same reason: you have to explain this accounting item.
> 
> Lutz Donnerhacke

_______________________________________________
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/info%40survivor.com.tr