Charging Scheme Task Force Meeting Minutes (10 March 2025)

10 March 2025

Attendees: Victor Bolaños Guerra, Sebastian Brossier, Carlos Friaças, Raymond Jetten, Ulf Kieber, Pavel Odintsov, Cynthia Revström, Clara Wade

Apologies: Alex de Joode, Alexandru Doszlop, Ivaylo Josifov, Alptekin Sünnetci, Piotr Strzyżewski

Chairs: Peter Hessler, Ondřej Filip

RIPE NCC staff: Daniella Coutinho, Fergal Cunningham, Athina Fragkouli, Simon-Jan Haytink, Karla Liddle-White

1. Welcome

Co-Chair Peter Hessler opened the meeting and asked Head of Membership Engagement, Fergal Cunningham, to go through the latest amendments to the draft report.

2. Review of Draft CSTF Report amendments

The changes to the draft report were shared the previous week, with updates made on feedback. Changes included the addition of draft principles on legacy space and new text on resource transfers, incorporating new draft principles.

The group discussed their approach to the possibility of charging legacy resource holders, noting that principles should encourage legacy holders to become members. The discussion then turned to the possibility of charging non-contracted legacy holders for services provided.

The group then reviewed the text and principles related to resource transfers. It was suggested that mergers and acquisitions (M&As) should have a separate fee rather than being charged the same as standard resource transfers. There was consensus that any fee structure should remain modest and equitable. The discussion also considered the categorisation of transfer sizes, referencing the data that showed around 80% of all transfers involved a /19 or smaller. This data had been used to benchmark the recommendations in the text.

It was noted that while the group was not responsible for setting the price for the charging scheme, providing an indication of potential fees under the proposed principles would aid understanding. The difference between a €50 or €2,000 transfer fee was highlighted. The Chair agreed that this was a discussion point of its own to discuss at the next meeting.

The discussion turned to IPv6, with one member stating that there was no shortage of IPv6 and that members receive IPv6 when they join as a RIPE NCC member. It was suggested the charging scheme should (financially) discourage hoarding of IP resources. Another member added that hoarding had already decreased following a policy change.

There was also a debate over whether there should be penalties for failing to return extra IPv6 blocks after M&As, with some in favour and others opposed. It was ultimately decided that this discussion was entering policy proposal territory which was beyond the group’s remit.

It was noted that the draft report did not clearly differentiate between PA and PI space. The Chair suggested discussing the differentiation of transfer fees for ASNs, IPv4, PA vs PI and legacy space at the next meeting.

It was agreed to add a section to the draft report on category sizes as well as a section on charging members vs LIRs and the group approved the draft principles on legacy space and transfer fees.

3. Transfers and Legacy

The discussion on transfers and legacy space highlighted the importance of making key data easily available in the report. It was agreed that the data informing their decision-making process, including insights from RIPE NCC presentations on costs and third party compliance, should be included and clearly referenced for transparency and to provide clear reasoning behind decisions.

The group also recognised the need to strike a balance between providing context and keeping the report concise and easy to understand.

4. Draft report publication plans

The group agreed that the draft report was more comprehensive and acknowledged that the membership is smart and data driven. It was emphasised that the report should clearly demonstrate how the team reached the conclusions to ensure transparency in the decision-making process. And it was noted that the team was considering not only the short term but also the long-term future of the RIPE NCC.

The group discussed when to publish the report and present their findings, with an aim to publish before the General Meeting. This would allow for discussions on the mailing lists in good time, as gathering feedback over the summer period was expected to be difficult.

There were differing views on where to present the report, with some favouring the NCC Services Working Group and others at the General Meeting. However, it was noted that the General Meeting was where fee paying members would be present, making it the most relevant space for discussing the report. It was also suggested that a survey could be sent after the findings were presented at the General Meeting to receive official feedback.

5. AOB

It was proposed that the team hold an in-person meeting at RIPE 90. It was considered a good idea for further discussions and to make preparations for the General Meeting. It was also suggested that the Task Force mailing list be informed about the proposed meeting date and time since some members were not at the meeting.

Peter thanked everyone for their time and closed the meeting.