00:34:13 Илья Corp: Hello, After this session, will the recording be posted publicly? Will the presentation be publicly posted?
00:35:07 Ulka Athale: The recording and slides will be published on the Open House webpage after the session.
00:35:49 Elvis Velea: good morning everyone (3AM here)
00:35:59 Илья Corp: link Open House webpage?
00:36:22 Ulka Athale: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/open-house/ripe-ncc-open-house-charging-scheme-principles
00:51:27 Daniel Karrenberg: Not the first time Christian. Only the first time in recent years .... ;-)
00:57:51 VS: Anyone who holds tons of IPv4 and does not use them will never be kind enough to give back for the general interest. I think it has not been addressed for a long time.
00:58:36 Peter Koch: big plus one on mix of policy and charging!
00:59:50 Armen Stepanian: Why you do not plan to present for voting - real expression of opinion - some options after November GM but before May GM to present on GM option that really members prefer, not only that you (RIPE NCC) learned?
01:00:30 Armen Stepanian: Between step 3 and 4 at slide
01:00:50 Armen Stepanian: additional voting
01:01:05 Armen Stepanian: Yes, thank you
01:01:29 Erik Bais: By the time that this charging scheme is going to be activated ( what ever comes out of it.. ) will be after the current stock of v4 space will be depleted and the run for new LIR's be gone.
01:02:00 Peter Koch: with the current split, more discussion would be needed before voting, methinks
01:02:30 Hans Petter Holen, RIPE NCC: Unless there is moore space returned.
01:03:20 Rüdiger Volk: what reporting from board is intended before GM?
01:03:57 Cynthia Revström: I missed the start, are the slides published?
01:04:18 Fergal Cunningham: We’ll publish them soon after the meeting, Cynthia.
01:04:28 Cynthia Revström: ok, thanks :)
01:07:02 Ivan M: RIPE NCC billing department was extremely overloaded when we had a simple quarterly billing cycle option in the past. Changing the current flat fee model would mean that all the transfer and similar requests would fall to the billing department as well and I suppose that it’s paralyzed the same way as we see RS fails the past months according to the MD discussions. You need to seriously consider the NCC human resources when preparing your new models
01:08:53 John: we may recover resources, if they would be checked if they are in use, e.g. we can see some ASes not used for dual homing. So why schould they remain at the end-user?
01:09:21 Erik Bais: Is the board discussing moving the PI end-user agreements towards a direct (LIR light?) agreement directly with the RIPE NCC..
This was also discussed in the preso of Remco van Mook in AP-WG in May 2021.
Or is the EB waiting for the community to make changes to policy first ?
01:10:34 VS: IPv4 and IPv6 are public good. The people on RIPE mailing lists are (I would assume) mostly those with vast interest to hold their status and their abuse of the allocation system in the past. Small LIR or companies’ views most probably are not in RIPE mailing lists due to size or not being organised as the NOC of a bit IPv4 user that has a vested interest to themselves than the general public. RIPE should cater for the general public, not the elite IPv4 holders that either sell/rent or just not use the majority of it at all for years and years. As a former colocation customer and current LIR I have many examples of my previous /24 that are dormant even for 20 years! IPv4 has been abused for decades. Is something going to be done about it?
01:16:16 Ian Dickinson: many assumptions are repeated about "elite"/large/old members, but I disagree. Mostly these are just arguments for "someone else" to subsidise "someones" costs.
01:16:59 Damien Ransome: I think it was already touched on, but the survey design plays a big role in the answers you receive. For example the question about charging for PI seems to have been asked with the intention for should PI holders be "upgraded" to LIR members instead, but as posed it could be read as should PI be free or chargeable.
01:17:14 VS: If there’s an IPv4 /24 not used for 19 years, should it be returned to the public?
01:18:10 Sascha ‚master‘ Lenz: IPv4 is intended to be hard to get and costly, so I guess everything worked out as planned years ago. Press for IPv6 adoption - problem solved. Working with a “scarce resource” never ever in this world will be “fair”
01:19:14 Cynthia Revström: could the setup fee be changed to an IPv4 allocation request fee? so an IPv6 allocation would only have a yearly fee?
01:21:15 Cynthia Revström: also things like if your end user changes legal name, charging for that would be quite weird
01:21:36 Aksana: I don't understand the meaning of discussing a "pay per procedure" models
when RIPE NCC is already distributing "Redistribution of Excess Contribution"
to members. This balically means the balance is already very positive
and to avoid paying extra taxes and it is better to redestribute the excess.
Charging members for procedures like transferts is will cause offering and reiceving
part will only see an extra cost that does not produce any benefit
01:24:28 Cynthia Revström: I mean there is the non-member service agreement for legacy holders
01:26:57 Cynthia Revström: As someone who represents an LIR that sponsors a number of PI resources for end users, I feel like I can be a "filter" for the NCC as I know the policies and procedures better than the end users.
01:39:20 VS: If someone wants to start an ISP or hosting business today, it’s practically impossible. This is due to others holding precious resources that fuel the new guy’s business. Is that fair? (Personally I am not affected but RIPE here is practically forbidding business of newcomers, favouring those who keep scarce resources, unutilized). I agree IPv6 is the way to go, but this is the talk for last 15 years. What will RIPE do in regards to IPv4 for new Internet service providers? Can you please comment on that?
01:54:37 Fergal Cunningham: 2 more people said Yes
01:58:51 Erik Bais: The new setup fee is going to be 1000 euro as of 2022 ... it was decided by the EB that this was even too much, as it was going to be returned to the membership anyway ..
01:59:49 Den (brokerdeals.app): also I think an ipv6 resource deployment should be cheap & easy for newbies like filling online request form, without any burocracy documents involved, that will really move up the whole process
01:59:58 Cynthia Revström: counting ipv6 is a really bad idea imo
02:00:43 Elvis Velea: well, count it as 1% of the cost of IPv4 or something like that
02:00:53 Cynthia Revström: that's still a lot
02:01:19 Elvis Velea: but if v4 DOES die, the NCC will have to change the charging scheme again because they’ll have to survive on IPv6 and ASNs only
02:01:28 Cynthia Revström: they can still have a flat fee
02:01:46 Erik Bais: So why change the system now for just a couple of years ?
02:01:48 Rüdiger Volk: is this slide in conflict with the rejection of mixing policy/charging scheme?
02:02:47 Matt Parker: @Den Once an organisation has become a member (opened an LIR account) requesting IPv6 *is* just as simple as filling out an online request. It’s 2/3 questions IIRC and can be completed in less Tham one minute :-)
02:02:49 Cynthia Revström: @erik, personally I prefer the current system but it was just that based on amount of ipv4 in addition to flat fee was the only other sane-ish option imo
02:05:48 Cynthia Revström: do it well rather than too quick imo :)
02:06:22 Elvis Velea: @Eric - because current system is not very fair to new members _and_ nobody knows if v4 will be obsolete in 5 or 10 years
02:07:47 John: Thank you, bye bye.
02:07:49 Erik Bais: If the NCC will change to a pay per IP scheme, it will be taxed differently ( heavy ) by the Dutch IRS. that will cost the NCC more than it keep the current status quo.
02:07:51 Peter Koch: would like to see a ‘threat analysis’ for ‘renting out resources’ models
02:07:59 Elvis Velea: thanks!
02:08:02 Erik Bais: thnx everyone.
02:08:09 Den (brokerdeals.app): thanks :)
02:08:19 Job Snijders: thanks for all the input and feedback!