RIPE NCC is an association of equals.
Under Dutch association law, a Vereniging is a community of members with equal rights. One member — one vote. The natural counterpart is one member — one fee.
One LIR.
· One fee.
RIPE NCC is a membership association, not an address marketplace. Every member receives the same services and should pay the same annual fee — no matter how many IPv4, IPv6, or AS resources they hold.
01 — The proposal
One member, one fee.
RIPE NCC's charging scheme is up for a vote. We support the variant that keeps a single, equal annual fee for every Local Internet Registry — the model that built RIPE for thirty years.
02 — What we're against
Pay-per-resource.
Tying fees to the number of IPv4 addresses, IPv6 prefixes or AS numbers turns a membership association into a meter — and changes who RIPE NCC works for.
03 — Why now
This decision lasts.
Charging schemes are sticky. Once the principle is broken, it's very hard to restore. The choice the membership makes this year sets the shape of the next decade.
Arguments · For an equal fee
Why an equal fee is the right model.
Six reasons grounded in what RIPE NCC actually is and what it actually does for its members.
The service is the same for everyone.
Registry operations, LIR Portal, RPKI, training, policy support — the workload to serve a LIR with a /22 is the same as for a LIR with a /16. Equal cost in, equal price out.
Predictable, transparent budget.
Members × flat fee = revenue. Anyone can read the budget. Nobody is surprised by a sudden bill triggered by a transfer or a routing change.
No barrier for new and small LIRs.
Regional operators, research networks, IXPs, ed-tech, and new entrants can join on the same terms as anyone else. Equal fees protect the diversity of the registry.
Aligned with the policy goal of IPv6.
If members are charged per address they hold, IPv6 — by design vastly larger than IPv4 — gets punished. An equal fee removes any disincentive to deploy IPv6 properly.
Thirty years of stability.
The equal-fee model carried RIPE NCC through IPv4 runout, two financial crises, and a pandemic. Don't replace what works to chase the appearance of fairness.
Arguments · Against pay-per-resource
Why resource-based fees harm the community.
Eight concrete risks of moving away from a single equal fee.
Turns a registry into a metered service.
RIPE NCC becomes a vendor selling "address units" rather than a member association stewarding a shared resource. The whole logic of the RIR system shifts.
Punishes members for historical allocations.
LIRs that received larger blocks under the rules of the day get a retroactive tax. They followed the policy — and are billed extra for it.
Incentivises shell LIRs and fragmentation.
If fees scale with holdings, the rational move is to split resources across multiple legal entities. That's the opposite of what RIPE policy is trying to achieve.
Disproportionate hit on operators in large markets.
Networks serving large populations — common in CIS, MENA, Turkey, parts of Africa — would pay far more without receiving any additional service.
Membership costs become unpredictable.
Transfers, audits, deregistrations, even market prices — all start to feed back into your annual bill. Budgeting an LIR becomes guesswork.
Creates a conflict of interest inside RIPE NCC.
If revenue depends on the volume of resources under management, the organisation has an economic interest in keeping IPv4 scarce, tightening reclamation, and complicating transfers.
A direct tax on IPv6 deployment.
Any model that counts IPv6 prefixes towards the bill makes the right architectural choice the expensive one. That contradicts the community's own stated direction.
Legally fragile.
Unequal pricing between members of the same association is harder to defend under EU and Dutch law than a uniform fee — especially when the service rendered is identical.
Compare
Two models, side by side.
Equal fee Recommended
- Same service, same price.
- Stable, predictable annual budget for every LIR.
- No incentive to game policy with shell LIRs.
- Neutral toward IPv4, IPv6, and ASN holdings.
- Matches the legal nature of RIPE NCC as a Vereniging.
- Trivial to administer and audit.
Resource-based fee Reject
- Same service, different price — by accident of history.
- Annual bill swings with transfers and policy changes.
- Rewards splitting resources across shell entities.
- Taxes IPv6 deployment.
- Creates a structural conflict of interest at RIPE NCC.
- Complex methodology, recurring disputes over weighting.
FAQ
Common questions.
01Isn't it fairer if bigger holders pay more?
"Bigger" is doing a lot of work in that sentence. RIPE NCC doesn't sell bandwidth, traffic, or address space — it operates a registry. Two LIRs cost the secretariat almost exactly the same to serve, regardless of the size of their holdings. Charging by holdings is not fairness; it's cross-subsidy with extra steps.
02Wouldn't a tiered fee reflect "ability to pay"?
A membership association is not a tax authority. RIPE NCC has no mandate or instrument to assess the financial health of its members. Resource holdings are not a proxy for revenue — many of the largest holders are stagnant carriers, while small holders include thriving cloud operators.
03What about IPv6? Should it count?
No. Counting IPv6 in the formula creates a direct economic disincentive to deploy it correctly — exactly the opposite of what the RIPE community has been pushing for two decades. Any model that touches IPv6 is self-defeating.
04Won't an equal fee push small members out?
It hasn't for thirty years, and the structure is the same. What pushes small members out is unpredictable fee swings, which is precisely what tiered models introduce.
05Doesn't RIPE NCC need more revenue?
Revenue is a budget question, not a fairness question. If RIPE NCC needs more revenue, the membership can vote to raise the equal fee. There is no need — and no benefit — to invent a metering layer to do it.
06What about LIRs that hold legacy /16s or larger?
Those resources were allocated under rules accepted at the time. Retroactively taxing them is a breach of the implicit contract under which they joined the registry. It also sets a precedent: today's policy decisions are tomorrow's bills.
07Who is behind this site?
A group of RIPE NCC member LIRs, acting in our individual capacity. This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by RIPE NCC. Sources for every factual claim are linked from the RIPE NCC website.
08How can my LIR support this?
Register a voting representative before the General Meeting deadline, vote in favour of the equal-fee charging scheme variant, and forward this page to peers. If you want your LIR listed publicly as a supporter, write to hello@one-lir-one-fee.org.
Take action
How to vote.
Voting in the RIPE NCC General Meeting is open to every member. The process is short — but the deadlines matter.
-
01
Register your representative
Each LIR designates a voting representative in the LIR Portal. Do this well before the General Meeting deadline.
-
02
Read the proposals
Read the official charging scheme variants on ripe.net. Identify the option that keeps a single equal fee for every member.
-
03
Vote YES for equal fee
Cast your vote during the General Meeting voting window. Encourage other LIRs you work with to do the same.
Editor's note. Exact dates, voting URLs, and the official name of the equal-fee variant will be linked here as soon as RIPE NCC publishes the final ballot for this General Meeting.
Spread the word
The vote is decided by who shows up.
Most LIRs don't vote in General Meetings. A handful of forwarded emails changes the outcome. Use the texts below.
Share
Post the campaign in your operator community, LIR mailing list, or NOG channel. No tracking parameters, no shorteners.
Email template — to a peer LIR