Dear Dmitry, all,
Thank you for the input on the voting turnout. There are quite a few suggestions we noted from the discussions. Some seem like they could be implemented with some work, but others would require significant changes to our governance structures. We’ll review them all internally and see what’s feasible to implement.
Increasing voter turnout is something we’ve worked very hard at since electronic voting was introduced. In summary, what we have done is:
Make registration and voting as easy as possible - registering takes no more than a minute or two via the LIR Portal
Provide remote options for discussions and the voting processes
Provide a recording immediately after the GM for those unable to attend or who have timezone restrictions so they can follow discussion and vote at their convenience
Publish extensive supporting documentation well in advance of the GMs, including explainers of more complicated resolutions to be voted on
Have Open Houses to allow members to interact directly with our Executive Board, candidates and RIPE NCC management on important issues
Send extensive communications and reminders on a number of channels, including a personalised mail to unregistered voters the week before the GM
Publish analyses of the voting after each GM to support discussion on the issues and the turnout
Every year, we also improve our processes and the GM-related information on our website based on what we hear from members who vote.
Given the above, it’s not clear to what extent changes to process will increase turnout. Although we do expect a vote on a new charging model based on the Charging Scheme Task Force’s proposed principles would see many more members exercise their voting rights.
A good approach might be to see voter turnout as a shared responsibility between the RIPE NCC and its members. For instance, those members who are invested in seeing greater participation could play a big part by informing other members in their networks about the issues to be voted on, and persuading them to vote. People might well be more convinced by someone they know in their network than by an additional email from the RIPE NCC.
And ensuring discussions stay positive and on-topic would also help. We lost many subscribers from members-discuss last year when discussions around the charging scheme and budget became overly heated. This caused over 500 people to unsubscribe from this mailing list, and these people will therefore not be participating in discussions or hearing what people think on important issues, including matters to be voted on.
If the RIPE NCC can work on suggested improvements, and invested members can play their own part in helping to boost turnout, we could well see a much more involved and engaged membership. An excellent start would be to provide useful feedback to the Charging Scheme Task Force on the document they provided with principles for a new charging scheme model, which was the initial request that started the current discussions.
Kind regards,
Fergal Cunningham
Head of Membership Engagement
RIPE NCC
It is clear: "If I got something for free, then I don't want to pay for
it. Even if it is very expensive and necessary for everyone."
But arguments to not pay for /24 has next problems.
1. The equality of members and their votes is fixed by the charter of the
NCC and does not depend on the payment in any way - forget this issue
forever.
2. Payment in accordance with the amount of resources used is not
prohibited anywhere or in any way - all these arguments about Dutch law
are nonsense.
3. The nature of the activity (commercial or non-commercial) is determined
not by the fundraising per peers, but by its established goals and the way
income is distributed among the participants. And is fixed by the charter
NCC.
!!! Now a little bit about the decision and the vote. !!!
The most important thing we are facing right now is the passivity of 90%
of NCC members. They are all full-rights participants and should take part
in General meetings in a good way.
But in fact, the issues are decided on GM by the votes of 600-700 members
out of 22000. I see this as a purposeful approach by the core of the old
NCC members (who are big resource holders) and unfortunately the NCC
management.
Most of the LIRs not to be subscribers on [members-discuss], do not
participate in GM, and do not even understand their role and rights in the
community. For a fair solution of such complex issues as the payment
scheme and the prospects for the future of the NCC, it is necessary to
attract the large number of LIRs. I would like the management of the NCC
to take a closer look at these problems.
Serbulov Dmitry.
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 01:36:27PM +0300, Jean Salim wrote:
>> We missed you Gert, I was surprised you disappeared as you're always the
>> one to mislead the conversation away from charging scheme.
>> I would like yo hear your proposal on an alternative charging scheme
>> that
>> more fair to small LIRs.
>> I myself, as pointed out before, prefer the ARIN model.
>
> "1 LIR, 1 vote, 1 fee for the membership" seems to be the one where most
> LIRs can actually *agree* on.
>
> Every charging scheme will be unfair to some - we had categories, and that
> was unfair to some, we had flat fees, and those are unfair to some, and
> even if we introduce fee-by-/24, it will be unfair to some.
>
> Even if we totally ignore IPv4, there will still be people that say
> "someone with a larger yearly budget should pay more", and "non-profit
> members should be free!", and maybe they are right. But if we go there,
> some people will have to pay more than they did the year before, and
> they will find this unfair.
>
> Conclusions left as homework to the reader.
>
> Gert Doering
> -- NetMaster
> --
> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
>
> SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard,
> Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler
> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
> D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
> Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
> -----
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options,
> please visit:
> https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/
> As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with
> the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings.
> More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
-----
To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/
As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings.
More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/