Analysis on May 2026 GM
Hi all, We just published a new article on the May 2026 GM. As well as analysing participation, we also reflect on the outcome of the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme vote. You can find it on RIPE Labs: https://labs.ripe.net/author/ilke-ilhan/gm-may-2026-why-did-people-vote-the-... Cheers, Ilke
Hi, Ilke -- Ilke Ilhan wrote:
We just published a new article on the May 2026 GM. https://labs.ripe.net/author/ilke-ilhan/gm-may-2026-why-did-people-vote-the-...
The piece states plainly that the NCC "did our best to ensure the message got across" on the charging scheme, details the channels used to do it, and frames the members who voted Model A as organisations who "didn't get the memo". However, the NCC's own site describes it as "an open and transparent, neutral and impartial organisation" with "no commercial interests or influences". I am struggling to reconcile the two. A neutral secretariat informs the membership and lets it decide. It does not work to secure a preferred outcome and then treat the result it did not want as a communication failure on the members' part. The members voted, and Model A won. That is not a memo that went astray, it is a decision. I would welcome the NCC's view on the labs article. Specifically, do you regard the effort to influence/steer/whip the vote toward Model B as consistent with the neutrality and impartiality you publish, and where does the NCC place the boundary between informing members and campaigning among them? To be clear, I am not questioning the Board's right to recommend a model. I am questioning whether the secretariat should be working the vote at all. Or should I expect a personalised email next spring telling me which Board candidates I would be "better off" voting for? Andy
Hi, Ilke -- Ilke Ilhan wrote:
We just published a new article on the May 2026 GM. https://labs.ripe.net/author/ilke-ilhan/gm-may-2026-why-did-people-vote-the-...
The piece states plainly that the NCC "did our best to ensure the message got across" on the charging scheme, details the channels used to do it, and frames the members who voted Model A as organisations who "didn't get the memo". However, the NCC's own site describes it as "an open and transparent, neutral and impartial organisation" with "no commercial interests or influences". I am struggling to reconcile the two. A neutral secretariat informs the membership and lets it decide. It does not work to secure a preferred outcome and then treat the result it did not want as a communication failure on the members' part. The members voted, and Model A won. That is not a memo that went astray, it is a decision. I would welcome the NCC's view on the labs article. Specifically, do you regard the effort to influence/steer/whip the vote toward Model B as consistent with the neutrality and impartiality you publish, and where does the NCC place the boundary between informing members and campaigning among them? To be clear, I am not questioning the Board's right to recommend a model. I am questioning whether the secretariat should be working the vote at all. Or should I expect a personalised email next spring telling me which Board candidates I would be "better off" voting for? Andy This email and its contents may be confidential. Access is only authorised by the intended recipient. The contents of this email may not be disclosed to, or used by, anyone other than the intended recipient, or stored or copied in any medium. If you are not the intended recipient, please advise the sender immediately. ASK4 Ltd. Registered in England & Wales with company number 3980594. Registered Address: Devonshire Green House, 14 Fitzwilliam Street, Sheffield, S1 4JL. ASK4 Ltd is part of the ASK4 Group which operates in Europe through various local branches and/or separate and distinct legal entities.
Just for the record, I didn’t feel that the RIPE NCC did anything to influence the vote. Could you point to some mail or other piece of communication that you think was steering people towards a certain voting option? The article speculates about why the members voted the way they did, and the “didn’t get the memo” part is in relation to the fact that most members would’ve paid less under model B but still model A won. That’s the way I read it. The article continues to explore, interpret, speculate (which also was the heading of the paragraph the memo part was in). I found the article very interesting, especially because it clearly points out what myself and others were saying the whole time: The activity on this mailing list is not representative of the membership. Any “strong opinions” expressed here are not transferrable on the whole membership, even though people on this list tried again and again to frame it that way. Also the statistics mentioned in the article clearly show that the “new members” that hold less resources and registered to vote could have easily made model B the winner, but they didn’t. I’m sure this won’t stop people that have insinuated that some sort of secret conspiracy of “old members” is trying to prevent the charging model change, but for all others it shows that there is no such thing. As for myself, I find the outcome of the vote a net win for the membership. Not in costs (for most of the members) but in bringing to light the opinions of the silent part of the membership and in displaying (again) that the loudest shouting doesn’t mean anything when it comes to a vote. And for that I’m grateful. I would also be grateful for the loudest shouters to work on more productive things but I won’t hold my breath for that. Best Regards Sebastian On 17. Jun 2026, at 16:39, Andy Davidson <andy.davidson@ask4.com> wrote: Hi, Ilke -- Ilke Ilhan wrote:
We just published a new article on the May 2026 GM. https://labs.ripe.net/author/ilke-ilhan/gm-may-2026-why-did-people-vote-the-...
The piece states plainly that the NCC "did our best to ensure the message got across" on the charging scheme, details the channels used to do it, and frames the members who voted Model A as organisations who "didn't get the memo". However, the NCC's own site describes it as "an open and transparent, neutral and impartial organisation" with "no commercial interests or influences". I am struggling to reconcile the two. A neutral secretariat informs the membership and lets it decide. It does not work to secure a preferred outcome and then treat the result it did not want as a communication failure on the members' part. The members voted, and Model A won. That is not a memo that went astray, it is a decision. I would welcome the NCC's view on the labs article. Specifically, do you regard the effort to influence/steer/whip the vote toward Model B as consistent with the neutrality and impartiality you publish, and where does the NCC place the boundary between informing members and campaigning among them? To be clear, I am not questioning the Board's right to recommend a model. I am questioning whether the secretariat should be working the vote at all. Or should I expect a personalised email next spring telling me which Board candidates I would be "better off" voting for? Andy This email and its contents may be confidential. Access is only authorised by the intended recipient. The contents of this email may not be disclosed to, or used by, anyone other than the intended recipient, or stored or copied in any medium. If you are not the intended recipient, please advise the sender immediately. ASK4 Ltd. Registered in England & Wales with company number 3980594. Registered Address: Devonshire Green House, 14 Fitzwilliam Street, Sheffield, S1 4JL. ASK4 Ltd is part of the ASK4 Group which operates in Europe through various local branches and/or separate and distinct legal entities. To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details. Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription. Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/ -- [cid:logo_f550b0a9-7459-42ec-bee7-5913d5852898.png] Sebastian Wiesinger Senior Principal Network Architect Service Integration noris network AG 90471 Nürnberg • Deutschland Tel +49 911 9352 1459 E-Mail sebastian.wiesinger@noris.de<mailto:sebastian.wiesinger@noris.de> Vorstand: Ingo Kraupa (Vorsitzender), Joachim Astel, Florian Sippel Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Stefan Schnabel • AG Nürnberg HRB 17689
Dear Andy, It seems there is a misunderstanding. You can see the text of the personalised mail below. The RIPE NCC was completely neutral in all its communication with members about the voting options. The text you reference describes the considerable efforts we took to ensure that members were aware of the consequential vote that was taking place. The message in all our communications could be summarised as: there is an important vote taking place - please register to vote. The Executive Board Chair stated the Board’s recommendation in his mail to members, and the Board stated its recommendation during its presentation at the General Meeting. No communications from the RIPE NCC, other than these recommendations from the Board, saw an effort to influence the member vote. We agree that the RIPE NCC should remain neutral in terms of how members vote. We also believe that in a case where a vote can have a significant impact on members’ fees, then it is only right to go to all possible lengths to make sure all members are aware that the vote is taking place and what that vote could mean for them. We publish an article following every General Meeting, providing analysis based on the registration and voting statistics. This article notes that there was a result that was surprising to many, and it then explores possible reasons why members might have made this decision. Regards, Hans Petter Holen Managing Director, CEO RIPE NCC Reference: Personalised Email to Members SUBJECT: GM Vote for ##Company Name## On New Charging Scheme and Fees Dear ##Name##, You are receiving this email because your organisation is a member of the RIPE NCC and has participation/voting rights at the upcoming RIPE NCC General Meeting (20-22 May 2026). You might also be a billing contact for the organisation, and you are not entitled to vote on behalf of the organisation, but you should be aware that a vote on charges from the RIPE NCC will take place next week. To attend and/or vote, you must register via the LIR Portal: https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active Registration closes at 14:00 (UTC+1) on 20 May 2026. Please ensure you register before this deadline to participate in the vote. Key Vote: RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2027 At this GM, members will vote on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme for 2027. The outcome may significantly affect your RIPE NCC fees next year, depending on which option is chosen. Two options are proposed that would have the following outcomes for ##RegID##: Option A: One LIR Account-One Fee model - The fee for your LIR account under this model would be: ##AmountOne# Option B: Category model - The fee for your LIR account under this model would be: ##AmountTwo# NOTE: We are sending only one email per person with the LIR account calculations. If you represent more than one member, you will need to check your fees by using the calculator for your LIR account in the Billing section of the LIR Portal, or you can manually enter your resources at: https://pricing.ripe.net/ Disclaimer: This calculation is intended to support members in their decision-making when voting on one of the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2027 models proposed by the RIPE NCC Executive Board. The fees indicated in the calculation are based on the current data in LIR accounts. The actual fees per LIR account will be determined based on LIR account data gathered on 31 December 2026. Find out more about each model at: https://www.ripe.net/s/gm/may-2026-documents/ Election: An Executive Board election to fill THREE seats There are five candidates to fill three seats at this election. You can view the full agenda, all the resolutions to be voted on and candidate details at: https://www.ripe.net/s/gm/may-2026/ Voting eligibility and registration - If your organisation holds multiple LIR accounts, only the primary LIR account is provided with voting rights. - If you are the registered contact for more than one RIPE NCC member, you can register all eligible votes via the LIR Portal. - Any representative of a RIPE NCC member can attend the GM, but only one person can vote per member. - We recommend confirming internally who will vote on behalf of each member before completing registration, especially if you represent multiple members. The GM will take place in person at the Edinburgh International Conference Centre and online via Meetecho. All registered participants will receive a link to the livestream and online meeting platform on Wednesday, 20 May 2026. We strongly encourage all RIPE NCC members to make use of their voting rights. Your participation ensures the outcomes of the GM reflect the views of the entire membership. Kind regards, Fergal Cunningham Head of Membership Engagement RIPE NCC On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 at 17:22, Andy Davidson <Andy.Davidson@ask4.com> wrote:
Hi, Ilke --
Ilke Ilhan wrote:
We just published a new article on the May 2026 GM.
https://labs.ripe.net/author/ilke-ilhan/gm-may-2026-why-did-people-vote-the-...
The piece states plainly that the NCC "did our best to ensure the message got across" on the charging scheme, details the channels used to do it, and frames the members who voted Model A as organisations who "didn't get the memo".
However, the NCC's own site describes it as "an open and transparent, neutral and impartial organisation" with "no commercial interests or influences".
I am struggling to reconcile the two. A neutral secretariat informs the membership and lets it decide. It does not work to secure a preferred outcome and then treat the result it did not want as a communication failure on the members' part. The members voted, and Model A won. That is not a memo that went astray, it is a decision.
I would welcome the NCC's view on the labs article. Specifically, do you regard the effort to influence/steer/whip the vote toward Model B as consistent with the neutrality and impartiality you publish, and where does the NCC place the boundary between informing members and campaigning among them?
To be clear, I am not questioning the Board's right to recommend a model. I am questioning whether the secretariat should be working the vote at all. Or should I expect a personalised email next spring telling me which Board candidates I would be "better off" voting for?
Andy
This email and its contents may be confidential. Access is only authorised by the intended recipient. The contents of this email may not be disclosed to, or used by, anyone other than the intended recipient, or stored or copied in any medium. If you are not the intended recipient, please advise the sender immediately. ASK4 Ltd. Registered in England & Wales with company number 3980594. Registered Address: Devonshire Green House, 14 Fitzwilliam Street, Sheffield, S1 4JL. ASK4 Ltd is part of the ASK4 Group which operates in Europe through various local branches and/or separate and distinct legal entities. To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details.
Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription.
Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/
Dear Hans Petter, Thank you for the reply although it does not meet my actual objection, which is the Labs article itself. The article is a RIPE NCC publication. It is written in the first person, as "we" and "us at the RIPE NCC", and it is not neutral about how members voted. That is the heart of it, and your description of the piece as routine post-GM analysis does not survive a reading of it. It describes the members who chose Model A as people who perhaps "didn't get the memo". It says the NCC was "puzzled by the result", and records that most of you expected the majority-benefiting option to pass. Its central section canvasses at length the possibility that confusion produced "unintentional" votes that cost Model B the win. A later passage even wonders aloud whether the people authorised to vote were insufficiently alert to their organisations' financial interests, which is to say their interest in Model B. And while members who campaigned for Model A are recorded as a "noteworthy change", the NCC's own efforts to ensure the message got across are presented as plain information. A neutral secretariat is not puzzled when its membership makes a free choice. It does not cast one side of that choice as a memo gone astray, the other side's advocacy as a curiosity, or the result itself as something to be explained away. Those are the reactions of an organisation that had a preferred answer and did not get it. You may call the piece analysis, but it reads as an opinion piece at best and disappointment at worst. Nor is the way it ends. The article closes by asking, in terms, whether the result would change if you asked again, whether members might come round in the years ahead, and whether requests for a category model will keep arriving. A body that respects a vote treats it as a decision. A body that signs off by wondering aloud whether a re-run would go its way is not reflecting on the result, it is contemplating a second attempt at it. The membership answered the question you put to them. Accept the answer rather than look for a second bite. Once it is plain from your own publication that the NCC held and expressed a preference for Model B, your account of the pre-vote communications is harder to accept at face value. You say the message in all of them could be reduced to "an important vote is taking place, please register". Yet the personalised email you attached does considerably more: it gives each member their fee under each option, points them to the model documents and a calculator, and advises them on organising their vote. Even-handed between the options though it is, the email you forwarded is not a turnout reminder, and your summary understates it. I am not suggesting the article swayed the vote, since it came afterwards. I am saying it reveals the disposition behind the communications that came before, and that it asks me to read those as scrupulously neutral while the commentary from the same organisation plainly is not. None of this questions the Executive Board's right to recommend a model. That is its job, that is leadership, and it did it openly. My question is narrower, and I think fair: should the secretariat hold and publish a view on how members ought to have voted, and on whether they ought to be asked again, and if it does, can the NCC still describe itself to those members as neutral and impartial, with no influences? Regards, Andy Davidson, AJBD-RIPE Group CTO, ORG-AL47-RIPE<https://apps.db.ripe.net/db-web-ui/lookup?source=ripe&key=ORG-AL47-RIPE&type=organisation> From: Hans Petter Holen <hph@ripe.net> Date: Thursday, 18 June 2026 at 14:03 To: Andy Davidson <Andy.Davidson@ask4.com> Cc: Ilke Ilhan <iilhan@ripe.net>; members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Re: Analysis on May 2026 GM You don't often get email from hph@ripe.net. Learn why this is important<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification> Dear Andy, It seems there is a misunderstanding. You can see the text of the personalised mail below. The RIPE NCC was completely neutral in all its communication with members about the voting options. The text you reference describes the considerable efforts we took to ensure that members were aware of the consequential vote that was taking place. The message in all our communications could be summarised as: there is an important vote taking place - please register to vote. The Executive Board Chair stated the Board’s recommendation in his mail to members, and the Board stated its recommendation during its presentation at the General Meeting. No communications from the RIPE NCC, other than these recommendations from the Board, saw an effort to influence the member vote. We agree that the RIPE NCC should remain neutral in terms of how members vote. We also believe that in a case where a vote can have a significant impact on members’ fees, then it is only right to go to all possible lengths to make sure all members are aware that the vote is taking place and what that vote could mean for them. We publish an article following every General Meeting, providing analysis based on the registration and voting statistics. This article notes that there was a result that was surprising to many, and it then explores possible reasons why members might have made this decision. Regards, Hans Petter Holen Managing Director, CEO RIPE NCC Reference: Personalised Email to Members SUBJECT: GM Vote for ##Company Name## On New Charging Scheme and Fees Dear ##Name##, You are receiving this email because your organisation is a member of the RIPE NCC and has participation/voting rights at the upcoming RIPE NCC General Meeting (20-22 May 2026). You might also be a billing contact for the organisation, and you are not entitled to vote on behalf of the organisation, but you should be aware that a vote on charges from the RIPE NCC will take place next week. To attend and/or vote, you must register via the LIR Portal: https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active Registration closes at 14:00 (UTC+1) on 20 May 2026. Please ensure you register before this deadline to participate in the vote. Key Vote: RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2027 At this GM, members will vote on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme for 2027. The outcome may significantly affect your RIPE NCC fees next year, depending on which option is chosen. Two options are proposed that would have the following outcomes for ##RegID##: Option A: One LIR Account-One Fee model * The fee for your LIR account under this model would be: ##AmountOne# Option B: Category model * The fee for your LIR account under this model would be: ##AmountTwo# NOTE: We are sending only one email per person with the LIR account calculations. If you represent more than one member, you will need to check your fees by using the calculator for your LIR account in the Billing section of the LIR Portal, or you can manually enter your resources at: https://pricing.ripe.net/ Disclaimer: This calculation is intended to support members in their decision-making when voting on one of the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2027 models proposed by the RIPE NCC Executive Board. The fees indicated in the calculation are based on the current data in LIR accounts. The actual fees per LIR account will be determined based on LIR account data gathered on 31 December 2026. Find out more about each model at: https://www.ripe.net/s/gm/may-2026-documents/ Election: An Executive Board election to fill THREE seats There are five candidates to fill three seats at this election. You can view the full agenda, all the resolutions to be voted on and candidate details at: https://www.ripe.net/s/gm/may-2026/ Voting eligibility and registration * If your organisation holds multiple LIR accounts, only the primary LIR account is provided with voting rights. * If you are the registered contact for more than one RIPE NCC member, you can register all eligible votes via the LIR Portal. * Any representative of a RIPE NCC member can attend the GM, but only one person can vote per member. * We recommend confirming internally who will vote on behalf of each member before completing registration, especially if you represent multiple members. The GM will take place in person at the Edinburgh International Conference Centre and online via Meetecho. All registered participants will receive a link to the livestream and online meeting platform on Wednesday, 20 May 2026. We strongly encourage all RIPE NCC members to make use of their voting rights. Your participation ensures the outcomes of the GM reflect the views of the entire membership. Kind regards, Fergal Cunningham Head of Membership Engagement RIPE NCC On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 at 17:22, Andy Davidson <Andy.Davidson@ask4.com<mailto:Andy.Davidson@ask4.com>> wrote: Hi, Ilke -- Ilke Ilhan wrote:
We just published a new article on the May 2026 GM. https://labs.ripe.net/author/ilke-ilhan/gm-may-2026-why-did-people-vote-the-...
The piece states plainly that the NCC "did our best to ensure the message got across" on the charging scheme, details the channels used to do it, and frames the members who voted Model A as organisations who "didn't get the memo". However, the NCC's own site describes it as "an open and transparent, neutral and impartial organisation" with "no commercial interests or influences". I am struggling to reconcile the two. A neutral secretariat informs the membership and lets it decide. It does not work to secure a preferred outcome and then treat the result it did not want as a communication failure on the members' part. The members voted, and Model A won. That is not a memo that went astray, it is a decision. I would welcome the NCC's view on the labs article. Specifically, do you regard the effort to influence/steer/whip the vote toward Model B as consistent with the neutrality and impartiality you publish, and where does the NCC place the boundary between informing members and campaigning among them? To be clear, I am not questioning the Board's right to recommend a model. I am questioning whether the secretariat should be working the vote at all. Or should I expect a personalised email next spring telling me which Board candidates I would be "better off" voting for? Andy This email and its contents may be confidential. Access is only authorised by the intended recipient. The contents of this email may not be disclosed to, or used by, anyone other than the intended recipient, or stored or copied in any medium. If you are not the intended recipient, please advise the sender immediately. ASK4 Ltd. Registered in England & Wales with company number 3980594. Registered Address: Devonshire Green House, 14 Fitzwilliam Street, Sheffield, S1 4JL. ASK4 Ltd is part of the ASK4 Group which operates in Europe through various local branches and/or separate and distinct legal entities.
On 18/06/2026 14:03:02, "Hans Petter Holen" <hph@ripe.net> wrote:
The Executive Board Chair stated the Board’s recommendation in his mail to members, and the Board stated its recommendation during its presentation at the General Meeting. No communications from the RIPE NCC, other than these recommendations from the Board, saw an effort to influence the member vote.
I did not discern that difference when reading this -
From "Ondřej Filip" <exec-board-announce@ripe.net> To ncc-announce@ripe.net Date 21/04/2026 08:17:31 Subject [ncc-announce] [GM] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Options <snip> The Board recommends that members vote for Option B - Category Model at the upcoming GM. This model implements many of the principles from the Charging Scheme Task Force and would allow the other principles to be introduced gradually in the coming years. This category model would see fees reduced for approximately 75% of LIR accounts. Introducing possible new separate fees in line with task force principles could potentially increase the income for the RIPE NCC while keeping the income derived from the category fees neutral over time.
I read that as RIPE wanted B, that it is just the board saying it does not mark it any less an organisational desire. Perhaps in these matter all of RIPE should be neutral, after all the budget is the same so it is purely a members choice no advocacy needed. Particularly this time when it is a re run of a previous attempt with the main difference being the 75% of LIR getting a reduction as emphasised above. This could be read as "RIPE wants categories, we are giving 75% a reduction to ensure it wins" If you then read the analysis closing - "Would the result change if we asked again? Would the membership change their mind in the upcoming years? Are we going to keep receiving requests for a category model? And will any of this matter once everyone has deployed IPv6? ;)" it does seem like the org wants categories "wtf do we have to do to make this happen?" so no surprise people are raising it. The v6 part has been answered many time already - we go back to Option A because everyone has roughly equal allocations so pointless doing categories until then. Another reason people didn't vote for it may be the undefined new fees mentioned. People have said they don't want the budget to keep increasing and using new fees to do that rather than increase categories is still an increase. Everyone would be wondering if they would be paying disproportionately more, just as some are now with the new resource fees, to keep the main fees down. Another may be there is no promise we would always be offered Option A in future votes if we decided to give categories a go and later changed our minds. brandon
Hi, On Fri, Jun 19, 2026 at 10:34:55AM +0000, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
I read that as RIPE wanted B, that it is just the board saying it does not mark it any less an organisational desire. Perhaps in these matter all of RIPE should be neutral, after all the budget is the same so it is purely a members choice no advocacy needed.
Please be very precise with your terminology here. *RIPE* has no say whatsoever in financial matters. There is the RIPE NCC, the RIPE NCC executive board, and the RIPE NCC members. 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.: Dr. Frank Thiäner D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
On 19/06/2026 17:39:16, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2026 at 10:34:55AM +0000, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
I read that as RIPE wanted B, that it is just the board saying it does not mark it any less an organisational desire. Perhaps in these matter all of RIPE should be neutral, after all the budget is the same so it is purely a members choice no advocacy needed.
Please be very precise with your terminology here. *RIPE* has no say whatsoever in financial matters. There is the RIPE NCC, the RIPE NCC executive board, and the RIPE NCC members.
That confusion was my entire point. It appeared to be those offering a model choice preferred B, it was offered to vote by NCC and promoted by the board and the timing of the advocacy easily led one to read it as both were promoting it, where it should only be the membership that has an opinion on which is best. brandon
Good Morning, I'd like to address two things here. Even though I disagree with your point/interpretation, Andy, I do understand how you got there. I would like to thank the NCC team for the write up and analysis, even though such analysis is so hard when the vote comes down to basically a coinflip. I think it's quite possible that on a different day the vote might go a different way, but I did not take the RIPE Labs piece as an attempt to re-run it. The membership have spoken and the matter should be settled for a decent period of time. My second point is that the NCC Board, like the Board of any company, have to have the opportunity to make a recommendation to the members on a resolution. That is perfectly normal Board activity and it is then up to the members to decide if we agree or not. Brian Brian Nisbet (he/him) Head of Service Operations Asiera (formerly HEAnet), Ireland's National Research and Education Network North Dock Two, 93-94 North Wall Quay, Dublin 1, D01 V8Y6 +35316609040 brian.nisbet@asiera.ie www.heanet.ie<http://www.heanet.ie> www.asiera.ie<https://www.asiera.ie/> Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270 ________________________________ From: brandon@bogons.net <brandon@bogons.net> on behalf of Brandon Butterworth <hostmaster@bogons.net> Sent: Friday 19 June 2026 18:13 To: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>; members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Cc: Ilke Ilhan <iilhan@ripe.net>; Andy Davidson <Andy.Davidson@ask4.com> Subject: [members-discuss] Re: Analysis on May 2026 GM CAUTION[External]: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do not click on links or open the attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe. On 19/06/2026 17:39:16, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2026 at 10:34:55AM +0000, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
I read that as RIPE wanted B, that it is just the board saying it does not mark it any less an organisational desire. Perhaps in these matter all of RIPE should be neutral, after all the budget is the same so it is purely a members choice no advocacy needed.
Please be very precise with your terminology here. *RIPE* has no say whatsoever in financial matters. There is the RIPE NCC, the RIPE NCC executive board, and the RIPE NCC members.
That confusion was my entire point. It appeared to be those offering a model choice preferred B, it was offered to vote by NCC and promoted by the board and the timing of the advocacy easily led one to read it as both were promoting it, where it should only be the membership that has an opinion on which is best. brandon To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details. Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription. Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/
Brian,
vote comes down to basically a coinflip
I think you are devaluing the value of 3000 votes and the signals received.
My second point is that the NCC Board, like the Board of any company, have to have the opportunity to make a recommendation to the members on a resolution. That is perfectly normal Board activity and it is then up to the members to decide if we agree or not.
I don't think so. Given the numerous emails I received, I felt under pressure. -- Best regards, Sergey Myasoedov
On 6/22/2026, at 12:49, Brian Nisbet via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> wrote:
Good Morning,
I'd like to address two things here.
Even though I disagree with your point/interpretation, Andy, I do understand how you got there. I would like to thank the NCC team for the write up and analysis, even though such analysis is so hard when the vote comes down to basically a coinflip. I think it's quite possible that on a different day the vote might go a different way, but I did not take the RIPE Labs piece as an attempt to re-run it. The membership have spoken and the matter should be settled for a decent period of time.
My second point is that the NCC Board, like the Board of any company, have to have the opportunity to make a recommendation to the members on a resolution. That is perfectly normal Board activity and it is then up to the members to decide if we agree or not.
Brian
Brian Nisbet (he/him) Head of Service Operations Asiera (formerly HEAnet), Ireland's National Research and Education Network North Dock Two, 93-94 North Wall Quay, Dublin 1, D01 V8Y6 +35316609040 brian.nisbet@asiera.ie www.heanet.ie www.asiera.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270From: brandon@bogons.net <brandon@bogons.net> on behalf of Brandon Butterworth <hostmaster@bogons.net> Sent: Friday 19 June 2026 18:13 To: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>; members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Cc: Ilke Ilhan <iilhan@ripe.net>; Andy Davidson <Andy.Davidson@ask4.com> Subject: [members-discuss] Re: Analysis on May 2026 GM CAUTION[External]: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do not click on links or open the attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.
On 19/06/2026 17:39:16, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2026 at 10:34:55AM +0000, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
I read that as RIPE wanted B, that it is just the board saying it does not mark it any less an organisational desire. Perhaps in these matter all of RIPE should be neutral, after all the budget is the same so it is purely a members choice no advocacy needed.
Please be very precise with your terminology here. *RIPE* has no say whatsoever in financial matters. There is the RIPE NCC, the RIPE NCC executive board, and the RIPE NCC members.
That confusion was my entire point.
It appeared to be those offering a model choice preferred B, it was offered to vote by NCC and promoted by the board and the timing of the advocacy easily led one to read it as both were promoting it, where it should only be the membership that has an opinion on which is best.
brandon
To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details.
Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription.
Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/ To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details.
Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription.
Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/
Dear Sergey, I think what he wanted to express was that the decision was, not as expected by everybody, quite close. For the second point: We've had a vote and a result. Nobody would say that there was any fraud involved or that votes were counted incorrectly. So, for everybody who doesn't like the result: deal with it. What do you want? Running the vote over and over again until you get the result that fits you? That’s a nice approach but: No, this is not how voting works - at least not as long as we have a democracy. And - lets get serious - we're talking about 54€/month that’s what the vast majority of LIRs in category 4 would have paid less if the vote fell for scheme B. Quite a lot of noise over 8 glasses of beer. Cheers to that, Karl -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Sergey Myasoedov via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> Gesendet: Montag, 22. Juni 2026 13:30 An: Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet@asiera.ie>; members-discuss@ripe.net Betreff: [members-discuss] Re: Analysis on May 2026 GM Brian,
vote comes down to basically a coinflip
I think you are devaluing the value of 3000 votes and the signals received.
My second point is that the NCC Board, like the Board of any company, have to have the opportunity to make a recommendation to the members on a resolution. That is perfectly normal Board activity and it is then up to the members to decide if we agree or not.
I don't think so. Given the numerous emails I received, I felt under pressure. -- Best regards, Sergey Myasoedov
On 6/22/2026, at 12:49, Brian Nisbet via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> wrote:
Good Morning,
I'd like to address two things here.
Even though I disagree with your point/interpretation, Andy, I do understand how you got there. I would like to thank the NCC team for the write up and analysis, even though such analysis is so hard when the vote comes down to basically a coinflip. I think it's quite possible that on a different day the vote might go a different way, but I did not take the RIPE Labs piece as an attempt to re-run it. The membership have spoken and the matter should be settled for a decent period of time.
My second point is that the NCC Board, like the Board of any company, have to have the opportunity to make a recommendation to the members on a resolution. That is perfectly normal Board activity and it is then up to the members to decide if we agree or not.
Brian
Brian Nisbet (he/him) Head of Service Operations Asiera (formerly HEAnet), Ireland's National Research and Education Network North Dock Two, 93-94 North Wall Quay, Dublin 1, D01 V8Y6 +35316609040 brian.nisbet@asiera.ie +http://www/. +heanet.ie%2F&data=05%7C02%7Ckarl.kaiser%40magenta.at%7Cd6265912921a4d +96c3f608ded05655f3%7Cd313b56ff40044d384034b468b3d8ded%7C1%7C0%7C63917 +7266385764946%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiI +wLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C% +7C%7C&sdata=Wn%2BM5UzpxkKe72DKlrPjlPEs4Z%2FE2phVK0l7wmNV7X0%3D&reserv +ed=0 +http://www/. +asiera.ie%2F&data=05%7C02%7Ckarl.kaiser%40magenta.at%7Cd6265912921a4d +96c3f608ded05655f3%7Cd313b56ff40044d384034b468b3d8ded%7C1%7C0%7C63917 +7266385800068%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiI +wLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C% +7C%7C&sdata=m2JGTz3OwxSM1NQYFgefaWZp2fwhB3ymhLtes2vX6Ac%3D&reserved=0 Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270From: brandon@bogons.net <brandon@bogons.net> on behalf of Brandon Butterworth <hostmaster@bogons.net> Sent: Friday 19 June 2026 18:13 To: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>; members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Cc: Ilke Ilhan <iilhan@ripe.net>; Andy Davidson <Andy.Davidson@ask4.com> Subject: [members-discuss] Re: Analysis on May 2026 GM CAUTION[External]: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do not click on links or open the attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.
On 19/06/2026 17:39:16, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2026 at 10:34:55AM +0000, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
I read that as RIPE wanted B, that it is just the board saying it does not mark it any less an organisational desire. Perhaps in these matter all of RIPE should be neutral, after all the budget is the same so it is purely a members choice no advocacy needed.
Please be very precise with your terminology here. *RIPE* has no say whatsoever in financial matters. There is the RIPE NCC, the RIPE NCC executive board, and the RIPE NCC members.
That confusion was my entire point.
It appeared to be those offering a model choice preferred B, it was offered to vote by NCC and promoted by the board and the timing of the advocacy easily led one to read it as both were promoting it, where it should only be the membership that has an opinion on which is best.
brandon
To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details.
Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription.
Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at: https://www/. ripe.net%2Fs%2Fmembers-discuss-subscription-options%2F&data=05%7C02%7C karl.kaiser%40magenta.at%7Cd6265912921a4d96c3f608ded05655f3%7Cd313b56f f40044d384034b468b3d8ded%7C1%7C0%7C639177266385844554%7CUnknown%7CTWFp bGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIk FOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=fnnDpPcEtg3Npj3%2B1f ikoUZnE8GGcZiftRfSTJ4NqLU%3D&reserved=0 To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details.
Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription.
Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at: https://www/. ripe.net%2Fs%2Fmembers-discuss-subscription-options%2F&data=05%7C02%7C karl.kaiser%40magenta.at%7Cd6265912921a4d96c3f608ded05655f3%7Cd313b56f f40044d384034b468b3d8ded%7C1%7C0%7C639177266385883375%7CUnknown%7CTWFp bGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIk FOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=HVcqB2%2B4eqoD6s7WvA RKqYFt9kkNHVFqqrM%2Ftfo2R9Q%3D&reserved=0
To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details. Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription. Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/ ________________________________ Notice: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, notify the sender immediately, destroy all copies from your system and do not disclose or use the information for any purpose. Diese E-Mail inklusive aller Anhaenge ist vertraulich und koennte bevorrechtigtem Schutz unterliegen. Wenn Sie nicht der beabsichtigte Adressat sind, informieren Sie bitte den Absender unverzueglich, loeschen Sie alle Kopien von Ihrem System und veroeffentlichen Sie oder nutzen Sie die Information keinesfalls, gleich zu welchem Zweck. Think before you print! MAGENTA TELEKOM (T-Mobile Austria GmbH) Geschaeftsführung: Mag. Thomas Kicker (Vorsitzender), Aufsichtsrat: Kyra Orth (Vorsitzende) Firmenbuch: Handelsgericht Wien FN 171112 k, UID ATU 45011703 Konto: UniCredit Bank Austria AG IBAN: AT93 1200 0528 4407 2301, BIC: BKAUATWW ________________________________
Sergey, I don't believe I'm devaluing those who voted, I am, as Karl said, referencing the extremely close nature of the result. So I think it's fair to think that on a different day, the result might have been different. That is not me suggesting the vote was a waste of time (it absolutely wasn't) nor that we should run it again (we shouldn't!). And it's not good that you felt under pressure, ofc, but I think the Board expressed their recommendation once, maybe twice, by email and at the GM? The other emails were reminders to vote. There are lessons to learn here, for sure, but the Board have to be able to act in the perfectly normal way they did and it would be, imo, a very bad idea if they were in any way restricted from doing so. Brian Brian Nisbet (he/him) Head of Service Operations Asiera (formerly HEAnet), Ireland's National Research and Education Network North Dock Two, 93-94 North Wall Quay, Dublin 1, D01 V8Y6 +35316609040 brian.nisbet@asiera.ie www.heanet.ie<http://www.heanet.ie> www.asiera.ie<https://www.asiera.ie/> Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270 ________________________________ From: Sergey Myasoedov <kaa@net-art.cz> Sent: Monday 22 June 2026 12:29 To: Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet@asiera.ie>; members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Analysis on May 2026 GM [You don't often get email from kaa@net-art.cz. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] CAUTION[External]: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do not click on links or open the attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe. Brian,
vote comes down to basically a coinflip
I think you are devaluing the value of 3000 votes and the signals received.
My second point is that the NCC Board, like the Board of any company, have to have the opportunity to make a recommendation to the members on a resolution. That is perfectly normal Board activity and it is then up to the members to decide if we agree or not.
I don't think so. Given the numerous emails I received, I felt under pressure. -- Best regards, Sergey Myasoedov
On 6/22/2026, at 12:49, Brian Nisbet via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> wrote:
Good Morning,
I'd like to address two things here.
Even though I disagree with your point/interpretation, Andy, I do understand how you got there. I would like to thank the NCC team for the write up and analysis, even though such analysis is so hard when the vote comes down to basically a coinflip. I think it's quite possible that on a different day the vote might go a different way, but I did not take the RIPE Labs piece as an attempt to re-run it. The membership have spoken and the matter should be settled for a decent period of time.
My second point is that the NCC Board, like the Board of any company, have to have the opportunity to make a recommendation to the members on a resolution. That is perfectly normal Board activity and it is then up to the members to decide if we agree or not.
Brian
Brian Nisbet (he/him) Head of Service Operations Asiera (formerly HEAnet), Ireland's National Research and Education Network North Dock Two, 93-94 North Wall Quay, Dublin 1, D01 V8Y6 +35316609040 brian.nisbet@asiera.ie www.heanet.ie<http://www.heanet.ie> www.asiera.ie<http://www.asiera.ie> Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270From: brandon@bogons.net <brandon@bogons.net> on behalf of Brandon Butterworth <hostmaster@bogons.net> Sent: Friday 19 June 2026 18:13 To: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>; members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Cc: Ilke Ilhan <iilhan@ripe.net>; Andy Davidson <Andy.Davidson@ask4.com> Subject: [members-discuss] Re: Analysis on May 2026 GM CAUTION[External]: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do not click on links or open the attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.
On 19/06/2026 17:39:16, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2026 at 10:34:55AM +0000, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
I read that as RIPE wanted B, that it is just the board saying it does not mark it any less an organisational desire. Perhaps in these matter all of RIPE should be neutral, after all the budget is the same so it is purely a members choice no advocacy needed.
Please be very precise with your terminology here. *RIPE* has no say whatsoever in financial matters. There is the RIPE NCC, the RIPE NCC executive board, and the RIPE NCC members.
That confusion was my entire point.
It appeared to be those offering a model choice preferred B, it was offered to vote by NCC and promoted by the board and the timing of the advocacy easily led one to read it as both were promoting it, where it should only be the membership that has an opinion on which is best.
brandon
To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details.
Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription.
Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/ To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details.
Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription.
Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/
From a governance perspective, it's good that the board provided a vote recommendation as well as explained the rationale to the membership [to make their own decision]. The issue was material, and the members needed context. I think this was achieved and the communication from Ondrej explained pretty well the available options and their background. From a transparency perspective, it would have been even better if each of the board members had disclosed how they (their org really, if any) would vote, as the recommendation was made on behalf of the whole RIPE NCC EB. FWIW, I also tend to just write RIPE instead of "RIPE NCC whatever" as most of the time it is obvious which entity is being referred to. 🙂 Kaj ________________________________ From: brandon@bogons.net <brandon@bogons.net> on behalf of Brandon Butterworth <hostmaster@bogons.net> Sent: Friday, June 19, 2026 20:13 To: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>; members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Cc: Ilke Ilhan <iilhan@ripe.net>; Andy Davidson <Andy.Davidson@ask4.com> Subject: [members-discuss] Re: Analysis on May 2026 GM On 19/06/2026 17:39:16, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2026 at 10:34:55AM +0000, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
I read that as RIPE wanted B, that it is just the board saying it does not mark it any less an organisational desire. Perhaps in these matter all of RIPE should be neutral, after all the budget is the same so it is purely a members choice no advocacy needed.
Please be very precise with your terminology here. *RIPE* has no say whatsoever in financial matters. There is the RIPE NCC, the RIPE NCC executive board, and the RIPE NCC members.
That confusion was my entire point. It appeared to be those offering a model choice preferred B, it was offered to vote by NCC and promoted by the board and the timing of the advocacy easily led one to read it as both were promoting it, where it should only be the membership that has an opinion on which is best. brandon To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmy.ripe.net%2F%23%2Faccount-details&data=05%7C02%7C%7C8da8bce3b045420cb7e408ded03d1083%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C639177157854647503%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=JitDwgpqLGG0hjieajkE0WHs5MIuDnhalKw9ZNtK4cM%3D&reserved=0<https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details>. Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription. Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.net%2Fs%2Fmembers-discuss-subscription-options%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C8da8bce3b045420cb7e408ded03d1083%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C639177157854710143%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=RdOSpcRkD%2BjOHci1bsLUa0QFXiBfOUJBj%2FbwuZYu%2BRE%3D&reserved=0<https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/>
Hi, On Mon, Jun 22, 2026 at 10:27:54AM +0000, Kaj Niemi wrote:
FWIW, I also tend to just write RIPE instead of "RIPE NCC whatever" as most of the time it is obvious which entity is being referred to.
Assuming that both sender and receiver of the e-mails are crystal clear on the differences, it might be "obvious". On this list, my observation is more that it gets all mixed together (both in writing and some list members' mental image of "the world"), so most precise terminology on the writer's side is highly important. 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.: Dr. Frank Thiäner D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
participants (11)
-
Andy Davidson -
Andy Davidson -
Brandon Butterworth -
Brian Nisbet -
Gert Doering -
Hans Petter Holen -
Ilke Ilhan -
Kaiser, Karl -
Kaj Niemi -
Sebastian Wiesinger -
Sergey Myasoedov