November 2011 - members-discuss

Some thoughts I was not able to say at GM-2011
by poty＠iiat.ru 09 Nov '11

09 Nov '11

Hello everybody, At the beginning I'd like to apologize for my poor spoken English which prevented me to clearly state my opinion at GM. It is not related to any problems with EB preventing me to do that! Thank them for the opportunity given and sorry for emotional expressions. I hope that something from my speech at GM was understandable, but to make my position more consistent I'll sum the thoughts I wanted to express. My main concern is about openness of the decisions if we speak about money, not technical and police things. All the three interrelated finance documents (The Activity Plan, which defines the expenses and is the base for the Budget, which defines the balance between the expenses and incomes, and the Charging Scheme as a result of defined incomes to cover expenses) were compiled inside of the RIPE NCC and were not clear to me and (according to several posts here in the list) to several other members. For example, who exactly gave the feedbacks for initial RIPE NCC Proposed New Charging Scheme 2012? The members-discuss list was pristine innocent about this "the current Charging Scheme model is complex and makes it difficult for individual members to easily determine their own fees" complains. Private conversations? Maybe... But it shouldn't in my opinion be private as soon as it relates to all the members! The new published EB email which enables another private channel between a person and the EB is a bad thing according to the logic of my sentences above. The main and the only "panel" for discussion should be either the members-discuss list or new "finance-discuss?" list, opened maybe only to members (I don't mind if it is completely opened). As stated by Nigel Titley, the Chairman of the Executive Board, at the GM the things are going to change to the next GM. The lack of discussions about the documents before GM-2011 was in my opinion related to usefulness and the source reasons in the documents. Speaking about the Activity Plan - we (members) asked the EB about adding cost to each activity in 2007-2008. Without the numbers the Activity Plan is a way of stating things, but not evaluating effectiveness of the services. Discuss "marked on stone" statements is not very rewarding venture. Thankfully the numbers will appear soon in the document. Second point in the matter - the procedure of changing the Activity Plan - it is not exist now and should be invented. There was already the suggestions about it in the list I won't going to repeat them now. Speaking about the Charging Scheme... I'm not against the increase of the amount to pay, I'm against of the misty motivations for the rise and some predictability of expenses. There should be clearly defined "resource classes" included in each membership category, and clearer definition of fairness. (I'd also decide on the consulting about the taxation issue, but it in unrelated thing up to now.) I can give many examples of that but I'm trying to make this message as short as possible. For example, I don't agree with the "free" IPv6: the LIRs would pay for the blocks indirectly, through IPv4 counting, anyway - whom we are going to trick then? The last thing which is the most important to me - the services of the RIPE NCC above the main baseline of "providing unique blocks of numbers and register them on the DB". It is related to the Activity Plan certainly, but I'd like to mention them from different point of view - in term of including some of them in the Charging Scheme. I'm repeating - I'm not against developed services "made in RIPE NCC", think that many of them (not all though) are very useful, but why some of them deserves to be mentioned in the Charging Scheme, the others - not? Why not related to the main activity things should be mentioned in invoices at all? I think of it like "tie in sale", not very pleasant thought of course. Regards, Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] Voting @ GM 2011
by Brandon Butterworth 07 Nov '11

07 Nov '11

> The alternative, of course, is to continue with the old charging scheme > as we have used up until now but of course we put together the new > charging scheme as a response to the membership after complaints about > the old one, so I wouldn't expect that to be popular. There will always be some who think the price is too damn high and they should pay less (and in this case others should pay more instead). When you change it you'll make some happier, some will think it's still to high and you'll add others who now think it's too high. The latter two will continue to be heard. Overall the RIPE fees aren't that large and for big ISP are just noise. If there is change that's a sign where to make it. brandon

1 0

activity plan suggestion
by Sergey Myasoedov 07 Nov '11

07 Nov '11

Hello, there is a proposal for RIPE NCC and Executive board. As there is a criticism of RIPE NCC Activity plan and voting at the GM for the whole plan, I would like to propose to split the Activity plan into several statements and vote for each item of the plan separately. The voting can be done by show of hands directly at the GM. Thank you. -- Kind regards, Sergey

12 15

Privatelayer Inc
by Nigel Titley 07 Nov '11

07 Nov '11

Dear Private Layer If there is anybody from Private Layer actually reading this list can they please take their ticketing system OFF it. You are the last member to do this. It is difficult to understand why you are unable to do this. There are two possibilities: 1. No one at Private Layer reads trouble tickets 2. No one at Private Layer knows how to take their ticket system off the list Neither bodes well for your continued viability as a commercial entity. Fondest regards Nigel

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] Voting @ GM 2011
by Hank Nussbacher 07 Nov '11

07 Nov '11

At 11:54 07/11/2011 +0100, Lu Heng wrote: >Hi Hank: >They will take money from reserve as I heard in the GM. >It was like 4M(if I was not remember it wrong) shortage Always nice to have reserves, but they tend to dry up after extensive use. I hope the EB has some plans of cost cutting, other than RIPE NCC's ideas of cost cutting such as <sarcasm> taking on a 2MEuro RIPE ATLAS Probe project</sarcasm>. -Hank >On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Hank Nussbacher <hank(a)efes.iucc.ac.il> wrote: > > At 10:25 07/11/2011 +0000, James Blessing wrote: > >>On 07/11/2011 10:16, SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling wrote: > >> > >> > Can you explain us and to the whole list what will be happen now as I > >> > guess it was the first time since we are a member that the GM don't > >> > adopt the Charging Scheme ?? > >> > >>As was explained at the GM by Nigel, the charging scheme that currently > >>exists would be used leading to an expected revenue shortfall > > > > In most businesses I know of, when there is an expected revenue shortfall, > > cuts are made - either in salary, amount of manpower or in projects. I > > hope RIPE NCC has contingency plans in place. > > > > Regards, > > Hank > > > > > >>J > >>-- > >>James Blessing > >>+44 7989 039 476 > >>Strategic Relations Manager, EMEA > >>Limelight Networks > >> > >>---- > >>If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > >>mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the > >>general page: > >>https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > >> > >>Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From > >>here, you can add or remove addresses. > > > > > > ---- > > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the > general page: > > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From > here, you can add or remove addresses. > > > > > >-- >This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. >It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or >otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use >of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the >intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received >this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and >e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this >message and including the text of the transmission received.

2 1