- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

Mortal Kombat over fees? Proposal.
by Denys Fedoryshchenko 16 May '24

16 May '24

Proposal to RIPE members actively participating in heated discussions on the mailing list. I think new ideas sort of dried up, so it's time to take a break and let the dust settle. Current discussion degraded mostly to same ideas as before, just with different wording and now with NEW(tm) feature - mutual insults. It's not productive anymore, and it's not fun anymore. Let's summarize the discussion so far. I might be bold on some statement, but better to say truth than to sugarcoat it. - People very angry not just about fees increase, but lack of proper communication and transparency about whole budgeting process. - Many also have perception that answers of RIPE NCC employees and RIPE EB are inappropriate and not addressing concerns of members. - Many members have concerns that fees structure are not fair, by several reasons: some members hold very large resources and do a lot of transactions, but pay same as small LIRs; some members have concerns that fees are not fair to their country's economy; some members don't want to fund projects they don't see as useful. - Last tiered proposal was not appreciated, but not because people don't want tiered fees, but because it was not well thought out and mixed with other changes. - We are not offered option "None of the above" in budget voting, which is again very angry point for many members. - For many years many members didn't care about what is happening in RIPE NCC, they put their trust in RIPE NCC and EB, and now they feel betrayed. - Certain RIPE members blindly defend all RIPE NCC and EB actions, and attack anyone who dares to criticize them. This is not productive and not helpful. They went to such extent that they started to insult other members, which is not acceptable. We either work for better future, or if you want to be enemies, be my guest, but this will be very bad for RIPE NCC and RIPE community. Also i want to underscore that RIPE NCC, EB, RIPE "supporters" are not our enemies. They are our partners in this community. We all want better future for RIPE community, and we all want RIPE NCC to be successful. But we have different opinions on how to achieve this. We need to find common ground and work together to achieve this. Let's say we swallow the bitter pill and accept that fees will increase. We can't avoid it now, but in return we demand from RIPE NCC and EB certain changes. My proposal is to set clear goals: - RIPE NCC and EB should clearly understand, if they are just trying to win time and wait until situation calms down, and do business as usual, consequences will be very bad for RIPE NCC. This time we will not forget, and will demand roadmap of changes with clear deadlines. And if they are not done and we will see it is just a trick, we will demand changes in RIPE NCC staff and leadership or go to extreme measures. - We demand to have more control over budgeting process, and not just to vote on limited budget options proposed by RIPE EB. We want to have more say in budgeting process, to participate in task forces, etc. - As RIPE members funding RIPE NCC activities, we have full right to demand accountability and match modern standards of transparency and governance not only for budgeting, but for all RIPE processes, from core activities, to projects, purchases, hiring, etc. - Many RIPE NCC projects are beneficial for world, but barely for members. This have to change and details discussed. If fees are increased, we want return on investment. - The fact that some of projects are flawed, and some has no proper report to members for 2 years, is not acceptable. If project does not bother to report to members, it means it is not important for members, and should be stopped. We demand to have more control over projects, and to have more say in projects funding. If project clearly show neglect to members and goals set together with members, it should be stopped. Now, i wonder, did anybody read this long email? :) Let's move to Telegram chat https://t.me/ripe_budget_talks and start collecting and writing down ideas.

2 1

How can I vote against Charging Scheme A, B and C
by Mikael Jirari 16 May '24

16 May '24

Hello everyone, I see so many discussions to end with what ? An increasing charging scheme with A, B, C more or less the same. I don't understand that so much time is taken by the RIPE executive board and people on the mailling list to end with more or less the same scheme. I agree with some voices here. Some members have large amount of IPv4 IP adresses and are big buisnesses and have been around for a long time. They retain these IPv4 and/or don't pay their fair part: Their cost per IP are very low, they have the money to pay these IPv4 or release them if they want. On top of that, RIPE increase the charging by 20% This charging is a joke ! It's like you are in a bar and there are 3 options on the menu: normal coke, sugar free coke, cherry coke. What's the point ? => How can I vote against these A, B, C proposals ? a) LIR fee should be lower and packaged with 1 x /24 IPv4 + 1 x /32 IPv6 in terms of price. b) Big IPv4 owners should pay that 20% increase of RIPE budget and handle the cost of a) Regards ********************************* This message and any attachments (the "message") are confidential and intended solely for the addressees. Any unauthorised use or dissemination is prohibited. Messages are susceptible to alteration. Expertinet shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you are not the intended addressee of this message, please cancel it immediately and inform the sender. ********************************

13 26

[ncc-announce] [GM] 2024/2025 Budget and IPv4 problems
by sdy＠a-n-t.ru 16 May '24

16 May '24

Hi, All. I would like again to point in: budget growth in the face of rising inflation will be inevitable! We don't need now to solve the budget rise problem. We need now to solve the problem of executing the main RIPE and NCC functions. Initially, the community was created and we joined as its members to organize an open and stable inter-network interaction. But in the end, we got a structure that requires more and more funds for its maintenance, but cannot in any way solve the systemic problem of lack of IPv4 and AS32 resources. For some reason, any attempts to start a discussion about the need to change the approach to the economic model or (and) the regulatory part are faced with inaction, primarily by EB NNC. I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but apparently those 7% of the 84% LIR holders historically (I emphasize HISTORICALLY) have a strong influence on the EB NCC and the RIPE agenda. I have already written more than once that in my opinion, the way out of the situation with growing costs and missing resources should be solved by introducing a flat scale of payment for scarce resources. The most optimal scenario in my opinion is the following: 1. The annual payment must consist of 2 parts: - The FIXED part - The VARIABLE part is directly dependent on the number of allocated SCARCE resources (now IPv4 and AS32) The amount of payments in this way should not affect the number of his votes. 2. In the first year, we have to plan payments and budget so that: - The FIXED part was about 1/4-1/2 of the planned budget - The VARIABLE part covered the rest of the planned budget with a surplus of at least 20%. 3. We must increase the payment for the PERMANENT part annually until at least 15% of the resources become available for distribution. At the same time, the community should allocate the funds received in excess of the planned budget for the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 or other new protocols. This can be the preparation of educational programs, the translation of articles into local languages, the completion and popularization of improvements to the IP stack or of training programs, the development of software to simplify migration and other initiatives. --- Dmitry Serbulov ----------------------------- С уважением Сербулов Дмитрий ООО "Альфа Нет Телеком" +7(498)785-8-000 раб. +7(495)940-92-11 доп. +7(925)518-10-69 сот.

1 0

Why there is low engagement? "Meet the Executive Board Candidates" feedback
by Denys Fedoryshchenko 16 May '24

16 May '24

I have now answer, why people dont attent online event about activity plan and etc etc. Answer is simple - this events are not organized well. I'm quite convinced now it is not fault of members and their lack of interest, but lot of inefficiency in communication and organization from RIPE NCC side that deter people from interacting with RIPE, which need to be fixed ASAP. This is also answer why there is low engagement in community. So, as we all know today was a day for "Open house" for the meeting executive candidates: https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/open-house/meet-the-may-2024-execu… 1) "Open house" term by definition means (*https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/open%20house): ``` An open house is a loosely organized social event — a party that's open to anyone who wants to come, at any time. You might have an open house to welcome your new next door neighbors. As opposed to a formal party that starts at a certain time and has a specific guest list, an open house is a casual celebration. You can also use this term for the event a realtor arranges at a home that's for sale, a day when it's open for touring to prospective buyers. Before it became the name of a kind of party, open house was used as a noun phrase meaning "hospitality for all visitors." ``` While on page it is written "For RIPE NCC Members only". This is NOT open house. Please take a look to definition, as it is confusing people. When i arrange my schedule, i assume people who arrange event familiar with terms they use. 2) As any person who have job, i have busy schedule, so in advance i read there is no limits on registration time/date on page. At morning of 15 May at 07:00 i was sure i can allocate 1:30 of my time and shift away work duties and clients meetings. At 07:10(approx) i finished confusing form where it was asking personal details (while RIPE have SSO). As there is no statement with whom this details will be shared(if they are shown in details of attendee, i'm ok to share my name only), or if they are used for verification, i put as company "Confidential". At 07:13 i received automated confirmation email, registration number 53. There was no further communication. As result i didn't receive any link to join event. Questions: 1)If this is RIPE NCC members only event, why there is no _automated_ verification of membership? If there is manual verification, why there is no statement about time limits and why my registration was not processed in time? 2)Why do we need registration at all? Click join, authenticate with SSO, and you are in. If you are not member, you are not in. Why do we need to fill forms and babysit email? Conclusion. IMO, there is few issues need to be addressed: 1)Registration process FAILED to deliver link to join event. This is totally unacceptable. I was able to join, just thanks one of my friends who shared link with me. 2)Event arranged by RIPE NCC was not open house. It was not possible to join event, as there was no link to join event. Either change term, or make event open. 3)Registration process verified manually. This is waste of human resources and obsolete way. No wonder RIPE NCC keep hiring. 4)Registration process is stated as member-only, but there is no automated verification of membership. I think partially reason is that there is mix up of requirements from past on-site events and current online-only events. Question is, why this is not fixed yet, since at COVID times such events was "online-only"? Separately i would like to ask, why person who review registration didn't provide me link in reasonable timeframe? Is that difficult to verify 5 short lines in 1.5+ hours? P.S. Hopefully recording of event will be released in timely manner.

2 1

New Q&A Page on the Charging Scheme 2025
by Fergal Cunningham 15 May '24

15 May '24

Dear all, We created a questions and answers page for the Charging Scheme 2025 discussions. We see several points raised a number of times, so we hope it will be useful to have the answers from the RIPE NCC collated in a single place: https://www.ripe.net/charging-scheme-2025-q-and-a If you think anything is missing, please contact me and we can update the page. And of course we'll continue to respond on the list when needed. And speaking of Q&As, the Executive Board Candidates Open House took place today. The candidates answered questions from members, including about the charging scheme discussions. We'll publish the recording of the session later this week. Candidates are also answering questions on the eb-candidates mailing list, so if you want to continue to discuss issues with your potential representatives on the board, you can subscribe at: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/eb-candidates Best regards, Fergal

1 0

GM topic
by Max Tulyev 10 May '24

10 May '24

Hello! I as the member would like to add a topic for vote on GM. What is the procedure to do that?

39 75

Re: [members-discuss] RIPE NCC forum, Community Projects Fund suggestions
by Gergana Petrova 08 May '24

08 May '24

Hi Denys, Thank you for your email and your message in the forum about the Community Projects Fund. I've now posted a reply. To you and others reading this, please continue the discussion: https://forum.ripe.net/t/ripe-ncc-community-projects-fund-suggestions/941 Best regards, Gergana -- Gergana Petrova Community Development Manager RIPE NCC > From: Denys Fedoryshchenko<nuclearcat(a)nuclearcat.com> > Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2024 at 20:04 > Subject: [members-discuss] RIPE NCC forum, Community Projects Fund suggestions > To:members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss(a)ripe.net> > > > As mailing list have now high engagement, i would like to hijack this > opportunity to share one more platform for discussion RIPE NCC > provides: Forum, athttps://forum.ripe.net > > I think current situation we reached is also result of low engagement > of RIPE NCC and members, and this should be two-way road. I think we > should also engage more with RIPE NCC projects, provide voluntary help, > and also feedback and suggestions. > > For example after attenting today 2023 RIPE NCC Community Projects Fund > open house event i learned about quite interesting needs of academic > community, which inspire me to contact educational institutions in my > country and offer help with their projects. But also i would like to > evaluate my suggestion to RIPE NCC by other members, and i think forum > is good place for that. > > Link to discussion: > https://forum.ripe.net/t/ripe-ncc-community-projects-fund-suggestions/941/1 > > My post (if some people don't like forums): > ``` > After attending 2023 RIPE NCC Community Projects Fund open house event > at 26 April 2024, i would like to propose several suggestions to > improve such events and RIPE NCC Community Projects Funding in general. > > 1. Openhouse could pre-publish presentation slides and videos. This > approach is more convenient than the current process. At present, we > have to allocate 1:30 hours for our meeting, but with pre-published > videos, we could view them, take notes, prepare data, and formulate > questions ahead of time. The complexity of the topics often prevents > attendees from asking questions during the live sessions. Having access > to materials in advance would facilitate more engaging and productive > discussions during the open house. Another advantage includes fewer > technical issues with Zoom, such as audio muting problems, and reduced > stress for presenters, who could prerecord and edit their > presentations. It would also be beneficial if these presentations were > transcribed, enabling us to search for specific topics and aiding those > with disabilities. > > 2. I am surprised that the live openhouse is the only platform for > discussion. I have suggested that we need a mailing list or forum. The > contact information for presenters is often insufficient; I would > prefer public discussions where I can see other people’s questions and > responses. This open format might also provide corrections if I > misunderstand something. > > 3. Projects posted on the Call for Participation (CFP) should at > least include a project website and contact information. > > 4. It would be preferable to publish projects on the CFP in advance > of approval to facilitate discussion. This allows attendees to prepare > questions and conduct research before projects are approved. For > example, concerning the topic of submarine cables, I have significant > doubts about the adequacy of using just traceroute for measurements. > Such projects need more comprehensive data inputs. For instance, many > ISPs might use a combination of old and new links for traffic > engineering, which traceroute may not adequately detect. Discussions > with project authors could reveal more intriguing aspects than what is > presented in their slides. Additionally, discussions might provide > insights on how projects could be adjusted to be more beneficial for > the community, as suggested by RIPE members, and members opinions can > be taken in consideration by Working Group during the project > evaluation. > > 5. Why are project reports (six-month, one-year) mentioned in > presentations but not published on the RIPE website? We need more > transparency to understand what has been accomplished and the outcomes > of these projects. (APNIC does that) > > 6. RIPE publishes very limited information about its projects. For > example, try finding the repository for “fpdns2: DNS Fingerprinting > Tool” based on the description provided. This lack of information > hinders our ability to follow up on project developments. > > There is more to suggest, but i prefer to get familiar with the > processes and community first. I hope these suggestions will be taken > into consideration and improve the RIPE NCC Community Projects Fund > open house events. > ``` > > > _______________________________________________ > members-discuss mailing list > members-discuss(a)ripe.net > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > Unsubscribe:https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/kwhite%4…

1 0

Fwd: Executive Board Meeting to Discuss Charging Scheme Input from Members
by AlbaHost SH.P.K 08 May '24

08 May '24

Dear Patrick, the right time would be, when RIPE NCC fill out their budget enought, which unfortunately this is not going to happen ever thouh. The exact meaning was by allowing multiLIR membership, just to collect as much money as possible, since there is no other justification! Cheers, Mentor L. -- *Sinqerisht / Sincerely,* AlbaHost [image: Logo] <https://www.albahost.net/> Albanian Hosting SH.P.K. Besim Beka p.n. 50000 Gjakovë, Kosovë. NIPT/VAT ID: 811442657 T: +386900501502 E: info(a)albahost.net W*: *wWw.AlbaHost.Net <http://www.albahost.net/> [image: Facebook icon] <https://www.facebook.com/albanianhosting> [image: Twitter icon] <https://twitter.com/albahost> [image: Instagram icon] <https://www.instagram.com/albahost_vpn/> [image: Banner] Përmbajtja e këtij emaili është konfidenciale dhe ka për qëllim marrësin e specifikuar vetëm në mesazh. Ndalohet rreptësisht shpërndarja e ndonjë pjese të këtij mesazhi me ndonjë palë të tretë, pa pëlqimin me shkrim të dërguesit. Nëse e keni marrë këtë mesazh gabimisht, ju lutemi përgjigjuni këtij mesazhi dhe ndiqni me fshirjen e tij, në mënyrë që të sigurohemi që një gabim i tillë të mos ndodhë në të ardhmen. The content of this email is confidential and intended for the recipient specified in message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this message with any third party, without a written consent of the sender. If you received this message by mistake, please reply to this message and follow with its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake does not occur in the future.

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Executive Board Meeting to Discuss Charging Scheme Input from Members
by Kai Siering 08 May '24

08 May '24

Dear Ondřej, thank you for the update. As expected, the path forward the Board decided to take receives some critism. Although, if enough members don't agree with e. g. Articles 15.4, 15.5 and 15.6 anymore, I suppose the membership can move forward to amend or remove them, right? What are the timeframes here? I'm still offended by the repeated statement of "this is not the right time". It wasn't the right time in Spring 2023 to discuss the Budget, and the result was the vote for an unmodified Charging Scheme. There was no choice given to the membership to discuss and reduce the Budget in Autumn 2023, presuambly "not the right time" due to the five year plan in place. And now, in Spring 2024, we hear "this is not the right time" to make changes to neither the charging scheme nor the Budget. And, another slap in the face, the Board does not intend to reduce the Budget until before 2027, if ever: "the charging scheme options we put forward will do that for 2025 and 2026". As things did change fundamentally in the world we, the members, live in, I question it to be good governance to ignore these facts and stick to the five year plan unperturbed. If "[w]e listen to your feedback" would hold any water, the Board would have reacted appropriately after Spring 2023 and opened the discussion about the Budget back then — but instead the Board already made their mind and the Spring discussion of 2025 will see another (huge) increase in membership cost, as has been made clear now. As for legal advice, well, technically the proposal does not "propose a Charging Scheme" but the contrary: no new charging scheme for the time being. But let's look at the Articles in question: Am 19.04.24 um 15:08 schrieb Fergal Cunningham: > > Certain agenda items may only be proposed by the Executive Board. The Articles of Association indicate the following items: > > > - The adoption of the Charging Scheme with respect to the coming financial year (Art. 15.4.b) > > - The adoption of amendments to the Standard Service Agreement (Art. 15.5.c) > > - The approval of new arbiters and/or dismissal of current arbiters and/or adoption of amendments to the arbitration procedure (Art 15.5.d) > In the published English version of the 2024 AoA, 15.4 starts as follows: "The following subjects shall be placed on the agenda for the Annual Meeting or on the agenda for another General Meeting to be held in the same calendar year" — this is a "these things we have to discuss and decide upon _at least_ once a year". But it does not forbid to e. g. vote on a Charging Scheme (15.4 b) more than once per calender year either. 15.4 b reads "the adoption of the Charging Scheme with respect to the coming financial year upon proposal of the Executive Board", 15.4 e "other proposals and/or discussion points put forward by the Executive Board or (a groupof) Members of the Association (pursuant toarticle15.6) and announced in the convocation for the Meeting". There is no exclusivity in 15.4 b that _only_ the Executive Board may suggest a Charging Scheme, but there's an obligation to the Board to suggest one at least once a year. Nor does 15.4 e prevent contradicting proposals to what the Executive Board proposes, especially not on bullet point topics mentioned earlier. Thus, prohibiting voting on the proposal "Keep current billing scheme for the next year", which has passed 15.6 requirements, has no legal grounds AFAICS. There's simply no wording to even suggest that. I don't expect the legally binding Dutch version to contain that either. Is it good governance to subject the General Meeting's decision finding to be questioned in Court? Cui bono? -kai Am 07.05.24 um 15:54 schrieb Ondřej Filip: > Dear members, > > On 6 May, 2024, the Executive Board held a meeting to discuss the input we received from members regarding the Board proposal for the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025. We will publish the minutes as soon as possible, but I want to first give you a summary of the discussions and the outcomes from the meeting. > > Since we started engaging with the membership on the charging scheme this year, we have received over 400 emails on the topic. For the first time, we also have a member proposal for a GM agenda topic that has received the required number of expressions of support to be added to the GM agenda. Therefore, we felt it was important for the Board to have this extra meeting, review the various points that were brought forward, and consider the next steps in this process. There were many important points to discuss at this meeting, and although the outcome might not please everyone, the Board was fully aligned on how it should move forward. > > First, we considered again what we had decided upon at the Board meeting in March. The Board consciously did not put forward a proposal to keep the charging scheme as it is because we don’t believe that it would be good governance to make a proposal that leaves us with a large deficit, and good governance is what is expected from us by the members who elect us. > > Furthermore, some of the suggestions from members would change the funding model in a way that would put the organisation at risk, and while the Board represents the membegood governancers, it also has legal and fiduciary responsibilities towards the organisation. It is clear that one of the main responsibilities of the Board is to propose a charging scheme that will properly fund the association, and the charging scheme options we put forward will do that for 2025 and 2026. So we will put forward the three options as proposed on 24 April 2024 for members to vote on at the GM[1]. > > There were many proposals to provide that funding in alternative ways. However, we believe that this is not the right time to make fundamental changes to the charging model. We are about to embark on a full review of the organisation and its structures, and that will take some time. For us to implement that review and any resulting actions, we need stable funding. All three of the proposed options offer us this. We also note that the redistribution mechanism allows us to return any surplus made to the membership in the following year should members vote to do so. The Board and the Managing Director will also continue to work to improve efficiency and identify areas for cost savings. > > We did consider moving this vote to later in the year, but this would negatively impact our planning for 2025, and it would also distract from the very important discussions we need to have with members during the Activity Plan and Budget process this Autumn. During that discussion, we do expect that the members who are convinced that the RIPE NCC needs to reduce its budget will tell us which services need to be reduced or cut in order to accommodate such a reduction. > > At our meeting, the Board also discussed the structural review that will take place. This will begin at the RIPE 88 Meeting in two weeks with a BoF on how to build a stable future for the RIPE NCC. We expect that there will be a productive discussion on many issues that need to be resolved so that the RIPE NCC can move forward stably and with a funding model that has the support of its membership. We will keep the membership updated on the outcomes of those discussions and how the members can contribute to the work that will surely emerge from them. > > Regarding the membership proposal[2], we acknowledge that the threshold was met to add the GM agenda topic “Keep current billing scheme for the next year”. We will add this as a topic to the agenda as required by the Articles of Association. However, this will not be added as a proposed resolution for members to vote on. Articles 15.4, 15.5 and 15.6 of the RIPE NCC Articles of Association do not allow members to propose a Charging Scheme, as reaffirmed by the external law firm that gives us expert advice on Dutch corporate law. > > This legal framework ensures that a Charging Scheme may only be proposed by those who were elected to serve on the Executive Board, who have better insight into the financials and the operations of the organisation, and who have a duty of care for the well-being of the organisation and are liable in case of mismanagement. Parties without such insight, responsibility and liability may not put forward charging schemes for voting that - although appealing for individual members - may be inappropriate for the sustainability of the organisation. > > To summarise, the Board recognises the member sentiment and we are committed to addressing it for the long term. However, we must do what we believe is best for the stability of the organisation and its membership, even if it is not an easy or popular thing to do. This is what is required of us when we legally commit to be Board members, and we will faithfully execute on our commitments in this regard. > > We listen to your feedback and ideas, and on behalf of the Board I thank you for engaging in these important discussions and look forward to seeing them continue as we work towards a sustainable outcome for the RIPE NCC. > > The RIPE NCC Executive Board > > Ondřej Filip, Chair > Raymond Jetten, Treasurer > Piotr Strzyżewski, Secretary > Maria Häll, Member > Remco van Mook, Member > Job Snijders, Member > Harald A. Summa, Member > > [1] https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2024/documentation… > > [2] https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/member-proposals/ > -- Kai Siering Senior System Engineer mail.de GmbH Münsterstraße 3 D-33330 Gütersloh Tel.: +49 (0) 5241 / 74 34 986 Fax: +49 (0) 5241 / 74 34 987 E-Mail:k.siering@team.mail.de Web:https://mail.de/ Geschäftsführender Gesellschafter: Fabian Bock Sitz der Gesellschaft Nordhastedt Handelsregister Pinneberg HRB 8007 PI Steuernummer 18 293 20020

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Executive Board Meeting to Discuss Charging Scheme Input from Members
by ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED 08 May '24

08 May '24

My draft calculator for proportional fee proposal. https://ripe-charging-scheme-proportional1.roskomnadzor.io/ My small calculator: - get actual information from RIPE delegated data and RIPE alloclist - allow to enter orgID and receive list of network for calculation - allow to manually enter any amount of prefixes - allow to configure RIPE year budget - show detailed information about calculation process - no external dependency or network request - all calculation only in browser - simple as possible Feedbacks are welcome! Have fun. On 07.05.2024 13:54, Ondřej Filip wrote: > Dear members, > > On 6 May, 2024, the Executive Board held a meeting to discuss the input > we received from members regarding the Board proposal for the RIPE NCC > Charging Scheme 2025. We will publish the minutes as soon as possible, > but I want to first give you a summary of the discussions and the > outcomes from the meeting. > > Since we started engaging with the membership on the charging scheme > this year, we have received over 400 emails on the topic. For the first > time, we also have a member proposal for a GM agenda topic that has > received the required number of expressions of support to be added to > the GM agenda. Therefore, we felt it was important for the Board to have > this extra meeting, review the various points that were brought forward, > and consider the next steps in this process. There were many important > points to discuss at this meeting, and although the outcome might not > please everyone, the Board was fully aligned on how it should move forward. > > First, we considered again what we had decided upon at the Board meeting > in March. The Board consciously did not put forward a proposal to keep > the charging scheme as it is because we don’t believe that it would be > good governance to make a proposal that leaves us with a large deficit, > and good governance is what is expected from us by the members who elect > us. > > Furthermore, some of the suggestions from members would change the > funding model in a way that would put the organisation at risk, and > while the Board represents the members, it also has legal and fiduciary > responsibilities towards the organisation. It is clear that one of the > main responsibilities of the Board is to propose a charging scheme that > will properly fund the association, and the charging scheme options we > put forward will do that for 2025 and 2026. So we will put forward the > three options as proposed on 24 April 2024 for members to vote on at the > GM[1]. > > There were many proposals to provide that funding in alternative ways. > However, we believe that this is not the right time to make fundamental > changes to the charging model. We are about to embark on a full review > of the organisation and its structures, and that will take some time. > For us to implement that review and any resulting actions, we need > stable funding. All three of the proposed options offer us this. We also > note that the redistribution mechanism allows us to return any surplus > made to the membership in the following year should members vote to do > so. The Board and the Managing Director will also continue to work to > improve efficiency and identify areas for cost savings. > > We did consider moving this vote to later in the year, but this would > negatively impact our planning for 2025, and it would also distract from > the very important discussions we need to have with members during the > Activity Plan and Budget process this Autumn. During that discussion, we > do expect that the members who are convinced that the RIPE NCC needs to > reduce its budget will tell us which services need to be reduced or cut > in order to accommodate such a reduction. > > At our meeting, the Board also discussed the structural review that will > take place. This will begin at the RIPE 88 Meeting in two weeks with a > BoF on how to build a stable future for the RIPE NCC. We expect that > there will be a productive discussion on many issues that need to be > resolved so that the RIPE NCC can move forward stably and with a funding > model that has the support of its membership. We will keep the > membership updated on the outcomes of those discussions and how the > members can contribute to the work that will surely emerge from them. > > Regarding the membership proposal[2], we acknowledge that the threshold > was met to add the GM agenda topic “Keep current billing scheme for the > next year”. We will add this as a topic to the agenda as required by the > Articles of Association. However, this will not be added as a proposed > resolution for members to vote on. Articles 15.4, 15.5 and 15.6 of the > RIPE NCC Articles of Association do not allow members to propose a > Charging Scheme, as reaffirmed by the external law firm that gives us > expert advice on Dutch corporate law. > > This legal framework ensures that a Charging Scheme may only be proposed > by those who were elected to serve on the Executive Board, who have > better insight into the financials and the operations of the > organisation, and who have a duty of care for the well-being of the > organisation and are liable in case of mismanagement. Parties without > such insight, responsibility and liability may not put forward charging > schemes for voting that - although appealing for individual members - > may be inappropriate for the sustainability of the organisation. > > To summarise, the Board recognises the member sentiment and we are > committed to addressing it for the long term. However, we must do what > we believe is best for the stability of the organisation and its > membership, even if it is not an easy or popular thing to do. This is > what is required of us when we legally commit to be Board members, and > we will faithfully execute on our commitments in this regard. > > We listen to your feedback and ideas, and on behalf of the Board I thank > you for engaging in these important discussions and look forward to > seeing them continue as we work towards a sustainable outcome for the > RIPE NCC. > > The RIPE NCC Executive Board > > Ondřej Filip, Chair > Raymond Jetten, Treasurer > Piotr Strzyżewski, Secretary > Maria Häll, Member > Remco van Mook, Member > Job Snijders, Member > Harald A. Summa, Member > > [1] > https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2024/documentation… > > > [2] https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/member-proposals/ >

1 0