- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

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

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Executive Board Meeting to Discuss Charging Scheme Input from Members
by Patrick Velder 07 May '24

07 May '24

Ondrej, when do you believe, the right time will be? On 07.05.24 15:54, 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

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Executive Board Meeting to Discuss Charging Scheme Input from Members
by Claudius Zingerli 07 May '24

07 May '24

Dear readers, TL'DR: Below mail from the Executive Board reads to me as: We don't care about what our members say and coerce them into accepting one of the three proposed expensive solutions. I am surprised by how an elected Executive Board on one hand fails to convince the voters that their proposals are good and valid and on the other hand completely ignores the many proposals from the voters. In the past GMs the budget topic came up multiple times and members mostly agreed that expenses are too high and have to be cut. Instead we now get a proposal for an even higher budget and no option to decline it. On the last GM, the three pretty similar category-based models were declined not because they were category-based, but because the cost for most (many?) members would have gone up. Reading the mailing-list, I can assume there is a significant portion of members that would prefer to have the fees correlated to resource-consumption (mostly per #IPv4-addresses). Such models can be implemented neutral to RIPEs budget and in case that everyone migrates to IPv6, fee per IPv4 address/IPv6 prefix can be adapted accordingly. I am disappointed by the path the Executive Board is following. Stop presenting excuses ("not enough time", "not the right time", "not be added as a proposed resolution for members to vote on", "external law firm"), but LISTEN to what the members say and act accordingly! If you're sure that you're on a good path, add the proposed ideas and solutions to the agenda and let members vote on them. Currently, the May 2024 GM agenda is still called "Draft Agenda", so adding them should be just fine. Regards, Claudius -- Kantonsschule Zug/AS34288 Claudius Zingerli, Dr. sc. ETH Zürich Technischer Leiter Informatik, NOC Luessiweg 24 6300 Zug Switzerland On 07.05.24 15:54, 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/ >

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Executive Board Meeting to Discuss Charging Scheme Input from Members
by Wieger Bontekoe 07 May '24

07 May '24

What a special turn of events. First you give the members (after confirmation from your side) the opportunity to come to a vote to add this to the agenda, then you withdraw the matter and say that "oops, it wasn't allowed after all"? > 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. Can you quote the part where this is stated, I have just read through the articles and cannot come to the same conclusion. Nowhere is a subject excluded in Article 15.6 to which it relates; > On the application In Writing of a group of Members who are jointly > entitled to cast at least two percent (2%) of the total number of > possible votes, other subjects will be added to the agenda. Such an > application, accompanied by the verbatim text of the resolutions > proposed by the said Members, shall have to be sent to the Executive > Board at least two weeks before the Meeting. As you can read here, there are no specific restrictions as you now claim. The fact that Articles 15.4 and 15.5 state that the board will make a proposal does not rule this out either, if you are referring to the word 'other' here, then this is really far too vague and not exclusionary. If this is supposed to mean that subjects from Articles 15.4 and 15.5 are to be excluded, then this should have been immediately clear when the question came up (apparently this was also unclear to the board and had to find a way out through the lawyers), and it should have been explicitly stated that the subjects in the intended/above paragraphs are excluded. Given the amount of votes, it would send out a very bad signal if the Board would decide proceed in this way. Wieger Bontekoe Principal Site Reliability Engineer On 5/7/24 3:54 PM, Ondřej Filip wrote: > 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.

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Executive Board Meeting to Discuss Charging Scheme Input from Members
by ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED 07 May '24

07 May '24

Ondřej Filip, please reveal information about how EB members vote for that? Who vote for Accept this resolution and who vote for Reject this resolution. Thanks. 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

End user (natural person) ID check: sensitive documents stored to "idenfy.com" ?
by Clement Cavadore 02 May '24

02 May '24

Dear all, I, as LIR, have received requests from RIPE NCC, as they are running a project to verify all the resource holders registered with them, to check the ID of some of our end users (natural persons). We have been provided links to a third party organization which (I think) runs ID check on behalf of RIPE NCC. The URL for those check is ivs.idenfy.com/<something>. The fact is that: - We do not have any information regarding how those sensitive documents are processed (and stored ?) - the URL is hosted bedhind an AWS URL, and this is not really an acceptable solution for RGPD. Could we please have more infos on this ? Thanks in advance Clément Cavadore

5 4