> >I sure that if someone need this service - they can pay it. It is not right to distribute
> >expenses to all members. I think each person who will drink and eat can buy what they will.
>
> There is some middle ground here ..
> I do think that the meetings by itself bring value .. and some of the cost will be
> paid for by the membership as those meetings are also for RIPE NCC the way to
> interface with its target audience. The people they work for ( yes. That US!)

It's very important. In my opinion money from membership should be used for service which need each member - technical infrastructure, developing, support etc. 
Learning course via internet should be free too. 

Offline courses should be paid by members which need this service while it need travel expenses, hotels, etc.

> >Why part? Setup fee for trainings should cover all training cost. If I need this service - I'll
> buy it.
> >We don't have to distribute this expenses to all LIRs. It is logical.

> There is a cultural difference within the region on the part of training. There
> should be some training that is provided as part of the service (let's say those
> initial 2 seats.) and the remaining seats should be paid for.
> Those 2 seats could be covered by the setup cost of a LIR. And if additional seats
> are required, a cost per day per training is quite easy to calculate.

We can give 2 initial seats for free for learning in Amsterdam. And if LIR will have training course in another country - he should paid for this service (travel, visa support, hotels for RIPE people). 

> One of the reasons why one might want to avoid only paid seats for the training,
> is that you might end up with nobody from a new LIR going to a training, which
> will increase the number of tickets and not understanding why someone doesn't get
> the resources due to the way they requested it.

It was important for IPv4. For IPv6 it doesn't play any role.

--
Alexey S Ivanov
General Director 
LeaderTelecom Ltd