Just for the record, I didn’t feel that the RIPE NCC did anything to influence the vote. Could you point to some mail or other piece of communication that you think was steering people towards a certain voting option? The article speculates about why the members voted the way they did, and the “didn’t get the memo” part is in relation to the fact that most members would’ve paid less under model B but still model A won. That’s the way I read it. The article continues to explore, interpret, speculate (which also was the heading of the paragraph the memo part was in). I found the article very interesting, especially because it clearly points out what myself and others were saying the whole time: The activity on this mailing list is not representative of the membership. Any “strong opinions” expressed here are not transferrable on the whole membership, even though people on this list tried again and again to frame it that way. Also the statistics mentioned in the article clearly show that the “new members” that hold less resources and registered to vote could have easily made model B the winner, but they didn’t. I’m sure this won’t stop people that have insinuated that some sort of secret conspiracy of “old members” is trying to prevent the charging model change, but for all others it shows that there is no such thing. As for myself, I find the outcome of the vote a net win for the membership. Not in costs (for most of the members) but in bringing to light the opinions of the silent part of the membership and in displaying (again) that the loudest shouting doesn’t mean anything when it comes to a vote. And for that I’m grateful. I would also be grateful for the loudest shouters to work on more productive things but I won’t hold my breath for that. Best Regards Sebastian On 17. Jun 2026, at 16:39, Andy Davidson <andy.davidson@ask4.com> wrote: Hi, Ilke -- Ilke Ilhan wrote:
We just published a new article on the May 2026 GM. https://labs.ripe.net/author/ilke-ilhan/gm-may-2026-why-did-people-vote-the-...
The piece states plainly that the NCC "did our best to ensure the message got across" on the charging scheme, details the channels used to do it, and frames the members who voted Model A as organisations who "didn't get the memo". However, the NCC's own site describes it as "an open and transparent, neutral and impartial organisation" with "no commercial interests or influences". I am struggling to reconcile the two. A neutral secretariat informs the membership and lets it decide. It does not work to secure a preferred outcome and then treat the result it did not want as a communication failure on the members' part. The members voted, and Model A won. That is not a memo that went astray, it is a decision. I would welcome the NCC's view on the labs article. Specifically, do you regard the effort to influence/steer/whip the vote toward Model B as consistent with the neutrality and impartiality you publish, and where does the NCC place the boundary between informing members and campaigning among them? To be clear, I am not questioning the Board's right to recommend a model. I am questioning whether the secretariat should be working the vote at all. Or should I expect a personalised email next spring telling me which Board candidates I would be "better off" voting for? Andy This email and its contents may be confidential. Access is only authorised by the intended recipient. The contents of this email may not be disclosed to, or used by, anyone other than the intended recipient, or stored or copied in any medium. If you are not the intended recipient, please advise the sender immediately. ASK4 Ltd. Registered in England & Wales with company number 3980594. Registered Address: Devonshire Green House, 14 Fitzwilliam Street, Sheffield, S1 4JL. ASK4 Ltd is part of the ASK4 Group which operates in Europe through various local branches and/or separate and distinct legal entities. To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details. Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription. Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/ -- [cid:logo_f550b0a9-7459-42ec-bee7-5913d5852898.png] Sebastian Wiesinger Senior Principal Network Architect Service Integration noris network AG 90471 Nürnberg • Deutschland Tel +49 911 9352 1459 E-Mail sebastian.wiesinger@noris.de<mailto:sebastian.wiesinger@noris.de> Vorstand: Ingo Kraupa (Vorsitzender), Joachim Astel, Florian Sippel Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Stefan Schnabel • AG Nürnberg HRB 17689
