Dear Nigel, After some considerations I would like to propose another charging scheme alternative, one that could comply with the current tax regulations. The basic idea is to treat all members and all their registered objects as equal. The scheme would look something like this: - one basic membership fee for all LIR members; - a fee for each registered object, regardless of their size; This is something comparable like we are already doing with PI objects, which already get charged 50 eur/year each. This model just stretches it to other objects too (PA ipv4/ipv6 and ASN). Exact values of these fees have to be calculated by RIPE NCC treasurer to match the budget, but the basic membership fee should be kept low enough to match something like the current extra-small category for starting LIRs. Hoping for some support from other RIPE members and the community, and awaiting to see some calculations what values these fees could be set at. With kind regards, Michiel Klaver At Fri, 30 Sep 2011 08:53:18 +0100, Nigel Titley <nigel@titley.com> wrote:
Dear all,
I would like to update you about the RIPE NCC Executive Board deliberations regarding the draft charging scheme for 2012.
We presented you with two draft schemes, in early summer, to gather feedback from you. We did this as we wanted to hear your opinions on measures we want to take which are designed to keep the RIPE NCC financially stable and capable of serving its members as it should.
You engaged in a lively discussion on this mailing list, and even ran a mini-survey. We followed the exchanges closely and as result asked RIPE NCC staff to provide the board with another charging scheme option, based on a sliding scale scheme that eliminated the membership categories we currently use.
During the board meeting of last Friday, 23 September, we discussed the merits as well as some of the issues of that model. Obviously a sliding scale model as its main benefit does away with the fee jumps of the category based model. We were pleased with the model that we developed with the NCC staff and felt that it addressed many of the issues raised by you, the members.
However, in consultation with our tax lawyers we have had to think again. Because it brings a "fee-per-address" flavour to the charging model of the RIPE NCC it fundamentally alters the tax scheme under which we operate. The current "category" model allows us to argue that we are a membership association with different categories of membership. This brings substantial tax advantages.
As you know, for a long time the RIPE NCC tax situation has been extremely favourable, as we don't have to pay corporation tax, based on an agreement made with the Dutch tax authorities many years ago. We are advised that the envisaged change in the charging scheme would lead to a re-assessment of that agreement, with the likely outcome that the association's surplus would have to be taxed, leading to a significant financial liability, with an obvious knock-on effect to the member fees.
In the light of this, the board members have agreed not to expose our organisation to that risk, staying with a category based system. We have however noted your preference for reduced "fee jumps" between categories, and have instructed NCC staff to produce a charging scheme model based on 10 categories, doubling the current category number. Category divisions will be based on a count of address space held.
This revised Charging Scheme 2012 we will publish, as usual, prior to the General Meeting in November, for approval by the members during the General Meeting. We can advise you already that we are opening up the voting mechanism for all resolutions to include electronic voting, so that all members of the association have a good opportunity to take a full part in the proceedings.
At this time, I would like to thank you all, on behalf of the RIPE NCC Executive Board, for participating in the discussion. I look forward to seeing as many of you as possible at the next General Meeting.
Best regards,
Nigel Titley Chairman RIPE NCC Executive Board