Hi Andrea,
- The Charging Scheme should not be based on IPv4 resources
This point is absolutely NOT agreed upon. There is no general consensus on it. It cannot be stated as a fact. A large part of the members think quite the opposite: the charging scheme should be mostly based on IPv4 resources allocated to each LIR.
- Changing RIPE NCC status from non-taxable to taxable to have more flexibility in the fee schedule
Also this is not generally agreed, as I said there is no direct connection between tax status and "per usage charge" as long as the "per usage charge" is still done with a model of "class of memebership" and not as a "pay per IP".
This membership list isn't where the consensus is being made, it is an open discussion and the points provided by Nigel are a short summary of the various lines within the discussion. The actual voting (not consensus) is going to be done in the AGM. Be there to cast your vote or deal with it that others might vote something else. Personally, I would love to go for a none-resource based charging scheme, where we divide the required budget by the number of lirs and get over with this whole discussion (every year.) If the membership then has any issues with the provided budget, which is based on the (to-be) agreed activity plan, the 'only' discussion can be about various activities and the associated costs. It would make life for everyone a lot easier imho. Regards, Erik Bais