Hi Denys, Thank you for bringing forth this motion, I do not disagree with it on it's premise. I also fully agree with the call for RIPE to reduce its budget accordingly. I would recommend one addition to your proposal. "We suggest that RIPE NCC implement a weighed voting model based upon the number of resources billed to a LIR. This would ensure that a LIR is equally represented directly in relation to it's financial contribution to RIPE." If such a motion is added, I'm sure those who will pay substantially higher amounts will not object to having one vote per billed subnet or a similar implementation. Daniel~ On 4/11/24 2:19 PM, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote:
Dear RIPE Members,
I am writing to propose amendments to the "RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025" for discussion. Below are the details of the proposed changes:
Proposal for a Proportional Charging Model:
We suggest that RIPE NCC implement a charging model based on the number of IPv4 subnets allocated to each member. This model would replace the existing flat fee structure, aiming to distribute costs more equitably among members according to their usage of number resources. Such a model would ensure that charges correspond to the scale of each member's operations and resource needs.
NO
Reduction of Annual Budget Based on Current Economic Trends:
Given the economic downturn affecting our industry, we recommend that RIPE NCC conduct a thorough review of its annual budget to identify and reduce non-essential expenditures. Prioritizing core activities is crucial, especially in light of the decline in LIR membership numbers. Adjusting budget allocations to current economic realities will help stabilize the organization and alleviate financial pressure on its members.
YES
Furthermore, I have reviewed the archive and identified 41 unique email addresses that participated in discussions about this charging scheme. It appears that a consensus of at least 21 affirmative votes should prompt RIPE NCC and the relevant working group to consider the community's stance seriously.
Accordingly, I propose a motion to include the following options in the charging scheme discussion:
A) Maintain the current budget
NO
B) Reduce the budget, possibly in proportion to the decrease in LIR numbers. YES C) Introduce fees for LIRs based on their allocated IPv4 resources. NO
I suggest conducting a non-binding poll to gauge preferences on these options. While I am not authorized to initiate official voting, gathering responses could help us understand whether the demand for significant changes represents a majority view or just a few vocal opinions.
Please reply to this email with your vote: YES or NO after each option.
Best regards,
Denys Fedoryshchenko
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/daniel%40privatesyste...