Dear Hans Petter,

Thank you for the reply although it does not meet my actual objection, which is the Labs article itself.

The article is a RIPE NCC publication. It is written in the first person, as "we" and "us at the RIPE NCC", and it is not neutral about how members voted. That is the heart of it, and your description of the piece as routine post-GM analysis does not survive a reading of it.

It describes the members who chose Model A as people who perhaps "didn't get the memo". It says the NCC was "puzzled by the result", and records that most of you expected the majority-benefiting option to pass. Its central section canvasses at length the possibility that confusion produced "unintentional" votes that cost Model B the win. A later passage even wonders aloud whether the people authorised to vote were insufficiently alert to their organisations' financial interests, which is to say their interest in Model B. And while members who campaigned for Model A are recorded as a "noteworthy change", the NCC's own efforts to ensure the message got across are presented as plain information.

A neutral secretariat is not puzzled when its membership makes a free choice. It does not cast one side of that choice as a memo gone astray, the other side's advocacy as a curiosity, or the result itself as something to be explained away. Those are the reactions of an organisation that had a preferred answer and did not get it. You may call the piece analysis, but it reads as an opinion piece at best and disappointment at worst.

Nor is the way it ends. The article closes by asking, in terms, whether the result would change if you asked again, whether members might come round in the years ahead, and whether requests for a category model will keep arriving. A body that respects a vote treats it as a decision. A body that signs off by wondering aloud whether a re-run would go its way is not reflecting on the result, it is contemplating a second attempt at it. The membership answered the question you put to them. Accept the answer rather than look for a second bite.

Once it is plain from your own publication that the NCC held and expressed a preference for Model B, your account of the pre-vote communications is harder to accept at face value. You say the message in all of them could be reduced to "an important vote is taking place, please register". Yet the personalised email you attached does considerably more: it gives each member their fee under each option, points them to the model documents and a calculator, and advises them on organising their vote. Even-handed between the options though it is, the email you forwarded is not a turnout reminder, and your summary understates it. I am not suggesting the article swayed the vote, since it came afterwards. I am saying it reveals the disposition behind the communications that came before, and that it asks me to read those as scrupulously neutral while the commentary from the same organisation plainly is not.

None of this questions the Executive Board's right to recommend a model. That is its job, that is leadership, and it did it openly. My question is narrower, and I think fair: should the secretariat hold and publish a view on how members ought to have voted, and on whether they ought to be asked again, and if it does, can the NCC still describe itself to those members as neutral and impartial, with no influences?

Regards,

Andy Davidson, AJBD-RIPE

Group CTO, ORG-AL47-RIPE

You don't often get email from hph@ripe.net. Learn why this is important

Dear Andy,

It seems there is a misunderstanding. You can see the text of the personalised mail below.

The RIPE NCC was completely neutral in all its communication with members about the voting options. The text you reference describes the considerable efforts we took to ensure that members were aware of the consequential vote that was taking place. The message in all our communications could be summarised as: there is an important vote taking place - please register to vote. 

The Executive Board Chair stated the Board’s recommendation in his mail to members, and the Board stated its recommendation during its presentation at the General Meeting. No communications from the RIPE NCC, other than these recommendations from the Board, saw an effort to influence the member vote.

We agree that the RIPE NCC should remain neutral in terms of how members vote. We also believe that in a case where a vote can have a significant impact on members’ fees, then it is only right to go to all possible lengths to make sure all members are aware that the vote is taking place and what that vote could mean for them. 

We publish an article following every General Meeting, providing analysis based on the registration and voting statistics. This article notes that there was a result that was surprising to many, and it then explores possible reasons why members might have made this decision.

Regards,

Hans Petter Holen

Managing Director, CEO

RIPE NCC

Reference: Personalised Email to Members 

SUBJECT: GM Vote for ##Company Name## On New Charging Scheme and Fees

Dear ##Name##,

 

You are receiving this email because your organisation is a member of the RIPE NCC and has participation/voting rights at the upcoming RIPE NCC General Meeting (20-22 May 2026). You might also be a billing contact for the organisation, and you are not entitled to vote on behalf of the organisation, but you should be aware that a vote on charges from the RIPE NCC will take place next week.

 

To attend and/or vote, you must register via the LIR Portal:

https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active 

 

Registration closes at 14:00 (UTC+1) on 20 May 2026. Please ensure you register before this deadline to participate in the vote.

Key Vote: RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2027 

 

At this GM, members will vote on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme for 2027. The outcome may significantly affect your RIPE NCC fees next year, depending on which option is chosen.

Two options are proposed that would have the following outcomes for ##RegID##:

Option A: One LIR Account-One Fee model

• The fee for your LIR account under this model would be: ##AmountOne#

Option B: Category model

• The fee for your LIR account under this model would be: ##AmountTwo#

NOTE: We are sending only one email per person with the LIR account calculations. If you represent more than one member, you will need to check your fees by using the calculator for your LIR account in the Billing section of the LIR Portal, or you can manually enter your resources at:

https://pricing.ripe.net/ 

Disclaimer: This calculation is intended to support members in their decision-making when voting on one of the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2027 models proposed by the RIPE NCC Executive Board. The fees indicated in the calculation are based on the current data in LIR accounts. The actual fees per LIR account will be determined based on LIR account data gathered on 31 December 2026.

Find out more about each model at: 

https://www.ripe.net/s/gm/may-2026-documents/ 

 

Election: An Executive Board election to fill THREE seats

 

There are five candidates to fill three seats at this election. You can view the full agenda, all the resolutions to be voted on and candidate details at: 

https://www.ripe.net/s/gm/may-2026/   

Voting eligibility and registration

 

• If your organisation holds multiple LIR accounts, only the primary LIR account is provided with voting rights.
   

• If you are the registered contact for more than one RIPE NCC member, you can register all eligible votes via the LIR Portal.
   

• Any representative of a RIPE NCC member can attend the GM, but only one person can vote per member.
   

• We recommend confirming internally who will vote on behalf of each member before completing registration, especially if you represent multiple members.

The GM will take place in person at the Edinburgh International Conference Centre and online via Meetecho. All registered participants will receive a link to the livestream and online meeting platform on Wednesday, 20 May 2026. 

 

We strongly encourage all RIPE NCC members to make use of their voting rights. Your participation ensures the outcomes of the GM reflect the views of the entire membership.

 

Kind regards,

Fergal Cunningham

Head of Membership Engagement

RIPE NCC

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-way-they-did/

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.