Kaj Niemi wrote on 09/03/2023 17:10:
I would kindly note that the assumptions regarding future fiscal years’ budgets (2023 onward) vary somewhat from the realized budget. Is it better to work with the wrong pre-assumptions made some years ago or with the actual numbers in the same situation?
At least to me, when reading that PowerPoint, it seems like people at the top and everyone who saw that presentation had to be aware of a potential future budget deficit. Rather than rein in on expenditure in time, it has instead increased since.
If I remember the presentations around that time, the concerns were about revenue uncertainty after full ipv4 exhaustion due to people no longer opening up new LIR accounts in large numbers to get their last /22 or /24. In regard to budget deficits, all boards need to consider what is going to happen if an organisation is run at a deficit. In terms of expenditure, bear it in mind that the RIPE NCC is operated on a cost recovery basis. If the cost base increases, the revenues can be increased to match. Obviously no-one likes to pay more for the same thing, but this is open as an option.
Calling "comment on two billing models exercise" as something else than "finding a way to raise prices that can be agreed on by most" seems to me as somewhat intellectual dishonesty.
As it stands, the RIPE NCC board could put a straightforward proposal to the membership to increase the flat annual LIR membership fee, without going through the drama of changing the flat charging model. In fact, tweaking the flat fee has been exactly what the NCC board has done over the last 10 years, to match revenue against expenditure. Changing the billing model, and increasing the overall revenue are, in fact, two entirely separate things, so you'll have to excuse me for scratching my head in some puzzlement about why you're suggesting otherwise. Nick