From IANA documents signed and agreed from RIPE:
------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) Neutrality and impartiality in relation to all interested parties, and particularly the LIRs All organisations that receive service from the new RIR must be treated equally. The policies and guidelines proposed and implemented by the RIR need to ensure fair distribution of resources, and impartial treatment of the members/requestors. The new RIR should be established as an independent, not-for-profit and open membership association. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- As some of you mentioned bigger part of the members are "happy" with the current charging scheme. Also seems we can not agree for charging scheme based on resources the member hold. Then logicaly we have an other option: Let then RIPE do same with the resources ! Allocate absolutely equal number of resources to each of the LIR members ! Because there is shortage for IPV4, deallocate them from members who hold more ! For IPV6 just release new networks for simplification. For 32 bit ASNs give the current holders 1 year to free them, and then redistribute again equal number to each LIR. To avoid disruption of the internet work, during the deallocation/allocation keep the IRR and ROA object same. And then separate we LIRs will make each to each contracts. Ivaylo Josifov VarnaIX / Varteh LTD +359 52 969393 Varna, Bulgaria On Fri, 12 Apr 2024, Fergal Cunningham wrote:
Dear Sebastien,
The charging scheme is adopted by the General Meeting upon proposal of the Executive Board. The Executive Board proposes a charging scheme and is responsible for the adoption of the budget and the activity plan of the organisation, so it is their responsibility to propose a charging scheme to collect the budget for the execution of this activity plan.
For the execution of the activity plan of 2025 the board proposed multiple options for covering the estimated budget. Contrary to other years, this time the current charging scheme cannot cover the necessary expenses. It would be damaging for the organisation to propose a resolution that would result in maintaining the current charging scheme and thus a much smaller income. The board has no obligation to put forward a resolution that may result in maintaining the current charging scheme. It does have an obligation to put forward resolutions for the benefit of the organisation.
So in short, the proposal would be completely valid.
All the best,
Fergal
On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 12:09?PM Sebastien Brossier <sebastien@brossier.org> wrote: On 12/04/2024 10:56, Gert Doering wrote: > On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 09:59:37AM +0200, Sebastien Brossier wrote: >> Correct, but the question is: is it ok for the option to reject the proposed >> resolution to be missing ? > > This option would take away the necessary resources for the NCC to do > what they presented at the autumn AGM.? So, yes, this would be a very > poor choice. > > The question is not "if" this is the budget, the question is "how can > the costs for this budget be distributed?".? So "no!" can not be a valid > choice for that question.
Hi,
I agree that a rejection is not desirable and would put the NCC in a difficult situation. All voting options should result in the same budget.
I'm not asking if it is desirable, but if it is *legal* to remove the choice to reject a proposal. I think it is better to ask the question now, rather than take the risk of seeing someone challenge the vote result later.
Regards, Sebastien Brossier
_______________________________________________ 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/ripencc-management%4 0ripe.net