Gotta love theories vs facts
Fact: RIPE has around 20 thousand members
Fact : less than 100 of them have posted on this list in the month of April.
Fact: not all the under 100 members (or more specifically, people who are linked to members) are against the charging schemes proposed
Fact: this email won’t make any difference to the vocal minority who have issues with the charging schemes being proposed
Fact: the result will be decided based on actual votes cast next month
Regards
Michele
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
I have sent this email at a time that is convenient for me. I do not expect you to respond to it outside of your usual working hours.
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] Please use caution when opening attachments from unrecognised sources.
On Tue, 2024-04-23 at 05:51 +0000, Lutz Donnerhacke wrote:
> * Mihail Fedorov wrote:
> > With all the respect to RIPE Executive board, there is a problem.
> > From the day first 2025 charging scheme draft was published -
> > thread instantly got hundreds of responses clearly indicating just
> > one thing - that proposed scheme is not ok. Majority (at least
> > that’s what I see in members-discuss) of members raised their
> > concerns and responded that they disagree with it.
> > [...]
> > Correct me if I’m wrong, but I assumed that RIPE is members ruled
> > structure. That’s what all RIPE learning PDFs say. You can not
> > simply ignore everyone.
>
> I'm sorry to step in here, but if you ask this way ...
>
> The overwhelming majority of members did not respond at all. This
> means that they see no pressing problem with the current proposal.
>
> We only see a - frankly - small group of members who are emphatically
> loud and repetitive. It seems to me that their motivation is to want
> to reduce the already low annual costs even further for their
> personal benefit.
Absolutely incorrect assumption (as it is already said).
For example there are many reasons why the LIR in Lebanon are silent
this maillist, but everyone I spoke with and who read mallist was
categorically outraged by the current situation.
>
> In most countries, a fixed fee per member is typical for associations
> and cooperatives. That's why the controlling department of most
> companies has no problem with it. And this is precisely why all
> attempts in the past to switch to a resource-based fee have failed:
It is failed only in RIPE, and it worked in ALL other RIR. And this
also food for thoughts, why it failed in RIPE.
Also RIPE is not golf club, it is kind of resource allocating non-
profit.
USB-IF, IEEE (mac address allocation), PCI-SIG(only one vid per member)
and many others do the same, there is always annual maintenance fee
which is dependent on size of allocated resources.
> You would have to explain the RIPE bill to the accounting department.
>
> Resource-based fees were introduced to stimulate the return of AS
> numbers etc. that are no longer used. Again, the same reason: you
> have to explain this accounting item.
>
> Lutz Donnerhacke
> _______________________________________________
> 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/nuclearcat%40nuclearcat.com
_______________________________________________
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/michele%40blacknight.com