Dear all,

Thanks for the input on the voting. We are analysing the data and we will provide a comprehensive article based on the voting numbers. We’re monitoring the discussion and we’ll also use that to provide some new insights based on what you’re asking for. I also attach a screenshot here showing the percentage who registered and voted for the past 20 GMs - as you can see, the percentage who registered but didn’t vote at this GM is about the same as for every GM. 

We also take note of those who felt we should have directly communicated the voting period more clearly. We will do this in future. There is a lot of information that could be added to every email about the GM. Rather than including everything in our emails, we direct people to the GM webpages where this information is located. But given people are saying this caused problems, we will address it.

I would note that we opened registration for this GM earlier than usual because of the importance of the charging scheme vote. We communicated many times with members on various channels. We announced the charging scheme calculator to everyone twice. We also sent a personalised mail to all member contacts, including billing contacts, one week before the GM with information about how much members would pay under each model if it was approved by the membership. Discussion on the charging topic would also have been seen many times by the people subscribed to this list, and we sent several mails in those discussions urging people to remember to register. In short, the people who did not vote received exactly the same information as the people who did vote. It is not clear to us what exactly makes the difference - we are always eager to hear suggestions on how to improve the voting numbers.

Once we have completed analysis on all these aspects and more, and published the article on RIPE Labs, I will inform the list.

Kind  regards,

Fergal Cunningham

Head of Membership Engagement

RIPE NCC