[ncc-announce] [GM] Final RIPE NCC Charging Schemes for Members to Vote On
This vote looks rigged (hopefully unintentionally) Vote 1: Model A: Category-based model, (projected income: EUR 42M) Model B: Continuation of the one LIR, one fee model with a 10% LIR fee price increase (projected income: EUR 42M) Model C: Continuation of the one LIR, one fee model with a 5% LIR fee price increase (projected income: EUR 40M) Model D: Continuation of the one LIR, one fee model that is exactly the same as the 2023 model (projected income: EUR 38M) Three of the choices divide the vote for the current model while the one alternative model is category based with unfavourable lower category pricing, there is no per IP model choice. The categories are break even vs the current model at around category 3 to 4 while category 3 and below are 67.78% of membership. Thus it appears this is set up to ensure model A wins - the non A vote is split 3 ways making it quite unlikely to get close to model A votes where the categories favour the bulk of members who joined in the run out IP grab race. Per IP the lower categories are paying a lot more, it just happens that is currently lower than the existing model. This may not continue in the future. When a lot of these LIRs close, as RIPE are expecting in requesting this model change, then those remaining in the lower categories will shoulder an even larger portion of the costs. Be careful what you vote for, you could end up paying a lot more later. This vote also ensures RIPE will get a 10% rise in income, these is no model that is likely to get sufficient votes to avoid that. Now I don't mind that 10% increase as an RPI thing but that could have been done by just adding RPI this year and not greatly distorting the cost model fairness to achieve it. Model A is turkeys voting for xmas. A more reasonable vote is A vs D with a separate vote on allowing a 5 or 10% increase on D should it be chosen as that gives those who think the budget has grown too large on the back of the IP runout race a way to experess that. brandon
Brandon,
Three of the choices divide the vote for the current model while the one alternative model is category based with unfavourable lower category pricing, there is no per IP model choice.
I wondered the same, so clarified with the exec board and I believe an explanatory message will be hitting the list early next week. The charging scheme will be instant run-off, similar to the board elections. So if the sum total of {B C D} first preference votes is more than 50%, the lowest will be knocked out and reallocated. Of course, if 51% vote for A as their first preference, then the vote is finished. Cheers, Rob
Greetings, I still see an overall budget of 38M to be greatly above of what it should be. Regards, Carlos On Fri, 28 Apr 2023, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
This vote looks rigged (hopefully unintentionally)
Vote 1: Model A: Category-based model, (projected income: EUR 42M) Model B: Continuation of the one LIR, one fee model with a 10% LIR fee price increase (projected income: EUR 42M) Model C: Continuation of the one LIR, one fee model with a 5% LIR fee price increase (projected income: EUR 40M) Model D: Continuation of the one LIR, one fee model that is exactly the same as the 2023 model (projected income: EUR 38M)
Three of the choices divide the vote for the current model while the one alternative model is category based with unfavourable lower category pricing, there is no per IP model choice.
The categories are break even vs the current model at around category 3 to 4 while category 3 and below are 67.78% of membership.
Thus it appears this is set up to ensure model A wins - the non A vote is split 3 ways making it quite unlikely to get close to model A votes where the categories favour the bulk of members who joined in the run out IP grab race.
Per IP the lower categories are paying a lot more, it just happens that is currently lower than the existing model. This may not continue in the future. When a lot of these LIRs close, as RIPE are expecting in requesting this model change, then those remaining in the lower categories will shoulder an even larger portion of the costs. Be careful what you vote for, you could end up paying a lot more later.
This vote also ensures RIPE will get a 10% rise in income, these is no model that is likely to get sufficient votes to avoid that.
Now I don't mind that 10% increase as an RPI thing but that could have been done by just adding RPI this year and not greatly distorting the cost model fairness to achieve it.
Model A is turkeys voting for xmas.
A more reasonable vote is A vs D with a separate vote on allowing a 5 or 10% increase on D should it be chosen as that gives those who think the budget has grown too large on the back of the IP runout race a way to experess that.
brandon
_______________________________________________ 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/cfriacas%40fccn.pt
participants (3)
-
Brandon Butterworth -
Carlos Friaças -
Rob Evans