Vladislav, 1. You contradict your own point. To raise more funds RIPE needed only to raise the prices in each category, not to change the basis of charging. The New Schema sought to change the basis of raising income by looking at other categories particularly the anomaly of PI's and is the reason for so many objections. It is a second issue that they raise income because of increased costs. In particular they wanted to bring the PI's into the formal scheme and have the users join RIPE. 2. I have been involved for 3 -4 years, not much time compared to others, but the proposals round the new schema were discussed at every event. Perhaps the way they were discussed were subtle but I understood what they were trying to do and why. The final proposal made was merely to formalise this. And no I do not keep all the mailings and documents, it is just the impression I built up from the sessions I attended and the mailings I read. 3. I may be mistaken on this point I thought RIPE were Belgium based and therefore if they were it was the price we paid for basing them there. But the point I make is Valid if salaries increase where our staff are based we have to pay more even (if in Russia as in the UK salaries in the corporate world are being held down). Decisions taken in other countries can affect the whole community look at the high Debt countries in the Eurozone and the immpact on the Euro. Just because one does not want it to be does not stop it. But it is the issues over PI's that is at the core of this and perhaps the new group will address this. We are a NPO. We joined RIPE to obtain our own IP addresses as the alternative to using PI's, so we of course tend to agree with the proposal. We raise one category in the new and old scheme because we now have a second allocation /21 as well as IPV6. If we did not ask for the second allocation we would remain at the smallest level. Perhaps the PI issue was sprung on some members and they should have been given time to adjust but also I think they shut their eyes to the wind of change presented at the meetings. As I say above 'Just because one does not want it to be does not stop it.' Phil ----- Original Message ----- From: poty@iiat.ru To: members-discuss@ripe.net Sent: Thursday, 15 December, 2011 1:38:55 PM Subject: Re: [members-discuss] {Spam?} RE: Surprise on renew fees -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Phil Barton Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 3:44 PM To: 'Jon Morby'; 'Carlos Friacas' Cc: 'Nigel Titley'; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: [members-discuss] {Spam?} RE: Surprise on renew fees Disagree on many points here. 1. You wrote: "I agree the charging scheme and budget are not directly related - other than the total income and expenditure over a period should balance in a Not for Profit Organisation. The schema is just about how it is recovered - who pays what - not about how much is spent by the NPO." Yes, they are related! And this (unnecessarily) hard relation was made by the RIPE NCC itself. RIPE community has to renew the schema very often just to cover new expenses and to patch holes in (bad) thought procedure. I've already ask several questions about the new Schema - just too lazy to repeat them once more -you can look at them in the archives. I add to this one more doc - Activity Plan, which after many years become an ancient book of community wills without any relation to the understanding how effectively RIPE NCC does all the activities it mentions. 2. Then: "However I have to say certainly the new Schema had been well debated over a long time and I personally feel vested interests stopped this when the majority were supportive or ambivalent." I don't know where it was debated, but according to the present rules it MUST BE debated in the open way - in the mailing list. Prior to publishing the Schema there was no debates around it (and around the principles of changes which should be incorporated in it either)! The Schema was published late - not in July as Nigel said, but in August (look at the date in the RIPE NCC repository) and the underlying reasons were hidden for community until I think the end of September. The vested interests you've mentioned are fully irrelevant in the context. The Schema 2012 becomes very questionable as many LIRs jumps 2-3 categories up just having 1 (one) PI (or not having PI at all), I even haven't started to mention some very rude patches to show the strongest fight for greedy LIRs having huge profit using cheap chunks of PI, and another point - intrusion of tie-in sale of RIPE NCC services. 3. Then: "Also by LAW people in Belgium have to receive a wage increase every 3 months in line with the Gezondheidsindex so we have to pay staff more." It's the country's problem, the RIPE NCC serves not only Belgium - why should people from other countries pay for it according Belgium law? Regards, Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.