On 12/10/2011 08:26, Larisa Yurkina wrote:

I attended that GM and do confirm that the question asked by Vladislav did not get answer. Someone of Executive Board members replied that the question was really serious and the problem should be thought out carefully. But it never happened. Which brings us again to the core My recollection is that Vladislav asked a question about the 18% budget increase directly caused by the implementation of 2007-01 but I don't recall another. This may be faulty recollection or just a difficulty understanding the question, for which I apologise. problem of the RIPE NCC billing - whether we pay for number of resources or registration service itselff.While IPs could be calculated easily, the registration work have no clear measurement accuracy. So, when prices go up sharply people start bothering "what for?", so do I.

The intention of the new charging scheme was not to increase the per member costs in any substantial way. True, the budget has increased but so have the number of members so the per member cost should not have substantially changed. However in any change to the charging scheme there are going to be winners and losers. We calculated that the numbers of members who saw an increase would be roughly balanced by those who saw a decrease. I suspect that we are unlikely to hear from the ones who see a decrease. Which brings us back to a fundamental question: do we want a change to the charging scheme? Feedback prior to this whole discussion indicated that we did. People complained mainly about the charge being complicated to calculate and difficult to understand. Complication was further introduced by 2007-01 and we put off implementing this for an additional year under the principle of least surprise. So the board and the RIPE NCC held a series of meetings to try and thrash out a charging scheme that was simpler and in some sense fairer, also hopefully bringing some of the legacy address holders into the fold. We also have to work within the constraints of the Dutch tax system, which eliminates certain options, as we've seen. Finally we, the board, have a legal duty, affecting us personally (yes, that means they take my house away if the RIPE NCC gets into difficulty), to run the business of the RIPE NCC in a prudent and legal fashion. You've seen the results in these discussions. However, if people don't want us to change the charging scheme, then say so, or vote against it at the GM. If the charging scheme is not passed in the GM then we continue with the current scheme. If this means we dip into our reserves then so be it. Nigel ---- 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.

On 12/10/2011 13:56, Mike Hollowell wrote:

On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 13:30 +0100, Nigel Titley wrote:

30% of XSmall members moving up, 9% of XSmall members moving down. 59% of Small members moving up, 14% Small members moving down. 100% M, L& XL moving up.

Doesn't look the least bit balanced, roughly or otherwise.

I did talk about the costs and not the membership category. Let me see if Jochem can give us some figures on what percentage of members will see *cost* increase and decrease. Nigel ---- 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.