Hi Hans Petter,
Repeat: the AGM does *not* "set fee structure". It can accept the board's proposed charging scheme, or keep the old one.
I do not agree. When the fee structure was changed in september 2012 the board gave the AGM several options based on input from the AGM in the first half of 2012.
Which is exactly what I would like to see again. The problem is that there currently is no choice. I would be happy if the board would give the AGM the choice between the current proposed charging scheme and an option where - the legacy resource holders get the same as with 2012-07 option 2.3 - but without a Sponsoring LIR in between - nothing more, nothing less - for a reasonable price (is €500 reasonable? compared to the €50 of option 2.3) - also contributing to all the other good work the NCC does - where the NCC as a whole bears the implementation cost, just like with any other policy implementation The membership fee per year for LIRs *might* be a little bit higher, but because membership fees have been going down steadily over the last couple of years and the number of members is currently around 10k I would be really surprised if this will be very noticeable for any LIR's fee. I feel that none of the current options are a good implementation of what the RIPE community got consensus on, and that scares me. As a member of the NCC I would just like to have the option to vote on what I believe is the right thing to do. I don't have any legacy resources and am currently not paid by anyone who does (I did some small projects for SURFnet in the past) so if my membership fee goes up a few euros to implement this policy then I will be paying that out of my own personal pocket and I feel it will be money well spent. I feel that Hans Petter's suggestion of giving the AGM a choice is very good. I really hope that that will be the outcome of all this. Cheers! Sander