[members-discuss] [RFC] Motion/Proposal for Amendments to RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [RFC] Motion/Proposal for Amendments to RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [RFC] Motion/Proposal for Amendments to RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Daniel Pearson
daniel at privatesystems.net
Thu Apr 11 21:36:35 CEST 2024
Hi Denys, Thank you for bringing forth this motion, I do not disagree with it on it's premise. I also fully agree with the call for RIPE to reduce its budget accordingly. I would recommend one addition to your proposal. "We suggest that RIPE NCC implement a weighed voting model based upon the number of resources billed to a LIR. This would ensure that a LIR is equally represented directly in relation to it's financial contribution to RIPE." If such a motion is added, I'm sure those who will pay substantially higher amounts will not object to having one vote per billed subnet or a similar implementation. Daniel~ On 4/11/24 2:19 PM, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote: > Dear RIPE Members, > > I am writing to propose amendments to the "RIPE NCC Charging Scheme > 2025" for discussion. Below are the details of the proposed changes: > > Proposal for a Proportional Charging Model: > > We suggest that RIPE NCC implement a charging model based on the number > of IPv4 subnets allocated to each member. This model would replace the > existing flat fee structure, aiming to distribute costs more equitably > among members according to their usage of number resources. Such a > model would ensure that charges correspond to the scale of each > member's operations and resource needs. NO > > Reduction of Annual Budget Based on Current Economic Trends: > > Given the economic downturn affecting our industry, we recommend that > RIPE NCC conduct a thorough review of its annual budget to identify and > reduce non-essential expenditures. Prioritizing core activities is > crucial, especially in light of the decline in LIR membership numbers. > Adjusting budget allocations to current economic realities will help > stabilize the organization and alleviate financial pressure on its > members. YES > > Furthermore, I have reviewed the archive and identified 41 unique email > addresses that participated in discussions about this charging scheme. > It appears that a consensus of at least 21 affirmative votes should > prompt RIPE NCC and the relevant working group to consider the > community's stance seriously. > > Accordingly, I propose a motion to include the following options in the > charging scheme discussion: > > A) Maintain the current budget NO > B) Reduce the budget, possibly in proportion to the decrease in LIR > numbers. YES > C) Introduce fees for LIRs based on their allocated IPv4 resources. NO > > I suggest conducting a non-binding poll to gauge preferences on these > options. While I am not authorized to initiate official voting, > gathering responses could help us understand whether the demand for > significant changes represents a majority view or just a few vocal > opinions. > > Please reply to this email with your vote: YES or NO after each option. > > Best regards, > > Denys Fedoryshchenko > > _______________________________________________ > members-discuss mailing list > members-discuss at ripe.net > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/daniel%40privatesystems.net
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [RFC] Motion/Proposal for Amendments to RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [RFC] Motion/Proposal for Amendments to RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]