[members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals

Dear Tobias,

 >... which last year were equally strong against the proposed 
per-resource/category charging model.

Looking back at the disucssion and the calculator linked at 
https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/member-and-community-consultations/charging-scheme-2024-consultation/

Its evident that the vote really was 3 options that where more all 
expensive than the existing fee, or keeping the fee the same.

So i would say members last year voted for "no increase in expenses". 
This did not mean explicitly mean "no resource based model", as the only 
option for a resource based model was also more expensive.

On 4/12/24 12:17 PM, Tobias Fiebig via members-discuss wrote:
> Dear Sebastian,
>
>> Evendientally if you look at this discussion and the ones i see going
>> on via other channels, this is a misunderstanding on your part.
> So far, I do see a lot of opinions...
>
>>> no 'per resource' charging scheme, if I remember correctly.
>> Just because for one year, members opted not do do tesource based (by
>> vote) does not mean that there may not be any resource based models
>> in the future.
> ... which last year were equally strong against the proposed per-
> resource/category charging model.
>
>>> I see you misunderstood the point.
>> All i see is one LIR/member suggesting to another LIR/member (wich
>> has the same rights/voting power/.....): I dont think it makes sense
>> for you, you should really just pay me instead of being a member.
> Oh, but I am happily buying the RIPE cake with all its implications.
>
>> I dont think any of us get to make the judgement of what is the right
>> reason/model/buisness type to be a ripe member. If all the members
>> are equal with regard to the ncc, then we also have to accept tat
>> there are different viewpoints that do not nessecarily allign with
>> ours. As such, If enough people now want Y instead of X like it was
>> in the past, then this is a completely legimate thing.
> Let's try another example.
>
> Imagine there was a football club in a small town, and each member gets
> a pair of--limited availability--football shoes along with the
> membership (and more if they do need more or the old ones break). The
> membership costs EUR10/month. Now, a lot of people want those shoes and
> join the club. Then, the club runs out of shoes.
>
> The club, however, needs to raise the membership fee to EUR12/month, to
> keep paying for the football field, the matches, the training sessions
> etc. given increasing prices.
>
> Some members now voice their opinion that the club should, instead
> reduce the fee, as new members did not get shoes (in time), at least
> for those who did not get shoes (or not that many). Instead, people
> with a lot of shoes should pay more. Furthermore, it might be good to
> consider getting rid of that large football field, and maybe costs for
> reimbursing the trainers...
>
> Now, I am there to play football, and not get shoes; However, if the
> argument becomes--as often heard in this thread already--"we did not
> get football shoes, but paid for them", I do indeed feel inclined to
> suggest a visit to the Adidas Store down-town, which happens to have
> readily available football shoes on sale (and rent).
>
> Now, there can be a discussion on whether the club-house really _needs_
> to be that expensive; However, when the discussion starts focusing on
> the shoes, it seems to me that the discussion goes a bit besides the
> point.
>
> I am, by the way, still waiting for an illustration of "my own
> interests". As I said, really curious what these might be.
>
> With best regards,
> Tobias
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20240412/0080e6ba/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_0xCB3F9792B5ACD96C.asc
Type: application/pgp-keys
Size: 3935 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP public key
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20240412/0080e6ba/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 840 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20240412/0080e6ba/attachment.sig>