[members-discuss] GM topic

I very much support this proposal, even though I probably won't vote for it. But I think it's an important signal that there are parts of the membership who are against the way NCC Leadership conducts their work.

I haven't participated in this discussion because I don't have the time (as the Broadcom costs a large amount of time and money - a very good reminder that trusting the big American organizations is a dangerous proposition), and also because we already had all those discussions last year. But what irks me is the way we are treated. Last year, they tried to get their usual budget increase in by giving us no option for a new charging scheme that didn't have a budget increase baked in, and in the end the proposals failed and instead we stayed with the old charging scheme. I think that was because it was the only option without budget increase, but I might be very wrong. I don't think there was ever a survey about it. So now instead they give us no option that doesn't increase the money they can play with.

We always hear "this is a membership organization" and "we are reading the list" but in the end what the membership wants doesn't matter. The activity plan and with it the budget is set by the Executive Board with "input" from membership, but the membership has no decision powers.

In my opinion this will be a never ending story as long as that's the case. The way I see it, the activities that are financed by our membership fees (and with them the budget) should be voted on by the membership. And if the Board wants to have additional "services" they can always be paid addons.

With that in place, the charging scheme could just be set once by voting on the type of charging scheme we want, without fixed fees but instead based on a formula that calculates the fees each year based on the budget and expected membership numbers. When the budget changes and / or the membership decreases, the fees can be automatically recalculated to ensure the budget will be available.

Of course, I have no clue about the legality of such an approach.

I'm very much of the opinion that RIPE as a registry and a lobby organization is very important for us and should have the funding it needs to fulfil these functions. I do object to the way the leadership seems to think all the members are here for is to provide their yearly budget increase like nice little zombies.

Best regards,
Andreas

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net> Im Auftrag von Max Tulyev
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 24. April 2024 17:28
An: members-discuss at ripe.net
Betreff: Re: [members-discuss] GM topic

I have created the request for GM Agenda proposal "Keep current billing scheme for the next year".

Now it depends on your support. If there will be 400 supports, it should be included to GM.

Here it is the link: 
https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/member-proposals/1/

You just need to click on the "Support" button.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 7468 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20240425/78e4305b/attachment-0001.p7s>