[lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ?

> But that's not true in this case.  The proposed activity plan was
> announced *right not this list*, and in good time to add comments and
> eventually make people vote on the AGM against it.

...

> While I can understand your anger - why don't you just go and *read*
> the RIPE document with all the numbers in it?  This year there was a
> net *loss*, as the "new members" rate was far lower than planned - and
> much of the budget (like RIPE training courses) is planned to be paid
> from thoese fees.

Those documents are written in the best EU-bureaucrating-English that money
can't sell. Most stuff I see go past as announcements has me asleep before
the first paragraph. I have tried to (quickly) read the 2003 budget
statement. Makes no sense as there is not enough information there for
anyone to make a value judgement. The document says 'X' and not 'X because'.

What I cannot understand - sorry, it makes no sense - is why the budget
requires new members ? Why is the budget not growth/shrinkage neutral ? New
members should pay for their own 'new' requirements through the set-up fee.
Again, sorry to make accusations, but whoever created a non-growth neutral
budget is NOT doing their job right.

> That would be the RIPE board.

OK. I remember something about elections, but will any board members here
please speak up ? In your opinion is the 2003 budget correct ? Any doubts ?
If you have no doubts, then I strongly suggest that you are not doing the
right thing...

> Ummm.  They are separate.  RIPE is "the community".  The RIPE NCC is the
> body that does the work for us, and is paid for doing that.  They do what
> *we* put in their activity plan.

I don't remember asking to be RIPE. I am a paying for the functions of the
RIPE-NCC. I don't want any other services, research, funded testing or
anything. What I (and many others) want is a registration service that is
policy neutral because it is 'fair'. Anything else is just profiteering.

Peter