[members-discuss] {Spam?} RE: Surprise on renew fees

-----Original Message-----
From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Phil Barton
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 3:44 PM
To: 'Jon Morby'; 'Carlos Friacas'
Cc: 'Nigel Titley'; members-discuss at ripe.net
Subject: [members-discuss] {Spam?} RE: Surprise on renew fees

Disagree on many points here.

You wrote:
"I agree the charging scheme and budget are not directly related - other than the total income and expenditure over a period should balance in a Not for Profit Organisation. The schema is just about how it is recovered - who pays what - not about how much is spent by the NPO."
Yes, they are related! And this (unnecessarily) hard relation was made by the RIPE NCC itself. RIPE community has to renew the schema very often just to cover new expenses and to patch holes in (bad) thought procedure. I've already ask several questions about the new Schema - just too lazy to repeat them once more -you can look at them in the archives. I add to this one more doc - Activity Plan, which after many years become an ancient book of community wills without any relation to the understanding how effectively RIPE NCC does all the activities it mentions.

Then:
"However I have to say certainly the new Schema had been well debated over a long time and I personally feel vested interests stopped this when the majority were supportive or ambivalent."
I don't know where it was debated, but according to the present rules it MUST BE debated in the open way - in the mailing list. Prior to publishing the Schema there was no debates around it (and around the principles of changes which should be incorporated in it either)! The Schema was published late - not in July as Nigel said, but in August (look at the date in the RIPE NCC repository) and the underlying reasons were hidden for community until I think the end of September. The vested interests you've mentioned are fully irrelevant in the context. The Schema 2012 becomes very questionable as many LIRs jumps 2-3 categories up just having 1 (one) PI (or not having PI at all), I even haven't started to mention some very rude patches to show the strongest fight for greedy LIRs having huge profit using cheap chunks of PI, and another point - intrusion of tie-in sale of RIPE NCC services.

Then:
"Also by LAW people in Belgium have to receive a wage increase every 3 months in line with the Gezondheidsindex so we have to pay  staff more."
It's the country's problem, the RIPE NCC serves not only Belgium - why should people from other countries pay for it according Belgium law?

Regards,
Vladislav Potapov
Ru.iiat