[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 5:59 PM
To: Potapov Vladislav
Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [members-discuss] {Spam?} RE: Surprise on renew fees

"1. You contradict your own point. To raise more funds RIPE needed only
to raise the prices in each category, not to change the basis of
charging. The New Schema sought to change the basis of raising income by
looking at other categories particularly the anomaly of PI's and is the
reason for so many objections. It is a second issue that they raise
income because of increased costs. In particular they wanted to bring
the PI's into the formal scheme and have the users join RIPE."
I don't think I contradict my own point. The schema must be stable. The
only change we've seen up to now is the start of the IPv6 deployment
which was already reflected in 2008 version. PI is here for many years.
The fact that the RIPE NCC driven by some populism and based on some
lobby managed to adopt the ill-conceived changes to the Schema in 2008
doesn't mean they did good job. For example, ASns at once became
"special" and bring money of course, PIs - on the terms of dictated
agreements and so on. It is this change that led to "anomaly of PI's".
The way they tried to patch it in Schema 2012 is rude, poorly
thought-out, unfair and punish more members which don't have such
anomalies than the real guilty LIRs (and not LIRs). PIs become a sin,
burdened with the double payment and very much involved in the side
effect of shifting up in categories badly.
But - you know - As soon as the community have voted we don't have the
rights to blame it for its decision.

"2. I have been involved for 3 -4 years, not much time compared to
others, but the proposals round the new schema were discussed at every
event. Perhaps the way they were discussed were subtle but I understood
what they were trying to do and why. The final proposal made was merely
to formalise this. And no I do not keep all the mailings and documents,
it is just the impression I built up from the sessions I attended and
the mailings I read."
The policy process, especially in the world of finances, should be clear
and open in the form of membership the RIPE NCC in. "Impressions",
subtle moving, personal and other hidden ways of determining the policy
- is very uneasy for most members which they showed at the last general
meeting. As other RIPE policies the Schema must be discussed in the
mailing list together with the principles and concerns it solves. And it
MUST be stable for several years while there is no changes in the
horizon! It doesn't mean no rises, but the schema itself must not be
changed.

"3. I may be mistaken on this point I thought RIPE were Belgium based
and therefore if they were it was the price we paid for basing them
there. But the point I make is Valid if salaries increase where our
staff are based we have to pay more even (if in Russia as in the UK
salaries in the corporate world are being held down). Decisions taken in
other countries can affect the whole community look at the high Debt
countries in the Eurozone and the immpact on the Euro. Just because one
does not want it to be does not stop it."
No it is Dutch-based. But you know - if there are international
agreements involved it is not only one-side law that counts.

"But it is the issues over PI's that is at the core of this and perhaps
the new group will address this.
We are a NPO. We joined RIPE to obtain our own IP addresses as the
alternative to using PI's, so we of course tend to agree with the
proposal. We raise one category in the new and old scheme because we now
have a second allocation /21 as well as IPV6. If we did not ask for the
second allocation we would remain at the smallest level."
I can say that you are wrong at the point. It is easy to count according
the document. But may I ask question about mentioned in the Schema
"services"? Do you use them?

"Perhaps the PI issue was sprung on some members and they should have
been given time to adjust but also I think they shut their eyes to the
wind of change presented at the meetings."
The general meeting showed that the wind of change is not in the
interests of the member. We are not thoughtless sailer - we can go
against wrong tendencies.

Vladislav Potapov
Ru.iiat