[members-discuss] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 11:20:50PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
>"Zero" is not "the same as an arbitrary small number".

Mooep! Zero *is* an arbitrary small number. At least in
mathematics.

>The address policy working group achieved consensus on this, and the board
>and AGM implemented the charging scheme accordingly, with a per-unit price
>on PI assignments and AS numbers.  Then the charging scheme was changed
>to waive the price on AS numbers, without a mandate from the community.
>I am aware that the AGM can just do so (as the community has no formal
>mandate on charging and AGM decisions), but *now* coming up with "we don't
>want to change it *back* because it would be making policy" has a funny
>smell...

I don't smell anything funny, tbh. The community doesn't set
charges and the board/membership doesn't make policy. AIUI, this
is how it is *supposed* to work.

I don't think Nigel meant to say that it can't be changed back to
some other number either (this should, in my understanding, only
require a CS proposal and a successful membership vote). What I
understood is that it can't/shouldn't be changed because a policy
somehow depends on it being a certain number.

There have been unfortunate conflicts between community and
membership before. In my opinion, policy should be made in a way
so it can stand without infringing on the freedom of the board
and membership to manage their financial matters. In that
respect, yes, 2001-07 was flawed too.

rgds,
Sascha Luck