[members-discuss] Billing scheme

Thanks for your detailed mail.

> Right here: https://www.ripe.net/participate/member-support/payment/ripe-ncc-billing-procedure-2019

If you use the (almost) same URL for 2018, you will see that there are 
quarterly payments:

https://www.ripe.net/participate/member-support/payment/billing-procedure-and-fee-schedule-2018

> Members can request to receive their invoices for each LIR account 
> they hold on a yearly, half-yearly or quarterly schedule by sending a 
> request to the RIPE NCC Billing Department

I never said that RIPE is doing something illegal, I just asked why we 
need to vote for evers sh***y word in some documents, but can't vote 
about changes which affect a lot of members.
And I'm not alone with this question as you see on this and other lists.

> And, even if it isn't defined anywhere, the RIPE billing procedure is not your Swiss employment contract. So what's your point exactly?
The RIPE NCC does not provide monthly contracts. Therefore they specify 
the cost for the shortest possible period of membership, which is one year.
Therefore they write annual costs. That does not automagically exclude 
quarterly payments! That's the point I'd like to show.

> Well, are you a "member with cash flow limitations"? Because my full sentence addressed this only to "these" members (as a group), of which a few had already complained on this list. Not to you personally, as I had no way of knowing whether you belonged to this group or not.
You directed your mail to me. And yes, I'm a "member with cash flow 
limitations" if that matters.

> Seems like you're complaining about something to me. Or rather two things ^-^
complaint = "this is shit"
personal opinion = "In my opinion....."
question = "Why ..... ?"



On 08.01.19 19:49, Terrence Koeman wrote:
>>> In fact, it's made clear that the fees are an "annual payment"
>> No, it's a fee every member pays per year. Show me where it's stated
>> that we have to pay that in just one part.
> Right here: https://www.ripe.net/participate/member-support/payment/ripe-ncc-billing-procedure-2019
>
> That agrees with the charging scheme, which says "[..] for 2019, the annual service fee per LIR account will remain at EUR 1,400". That's fully consistent with the billing procedure.
>
> It doesn't say there will be a quarterly fee of EUR 350, the fact that quarterly terms were possible in the past was a courtesy. So, *you* show *me* where it says they can't stop extending this courtesy that was never voted upon.
>
>> In my employment contract they write XXXXX CHF "per year", but I get it
>> paid out in 12 parts too....
> Then either your employer is free to change your salary to a quarterly or yearly payment whenever they feel like it too, or, what I'm guessing is more likely: Swiss law dictates that the payment of salaries is per month (for tax purposes or whatever) and so it's not necessary to specify it in your contract. Alternatively, some union contract or something similar arranges this and your employment contract incorporates it by reference.
>
> Whatever the case may be in Switzerland, in The Netherlands an employment contract will state that it's paid in 12 or 13 terms plus the day of the month it will be paid on (in addition to the yearly amount).
>
> Ask the HR department tomorrow if you can be paid per week instead and they'll explain to you where it's written that it has to be paid per month and not otherwise, because it's sure to be written somewhere. This also states quite matter-of-factly "Salaries in Switzerland are paid once a month": https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/salaries/29235700
>
> And, even if it isn't defined anywhere, the RIPE billing procedure is not your Swiss employment contract. So what's your point exactly? You feel RIPE should be bound to whatever law, rule, regulation or convention causes your salary to be paid per month? -.-
>
>>> Apparently, RIPE offers "payment options for members with cash flow
>> limitations", so it seems that RIPE is willing to work with members for
>> which this change is a problem. These members should contact RIPE directly
>> to see what "payment options" are available to them
>>
>> It's a "transition plan" - that means, it's probably just for this year:
> Yes, obviously the plan is to:
>
> a). require all new members to pay yearly,
> b). require members opening additional LIRs to pay yearly,
> so that:
> c). all members pay yearly as soon as possible.
>
> Of course existing members can be surprised by the sudden change this year and may not be able to pay yearly immediately, hence a "transition" for them. But, next year they won't be surprised and they have a whole year to save & plan for the yearly payment.
>
>>> For members with only one LIR account, we will design a transition plan
>>> for those with cash flow limitations and who therefore have difficulty
>>> meeting the payment schedule. We will provide details about this in
>>> January 2019.
>> I expect the RIPE NCC to inform its members about their transition plans.
> Well, then you're in luck, because they will inform their members in
>>> January 2019.
> It seems to me that to come to a reasonable transition policy they need insight into what problems members will have, and they're getting this insight now.
>
>>> ideally *before* complaining on this list.
>> Please show me any complaint from my side? Thanks :-)
> Well, are you a "member with cash flow limitations"? Because my full sentence addressed this only to "these" members (as a group), of which a few had already complained on this list. Not to you personally, as I had no way of knowing whether you belonged to this group or not.
>
> But besides that:
>
> complaint noun
> com·​plaint | \kəm-ˈplānt  \
> 1 : expression of grief, pain, or dissatisfaction
>
>> Why are we able to vote about every single word which is inserted,
>> changed or removed from any random document (document, not policy!), but
>> we can't vote about such a big change which affects a lot of members?
>>
>> In my opinion this change should have been part of the charging scheme
>> 2019 voting.
> Seems like you're complaining about something to me. Or rather two things ^-^
>   
>> Also, the notice period (which included public holidays in many
>> countries) was, in my opinion, ways too short.
> If only there were some period for those that need it... to transition to yearly payments... Oh, right! A transition period of at least a year. Point me to the problem, thanks :-)
>