[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

Yes, I'm aware they changed it and stopped extending the courtesy of allowing other than yearly payments.

Previously members could send a request for this, and now they can't. The billing schedule allows this.
 
> 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.

How do we get to vote on anything? We "get" to vote on things that are proposed first. Apparently, nobody ever saw the need to put forward a proposal to change the billing schedule to explicitly include quarterly payments, and so the decision to implement billing was left to RIPE.

My guess is that everyone knows that submitting such a proposal to change the billing schedule wouldn't pass a vote (or wouldn't get the required support to be put to a vote, I'm not sure how this works at RIPE) and so nobody bothers. But, I can ask you: You could submit a proposal to make this change right now, why aren't you?

> > 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.

Well, seeing as I sent it to the list as well, I think it's generally understood that I'm directing my email just as much to the list as to you. Otherwise, I'd have sent the email to you only.

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

You are playing semantics. This is not what makes something a complaint or not. What you are terming "complaint" is actually a statement.

"This is shit" (statement of opinion)
"In my opinion this is shit" (also statement of opinion)
"Why is this shit?" (question conveying opinion)

These are just different ways of expressing the exact same complaint.

-- 
Regards,
   Terrence Koeman, PhD/MTh/BPsy
      Darkness Reigns (Holding) B.V.

Please quote relevant replies.

> 
> 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 :-)
> >