[members-discuss] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Board Reasoning
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Board Reasoning
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Board Reasoning
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Aleksey Bulgakov
aleksbulgakov at gmail.com
Thu May 2 17:31:05 CEST 2019
Hi. I think that the NCC could create some poll with several options and leave only 2 ones for voting that had the 1st and the 2nd places. чт, 2 мая 2019 г., 17:51 Christian Kaufmann <exec-board at ripe.net>: > Dear RIPE NCC members, > > The Executive Board continues to follow the discussion on the list and > I'm happy to provide some further clarity on the charging scheme > proposals ahead of the General Meeting in May. > > Firstly, there are good reasons why the Board chose to present only two > charging scheme options rather than three or even four. The RIPE NCC's > Articles of Association provide that all resolutions must receive over > 50% of votes in favour of one option in order for the resolution to be > adopted. This means that a resolution with more than two options might > end up not having enough support (more than 50%) so we would fall back > to the current one. As we try to make this as clear and easy as > possible, we decided to go for two options. > > A way to get around this problem is to present three or more options as > separate resolutions with standard Yes/No voting options. In fact, this > is what happened in 2012 when the Board proposed three charging scheme > options: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/september-2012 > > Two of the three resolutions (Options A and C) were approved by the > membership with the first one being the charging scheme adopted and > subsequent resolutions disregarded. Many comments were made to the Board > following this vote that the ordering of the resolutions had a big > impact on which charging scheme option was adopted. For this reason, the > Board is proposing only two options to allow a clear majority to be > expressed in one resolution. Both options are roughly equivalent in the > amount of revenue they would generate - the purpose of the charging > scheme is to arrive at a way to distribute the amount required to run > the RIPE NCC among the members. > > So why were these the two resolutions that the Board chose to propose > for 2020? > > Option A is the current charging scheme model, and the Board favours > this model for its simplicity and the fact that it treats all members as > equal with equal access to services, which is how we believe a > membership organisation should be run. The principles that the current > charging scheme model is based on were the outcome of work by the > Charging Scheme Task Force in 2012. In the absence of clear guidance > from the membership on changing these principles, we prefer to stick > with these unless we see a clear desire to change them. > > For Option B, the Board had a number of concerns with proposing a model > that is based on charging per IP and volume and not per service used. > The RIPE NCC is a not-for-profit organisation and is treated as such > under Dutch law. In the negotiations with the Dutch tax authorities that > established this status, a clear argument was made that the RIPE NCC is > a membership association that does not charge for individual services or > addresses. This is also in keeping with the view that IP addresses are a > shared resource rather than a product, and the RIPE NCC acts as the > steward of that resource. > > The Board wants this to remain the case, and if charging per resource > jeopardises the RIPE NCC's not-for-profit membership status then this is > not something that the Board would want to risk happening. More details > on the RIPE NCC's tax position are available in the RIPE NCC Tax > Governance Paper: > https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-713 > > The Board does not believe the charging scheme should be used to drive > the IPv6 policies of the community. > > That being said, in the current charging scheme, which has been in > effect for a number of years, IPv6 has no extra cost and yet this has > had no discernible impact on deployment. It is also likely that from > early 2020 IPv6 will make up the vast majority of IP resources allocated > by the RIPE NCC. > > I hope this adds a further degree of clarity to the discussions. I > realise that this is an important issue for the membership and I > understand that not everyone will be completely satisfied by the > proposals put forward by the Board. I also hope that you understand the > Board's primary legal responsibility is to ensure the stability and > continuity of the RIPE NCC. > > Accommodating this, and the comments and wishes we got from you, are the > the two main goals in proposing the two options that you will be asked > to choose between. > > We encourage you to continue to discuss the charging scheme options on > the list, and we look forward to exploring them in more detail at the > General Meeting on 22 May. > > Kind regards, > > Christian Kaufmann > RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman > > > > On 2019-04-18 18:14, Christian Kaufmann wrote: > > Dear members, > > > > First of all, I'd like to thank you for the feedback we received from > > everyone so far, and special thanks to the people who gave some more > > context and explanation. Trying to arrive at a charging scheme that > > will > > please everyone is not an easy task. > > > > The reason the board proposes two charging schemes is because some > > members requested a real alternative and difference to the existing > > "one > > LIR account-one fee" version we have right now and that is more volume > > based. > > > > This came up previously in the charging scheme task force discussions > > but also from individual members via emails or through personal > > contact. > > Nigel and I promised at the last two GMs that we would present a new > > one > > before the May GM this year. > > > > So what was the board's thinking in proposing these two models? > > > > Firstly, many people like the existing model and the board believes > > that > > it covers the spirit of what some members want by maintaining the > > financial stability of the NCC while keeping fairness and equality in > > mind. The board also does not want a price per IP model because this > > would have tax implications (the RIPE NCC does not sell IP addresses > > and > > the charging scheme should reflect this) and we feel it is not in > > keeping with the idea of a membership association. > > > > We have also found in the past that having more than two options does > > not work well from a voting perspective. This would add considerable > > complexity to the voting in which resolutions must be approved by more > > than 50% of voters to be adopted. > > > > The second charging scheme option is one that the board believes offers > > a real alternative while staying away from the price per IP aspect. > > > > The board's thinking in making the Option B proposal is that every > > registry entry consumes resources such as customer support time, > > database memory, registration time, etc. regardless of the size of the > > allocation. A /24 and a /12 are not so different in this regard so we > > see this as fair in terms of the work required by the RIPE NCC to > > maintain the registry. The reason we suggest to charge IPv4 and IPv6 in > > the same way follows the same logic - there is no tax designed to move > > people to IPv6. We did not want to have a political, policy-driven > > charging scheme because the board believes this is the work of > > community > > rather than for the board or membership to decide on. > > > > I understand that the "volume-based" description could be seen as > > misleading and I apologise for the misunderstanding here. The proposed > > model is based on registrations and not per IP as we do not want to > > indicate that IP is a sellable product but rather the RIPE NCC should > > charge members for the registry services it provides. > > > > The new charging scheme was also not proposed so that the RIPE NCC > > could > > make more money - it takes the current budget and calculates backwards > > to achieve the amount required to run the RIPE NCC. It is just a > > different model to share the current cost among members. > > > > Despite concerns that were raised on this list, the board took the > > request of some members to propose a new model very seriously and we > > spent quite some time to discuss and model the current scenario by > > trying to be as fair as possible and sticking with the principles of a > > membership organisation. > > > > Again, we are very thankful for your input and the feedback on the two > > models. We will continue to monitor discussions and we will of course > > present on the Charging Scheme 2020 at the upcoming GM. We encourage > > you > > to register your vote so you can have the final say on the two > > proposals. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Christian Kaufmann > > RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman > > > > _______________________________________________ > > members-discuss mailing list > > members-discuss at ripe.net > > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > > Unsubscribe: > > > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/agollan%40ripe.net > > > _______________________________________________ > members-discuss mailing list > members-discuss at ripe.net > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/aleksbulgakov%40gmail.com > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20190502/93f3a0d9/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Board Reasoning
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Board Reasoning
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]