[members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals

Dear Sebastian,

> Evendientally if you look at this discussion and the ones i see going
> on via other channels, this is a misunderstanding on your part. 

So far, I do see a lot of opinions...

> > no 'per resource' charging scheme, if I remember correctly.
> Just because for one year, members opted not do do tesource based (by
> vote) does not mean that there may not be any resource based models
> in the future.

... which last year were equally strong against the proposed per-
resource/category charging model.

> > I see you misunderstood the point.
> 
> All i see is one LIR/member suggesting to another LIR/member (wich
> has the same rights/voting power/.....): I dont think it makes sense
> for you, you should really just pay me instead of being a member.

Oh, but I am happily buying the RIPE cake with all its implications.

> I dont think any of us get to make the judgement of what is the right
> reason/model/buisness type to be a ripe member. If all the members
> are equal with regard to the ncc, then we also have to accept tat
> there are different viewpoints that do not nessecarily allign with
> ours. As such, If enough people now want Y instead of X like it was
> in the past, then this is a completely legimate thing.

Let's try another example. 

Imagine there was a football club in a small town, and each member gets
a pair of--limited availability--football shoes along with the
membership (and more if they do need more or the old ones break). The
membership costs EUR10/month. Now, a lot of people want those shoes and
join the club. Then, the club runs out of shoes.

The club, however, needs to raise the membership fee to EUR12/month, to
keep paying for the football field, the matches, the training sessions
etc. given increasing prices.

Some members now voice their opinion that the club should, instead
reduce the fee, as new members did not get shoes (in time), at least
for those who did not get shoes (or not that many). Instead, people
with a lot of shoes should pay more. Furthermore, it might be good to
consider getting rid of that large football field, and maybe costs for
reimbursing the trainers...

Now, I am there to play football, and not get shoes; However, if the
argument becomes--as often heard in this thread already--"we did not
get football shoes, but paid for them", I do indeed feel inclined to
suggest a visit to the Adidas Store down-town, which happens to have
readily available football shoes on sale (and rent).

Now, there can be a discussion on whether the club-house really _needs_
to be that expensive; However, when the discussion starts focusing on
the shoes, it seems to me that the discussion goes a bit besides the
point.

I am, by the way, still waiting for an illustration of "my own
interests". As I said, really curious what these might be.

With best regards,
Tobias

-- 
Dr.-Ing. Tobias Fiebig
T +31 616 80 98 99
M tobias at fiebig.nl