This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Munir Badr
munir at aeserver.com
Fri Apr 12 13:49:15 CEST 2024
So much action, iam listening 👂 But will anything change, i doubt it, prices only go up ⬆️ <https://www.aeserver.com/> *MUNIR BADR* Book A Call: Click here <https://calendly.com/aeserver> Sales Hotline: 800 123 123 <https://www.facebook.com/AEserver/> <https://twitter.com/aeserver> <https://www.instagram.com/aeserver/> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/aeserver/> <https://www.entrepreneur.com/en-ae/news-and-trends/the-recap-the-e-business-awards-2023/447514> On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 at 15:46 Sebastian-Wilhelm Graf < ripe-members at sebastian-graf.at> wrote: > Dear Tobias, > > >... which last year were equally strong against the proposed per-resource/category > charging model. > > Looking back at the disucssion and the calculator linked at > https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/member-and-community-consultations/charging-scheme-2024-consultation/ > > Its evident that the vote really was 3 options that where more all > expensive than the existing fee, or keeping the fee the same. > > So i would say members last year voted for "no increase in expenses". This > did not mean explicitly mean "no resource based model", as the only option > for a resource based model was also more expensive. > > On 4/12/24 12:17 PM, Tobias Fiebig via members-discuss wrote: > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > members-discuss mailing list > members-discuss at ripe.net > https://mailman.ripe.net/ > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/munir%40aeserver.com > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20240412/3c4bf588/attachment-0001.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]