[members-discuss] [comms-circle] Re: Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)

Dear Lutz Donnerhacke,

I want to address your accusation that members discussing their fees to act in their own benefit is a bad thing. As a member, I believe it is important to discuss and advocate for our own interests.

I also noticed use of the word "personal" in this context. Usually, when we talk about membership, we associate it with companies rather than individuals. So, it struck me as a bit odd.

Furthermore, I would appreciate an explanation of how my proposal to reduce fees for IPv4-less LIRs would fit this. My organization has dual stack allocation and would not benefit from such reduction, but I still believe it is a necessary step towards fairness and equality within our community.

Respectfully, dk at hostmaster.ua

> On 23 Apr 2024, at 08:52, Lutz Donnerhacke <L.Donnerhacke at iks-service.de> wrote:
> 
> * Mihail Fedorov wrote:
>> With all the respect to RIPE Executive board, there is a problem. From the day first 2025 charging scheme draft was published - thread instantly got hundreds of responses clearly indicating just one thing - that proposed scheme is not ok. Majority (at least that’s what I see in members-discuss) of members raised their concerns and responded that they disagree with it.
>> [...]
>> Correct me if I’m wrong, but I assumed that RIPE is members ruled structure. That’s what all RIPE learning PDFs say. You can not simply ignore everyone.
> 
> I'm sorry to step in here, but if you ask this way ...
> 
> The overwhelming majority of members did not respond at all. This means that they see no pressing problem with the current proposal.
> 
> We only see a - frankly - small group of members who are emphatically loud and repetitive. It seems to me that their motivation is to want to reduce the already low annual costs even further for their personal benefit.
> 
> In most countries, a fixed fee per member is typical for associations and cooperatives. That's why the controlling department of most companies has no problem with it. And this is precisely why all attempts in the past to switch to a resource-based fee have failed: You would have to explain the RIPE bill to the accounting department.
> 
> Resource-based fees were introduced to stimulate the return of AS numbers etc. that are no longer used. Again, the same reason: you have to explain this accounting item.
> 
> Lutz Donnerhacke
> _______________________________________________
> members-discuss mailing list
> members-discuss at ripe.net
> https://mailman.ripe.net/
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/dk%40hostmaster.ua