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

Fact - We have not been given the option to Reject all choices which is 
what I specifically reject.

NO Should absolutely be an option.



On 4/23/24 8:38 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight via members-discuss wrote:
>
> Gotta love theories vs facts
>
> Fact: RIPE has around 20 thousand members
>
> Fact : less than 100 of them have posted on this list in the month of 
> April.
>
> Fact: not all the under 100 members (or more specifically, people who 
> are linked to members) are against the charging schemes proposed
>
> Fact: this email won’t make any difference to the vocal minority who 
> have issues with the charging schemes being proposed
>
> Fact: the result will be decided based on actual votes cast next month
>
> Regards
>
> Michele
>
> -- 
>
> Mr Michele Neylon
>
> Blacknight Solutions
>
> Hosting, Colocation & Domains
>
> https://www.blacknight.com/ <https://www.blacknight.com/>
>
> https://blacknight.blog/ <https://blacknight.blog/>
>
> Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
>
> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
>
> Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ <https://michele.blog/>
>
> Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ <https://ceo.hosting/>
>
> -------------------------------
>
> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business 
> Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland  Company No.: 
> 370845
>
> I have sent this email at a time that is convenient for me. I do not 
> expect you to respond to it outside of your usual working hours.
>
> *From: *members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net> on behalf 
> of Denys Fedoryshchenko <nuclearcat at nuclearcat.com>
> *Date: *Tuesday, 23 April 2024 at 09:20
> *To: *Lutz Donnerhacke <L.Donnerhacke at iks-service.de>, 'Mihail 
> Fedorov' <mihail at fedorov.net>
> *Cc: *'members-discuss at ripe.net' <members-discuss at ripe.net>
> *Subject: *Re: [members-discuss] [comms-circle] Re: Charging scheme 
> 2025 proposal (logarithmic)
>
> [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Please use caution when opening attachments from 
> unrecognised sources.
>
> On Tue, 2024-04-23 at 05:51 +0000, Lutz Donnerhacke 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.
> Absolutely incorrect assumption (as it is already said).
> For example there are many reasons why the LIR in Lebanon are silent
> this maillist, but everyone I spoke with and who read mallist was
> categorically outraged by the current situation.
> >
> > 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:
> It is failed only in RIPE, and it worked in ALL other RIR. And this
> also food for thoughts, why it failed in RIPE.
> Also RIPE is not golf club, it is kind of resource allocating non-
> profit.
> USB-IF, IEEE (mac address allocation), PCI-SIG(only one vid per member)
> and many others do the same, there is always annual maintenance fee
> which is dependent on size of allocated resources.
> > 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/nuclearcat%40nuclearcat.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> members-discuss mailing list
> members-discuss at ripe.net
> https://mailman.ripe.net/
> Unsubscribe: 
> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/michele%40blacknight.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> members-discuss mailing list
> members-discuss at ripe.net
> https://mailman.ripe.net/
> Unsubscribe:https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/daniel%40privatesystems.net

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20240423/f1b8bbf2/attachment-0001.html>