[members-discuss] GM topic

Kaj Niemi wrote on 26/04/2024 20:18:
> I think it’s great we are being creative with the ideation of the models 
> but…
> 
> Fair is a very vague yet complicated concept. Here I agree with Nick ;)
> 
> Distribution in the past has been needs based (based on existing or 
> projected need). It's done.

this was essentially the reason why the RIPE NCC membership voted to 
move from category-based membership charges to flat-rate in 2013 - any 
future registry demands would be comparable across each LIR, as there 
was no further need for justification of resources.

The NCC Exec Board at the time asked for members to volunteer for a 
Charging Scheme Task Force, which produced a report which recommended 
the change. The output is worth reading, as well as the subsequent board 
analysis report which was presented at the Sep 2012 GM. What it shows is 
that the discussion we're having today is not new - it's all the same 
arguments as 10 years ago.

The other aspect worth noting is that the voting report at the time 
showed that there was a clear majority in favour of the move to 
flat-rate charging, but not an overwhelming majority.  The 60:40 vote in 
May 2023 in favour of maintaining the flat-rate charging scheme was a 
greater percentage difference, and on a much larger turnout, but even 
still there was a sizeable minority who wanted to revert back to a 
category-based model. The only reliable conclusions that could be drawn 
from this is that there are differing views about this across the RIPE 
NCC membership, and a wide spread of views.

In regard to "fairness", it's not hard: everyone wants the scales to 
slightly - just slightly - tip in their favour.

Nick