[members-discuss] GM topic

Dear Murat, all,


For now, we decided to propose charging scheme models based on our 
current model for a few reasons.

There is no clear consensus what alternative would be best suited for 
the membership. We see and have accepted the fact that last year’s 
category model was not without its flaws. To ensure we can actually 
submit a model that is as good as possible, we will need time to further 
consult with our members, and that could well result in a category or 
tiered model.

 From an operational standpoint, we feel strongly that whatever model is 
chosen needs a certain cap. As an association, we need to ensure we do 
not become too dependent on large multinational contributors that can 
easily move registrations to other RIRs. If these contributors were to 
decide to leave, we would have a serious revenue shortfall. One of the 
advantages of an equal per member/LIR model is that if one member/LIR 
leaves then the revenue shortfall is 1/20,000. The bigger the 
differentiation, the bigger the risk of a significant shortfall in 
revenue if a large contributor leaves us.

Looking at the work the Board is planning regarding the RIPE NCC’s 
funding and governance model, we expect this to have a big impact on the 
charging scheme. Revamping the current model and then reevaluation based 
on the outcome of this initiative, would not be cost-efficient, as 
implementing a new charging scheme is very resource-intensive. Doing 
that work twice, which could happen based on the outcome of the Board’s 
work to review our structures, is not something we are keen to do. And 
this is partly why we would prefer simplicity and stability in the short 
term so it is easier to implement longer-term change when consensus is 
reached on what that should be. We are committed to ensuring we cut 
costs where we can while ensuring we can still deliver our services and 
execute our five-year strategy. Investing in a new charging scheme now 
does not fit in all our current cost-cutting efforts, but we are 
planning to rework it based on the outcome of consultations in the near 
future.

Overall, we see and acknowledge the need to seriously review our 
charging model, but what we are asking for is time and stability in the 
short term so we can put in the required work to come up with a model 
that works. Short-term stability, in my opinion, means that we need 
sufficient funds so we can invest the time and resources we need to 
ensure a sustainable future for the RIPE NCC with the ability to provide 
the service and activities our members have grown to expect.

Kind regards,

Simon-Jan Haytink

RIPE NCC, CFO

On 26/04/2024 10:59, m.terzioglu at prebits.de wrote:
> Hello Simon,
>
> i agree with Mihail and i would add also something:
>
> I think it is necessary to ensure active participation of members in discussions and voting. As there are barriers (language and timing) and I think it is difficult to say that 100% correct decisions could have been made with 5% participation.
>
> And only for that not to add the category model as an option or other models is not a good solution i think. Offered models were actually one model with minor changes. There were no resource based models for example...
>
>
> --
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards
>
> Murat TERZIOGLU
> PREBITS
>
> Bochumer Str. 20
> 44866 Bochum
> Deutschland
>
> Telefon: 0234/58825994
> Telefax: 0234/58825995
>
> www.prebits.de
> info at prebits.de
>
> USt-ID: DE315418902
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: members-discuss<members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net>  Im Auftrag von Mihail Fedorov
> Gesendet: Freitag, 26. April 2024 10:40
> An: Simon-Jan Haytink<simonjh at ripe.net>
> Cc:members-discuss at ripe.net
> Betreff: Re: [members-discuss] GM topic
>
> Hello Simon!
>
> I appreciate your work and thanks for noticing this discussion.
>
> You’re mentioning a significant and diverse group of members. As you can see in proposal just overnight it was signed by 450 LIRs from different places in the whole region, big and small. Does it count as diverse group? I honestly believe it’s majority of those who actually read this list.
>
> Member proposal is formed as simple “do not change” because current logic clearly prohibits to propose anything else. I thinks it’s terrible on its own.
>
> Proposed by board charging scheme was posted as a draft just recently and got hundreds of disagreements instantly. This clearly indicates it needs to be reworked. Yet it wasn’t done. Me, and many other members want to see clear answer why it wasn’t even tried.
>
> Reasoning behind not doing anything is absurd:
>
> 1. If members didn’t voted for this last year - you should not remove such option this year. Maybe they changed their mind?  After all if members disagree with anything other proposed they still can vote for original scheme.
>
> 2. Members clearly indicated that RIPE budget decrease MUST be discussed. It’s always sounds scary, but this happens and there is no shame in discussing that.
>
> Pardon my wording, but I still see no clear reason why different scheme wasn’t worked, only friendly responses without intent to do something. Sometimes not even friendly, just statements that it won’t be discussed.
>
> If you state that board is not opposed to different charging scheme or budget cuts - please clearly indicate why it was not done.
>
> Thanks!
>
>> On 26 Apr 2024, at 10:59, Simon-Jan Haytink<simonjh at ripe.net>  wrote:
>>
>> Simon
> _______________________________________________
> members-discuss mailing list
> members-discuss at ripe.net
> https://mailman.ripe.net/
> Unsubscribe:https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/m.terzioglu%40prebits.de
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20240430/122814f1/attachment-0001.html>