[members-discuss] GM topic

Hi Simon-Jan

Thanks for your words. Let me add my 2 comments:

 1. Mailing list: If I ever unsubscribe this list, it will be due to
    thousands of ticket systems, which are auto responding to literally
    every single mail. Or other members trying to unsubscribe me from
    the list, after posting. Or people posting "unsubscribe me!!!".
 2. Funding: I agree, that the RIPE NCC needs enough funding for its
    core services. As long as the CEO's office is listed in your budget
    with 2,2mio € (this is >120x my rent, and I'm not living in a cheap
    country), I guess you are funded very very well.

Apart from that, the membership said "no" twice to ASN fees. Introducing 
them through the back door is not fair and will probably fail a 3rd 
time. Please accept the fact that the community does not want ASN fees.

Regarding the proposals: RIPE had one year time to work on several 
proposals. Unfortunately they were published just a few weeks prior the 
meeting and no input of the discussion was used to develop these models.

Best regards
Patrick

On 30.04.24 13:55, Simon-Jan Haytink wrote:
>
> Dear Mihail, all,Defining what exactly a diverse group is will be 
> difficult. There are 20,000 members and over 5,000 subscribed to this 
> list, with many obviously following closely. It is also interesting to 
> note that over 400 people have unsubscribed from the members-discuss 
> list in this month alone. Some are very committed to this topic, while 
> others are actively removing themselves from the conversation. This 
> highlights how difficult it can be to reach a good consensus or make 
> sure all members are engaged on the topics that matter.
>
> But clearly there are strong opinions from a large set of members that 
> we can’t ignore. Translating this into a good Charging Scheme for all 
> members will still be a difficult task, and one that we will have to 
> invest a lot of time and effort into together with the membership. And 
> I completely agree that we should not be afraid to discuss our budget 
> or other things that the members want to discuss. In fact, that 
> discussion is vital if we are to arrive at a good model.
>
> Every year during the Activity Plan & Budget process, we do everything 
> we can to get input from our members, but it seems this discussion 
> mainly takes place when we discuss the Charging Scheme. As a financial 
> person, I do understand why, as it can be seen as a boundary for the 
> Cost Budget. But the intent of the Charging Scheme is to ensure 
> sufficient revenue to execute our committed activities. Our Activity 
> Plan & Budget defines these activities. The redistribution vote 
> required by our governance is the safeguard to ensure an excess of 
> funds can be returned to our members (it can also ensure a shortage of 
> funds is charged to our members). As CFO, I will do what I can to 
> ensure we remain conservative and reasonable, but at the same time, we 
> must ensure we have sufficient funds.
>
> Active participation is something that is always high on the agenda of 
> the RIPE NCC. But I do want to highlight the position we are currently 
> in. We see requests to ensure active engagement, and to give more 
> training and carry out communication in local languages, but to 
> increase these efforts, which we are more than willing to do, we need 
> to ensure we have sufficient funds. We also have priorities such as 
> enhancing the security of the Registry and members’ resources and 
> accommodating the greatly increased complexity in the registry. In 
> short, we are being asked to do significantly more while significantly 
> cutting costs, so something will have to give somewhere.
>
> I do think this is a challenge every organisation faces, whether it’s 
> a for-profit company or a not-for-profit company. We have accepted 
> this challenge and will continue to focus on cost efficiency, but to 
> be successful in this challenge we also need a stable association, and 
> financial uncertainty does not help stability.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Simon-Jan HaytinkRIPE NCC, CFO
>
> On 26/04/2024 10:40, Mihail Fedorov wrote:
>> 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/lists%40velder.li
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20240430/e36a4342/attachment.html>