[members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Executive Board Meeting to Discuss Charging Scheme Input from Members

On 07/05/2024, 16:23:38, "Claudius Zingerli" <claudius.zingerli at ksz.ch> 
wrote:
>TL'DR: Below mail from the Executive Board reads to me as: We don't care about what our members say and coerce them into accepting one of the three proposed expensive solutions.

What they actually said in this and previous emails -

"We hear you, services are planned over several years and changes
will 1+ years to discuss, agree and implement. We are starting
this process now. Thus there are no major immediate changes but
we saved 2M (iirc) by salami slicing budgets where you could as
an interim measure."

As we voted for no rise last year we now only have a choice of how to
pay the still inflation afflicted current budget needed until
that services review process concludes.

Though not the ideal outcome this does not seem unreasonable.

>I am surprised by how an elected Executive Board on one hand fails to convince the voters that their proposals are good and valid and on the other hand completely ignores the many proposals from the voters.

If by ignored you mean they are beginning a review of charging models, 
yes.

>In the past GMs the budget topic came up multiple times and members mostly agreed that expenses are too high and have to be cut.

I agree, budgets based on peak membership will be hard to sustain as
numbers decline to more like they used to be, however the current
fee is not disimilar to the fee some years ago so it is not totally
unreasonable.

>On the last GM, the three pretty similar category-based models were declined not because they were category-based, but because the cost for most (many?) members would have gone up.

Yes, and the requests to re run that would probably give the same result
as one part of the membership attempts to reduce their costs at the 
expense
of others. This is no way to reach consensus.

That category model would have got progressively worse for some not
large members as member numbers declined. Quite likely to the detriment
of many calling for it to return.

>Reading the mailing-list, I can assume there is a significant portion of members that would prefer to have the fees correlated to resource-consumption (mostly per #IPv4-addresses). Such models can be implemented neutral to RIPEs budget and in case that everyone migrates to IPv6, fee per IPv4 address/IPv6 prefix can be adapted accordingly.

When we get to v6 then we are back to flat fees as most have the same
size allocation. So this may be all for nothing and we should just
stay flat and concentrate on a manageable budget size.

brandon