<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/></head><body style="font-family:Geneva,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"><div>
Dear Michie,<br />
<br />
Great IDEA!</div>
<br />
05.10.2011 15:55 - Michiel Klaver написал(а):<br />
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4.0pt" type="cite">
Dear Nigel,<br />
<br />
After some considerations I would like to propose another charging scheme<br />
alternative, one that could comply with the current tax regulations. The<br />
basic idea is to treat all members and all their registered objects as<br />
equal. The scheme would look something like this:<br />
<br />
- one basic membership fee for all LIR members;<br />
- a fee for each registered object, regardless of their size;<br />
<br />
This is something comparable like we are already doing with PI objects,<br />
which already get charged 50 eur/year each. This model just stretches it<br />
to other objects too (PA ipv4/ipv6 and ASN). Exact values of these fees<br />
have to be calculated by RIPE NCC treasurer to match the budget, but the<br />
basic membership fee should be kept low enough to match something like the<br />
current extra-small category for starting LIRs.<br />
<br />
Hoping for some support from other RIPE members and the community, and<br />
awaiting to see some calculations what values these fees could be set at.<br />
<br />
With kind regards,<br />
Michiel Klaver<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
At Fri, 30 Sep 2011 08:53:18 +0100, Nigel Titley <nigel@titley.com> wrote:<br />
<br />
> Dear all,<br />
><br />
<br />
> I would like to update you about the RIPE NCC Executive Board<br />
> deliberations regarding the draft charging scheme for 2012.<br />
><br />
> We presented you with two draft schemes, in early summer, to gather<br />
> feedback from you. We did this as we wanted to hear your opinions on<br />
> measures we want to take which are designed to keep the RIPE NCC<br />
> financially stable and capable of serving its members as it should.<br />
><br />
> You engaged in a lively discussion on this mailing list, and even ran a<br />
> mini-survey. We followed the exchanges closely and as result asked<br />
> RIPE NCC staff to provide the board with another charging scheme option,<br />
> based on a sliding scale scheme that eliminated the membership<br />
> categories we currently use.<br />
><br />
> During the board meeting of last Friday, 23 September, we discussed the<br />
> merits as well as some of the issues of that model. Obviously a sliding<br />
> scale model as its main benefit does away with the fee jumps of the<br />
> category based model. We were pleased with the model that we developed<br />
> with the NCC staff and felt that it addressed many of the issues raised<br />
> by you, the members.<br />
><br />
> However, in consultation with our tax lawyers we have had to think<br />
> again. Because it brings a "fee-per-address" flavour to the charging<br />
> model of the RIPE NCC it fundamentally alters the tax scheme under which<br />
> we operate. The current "category" model allows us to argue that we are<br />
> a membership association with different categories of membership. This<br />
> brings substantial tax advantages.<br />
><br />
> As you know, for a long time the RIPE NCC tax situation has been<br />
> extremely favourable, as we don't have to pay corporation tax, based on<br />
> an agreement made with the Dutch tax authorities many years ago. We are<br />
> advised that the envisaged change in the charging scheme would lead to a<br />
> re-assessment of that agreement, with the likely outcome that the<br />
> association's surplus would have to be taxed, leading to a significant<br />
> financial liability, with an obvious knock-on effect to the member fees.<br />
><br />
> In the light of this, the board members have agreed not to expose our<br />
> organisation to that risk, staying with a category based system. We have<br />
> however noted your preference for reduced "fee jumps" between<br />
> categories, and have instructed NCC staff to produce a charging scheme<br />
> model based on 10 categories, doubling the current category number.<br />
> Category divisions will be based on a count of address space held.<br />
><br />
> This revised Charging Scheme 2012 we will publish, as usual, prior to<br />
> the General Meeting in November, for approval by the members during the<br />
> General Meeting. We can advise you already that we are opening up the<br />
> voting mechanism for all resolutions to include electronic voting, so<br />
> that all members of the association have a good opportunity to take a<br />
> full part in the proceedings.<br />
><br />
> At this time, I would like to thank you all, on behalf of the RIPE NCC<br />
> Executive Board, for participating in the discussion. I look forward to<br />
> seeing as many of you as possible at the next General Meeting.<br />
><br />
> Best regards,<br />
><br />
> Nigel Titley<br />
> Chairman<br />
> RIPE NCC Executive Board<br />
><br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss<br />
mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page:<br />
<a href="https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view" target="_blank" title="https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view">https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view</a><br />
<br />
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you<br />
can add or remove addresses.</div>
</body></html>