<!DOCTYPE html> <html> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"> </head> <body> Dear Tobias, >... which last year were equally strong against the proposed per-resource/category charging model. Looking back at the disucssion and the calculator linked at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/member-and-community-consultations/charging-scheme-2024-consultation/">https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/member-and-community-consultations/charging-scheme-2024-consultation/</a> Its evident that the vote really was 3 options that where more all expensive than the existing fee, or keeping the fee the same. So i would say members last year voted for "no increase in expenses". This did not mean explicitly mean "no resource based model", as the only option for a resource based model was also more expensive. <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap=""> </pre> <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/12/24 12:17 PM, Tobias Fiebig via members-discuss wrote: </div> <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:d2144b08c744741378cffef37c4fc394e8974ce5.camel@fiebig.nl"> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Dear Sebastian, </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Evendientally if you look at this discussion and the ones i see going on via other channels, this is a misunderstanding on your part. </pre> </blockquote> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap=""> So far, I do see a lot of opinions... </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">no 'per resource' charging scheme, if I remember correctly. </pre> </blockquote> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Just because for one year, members opted not do do tesource based (by vote) does not mean that there may not be any resource based models in the future. </pre> </blockquote> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap=""> ... which last year were equally strong against the proposed per- resource/category charging model. </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I see you misunderstood the point. </pre> </blockquote> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap=""> All i see is one LIR/member suggesting to another LIR/member (wich has the same rights/voting power/.....): I dont think it makes sense for you, you should really just pay me instead of being a member. </pre> </blockquote> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap=""> Oh, but I am happily buying the RIPE cake with all its implications. </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I dont think any of us get to make the judgement of what is the right reason/model/buisness type to be a ripe member. If all the members are equal with regard to the ncc, then we also have to accept tat there are different viewpoints that do not nessecarily allign with ours. As such, If enough people now want Y instead of X like it was in the past, then this is a completely legimate thing. </pre> </blockquote> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap=""> Let's try another example. Imagine there was a football club in a small town, and each member gets a pair of--limited availability--football shoes along with the membership (and more if they do need more or the old ones break). The membership costs EUR10/month. Now, a lot of people want those shoes and join the club. Then, the club runs out of shoes. The club, however, needs to raise the membership fee to EUR12/month, to keep paying for the football field, the matches, the training sessions etc. given increasing prices. Some members now voice their opinion that the club should, instead reduce the fee, as new members did not get shoes (in time), at least for those who did not get shoes (or not that many). Instead, people with a lot of shoes should pay more. Furthermore, it might be good to consider getting rid of that large football field, and maybe costs for reimbursing the trainers... Now, I am there to play football, and not get shoes; However, if the argument becomes--as often heard in this thread already--"we did not get football shoes, but paid for them", I do indeed feel inclined to suggest a visit to the Adidas Store down-town, which happens to have readily available football shoes on sale (and rent). Now, there can be a discussion on whether the club-house really _needs_ to be that expensive; However, when the discussion starts focusing on the shoes, it seems to me that the discussion goes a bit besides the point. I am, by the way, still waiting for an illustration of "my own interests". As I said, really curious what these might be. With best regards, Tobias </pre> </blockquote> </body> </html>