<div dir="ltr">If EB can't put lower plan which of course they can, by implementing like other RIRs charge per resource holder, then, they can put in agenda this kind of policy instead of ignoring more than 700+ LIR members Period!</div> <div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 2:48 PM Jan Zorz - Go6 <<a href="mailto:jan@go6.si">jan@go6.si</a>> wrote: </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On 16. 5. 24 14:33, Sebastian-Wilhelm Graf wrote: > "put something forward"... > > Many members have put forward potential schemes on this list. > Many members have put forward and voted for a point to be added to the > agenda regarding the charging scheme (checking, this proposal has more > than 700 signatures to date). > > To wich the boards reaction was basically them not adding any options > based on feedback.... Then when people appear to be complaing about > that This has been repeated for the n-th time already. EB can't put an option of a lower budget (and members fee) on the agenda as they need to follow the (accepted by RIPE NCC members) activity plan and assure the budget for it. Period. At this point lower budget is not possible. You are all barking at the wrong tree. When the activity plan comes into a discussion at (and prior to the GM) - that's the time to start proposing changes if you really want them. Cheers, Jan _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list <a href="mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net" target="_blank">members-discuss@ripe.net</a> <a href="https://mailman.ripe.net/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mailman.ripe.net/</a> Unsubscribe: <a href="https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/mentor.leniqi%40albahost.net" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/mentor.leniqi%40albahost.net</a> </blockquote></div>