<!DOCTYPE html> <html> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"> </head> <body> <div class="moz-cite-prefix">HI, am 16.05.24 um 19:12 schrieb Alexander Leefmann: </div> <blockquote type="cite">Your arguments look to me all in favour of keeping the status quo.</blockquote> Then I must have made a mistake; with respect to the funding of the RIPE NCC, I'd certainly would like to see changes. <blockquote type="cite">Well if we stop community building we actively stop inviting urgently needed people who are not part of this community (the internet) for maximum profit. And the current discussion shows that we need new non money driven ideas. Right now everybody and his mother are talking about "fair payment" but no one says "even if this will hurt me financially, it is fair and for the better of the community".</blockquote> There's no "fair" payment, and as was mentioned earlier, one reason to reject last year's category-based model were the suggested categories themselves. IMHO: IF you want to start to invoice based on resources, consider ALL resources — or none at all. As for community-building, you think there's no single EUR that can be spared to be spent? I cannot believe that. But the main point still is: with a shrinking membership, the budget mustn't keep rising (especially above inflation). Yet there is no effective move by the EB since one year ago to address this. This year's discussion really took the wrong turn some time ago; but there is, I think for the first time in years, a membership-supported agenda topic. Made useless by the AoA, but one lives and learns. <blockquote type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite">[…]Will the Internet stop working if RIPE NCC stops providing K-root?[...]</blockquote> Not in the short term. But stopping to run a community financed and driven root server is one more step towards a internet of the companies. And I am happy to see a part of my fee going into at least slow down the move into that direction. </blockquote> Fine by me, but shouldn't have the whole membership get a say in this? And a vote – here: about the Activity Plan (& corresponding Budget) – is how members are becoming involved into the decision-making process in a membership association. <blockquote type="cite">Sure companies are financing the party and I understand that they want to make some profit. But ROI and "survival of the fittest" are no good judgment points if we talk about the internet as a free communication tool. </blockquote> As has been mentioned before, if +500 EUR/year breaks your business plan, maybe being a LIR is not such a wise move. (And regarding some non-profit associations that became LIRs as well, especially Freifunk ones, I do hope they'll get that financed somehow. It's roughly six months until the new charging regime hits, fortunately.) <blockquote type="cite">For me being part of such an invaluable asset like a free and affordable internet for everyone comes with a responsibility. The responsibility to put my personal interests not at the first place. This includes paying for something which is with no direct benefit to me or my business. And if I am not able to do that, that is fine, but then just step down and leave the party. </blockquote> I see your point; but times and memberships are changing. <blockquote type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite">Yes, but this time, it should be _voted_ on (which means more work since _alternatives_ need to be presented; yes/no won't solve any issues). And the EB should receive a clear message from the members whether to reduce the money spend and if so, by which amount in what timeframe. Lessons learned from the upcoming GM ...</blockquote> Are you actually willing to invest the time and money needed to develop the alternatives you mentioned? Without payment. Out of your own pocket?</blockquote> Actually no. I would expect the "we are listening" EB to have multiple Activity Plans, with different reductions and hence lower Budgets, presented at the GM and to be voted on by the membership. <blockquote type="cite">Because I have the opinion that financial driven people should not have any power of something which can't be rebuild with money after they destroyed it.</blockquote> I totally feel you. <blockquote type="cite">Last but not least: I don't know you</blockquote> That became obvious rather early in your mail ;) Nonetheless, I think the whole process of financing RIPE NCC needs to be redone. Being only asked how to distribute the budgeted amount, without being asked (in a vote) in which direction the Activity Plan (& Budget) should develop is just wrong. IMHO, YMMV. Regards, -kai <pre class="moz-signature" cols="999">-- Kai Siering Senior System Engineer mail.de GmbH Münsterstraße 3 D-33330 Gütersloh Tel.: +49 (0) 5241 / 74 34 986 Fax: +49 (0) 5241 / 74 34 987 E-Mail: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:k.siering@team.mail.de">k.siering@team.mail.de</a> Web: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mail.de/">https://mail.de/</a> Geschäftsführender Gesellschafter: Fabian Bock Sitz der Gesellschaft Nordhastedt Handelsregister Pinneberg HRB 8007 PI Steuernummer 18 293 20020</pre> </body> </html>