[ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option

Hi Hans Petter,

>> Repeat: the AGM does *not* "set fee structure".  It can accept the board's
>> proposed charging scheme, or keep the old one.
> 
> I do not agree.
> When the fee structure was changed in september 2012 the board gave the
> AGM several options  based on input from the AGM in the first half of
> 2012.

Which is exactly what I would like to see again. The problem is that there currently is no choice. I would be happy if the board would give the AGM the choice between the current proposed charging scheme and an option where
- the legacy resource holders get the same as with 2012-07 option 2.3
- but without a Sponsoring LIR in between
- nothing more, nothing less
- for a reasonable price (is €500 reasonable? compared to the €50 of option 2.3)
- also contributing to all the other good work the NCC does
- where the NCC as a whole bears the implementation cost, just like with any other policy implementation

The membership fee per year for LIRs *might* be a little bit higher, but because membership fees have been going down steadily over the last couple of years and the number of members is currently around 10k I would be really surprised if this will be very noticeable for any LIR's fee.

I feel that none of the current options are a good implementation of what the RIPE community got consensus on, and that scares me. As a member of the NCC I would just like to have the option to vote on what I believe is the right thing to do. I don't have any legacy resources and am currently not paid by anyone who does (I did some small projects for SURFnet in the past) so if my membership fee goes up a few euros to implement this policy then I will be paying that out of my own personal pocket and I feel it will be money well spent.

I feel that Hans Petter's suggestion of giving the AGM a choice is very good. I really hope that that will be the outcome of all this.

Cheers!
Sander