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

At 22:46 22/04/2014 +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 10:41:20PM +0200, Hans Petter Holen wrote:
> > > 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.
>
>Yes.  This was one notable exception.  And it happened after quite a lot
>of noise was made about it.  Another exception was when the AP community
>asked for a reasonable price tag on PI networks in the context of 2007-01,
>and that needed quite a bit of pushing and convincing to see the light.
>
>About every other time in the last 15 years, the options to vote on the
>charging scheme have been "accept the new charging scheme? (yes/no)".
>
>Right here it's the same thing again:  "Look what we've made up, take
>it or leave it".  How does the AGM "set the fee structure" here?

In my opinion, the membership has very little influence on the membership 
fees or the overall budget.  We might think we do, but in reality we 
don't.  Since 2002 (when the financial reserves of RIPE NCC were 4.2MEuro 
on Dec 31, 2002), the budget surplus has been run up to around now 
23MEuro.   For the past 10 years, we have run a budget surplus and have 
amassed a huge stockpile of money.  Why?  I have no idea.  Has the RIPE NCC 
board ever felt that membership fees could be cut by 20% across the board 
and to start eating away at its stockpile of cash?

RIPE NCC will continue to grow its cash reserve, we will continue to bicker 
over inflated membership fees.

-Hank