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

Hi,

On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 08:01:44AM +0300, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
> 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?

Well, actually *this* is not actually fair.  The membership fees have gone
down quite a lot over the last 10 years, and there even has been a cash
payback one year.  Jochem is complaining every year that the influx of
new members has been higher than expected, and thus, income is higher, 
while they have been good stewards and spending was lower than budgeted.

It's the NCC board's duty to ensure financial stability, so "just reduce
the fees to 50% and see what this will do to our reservers" is not so good.

The actual proposed charging scheme is reducing the LIR fees by about that
amount you've proposed (20%), btw :-)

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/ncc-services-wg/attachments/20140423/a19679ce/attachment.sig>