[lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ?
Mon Nov 25 18:43:00 CET 2002
Peter Galbavy wrote: > > Those documents are written in the best EU-bureaucrating-English that money > can't sell. Most stuff I see go past as announcements has me asleep before > the first paragraph. I have tried to (quickly) read the 2003 budget > statement. Makes no sense as there is not enough information there for > anyone to make a value judgement. The document says 'X' and not 'X because'. > > What I cannot understand - sorry, it makes no sense - is why the budget > requires new members ? Why is the budget not growth/shrinkage neutral ? New > members should pay for their own 'new' requirements through the set-up fee. > Again, sorry to make accusations, but whoever created a non-growth neutral > budget is NOT doing their job right. Peter, why don't you go to your CFO or accountant and let them interpret the budget for you? You don't seem to have any clue how budgeting and business plans work. I think everyone on this list would be very grateful if you'd stop ranting until you understand economics 101. Cheers -- Andre > > That would be the RIPE board. > > OK. I remember something about elections, but will any board members here > please speak up ? In your opinion is the 2003 budget correct ? Any doubts ? > If you have no doubts, then I strongly suggest that you are not doing the > right thing... > > > Ummm. They are separate. RIPE is "the community". The RIPE NCC is the > > body that does the work for us, and is paid for doing that. They do what > > *we* put in their activity plan. > > I don't remember asking to be RIPE. I am a paying for the functions of the > RIPE-NCC. I don't want any other services, research, funded testing or > anything. What I (and many others) want is a registration service that is > policy neutral because it is 'fair'. Anything else is just profiteering. > > Peter
[ lir-wg Archive ]