[members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion

Hi Andrea, 

> > - The Charging Scheme should not be based on IPv4 resources

> This point is absolutely NOT agreed upon. There is no general consensus on
it. It cannot be stated as a fact. A large part of the members think quite
the opposite: the charging scheme should be mostly based on IPv4 resources
allocated to each LIR.

> > - Changing RIPE NCC status from non-taxable to taxable to have more 
> > flexibility in the fee schedule

> Also this is not generally agreed, as I said there is no direct connection
between tax status and "per usage charge" as long as the "per usage charge"
is still done with a model of "class of memebership" and not as a "pay per
IP".

This membership list isn't where the consensus is being made, it is an open
discussion and the points provided by Nigel are a short summary of the
various lines within the discussion. 
The actual voting (not consensus) is going to be done in the AGM. Be there
to cast your vote or deal with it that others might vote something else. 

Personally, I would love to go for a none-resource based charging scheme,
where we divide the required budget by the number of lirs and get over with
this whole discussion (every year.)  
If the membership then has any issues with the provided budget, which is
based on the (to-be) agreed activity plan, the 'only' discussion can be
about various activities and the associated costs. 

It would make life for everyone a lot easier imho. 

Regards,
Erik Bais