[members-discuss] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Board Reasoning

Hi,

I welcome that the charging scheme is being reconsidered.
But -like others- I am also missing an option C for IP volume based 
fees. (not necessarily linear ones)

On 4/18/19 6:14 PM, Christian Kaufmann wrote:
> Firstly, many people like the existing model and the board believes that
> it covers the spirit of what some members want by maintaining the
> financial stability of the NCC while keeping fairness and equality in
> mind. The board also does not want a price per IP model because this
> would have tax implications (the RIPE NCC does not sell IP addresses and
> the charging scheme should reflect this)


Can you be a bit more specific about what those tax implications would be?

And have those potential implications been researched again in recent 
years or is the decision based on older assumptions?


Have heard stories that members were told in the past that the move from 
membership fees based on size -like RIPE once had- to the 
one-LIR-one-fee scheme was really a necessity, in order to allow things 
like the redistribution of excess funds, and stuff like that.

However do be aware that in the Netherlands (where RIPE is based) there 
are plenty of cooperative associations -mostly in the farm industry- 
that do provide both chargeable services to their members, and do 
redistribute profits.

So I do wonder if there are really not any possibilities there.


> and we feel it is not in
> keeping with the idea of a membership association.

To what extent should the personal feelings of board members, affect 
what options are put up for vote?

Isn't the idea of an association that the members are ultimately in 
charge, and should be given a fair opportunity to decide which direction 
we are heaeding.



Yours sincerely,


Floris Bos