[members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Munir Badr
munir at aeserver.com
Fri Apr 12 13:49:15 CEST 2024
So much action, iam listening 👂 But will anything change, i doubt it, prices only go up ⬆️ <https://www.aeserver.com/> *MUNIR BADR* Book A Call: Click here <https://calendly.com/aeserver> Sales Hotline: 800 123 123 <https://www.facebook.com/AEserver/> <https://twitter.com/aeserver> <https://www.instagram.com/aeserver/> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/aeserver/> <https://www.entrepreneur.com/en-ae/news-and-trends/the-recap-the-e-business-awards-2023/447514> On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 at 15:46 Sebastian-Wilhelm Graf < ripe-members at sebastian-graf.at> wrote: > Dear Tobias, > > >... which last year were equally strong against the proposed per-resource/category > charging model. > > Looking back at the disucssion and the calculator linked at > https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/member-and-community-consultations/charging-scheme-2024-consultation/ > > Its evident that the vote really was 3 options that where more all > expensive than the existing fee, or keeping the fee the same. > > So i would say members last year voted for "no increase in expenses". This > did not mean explicitly mean "no resource based model", as the only option > for a resource based model was also more expensive. > > On 4/12/24 12:17 PM, Tobias Fiebig via members-discuss wrote: > > Dear Sebastian, > > > Evendientally if you look at this discussion and the ones i see going > on via other channels, this is a misunderstanding on your part. > > So far, I do see a lot of opinions... > > > no 'per resource' charging scheme, if I remember correctly. > > Just because for one year, members opted not do do tesource based (by > vote) does not mean that there may not be any resource based models > in the future. > > ... which last year were equally strong against the proposed per- > resource/category charging model. > > > I see you misunderstood the point. > > All i see is one LIR/member suggesting to another LIR/member (wich > has the same rights/voting power/.....): I dont think it makes sense > for you, you should really just pay me instead of being a member. > > Oh, but I am happily buying the RIPE cake with all its implications. > > > I dont think any of us get to make the judgement of what is the right > reason/model/buisness type to be a ripe member. If all the members > are equal with regard to the ncc, then we also have to accept tat > there are different viewpoints that do not nessecarily allign with > ours. As such, If enough people now want Y instead of X like it was > in the past, then this is a completely legimate thing. > > Let's try another example. > > Imagine there was a football club in a small town, and each member gets > a pair of--limited availability--football shoes along with the > membership (and more if they do need more or the old ones break). The > membership costs EUR10/month. Now, a lot of people want those shoes and > join the club. Then, the club runs out of shoes. > > The club, however, needs to raise the membership fee to EUR12/month, to > keep paying for the football field, the matches, the training sessions > etc. given increasing prices. > > Some members now voice their opinion that the club should, instead > reduce the fee, as new members did not get shoes (in time), at least > for those who did not get shoes (or not that many). Instead, people > with a lot of shoes should pay more. Furthermore, it might be good to > consider getting rid of that large football field, and maybe costs for > reimbursing the trainers... > > Now, I am there to play football, and not get shoes; However, if the > argument becomes--as often heard in this thread already--"we did not > get football shoes, but paid for them", I do indeed feel inclined to > suggest a visit to the Adidas Store down-town, which happens to have > readily available football shoes on sale (and rent). > > Now, there can be a discussion on whether the club-house really _needs_ > to be that expensive; However, when the discussion starts focusing on > the shoes, it seems to me that the discussion goes a bit besides the > point. > > I am, by the way, still waiting for an illustration of "my own > interests". As I said, really curious what these might be. > > With best regards, > Tobias > > > _______________________________________________ > members-discuss mailing list > members-discuss at ripe.net > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/munir%40aeserver.com > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20240412/3c4bf588/attachment-0001.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]