Hi, There’s a saying that only death and taxes are unavoidable—and indeed, taxes are a concern for any individual or organization. However, when discussing RIPE’s fee model, I believe it’s important to keep in mind the primary purpose of an RIR: ensuring stable operation of the Internet, fair distribution of number resources, and encouraging technical progress. Financial efficiency supports these goals, but is not itself the goal. Of course, tax implications should be considered seriously. But unless a proposed model leads to disproportionately higher costs (e.g., like tariffs that double operational expenses), we may risk focusing too much on cost avoidance rather than on what best serves the community’s long-term objectives. This brings me to a question: if RIPE has in the past seriously considered a tiered fee model similar to ARIN’s (i.e., charges based on total resource holdings but with equal voting rights), was it rejected primarily due to concerns around taxation? If so, I’d be very interested in whether any financial or legal evaluations from that time are available. It would help the community understand the scale of the impact such a model might have had. Additionally, I wonder hypothetically—if ARIN operated under the Dutch tax framework, would their current model be unsustainable? It could be helpful to understand whether the concern is truly about feasibility, or more about established preferences and administrative tradition. I’d also like to raise one idea related to IPv6 promotion. Since we all likely agree that IPv6 needs to be adopted more widely, but IPv4 remains necessary in the short term (for technical, legal, and commercial reasons), perhaps policy could better reflect that dual reality. For example, we could set minimum IPv6 holdings based on IPv4 resource levels—encouraging larger IPv4 holders to also deploy and promote IPv6 more actively. A rough outline might look like: * IPv4 /24–/21 holders → at least IPv6 /28 * IPv4 /20–/17 holders → at least IPv6 /24 * IPv4 /16–/13 holders → at least IPv6 /20 * … and so on. Then, if we later adopt a unified fee model, it could be based on IPv6 holdings only—focusing on the future rather than legacy resources. This might help separate the discussion of technology promotion from that of financial structure, which currently often get mixed. Finally, I hope raising such questions won’t be interpreted as simply advocating for another RIR’s model. I’ve seen replies in the past implying “if you like that model, just go there.” But open, constructive discussion about what works and what doesn’t is essential if we want to improve how this community operates. Whether one supports change or prefers the status quo, the conversation is most valuable when arguments are made with the broader community’s benefit in mind—not only individual interests. Best regards, Chenyang On May 31, 2025, at 16:14, Daniel Suchy via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> wrote: I never said that the layered model would ruin RIPE. That's your personal lie. If we want to compare with other RIRs, we should not cherry-pick just some aspects. In a similar comparison, we must also take into account the size of the budget and what the money is spent on and where. It's not just about implementing a layered model and problem is solved. It is also true that each RIR lives in a slightly different legal environment. And among other things, the tax implications of the tiered model must also be well evaluated. In our legal environment, tax authorities may assess the tiered model as a provision of a service. Besides, it was an argument at a time when the tiered model was abandoned in RIPE (which many have already forgotten). The argument that they have it that way in the US or Africa probably won't hold up at all before the European (Dutch) tax office. Non-profit organizations usually have some tax breaks. But if the tax office determines that it is a regular service, the tax breaks will disappear. And from my perspective, a better solution is for the money to stay in the community. Not in some government budget. - Daniel On 5/31/25 9:19 AM, Jean Salim wrote: Please open an IPv6 transition thread and stop the disinformation in this thread. Speaking of which, as pointed out hundred of times, all other RIRs have successfully implemented tiered charging schemes, some of them with weighted voting power, others not. So stop misleading people by saying that tiered charging will ruin RIPE when it's been working fine at other RIRs. ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/