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.