On 16/12/2025 15:38:45, "Simon-Jan Haytink" <simonjh@ripe.net> wrote:
Thanks for the early feedback on the two draft models, both on the list and in reply to my original mail.
Each year feedback is given when these models are offered, it has been to keep to the flat fee.
I recommend that you look at the two models with the task force principles in mind and let us know if you think we can better match them. A linear model that charges per IP address is a good example of something that falls outside the principles set by the task force.
Yes, by writing the principles so as to exclude linear they prevent the task force from offering it. Without that artificial constraint it would have been an equitable model too. I happen to agree it's not a viable model but others think it is and would like it to be a option. When you open the door to alternatives it is rude to close it to some.
The fees set in the models are always going to be criticised - we have seen criticism from a number of perspectives and from different types of members. That is good
No it is not good. You are playing off one group of members against another to see who can gain at the others expense. This is not equity.
however at this stage it is more important to get input on the boundaries (for Model A) and the formula (for Model B). This is because the fees have the potential to increase or decrease over time according to the RIPE NCC’s funding needs.
We cannot choose a model without knowing the cost. Some may decide to tolerate paying a bit more but can't do that with the amount unknown. Trying to set the formula like this means it is meaningless, we can only guess from the calculator (and really, why do we have to jump through hoops putting our own values in, send it pre populated). Send the categories and their price, tell me which we would be in. Then it's a quick easy decision. What we learned last time is that categories are a time bomb with reducing membership. Unless the costs get shifted to the higher IP count categories the expected reduction in small members can lead to a large increase for small/medium members. I would not want to agree to categories while they can potentially increase small/medium tier ISPs costs radically. So no, they cannot be judged independently of the costs.
What we are trying to get input on here is the relative distribution of costs between the membership.
Then you need to be clear about the costs now and in future years. Will you guarantee to offer a flat rate model every year in case the categories don't work out? If not then it is too risky.
Equity as a concept is very hard to measure or be objective about
If we can't agree what it is then why are we trying to implement it?
- the previous model was a one-fee-per-LIR Account model
That seems to remain the least worst. brandon