On 13/01/2025 20:33:31, "Sebastien Brossier" <sebastien@brossier.org> wrote:
On 13/01/2025 12:38, sdy@a-n-t.ru wrote:
As the years go by, nothing changes. We are discussing the category model, although it has already been rejected twice. It reminds me of the story of the elections in Romania and the European Commission. When will the discussion about paying for resources without categories begin?
RIPE NCC needs to maintain its non-profit status (that's a requirement as a RIR) and it is desirable to keep the current tax agreement. Charging directly for resources would put this status at risk.
So charge for services in proportion to a members amount of resources.
A category-based model is viewed as the safest option to differentiate fees.
Lets be honest, that is just a quantised version of charging in proportion to a members amount of resources so should be no more tax safe. People may be fine with category-based if they thought it fair. However a non linear quantisation scheme is going to be unfair to someone. So the way to get one passed is to weight the unfairness into the categories with fewer voting members. I do not see directly proportionate passing due to large members who have been protected by the tax argument. Otherwise we'll have the same old arguments and end up with a flat fee again, which is least worse. One more peril of categories that may put people off is agreeing to them then the categories changing unfavourably but I presume they could vote for flat again if it was offered. brandon