My thoughts after the open house:

- I am still in favour of a category-based model. A cheap base

membership fee will encourage diversity and help gain new members in the

coming years. Whereas the current model will lead to fewer and fewer

members sharing the bill.

- The M&A fee should be low. A high fee would discourage members from

updating their details, which would go against the core mission of the

RIPE NCC.

- A high fee might be understandable for IPv4 transfers in the current

context, but unfair for ASN and IPv6 transfers ("pay up or renumber").

- I like the 10 category model (alternative 4), because the price per

IPv4 address remains low for everyone.

- Independent resources should have either a separate fee, or a category

system. Not both, it makes no sense. It might be more reasonable to just

keep the separate fee (for all independent resources, including ASN),

for stability.

- If we really want to change how independent resources are charged, I

think it would be nice to have all sponsored users join as members, and

count all IP resources in IPv4/IPv6 categories. But that would imply a

huge workload for the RIPE NCC.

- In favour of a X kEUR fee to get a new /24 IPv4 from the waiting list.

We can't ignore the market.

Kind regards,

Sébastien Brossier

_______________________________________________

members-discuss mailing list