Assuming Gert (or his employer) really has 11872 addresses, as you claim, the LTV is significantly higher to the organization considering what they've paid over the years. Besides your statement, that a tiered model is the right thing to do [for your benefit is implied here], there isn't anything supporting it. There is a term for copying another someone else's charging scheme or business model. It's called cargo culting. They might have made other assumptions than what you have. Similarly, I can claim that it cannot be a cost issue because, given current pricing, at less than two cents per day per IP address the pricing structure is certainly sustainable by anyone and thus fair given what we know about the market. Yes, if you have more addresses your cost per address will be even lower. Economies of scale and all that. What you seemingly want to do is to drive your own cost down at the expense of others. Which is far from fair. Kaj (who doesn't have 11872 addresses) Sent from my iPad ________________________________ From: Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net> Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2025 3:17 PM To: Gert Doering <gert@space.net> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month And by the way, for those that say it has to be a flat fee because of taxes in the Netherlands or whatever. Currently there's a fee per ASN, so the LIRs pay 50 EUR ASN which isn't a flat fee. A tiered model is possible and the right thing to do (again, everyone other than RIPE does it) Only objectors are people like Gert that manage 11872 IPv4 and want to keep paying the same fees as someone that hold 256 IPs On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:45 Jean Salim, <jean@bsmart-isp.net<mailto:jean@bsmart-isp.net>> wrote: That's not true, last time you were afraid of even putting a tiered model on the ballot while the vast majority of LIRs (which are very small LIRs) wanted to have an option to vote on a tiered model, but you didn't even have the guts to put it to vote. On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:41 Gert Doering, <gert@space.net<mailto:gert@space.net>> wrote: Hi, On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 01:36:27PM +0300, Jean Salim wrote:
We missed you Gert, I was surprised you disappeared as you're always the one to mislead the conversation away from charging scheme. I would like yo hear your proposal on an alternative charging scheme that more fair to small LIRs. I myself, as pointed out before, prefer the ARIN model.
"1 LIR, 1 vote, 1 fee for the membership" seems to be the one where most LIRs can actually *agree* on. Every charging scheme will be unfair to some - we had categories, and that was unfair to some, we had flat fees, and those are unfair to some, and even if we introduce fee-by-/24, it will be unfair to some. Even if we totally ignore IPv4, there will still be people that say "someone with a larger yearly budget should pay more", and "non-profit members should be free!", and maybe they are right. But if we go there, some people will have to pay more than they did the year before, and they will find this unfair. Conclusions left as homework to the reader. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279