On 27/05/2026 18:17:55, alexandre-ripe-ncc@lotharedon.org wrote:
You wrote "This system added a new peril, the categories incentivise merging of LIR for a significant saving, which other members who cannot do that would pay for instead. "
That's even more the case with flat fees : outside of the ones in the IPv4 allocation waiting list, it looks it would be in the interrests of the smallest members to merge their LIR with others, and especially the not lucrative ones. And then fees will raise with the decreasing number of members, making the less small members in the same situation, etc.
Yes, this was the case with the previous proposed categories too. Category 4 includes the /8 runout lottery winners. If they were to sell/consolidate/switch to a sponsoring LIR then there would be a significant budget shift to others. RIPE mentioned this risk to member numbers. Splitting the impact evenly in the flat model seemed a safer bet than categories where we don't know how it would be implemented but the middle categories seem more likely to be impacted most. Reasoning: desire to keep lower categories cheap (can't do a reduction to win a vote then reverse it), few in higher categories so limited scope without a massive increase each. Result - ceased members fees move to the categories just above the 75% get a reduction line. brandon