Hello, the fun fact here is, that we're concurently trying to: - split the payment according to the amount of resources held - retain the right to vote regardless of the volume of the resource But here's a collision. It starts to be unfair. Category-based scheme moves us to to shared property ownership or shareholders with different volumes of shares held. The share is numerically expressed precisely by this category. In this case, strength of the vot should reflect the category size. If someone contributes more to the common budget, his vote should have more weight - at least in matters of what the money will be spent on. Because we're talking about money at first place. Otherwise, we're playing kind of socialism here. The poorer ones will decide on the money of the richer ones, about money that they themselves never brought (and probably never will). Take from the rich, give to the poor - is this really the right strategy? For me no - if someone brings more money to the common garden, it isn't fair to give him a equal vote power with someone, who brings less money. And of course my vote powe must not be stronger than the right of those who bring more money to our common garden. Calculating the power of the vote isn't difficult at all. It usually happens in joint-stock companies, It happens in real estate with multiple owners and unequal shares. It certainly doesn't apply that subjects in the higher category would load NCC than the lower ones. And the talks about space in the database, which has been mentioned here, is nonsense - here we talk about cents. here the costs will be comparable and with slight differences. If we don't want to accept the balancing of voting rights with the share expressed by the resources held/budget contribution, then we souhld stay with the flat, uniform payments (and keep equal vote right). - Daniel On 4/23/26 3:00 PM, ivaylo wrote:
Charging scheme Option B is not perfect, but it is definitely a step in the right direction. It will slightly lower current imbalances (created over the past 25+ years) without disrupting internet operations in the region (no resource redistribution needed). To be fairer, the charging scheme should have more categories with larger payment gaps. Alternatively, after category 16, every additional IPv4 /24, IPv6 /32, or ASN should be charged an additional 75 Euro (or another appropriate value).