Hi Simon, Many thanks for your attempts to wrangle this very difficult discussion (again), and for attempting to explain. Unfortunately, I'm still not clear on how to apply these core principles. On 2025-12-19 14:30, Simon-Jan Haytink wrote:
In summary, the core principles that underpin the proposed models are:
1. The charging scheme model should strive for equity among members by taking into account the different resources registered to members
Even as a native English speaker, I'm afraid I don't know what is meant by this sentence. Reading some of the comments, I think I'm not the only one who is struggling with this. If this is to be core principle #1 it would might help if we all have an understanding of what this actually means. What does "equity" mean in this context? Can you give an example of something that meets this criteria? Perhaps a counter-example also? My dictionary suggests any of uniformity, impartiality, or fairness as possible synonyms, but these are three very different concepts. You could perhaps say that *both* of the following statements provide "equity" (one might even provide "equality"), but they are very different policies: - "All members pay the same flat fee" - "All members pay the same fee per IP address" The first does not consider "the different resources registered to members", but it isn't clear to me if either of these provide "equity". I get the impression the aim is to adjust the policy to appear to be "fairer", but that there is no will to actually charge the larger members in proportion to the resources that they are using. Unfortunately there's no solution to that equation (hereafter known as "RIPE's paradox"). If that's the case, I suppose we'll tweak the numbers ever so slightly as usual so that nothing really changes and call that done until next year. -- Brett Sheffield (he/him) Gladserv