I definitely support the equal rights with one vote per organization, however because fee’s are  low it does create a situation where some resource holders do not consolidate their LIRs for a variety of reasons, including more voting power.

Additionally, I very much support an equitable charging scheme. I know as a larger organization we use RIPE services more frequently than some and yet only pay a very nominal fee,  compared to other critical costs at our scale.  

I would like to see a fee distribution where many organizations pay less than they do today, and larger holders of resources pay an equitable amount. The current model with a top tier cost of 10k is too low, which means the mid-tier bears an unfair amount of financial burden.

Flight risk for large organizations because of increased fees is very minimal if you choose a fee structure comparable structure to other RIRs. Our organization for example  holds space in RIPE because we need it in that region; that will not change as long as RIPE operations are sound and reliable regardless of a fee increase.

Regards,
Tina Morris

From: Sebastian-Becker--- via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net>
Date: Friday, February 6, 2026 at 8:21 AM
To: michal@krajcirovic.cz <michal@krajcirovic.cz>, kajtzu@basen.net <kajtzu@basen.net>, members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net>, info@albahost.net <info@albahost.net>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [members-discuss] Re: Charging Scheme Model Consultation: Phase 2 - comments

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Michal,

I just want to understand what people under equal rights see. 

And I think you know that politics are heavily influenced by money. 

My comment was to point out that ‘equal’ might mean different things to different groups. 

And Nick just described very well why the community has decided in the past in favour of the flat model. 

-- 

Kind regards

Sebastian Becker

Von: Michal Krajčírovič <michal@krajcirovic.cz>
Gesendet: Friday, February 6, 2026 4:25:13 PM
An: Becker, Sebastian <Sebastian-Becker@telekom.de>; kajtzu@basen.net <kajtzu@basen.net>; members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net>; info@albahost.net <info@albahost.net>
Betreff: Re[2]: [members-discuss] Re: Charging Scheme Model Consultation: Phase 2 - comments
 

Sebastian, I don’t know how it works in Germany, but here in Czechia, a few hundred kilometers away, in elections everyone generally has one vote, regardless of how much they pay in taxes.

I dare say that in any democratic system it works more or less the same way.

But don’t worry — we, the small operators who didn’t manage to stock up on IPv4 back when they were handed out on request, don’t really follow what’s going on in RIPE that closely, so outvoting us apparently hasn’t been much of a problem so far.

Michal


------ Původní zpráva ------
Od Sebastian-Becker@telekom.de
Komu kajtzu@basen.net; members-discuss@ripe.net; info@albahost.net
Kopie michal@krajcirovic.cz
Datum 06.02.2026 16:19:04
Předmět Re: [members-discuss] Re: Charging Scheme Model Consultation: Phase 2 - comments

Does your idea also include equal voting rights to the amount of the payment per resource? Like one vote for each /24?

-- 

Kind regards

Sebastian Becker

 

Von: Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net>
Gesendet: Freitag, Februar 6, 2026 4:07 PM
An: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net>; AlbHost SH.P.K <info@albahost.net>
Cc: Michal Krajčírovič <michal@krajcirovic.cz>
Betreff: [members-discuss] Re: Charging Scheme Model Consultation: Phase 2 - comments
 
Uniform pricing for membership fees would align well with procedural fairness. That is, the same price exists for everyone and there aren't any discounts. If you have discounts someone will always find a special interest group, that they should be entitled to it for whatever reason, and so on and on and on.



Kaj

From: AlbHost SH.P.K via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net>
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2026 18:52
To: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net>
Cc: Michal Krajčírovič <michal@krajcirovic.cz>
Subject: [members-discuss] Charging Scheme Model Consultation: Phase 2 - comments

Dear colleagues,

I would like to explicitly support Michal’s position, in particular regarding the proposed discounts for educational institutions, and add an important practical aspect to this discussion.

Many universities and similar institutions received extremely large IPv4 allocations in the past—often /16 or even multiple /16 blocks. In a significant number of cases, only a very small fraction of these resources (sometimes just one to three /24s) is actually used for their own operational needs today.

At the same time, it is publicly observable that IPv4 address space originating from such legacy allocations is being sold or transferred on the open market via platforms such as ipv4.global, at fully commercial prices (currently on the order of ~30 EUR per IPv4 address). This is not speculation; it is an established and RIPE-compliant transfer market.

In this context, granting fee reductions to organisations that:

  • hold vast historical IPv4 resources,

  • use only a minimal portion of them operationally, and

  • monetise the remainder at market prices,

is difficult to justify from a fairness perspective.

If educational institutions are to benefit from discounted RIPE fees, this should at minimum be conditional upon the substantial return of unused IPv4 address space to the free pool. Without such a mechanism, the proposed model effectively rewards address hoarding while shifting the financial burden onto smaller commercial LIRs, start-ups, and non-profit-adjacent organisations that must both pay full RIPE fees and acquire IPv4 addresses at full market cost.

Absent meaningful IPv4 reclamation, fee discounts for organisations already in possession of disproportionately large legacy allocations appear inequitable and inconsistent with the stated principles of efficient and fair resource distribution.

Kind regards,
Mentor L.


--
Sinqerisht / Sincerely,
AlbHost
 Logo
 
AlbHost SH.P.K.
Besim Beka p.n.
50000 Gjakovë, Kosovë.
NIPT/VAT ID: 811442657
T: +383900501502
 
Facebook icon   Twitter icon   Instagram icon  
 
Banner
 
Përmbajtja e këtij emaili është konfidenciale dhe ka për qëllim marrësin e specifikuar vetëm në mesazh. Ndalohet rreptësisht shpërndarja e ndonjë pjese të këtij mesazhi me ndonjë palë të tretë, pa pëlqimin me shkrim të dërguesit. Nëse e keni marrë këtë mesazh gabimisht, ju lutemi përgjigjuni këtij mesazhi dhe ndiqni me fshirjen e tij, në mënyrë që të sigurohemi që një gabim i tillë të mos ndodhë në të ardhmen.

The content of this email is confidential and intended for the recipient specified in message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this message with any third party, without a written consent of the sender. If you received this message by mistake, please reply to this message and follow with its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake does not occur in the future.