I completely disagree with you. I've personally proposed several linear models. I've proposed various risk scenarios for the NCC and burden on participants. All proposals are being ignored. Linear models are simply being removed from discussions by the administration. Why? The MAJORITY of those participating in this discussion here have spoken about linear models! This gives me reason to suspect a certain vested interest on the part of the group and those who set its goals. You claim IPv4 is closed. Then explain to us why the market price of one IP address is already reaching $50? Why don't we see free resources, only rising prices? The schemes proposed by the working group not only create inequality among NCC participants; they cement a system in which the majority will pay for the very profitable business of a small number of NCC participants. This group of participants has historically acquired vast amounts of address space, in part by establishing an inadequate distribution model. Although warnings about the risks of such a "helicopter distribution" of resources have been voiced repeatedly, it seems as if the group is strictly advocating for their interests. This is unacceptable! The refusal to discuss linear models has led to the failure of votes on new models time after time. This, as I understand it, also benefits this group of NCC members. I believe the working group should be disbanded. Its work is pointless; we've already voted against such payment options twice. A new group should be created, and discussion of linear models should be mandatory. Ultimately, it's not the administration that decides what the payment model should be. It should be the decision of NCC members, and it should be a fair choice with all options, including linear models. Otherwise, all these "elections" will once again degenerate into a farce! ----------------------------- Dmitry Serbulov -----------------------------
On 10/03/2026 13:02:00, thiele@holomua.de wrote:
RIPE NCC set conditions for the working group in advance that were intended to prevent any discussion of a pricing model based linearly on the amount of RIPE resources (IPs, etc.) used. As a result, only the price limits of models and various ancillary costs can now be discussed.
"you are welcome to argue the niceties of a scheme that has been repeatedly dismissed"
The models currently presented disadvantage all small and medium-sized users and favor the large early adopters.
This is why we vote for the fixed fee each time, if the offered variable rates suited the higher number of smaller members then they would have been accepted previously.
It is regrettable that the entire discussion on the pricing model could not/was not allowed to be conducted in an open-ended manner, taking into account another possible model with a linear resource-dependent cost approach.
I don’t think linear will ever be offered and really what is the point.
V4 is done, trying to rinse those with laods may have a feel good factor but not for very long. Assuming V6 does get there, and really the only reason it hasn’t is us the industry we can’t blame anyone else, then we will be back to a small range of allocaiton sizes to try and bodge into a category model, so really back to flat rate.
brandon
To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details.
Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription.
Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/
-----------------------------