On Friday 12 April 2024 10:51:27 Tobias Fiebig via members-discuss wrote:

> Yes, no 'per resource' charging scheme, if I remember correctly.

membership has NOT voted ON a per resource policy IN GENERAL.

The membership voted last year on a per-resource scheme that was penalizing the smaller LIRs due to too low limits on resources fee steps calculations.

Essentially the scheme proposed last year was unfair as the scheme we see proposed by the board this year.

More and more comments in this list have described a fairer scheme. this scheme (used by other RIRs, btw) is oriented to raise fees to the bigger resource holders while keeping low to the smaller ones

from what i have seen in the fee schedules on the other RIRs, what we pay today get us a /20 ipv4 level, vith 16 AS numbers and i dont' remember how many v6, with smaller fees for lesser allocation and more fees for larger.

last year proposal set this point too low at a simple /24 allocation or so thus bumping the historical "extra-small" of when i signed up to a level of "medium", with all the business model consequences for many.

I am not opposed to a per-resource charging scheme in principle.

i am opposed to a charging scheme that, in this era of shrinking business and inflation, try to consider me at "medium" level when i am really at a "small" level and cannot change business model with ease to accomodate this change due to external (market) conditions.

I am opposed to that because that way of thinking go directly on consolidation and more shrinking of LIRs with the consequence to reduce and kill the community at a large.

Best Regards,

Andrea Borghi

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Andrea Borghi - W KEY srl - http://www.wkey.it

Tel. +39 0648919230 e +39 0648919231

Fax. +39 064871550 - Mobile: +39 3477135822

sede legale: Via Alfredo Catalani 30 - 00199 Roma - P.IVA e CF 08426171008