My thoughts after the open house: - I am still in favour of a category-based model. A cheap base membership fee will encourage diversity and help gain new members in the coming years. Whereas the current model will lead to fewer and fewer members sharing the bill. - The M&A fee should be low. A high fee would discourage members from updating their details, which would go against the core mission of the RIPE NCC. - A high fee might be understandable for IPv4 transfers in the current context, but unfair for ASN and IPv6 transfers ("pay up or renumber"). - I like the 10 category model (alternative 4), because the price per IPv4 address remains low for everyone. - Independent resources should have either a separate fee, or a category system. Not both, it makes no sense. It might be more reasonable to just keep the separate fee (for all independent resources, including ASN), for stability. - If we really want to change how independent resources are charged, I think it would be nice to have all sponsored users join as members, and count all IP resources in IPv4/IPv6 categories. But that would imply a huge workload for the RIPE NCC. - In favour of a X kEUR fee to get a new /24 IPv4 from the waiting list. We can't ignore the market. Kind regards, Sébastien Brossier