Last time Greedy Gert said that 2000 EUR is just the price of an SFP and we should just go with it. 2000 EUR is the yearly salary of a whole family in Syria. Just pay for two SFPs Gert and be fair to those small resource holders instead of findings twisted ways to make them subsidize your resource usage. On Sat, 31 May 2025, 17:27 Denys Fedoryshchenko, <nuclearcat@nuclearcat.com> wrote:
Your characterization of resource-based charging as "cargo culting" is both incorrect and dismissive. This is not about blindly copying others - it's about implementing established best practices that have been proven effective across multiple RIRs and non-profit organizations worldwide. These organizations have adopted resource-based models precisely because they recognize the fundamental unfairness of flat- rate pricing in a global context. If your only counterargument is to misapply labels rather than address the substantive issues, it suggests the weakness lies in your position, not mine.
Your claim that "less than two cents per day per IP address" makes the current pricing "certainly sustainable by anyone" reveals a profound disconnect from global economic realities. This argument echoes the apocryphal 'let them eat cake' attributed to Marie Antoinette - a phrase that, regardless of its dubious origins, has become the perfect metaphor for the wealthy's inability to comprehend the struggles of those with less
EUR2,000 represents several months' - or even a year's - salary in many disadvantaged countries. What you casually dismiss as pocket change can be the difference between maintaining critical internet infrastructure or shutting down services that communities depend on. Your assertion that this is "sustainable by anyone" demonstrates either willful ignorance of global economic disparities or a troubling indifference to them.
Furthermore, your accusation that we want to "drive our own costs down at the expense of others" is a fundamental misrepresentation. A properly implemented resource-based charging system doesn't shift costs - it distributes them equitably based on actual resource consumption. Large address holders paying proportionally more isn't "unfair" - it's a recognition that they consume more resources, derive proportionally more value from the system, and have greater capacity to support it.
The current flat-rate model is what truly drives costs "at the expense of others" - specifically, at the expense of smaller organizations in developing nations who subsidize larger entities through disproportionate fee burdens relative to their resources and usage.
On Sat, 2025-05-31 at 12:53 +0000, Kaj Niemi wrote:
Assuming Gert (or his employer) really has 11872 addresses, as you claim, the LTV is significantly higher to the organization considering what they've paid over the years.
Besides your statement, that a tiered model is the right thing to do [for your benefit is implied here], there isn't anything supporting it. There is a term for copying another someone else's charging scheme or business model. It's called cargo culting. They might have made other assumptions than what you have.
Similarly, I can claim that it cannot be a cost issue because, given current pricing, at less than two cents per day per IP address the pricing structure is certainly sustainable by anyone and thus fair given what we know about the market. Yes, if you have more addresses your cost per address will be even lower. Economies of scale and all that. What you seemingly want to do is to drive your own cost down at the expense of others. Which is far from fair.
Kaj (who doesn't have 11872 addresses)
Sent from my iPad
From: Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net> Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2025 3:17 PM To: Gert Doering <gert@space.net> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month
And by the way, for those that say it has to be a flat fee because of taxes in the Netherlands or whatever. Currently there's a fee per ASN, so the LIRs pay 50 EUR ASN which isn't a flat fee. A tiered model is possible and the right thing to do (again, everyone other than RIPE does it) Only objectors are people like Gert that manage 11872 IPv4 and want to keep paying the same fees as someone that hold 256 IPs
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:45 Jean Salim, <jean@bsmart-isp.net> wrote:
That's not true, last time you were afraid of even putting a tiered model on the ballot while the vast majority of LIRs (which are very small LIRs) wanted to have an option to vote on a tiered model, but you didn't even have the guts to put it to vote.
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:41 Gert Doering, <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 01:36:27PM +0300, Jean Salim wrote:
We missed you Gert, I was surprised you disappeared as you're always the one to mislead the conversation away from charging scheme. I would like yo hear your proposal on an alternative charging scheme that more fair to small LIRs. I myself, as pointed out before, prefer the ARIN model.
"1 LIR, 1 vote, 1 fee for the membership" seems to be the one where most LIRs can actually *agree* on.
Every charging scheme will be unfair to some - we had categories, and that was unfair to some, we had flat fees, and those are unfair to some, and even if we introduce fee-by-/24, it will be unfair to some.
Even if we totally ignore IPv4, there will still be people that say "someone with a larger yearly budget should pay more", and "non- profit members should be free!", and maybe they are right. But if we go there, some people will have to pay more than they did the year before, and they will find this unfair.
Conclusions left as homework to the reader.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner- Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/