No, the problem is fairness. Everyone in the Ripe cosmos should be able to live. But companies that have more IPv4 than they need for their daily needs should simply return it. I know companies that have returned unused /19. But the global players and network sellers should be reined in. Ripe is a community. If we don't believe in IPv6, we have a problem. If we don't do anything to advance IPv6, that's sad... But punishing new businesses so that they pay the full fees and with luck get an IPv4 /24 is crap, sorry, but crap. Just because we weren't on the market 20 years ago, or we weren't in business, no, that's not acceptable. Building up a business isn't possible without IPv4 either, because nobody is making sure it's abolished. There needs to be justice. But everyone has their own position: anyone who has a ton of IPv4 blocks sitting around for the next 10 or 20 years won't be in favor of creating justice or a future for everyone. And I'm done with that. I think that the small companies without reasonable access to IPv4 min /22 should definitely not pay the full fee, and yes, there should be fees for /24 allocations, perhaps even for IPv6, $50 or €50 for a /29. Let's be honest for a moment. How many networks do companies like Cogent, HE-Net, Telekom, etc. have, but they pay the same per year as a small company that hasn't gotten anything from IPv4. Like me. Sorry, grade 6. Equality should always exist. And when old global players and universities in the world sit on IP blocks, that's neither nice nor collegial. Because these are good general terms and not the property of the members. There's simply a problem between old and new members, and also between fairness and profit. So I wish everyone a nice weekend, D. Walde