If you want proceed like this, then the weight of vote should also change at the same time, to be really "fair". Organizations financially more involved in the running (funding) the association logically should have stronger voice in deciding how to spend the collected money. Otherwise, just another form of injustice or imbalance will be introduced. Members who don't pay much will effectively be making decisions about the money that someone else has put into the association. Why should someone paying (for example) 10 EUR have the same vote as someone paying 1000 EUR? The contribution of each member will change, and if the system is to be truly fair, then the voting weights must also change. Today we all have an equal vote and at the same time we contribute equally to the association (the differences are minimal). And the association's costs aren't greater for larger LIRs. On the contrary, I dare say that the greatest costs arise with those small ones that were created for the purpose of speculation when distributing the last /8 and then trading the addresses thus obtained on the secondary market... This simply has to be taken into account if we want to talk about "fairness". - Daniel On 5/30/25 9:29 PM, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote:
Hi all,
I agree with Jean. The pricing discussion keeps getting derailed into IPv6 transition talks. These are two separate issues that need separate discussions. Let's stay on topic about resource holders paying their fair share based on holdings.